Motor-sparing peripheral nerve blocks for hip and knee surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the recent literature describing and comparing novel motor-sparing peripheral nerve block techniques for hip and knee surgery. This topic is relevant because the number of patients undergoing same day discharge after hip and knee surgery is increasing. Preserving lower extremity muscle function is essential to facilitate early physical therapy for these patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Distal peripheral nerve blocks may allow for preserved quadriceps motor strength and comparable analgesia to traditional techniques. However, few studies in hip and knee populations include strength or function as primary outcomes. For hip surgeries, studies have failed to show analgesic differences between regional blocks and periarticular infiltration. Similarly for knee arthroplasty in the absence of periarticular infiltration, recent evidence suggests adding combinations of blocks (ACB plus iPACK or genicular nerve blocks) may balance pain control and early ambulation. SUMMARY: The use of motor-sparing peripheral nerve block techniques enables early ambulation, adequate pain control, and avoidance of opioid-related side effects facilitating outpatient/ambulatory lower extremity surgery. Further studies of these techniques for continuous peripheral nerve block catheters are needed to assess if extended blockade continues to provide motor-sparing and opioid-sparing benefits.

The Efficacy and Safety of Regional Nerve Blocks in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Direct Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regional nerve blocks are widely used in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regional nerve blocks after TKA in support of the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published before March 24, 2020 on femoral nerve block, adductor canal block, and infiltration between Popliteal Artery and Capsule of Knee in primary TKA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the regional nerve blocks compared to a control, local peri-articular anesthetic infiltration (PAI), or between regional nerve blocks. RESULTS: Critical appraisal of 1,673 publications yielded 56 publications representing the best available evidence for analysis. Femoral nerve and adductor canal blocks are effective at reducing postoperative pain and opioid consumption, but femoral nerve blocks are associated with quadriceps weakness. Use of a continuous compared to single shot adductor canal block can improve postoperative analgesia. No difference was noted between an adductor canal block or PAI regarding postoperative pain and opioid consumption, but the combination of both may be more effective. CONCLUSION: Single shot adductor canal block or PAI should be used to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption following TKA. Use of a continuous adductor canal block or a combination of single shot adductor canal block and PAI may improve postoperative analgesia in patients with concern of poor postoperative pain control.

The Efficacy and Safety of Regional Nerve Blocks in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Direct Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regional nerve blocks may be used as a component of a multimodal analgesic protocol to manage postoperative pain after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regional nerve blocks after THA in support of the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published prior to March 24, 2020 on fascia iliaca, lumbar plexus, and quadratus lumborum blocks in primary THA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the regional nerve blocks. RESULTS: An initial critical appraisal of 3,382 publications yielded 11 publications representing the best available evidence for an analysis. Fascia iliaca, lumbar plexus, and quadratus lumborum blocks demonstrate the ability to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Among the available comparisons, no difference was noted between a regional nerve block or local periarticular anesthetic infiltration regarding postoperative pain and opioid consumption. CONCLUSION: Local periarticular anesthetic infiltration should be considered prior to a regional nerve block due to concerns over the safety and cost of regional nerve blocks. If a regional nerve block is used in primary THA, a fascia iliaca block is preferred over other blocks due to the differences in technical demands and risks associated with the alternative regional nerve blocks.

Caffeine supplementation as part of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways: a narrative review of the evidence and knowledge gaps.

Caffeine is used daily by 85% of United States adults and caffeine withdrawal is a major cause of perioperative headache. Studies have shown that caffeine supplementation in chronic caffeinators reduces the incidence of perioperative headache. This narrative review discusses the perioperative implications of caffeine withdrawal and outlines the benefits of and strategies of caffeine supplementation in the perioperative period. It is time to "wake up and smell the coffee" on integration of caffeine into established enhanced recovery after surgery protocols as a mechanism to consistently provide perioperative caffeine replacement.

