Programmed intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion for catheter-based erector spinae plane block on quality of recovery in thoracoscopic surgery: a single-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia techniques, including the erector spinae fascial plane (ESP) block, reduce postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Fascial plane blocks rely on spread of local anaesthetic between muscle layers, and thus, intermittent boluses might increase their clinical effectiveness. We tested the hypothesis that postoperative ESP analgesia with a programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) regimen is better than a continuous infusion (CI) regimen in terms of quality of recovery after VATS. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial involving 60 patients undergoing VATS. All participants received ESP block catheters and were randomly assigned to CI or PIB of local anaesthetic regimen for postoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative respiratory function, opioid consumption, verbal rating pain score, time to first mobilisation, nausea, vomiting, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Overall QoR-15 scores at 24 h after VATS were similar (PIB 115.5 [interquartile range 107-125] vs CI 110 [93-128]; Δ<6, P=0.29). The only quality of recovery descriptor showing a significant difference was nausea and vomiting, which was favourable in the PIB group (10 [10-10] vs 10 [7-10]; P=0.03). Requirement for rescue antiemetics up to 24 h after surgery was lower in the PIB group (4 [14%] vs 11 [41%]; P=0.04). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering ESP block analgesia after VATS via a PIB regimen resulted in similar QoR-15 at 24 h compared with a CI regimen.

Anaesthetic Techniques and Strategies: Do They Influence Oncological Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: With the global disease burden of cancer increasing, and with at least 60% of cancer patients requiring surgery and, hence, anaesthesia over their disease course, the question of whether anaesthetic and analgesia techniques during primary cancer resection surgery might influence long term oncological outcomes assumes high priority. METHODS: We searched the available literature linking anaesthetic-analgesic techniques and strategies during tumour resection surgery to oncological outcomes and synthesised this narrative review, predominantly using studies published since 2019. Current evidence is presented around opioids, regional anaesthesia, propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and volatile anaesthesia, dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications and beta-blockers. CONCLUSIONS: The research base in onco-anaesthesia is expanding. There continue to be few sufficiently powered RCTs, which are necessary to confirm a causal link between any perioperative intervention and long-term oncologic outcome. In the absence of any convincing Level 1 recommending a change in practice, long-term oncologic benefit should not be part of the decision on choice of anaesthetic technique for tumour resection surgery.