Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 46(5): 422-432, 2021 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33452203

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is used as a local-anesthetics adjuvant in caudal block to prolong analgesia in pediatric infra-umbilical surgery. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the analgesic efficacy and safety of the addition of caudal dexmedetomidine to local anesthetics (vs local anesthetics alone) in pediatric infra-umbilical surgery. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched 10 databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pediatric patients undergoing infra-umbilical surgery, comparing caudal block with and without dexmedetomidine as local anesthetic adjuvant. We performed a frequentist random-effects meta-analysis (R statistical package). We analyzed continuous outcomes as a ratio of means (ROM) and dichotomous data as relative risk (RR), along with 95% CI. We included 19 RCTs (n=1190 pediatric patients) in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia (defined as 'the time from caudal injection to the time at which the study-specific pain score was greater than a cut-off threshold'). FINDINGS: Data from 19 included RCTs (n=1190) suggested that compared with control (mean duration 346 min), the addition of caudal dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of analgesia (ratio of means 2.14, 95% CI 1.83 to 2.49, p<0.001; 'moderate' evidence). Trial-sequential analysis showed adequate 'information size' for the primary outcome. Caudal dexmedetomidine also reduced the number of analgesic administrations ('low' evidence), total acetaminophen dose ('moderate' evidence) and the risk of emergence delirium ('moderate' evidence). There were no significant differences in adverse effects such as hypotension, bradycardia, post-operative nausea and vomiting, urinary retention and respiratory depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the addition of dexmedetomidine to local anesthetic in caudal block significantly improves the duration of analgesia and reduces the analgesic requirements, while maintaining a similar risk-profile compared with local anesthetic alone. Further data on neurological safety are needed.


Asunto(s)
Analgesia , Dexmedetomidina , Anestésicos Locales , Niño , Dexmedetomidina/efectos adversos , Humanos , Dolor Postoperatorio/diagnóstico , Dolor Postoperatorio/etiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto
2.
Anesth Analg ; 128(2): 223-238, 2019 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29064877

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Adductor canal block (ACB) has emerged as an effective analgesic regional technique for major knee surgeries in the last decade. Its motor-sparing properties make it particularly attractive for ambulatory knee surgery, but evidence supporting its use in ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery is conflicting. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic effects of ACB for ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgeries. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases for randomized controlled trials examining the analgesic effects of ACB compared to control or any other analgesic modality. Both minor arthroscopic and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) surgeries were considered. Rest and dynamic pain scores, opioid consumption, opioid-related adverse effects, time to first analgesic request, patient satisfaction, quadriceps strength, and block-related complications were evaluated. Data were pooled using random-effects modeling. RESULTS: Our search yielded 10 randomized controlled trials comparing ACB with placebo or femoral nerve block (FNB); these were subgrouped according to the type of knee surgery. For minor knee arthroscopic surgery, ACB provided reduced postoperative resting pain scores by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -1.46 cm (-2.03 to -0.90) (P < .00001), -0.51 cm (-0.92 to -0.10) (P = .02), and -0.48 cm (-0.93 to -0.04) (P = .03) at 0, 6, and 8 hours, respectively, compared to control. Dynamic pain scores were reduced by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -1.50 cm (-2.10 to -0.90) (P < .00001), -0.50 cm (-0.95 to -0.04) (P = .03), and -0.59 cm (-1.12 to -0.05) (P = .03) at 0, 6, and 8 hours, respectively, compared to control. ACB also reduced the cumulative 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption by -7.41 mg (-14.75 to -0.08) (P = .05) compared to control. For ACLR surgery, ACB did not provide any analgesic benefits and did not improve any of the examined outcomes, compared to control. ACB was also not different from FNB for these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: After minor ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery, ACB provides modest analgesic benefits, including improved relief for rest pain, and reduced opioid consumption for up to 8 and 24 hours, respectively. The analgesic benefits of ACB are not different from placebo or FNB after ambulatory ACLR, suggesting a limited role of both blocks in this procedure. Paucity of trials dictates cautious interpretation of these findings. Future studies are needed to determine the role of ACB in the setting of local anesthetic instillation and/or graft donor-site analgesia.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia de Conducción/métodos , Reconstrucción del Ligamento Cruzado Anterior/métodos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/métodos , Bloqueo Nervioso Autónomo/métodos , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Anestésicos Locales/administración & dosificación , Reconstrucción del Ligamento Cruzado Anterior/efectos adversos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/efectos adversos , Artroscopía/efectos adversos , Artroscopía/métodos , Humanos , Músculo Esquelético/efectos de los fármacos , Músculo Esquelético/inervación , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/métodos
3.
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol ; 31(3): 296-307, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26330706

RESUMEN

Upper extremity surgery is commonly performed under regional anesthesia. The advent of ultrasonography has made performing upper extremity nerve blocks relatively easy with a high degree of reliability. The proximal approaches to brachial plexus block such as supraclavicular plexus block, infraclavicular plexus block, or the axillary block are favored for the most surgical procedures of distal upper extremity. Ultrasound guidance has however made distal nerve blocks of the upper limb a technically feasible, safe and efficacious option. In recent years, there has thus been a resurgence of distal peripheral nerve blocks to facilitate hand and wrist surgery. In this article, we review the technical aspects of performing the distal blocks of the upper extremity and highlight some of the clinical aspects of their usage.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...