RéSUMé: La caféine est utilisée quotidiennement par 85 % des adultes aux États-Unis, et le sevrage de la caféine constitue une cause majeure de céphalées périopératoires. Des études ont montré que la supplémentation en caféine chez les grands buveurs de café réduisait l'incidence des céphalées périopératoires. Ce compte rendu narratif discute des implications périopératoires du sevrage de la caféine et décrit les avantages et les stratégies de la supplémentation en caféine en période périopératoire. Il est temps de « se réveiller à l'odeur du café ¼ quant à l'intégration de la caféine dans les protocoles de récupération rapide après la chirurgie en tant que mécanisme pour procurer de façon systématique un subsitut périopératoire à la caféine.

Peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures in adults.

BACKGROUND: This review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009, 2017, and 2020. Updating was deemed necessary due to the high incidence of hip fractures, the large number of official societies providing recommendations on this condition, the possibility that perioperative peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) may improve patient outcomes, and the major role that PNBs may play in reducing preoperative and postoperative opioid use for analgesia. OBJECTIVES: To compare PNBs used as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anaesthesia versus no nerve block (or sham block) for adults with hip fracture. Outcomes were pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction, chest infection, death, time to first mobilization, and costs of an analgesic regimen for single-injection blocks. We undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards. SEARCH METHODS: For the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 11), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to November 2019); Embase (Ovid SP, 1974 to November 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to November 2019), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing use of PNBs compared with no nerve block (or sham block) as part of the care provided for adults 16 years of age and older with hip fracture.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened new trials for inclusion, assessed trial quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias-2 tool, and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 49 trials (3061 participants; 1553 randomized to PNBs and 1508 to no nerve block (or sham block)). For this update, we added 18 new trials. Trials were published from 1981 to 2020. Trialists followed participants for periods ranging from 5 minutes to 12 months. The average age of participants ranged from 59 to 89 years. People with dementia were often excluded from the included trials. Additional analgesia was available for all participants. Results of 11 trials with 503 participants show that PNBs reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.86; equivalent to -2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10; high-certainty evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P = 0.0003). Based on 13 trials with 1072 participants, PNBs reduce the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 7 to 47; high-certainty evidence). For myocardial infarction, there were no events in one trial with 31 participants (RR not estimable; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 131 participants, PNBs probably reduce the risk for chest infection (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; NNTB 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate-certainty evidence). Based on 11 trials with 617 participants, the effects of PNBs on mortality within six months are uncertain due to very serious imprecision (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.60; low-certainty evidence). From three trials with 208 participants, PNBs likely reduce time to first mobilization (mean difference (MD) -10.80 hours, 95% CI -12.83 to -8.77 hours; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated there may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs with a single-injection PNB (MD -4.40 euros, 95% CI -4.84 to -3.96 euros; low-certainty evidence). We identified 29 ongoing trials, of which 15 were first posted or at least were last updated after 1 January 2018.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PNBs reduce pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement, risk of acute confusional state, and probably also reduce the risk of chest infection and time to first mobilization. There may be a small reduction in the cost of analgesic drugs for single-injection PNB. We did not find a difference for myocardial infarction and mortality, but the numbers of participants included for these two outcomes were insufficient. Although randomized clinical trials may not be the best way to establish risks associated with an intervention, our review confirms low risks of permanent injury associated with PNBs, as found by others. Some trials are ongoing, but it is unclear whether any further RCTs should be registered, given the benefits found. Good-quality non-randomized trials with appropriate sample size may help to clarify the potential effects of PNBs on myocardial infarction and mortality.

Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes. METHODS: The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

Epidural analgesia for adults undergoing cardiac surgery with or without cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND: General anaesthesia combined with epidural analgesia may have a beneficial effect on clinical outcomes. However, use of epidural analgesia for cardiac surgery is controversial due to a theoretical increased risk of epidural haematoma associated with systemic heparinization. This review was published in 2013, and it was updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of perioperative epidural analgesia in adults undergoing cardiac surgery, with or without cardiopulmonary bypass, on perioperative mortality and cardiac, pulmonary, or neurological morbidity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase in November 2018, and two trial registers up to February 2019, together with references and relevant conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults undergoing any type of cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia and comparing epidural analgesia versus another modality of postoperative pain treatment. The primary outcome was mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 trials with 4860 participants: 2404 given epidural analgesia and 2456 receiving comparators (systemic analgesia, peripheral nerve block, intrapleural analgesia, or wound infiltration). The mean (or median) age of participants varied between 43.5 years and 74.6 years. Surgeries performed were coronary artery bypass grafting or valvular procedures and surgeries for congenital heart disease. We judged that no trials were at low risk of bias for all domains, and that all trials were at unclear/high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel taking care of study participants.Epidural analgesia versus systemic analgesiaTrials show there may be no difference in mortality at 0 to 30 days (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01 to 0.01; 38 trials with 3418 participants; low-quality evidence), and there may be a reduction in myocardial infarction at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.00; 26 trials with 2713 participants; low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia may reduce the risk of 0 to 30 days respiratory depression (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to -0.01; 21 trials with 1736 participants; low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference in risk of pneumonia at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.01; 10 trials with 1107 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and epidural analgesia probably reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter at 0 to 2 weeks (RD -0.06, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; 18 trials with 2431 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in cerebrovascular accidents at 0 to 30 days (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 18 trials with 2232 participants; very low-quality evidence), and none of the included trials reported any epidural haematoma events at 0 to 30 days (53 trials with 3982 participants; low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia probably reduces the duration of tracheal intubation by the equivalent of 2.4 hours (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.78, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.55; 40 trials with 3353 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia reduces pain at rest and on movement up to 72 hours after surgery. At six to eight hours, researchers noted a reduction in pain, equivalent to a reduction of 1 point on a 0 to 10 pain scale (SMD -1.35, 95% CI -1.98 to -0.72; 10 trials with 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia may increase risk of hypotension (RD 0.21, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.33; 17 trials with 870 participants; low-quality evidence) but may make little or no difference in the need for infusion of inotropics or vasopressors (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.07; 23 trials with 1821 participants; low-quality evidence).Epidural analgesia versus other comparatorsFewer studies compared epidural analgesia versus peripheral nerve blocks (four studies), intrapleural analgesia (one study), and wound infiltration (one study). Investigators provided no data for pulmonary complications, atrial fibrillation or flutter, or for any of the comparisons. When reported, other outcomes for these comparisons (mortality, myocardial infarction, neurological complications, duration of tracheal intubation, pain, and haemodynamic support) were uncertain due to the small numbers of trials and participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with systemic analgesia, epidural analgesia may reduce the risk of myocardial infarction, respiratory depression, and atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter, as well as the duration of tracheal intubation and pain, in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. There may be little or no difference in mortality, pneumonia, and epidural haematoma, and effects on cerebrovascular accident are uncertain. Evidence is insufficient to show the effects of epidural analgesia compared with peripheral nerve blocks, intrapleural analgesia, or wound infiltration.

The use of ultrasound guidance for perioperative neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks in children.

BACKGROUND: The use of ultrasound guidance for regional anaesthesia has become popular over the past two decades. However, it is not recognized by all experts as an essential tool, perhaps because it is unclear whether ultrasound reduces the risk of severe neurological complications, and the cost of an ultrasound machine (USD 22,000) is substantially higher than the cost of other tools. This review was published in 2016 and updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether ultrasound guidance offers any clinical advantage when neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks are performed in children in terms of decreasing failure rate or the rate of complications. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers up to March 2018 together with reference checking to identify additional studies and contacted study authors to obtain additional trial information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of ultrasound guidance used when a regional blockade technique was performed in children. We included studies performed in children (≤ 18 years of age) undergoing any type of surgical procedure (open or laparoscopic), for which a neuraxial (spinal, epidural, caudal, or combined spinal and epidural) or peripheral nerve block (any peripheral nerve block including fascial (fascia iliaca, transversus abdominis plane, rectus sheath blocks) or perivascular blocks), for surgical anaesthesia (alone or in combination with general anaesthesia) or for postoperative analgesia, was performed with ultrasound guidance. We excluded studies in which regional blockade was used to treat chronic pain.We included studies in which ultrasound guidance was used to perform the technique in real time (in-plane or out-of-plane), as pre-scanning before the procedure or to evaluate the spread of the local anaesthetic so the position of the needle could be adjusted or the block complemented. For control groups, any other technique used to perform the block including landmarks, loss of resistance (air or fluid), click, paraesthesia, nerve stimulator, transarterial, or infiltration was accepted. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were failed blocks, pain scores at one hour after surgery, and block duration. Secondary outcomes included time to perform the block, number of needle passes, and minor and major complications. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 trials with a total of 2293 participants from 0.9 to 12 (mean or median) years of age. Most trials were at low risk of selection, detection, attrition, and reporting bias, however the lack of blinding of participants and personnel caring for participants resulted in 25 trials being judged as at high or unclear risk of bias. We identified five ongoing trials.Ultrasound guidance probably reduces the risk of failed block (risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.25 to -0.07; 22 trials; 1789 participants; moderate-quality evidence). When ultrasound guidance was used, there was a small to moderate reduction in pain one hour after surgery, equivalent to a reduction of 1.3 points on the revised Bieri FACES pain scale (scale; 0 = no pain, 10 = maximal pain) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.07 (medium effect size); 15 trials; 982 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Ultrasound guidance increases block duration by the equivalent of 42 minutes (SMD 1.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.75; 10 trials; 460 participants; high-quality evidence).There is probably little or no difference in the time taken to perform the block (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.13; 9 trials; 680 participants; moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether the number of needle passes required is reduced with the use of ultrasound guidance (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.18; 3 trials; 256 participants; very low-quality evidence).There were no occurrences of major complications in either the intervention or control arms of the trials (cardiac arrest from local anaesthetic toxicity (22 trials; 1576 participants; moderate-quality evidence); lasting neurological injury (19 trials; 1250 participants; low-quality evidence)).There may be little of no difference in the risk of bloody puncture (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.00; 13 trials; 896 participants; low-quality evidence) or transient neurological injury (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 18 trials; 1230 participants; low-quality evidence). There were no occurrences of seizure from local anaesthetic toxicity (22 trials; 1576 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or block infections without neurological injury (18 trials; 1238 participants; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance for regional blockade in children probably decreases the risk of failed block. It increases the duration of the block and probably decreases pain scores at one hour after surgery. There may be little or no difference in the risks of some minor complications. The five ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once published and assessed.

Postoperative epidural analgesia versus systemic analgesia for thoraco-lumbar spine surgery in children.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery may be associated with severe acute postoperative pain. Compared with systemic analgesia alone, epidural analgesia may offer better pain control. However, epidural analgesia has sometimes been associated with rare but serious complications. Therefore, it is critical to quantify the real benefits of epidural analgesia over other modes of pain treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia for acute postoperative pain control after thoraco-lumbar spine surgery in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature on 14 November 2018, together with the references lists of related reviews and retained trials, and two trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials performed in children undergoing any type of thoraco-lumbar spine surgery comparing epidural analgesia with systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. We applied no language or publication status restriction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane tool. We analysed data using random-effects models. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE scale. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials (559 participants) in the review, and seven trials (249 participants) in the analysis: 140 participants received epidural analgesia and 109 received systemic analgesia.Most studies included adolescents. Three trials included in the analysis contained some participants older than 18 years. The types of surgery were posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis (nine trials), anterior correction for idiopathic scoliosis (one trial), or selective dorsal rhizotomy in children with cerebral palsy (one trial). The mean numbers of vertebrae operated on were between nine and 14.5 and the mean numbers of spinal levels were between three and four and a half. The length of surgery varied between three and six and a half hours.Compared with systemic analgesia, epidural analgesia reduced pain at rest at all time points. At six to eight hours, the mean pain score on a 0 to 10 scale with systemic analgesia was 3.1 (standard deviation 0.7) and with epidural analgesia was -1.32 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to -0.82; 4 studies, 116 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 72 hours, the mean pain score with epidural analgesia was equivalent to a -0.8 point reduction on a 0 to 10 scale (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.10; 5 studies, 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Return of gastrointestinal functionThere was no difference for nausea and vomiting between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.30; 6 studies, 215 participants; low-quality evidence). One study found epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the number of participants who had their first flatus within 48 hours (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.47; 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the number of participants in whom first bowel movement occurred within 48 hours (RR 11.52, 95% CI 2.36 to 56.26; 60 participants; low-quality evidence). It was uncertain whether epidural analgesia reduced the time to first bowel movement (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.50; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) and time to first liquid ingestion following epidural infusion of an opioid alone or a local anaesthetic plus an opioid (mean difference (MD) -5.02 hours, 95% CI -13.15 to 3.10; 2 studies, 56 participants; very low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the risk of having first solid food ingestion within 48 hours (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.91 to 25.62; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesIt was uncertain whether there was a difference in time to ambulate (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.39; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) and hospital length of stay (MD -0.29 days, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.10; 2 studies, 89 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found participants were more satisfied when treated with epidural analgesia (MD 1.62 on a scale from 0 to 10, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.97; 60 participants; very low-quality evidence). It was unclear whether there was a difference in parent satisfaction for epidural analgesia with an opioid alone (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.81 to 2.01; 1 trial, 27 participants; very low-quality evidence).ComplicationsIt was uncertain whether there was a difference in the risk of complications such as: respiratory depression (risk difference (RD) -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; 4 studies, 126 participants; very low-quality evidence); wound infection (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 2 trials, 93 participants; very low-quality evidence); epidural abscess (RD 0, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 3 trials, 120 participants; very low-quality evidence); and neurological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 4 studies, 151 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate- and low-quality evidence that there may be a small additional reduction in pain up to 72 hours after surgery with epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia. Two very small studies showed epidural analgesia with local anaesthetic alone may accelerate the return of gastrointestinal function. The safety of this technique in children undergoing thoraco-lumbar surgery is uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. The study in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

A 3-arm randomized clinical trial comparing interscalene blockade techniques with local infiltration analgesia for total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The ideal analgesic modality for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) remains controversial. We hypothesized that a multimodal analgesic pathway incorporating continuous interscalene blockade (ISB) provides better analgesic efficacy than both single-injection ISB and local infiltration analgesia. METHODS: This single-center, parallel, unblinded, randomized clinical trial evaluated 129 adults undergoing primary TSA. Patients were allocated to single-injection ISB, continuous ISB, or local infiltration analgesia. The primary outcome was the Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score (range, 0 [best] to 28 [worst]) on postoperative day 1. Additional outcomes included pain scores, opioid consumption, quality of life, and postoperative complications in the first 24 hours, at 3 months, and at 1 year. RESULTS: We analyzed 125 patients (42 with single-injection ISB, 41 with continuous ISB, and 42 with local infiltration analgesia). The Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score was significantly improved in the continuous group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 0 [0, 2]) compared with the single-injection group (2 [1, 4]; P = .002) and local infiltration analgesia group (3 [2, 4]; P < .001). Pain scores were significantly lower in the continuous group compared with the local infiltration analgesia group (P < .001 for all time points) and after 12 hours from ward arrival compared with the single-injection group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 1.0 [0.0, 2.8] vs. 2.5 [0.0, 4.0]; P = .016). After postanesthesia recovery discharge, opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalents) was significantly lower in the continuous group (median [25th percentile, 75th percentile], 7.5 mg [0.0, 25.0 mg]) than in the local infiltration analgesia group (30 mg [15.0, 52.5 mg]; P < .001) and single-injection group (17.6 mg [7.5, 45.5 mg]; P = .010). No differences were found across groups for complications, 3-month outcomes, and 1-year outcomes. CONCLUSION: Continuous ISB provides superior analgesia compared with single-injection ISB and local infiltration analgesia in the first 24 hours after TSA.

Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Hip Fractures: A Cochrane Review.

BACKGROUND: This review focuses on the use of peripheral nerve blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery and tries to determine if they offer any benefit in terms of pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction/ischemia, pneumonia, mortality, time to first mobilization, and cost of analgesic. METHODS: Trials were identified by computerized searches of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to 2016 August week 1), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO, 1982 to 2016 August week 1), trials registers, and reference lists of relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials involving the use of nerve blocks as part of the care for hip fractures in adults aged 16 years and older were included. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted the data. The quality of evidence was judged according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations Working Group scale. RESULTS: Based on 8 trials with 373 participants, peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement: standardized mean difference, -1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I statistic = 90%; high quality of evidence). The effect size was proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used (P < .00001). Based on 7 trials with 676 participants, no difference was found in the risk of acute confusional state: risk ratio, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.38-1.27; I statistic = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Based on 3 trials with 131 participants, the risk for pneumonia was decreased: risk ratio, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.89; I statistic = 3%; number needed-to-treat for additional beneficial outcome, 7 [95% CI, 5-72]; moderate quality of evidence). No difference was found for the risk of myocardial ischemia or death within 6 months but the number of participants included was well below the optimum information size for these 2 outcomes. Based on 2 trials with 155 participants, peripheral nerve blocks also reduced the time to first mobilization after surgery: mean difference, -11.25 hours (95% CI, -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I statistic = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). From 1 trial with 75 participants, the cost of analgesic drugs when used as a single-shot block was lower: standardized mean difference, -3.48 (95% CI, -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. There is moderate quality of evidence for a decreased risk of pneumonia, reduced time to first mobilization, and reduced cost of analgesic regimen (single-shot blocks).

The Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology Consensus Statement on the Anesthetic Management of Pregnant and Postpartum Women Receiving Thromboprophylaxis or Higher Dose Anticoagulants.

Venous thromboembolism is recognized as a leading cause of maternal death in the United States. Thromboprophylaxis has been highlighted as a key preventive measure to reduce venous thromboembolism-related maternal deaths. However, the expanded use of thromboprophylaxis in obstetrics will have a major impact on the use and timing of neuraxial analgesia and anesthesia for women undergoing vaginal or cesarean delivery and other obstetric surgeries. Experts from the Society of Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia, and hematology have collaborated to develop this comprehensive, pregnancy-specific consensus statement on neuraxial procedures in obstetric patients receiving thromboprophylaxis or higher dose anticoagulants. To date, none of the existing anesthesia societies' recommendations have weighed the potential risks of neuraxial procedures in the presence of thromboprophylaxis, with the competing risks of general anesthesia with a potentially difficult airway, or maternal or fetal harm from avoidance or delayed neuraxial anesthesia. Furthermore, existing guidelines have not integrated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anticoagulants in the obstetric population. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide a practical guide of how to appropriately identify, prepare, and manage pregnant women receiving thromboprophylaxis or higher dose anticoagulants during the ante-, intra-, and postpartum periods. The tactics to facilitate multidisciplinary communication, evidence-based pharmacokinetic and spinal epidural hematoma data, and Decision Aids should help inform risk-benefit discussions with patients and facilitate shared decision making.

Intraoperative use of low volume ventilation to decrease postoperative mortality, mechanical ventilation, lengths of stay and lung injury in adults without acute lung injury.

BACKGROUND: Since the 2000s, there has been a trend towards decreasing tidal volumes for positive pressure ventilation during surgery. This an update of a review first published in 2015, trying to determine if lower tidal volumes are beneficial or harmful for patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefit of intraoperative use of low tidal volume ventilation (less than 10 mL/kg of predicted body weight) compared with high tidal volumes (10 mL/kg or greater) to decrease postoperative complications in adults without acute lung injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (from 1946 to 19 May 2017), Embase (OvidSP) (from 1974 to 19 May 2017) and six trial registries. We screened the reference lists of all studies retained and of recent meta-analysis related to the topic during data extraction. We also screened conference proceedings of anaesthesiology societies, published in two major anaesthesiology journals. The search was rerun 3 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) on any of our selected outcomes in adults undergoing any type of surgery. We did not retain studies with participants requiring one-lung ventilation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the quality of the retained studies with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed data with both fixed-effect (I2 statistic less than 25%) or random-effects (I2 statistic greater than 25%) models based on the degree of heterogeneity. When there was an effect, we calculated a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) using the odds ratio. When there was no effect, we calculated the optimum information size. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven new RCTs (536 participants) in the update.In total, we included 19 studies in the review (776 participants in the low tidal volume group and 772 in the high volume group). There are four studies awaiting classification and three are ongoing. All included studies were at some risk of bias. Participants were scheduled for abdominal surgery, heart surgery, pulmonary thromboendarterectomy, spinal surgery and knee surgery. Low tidal volumes used in the studies varied from 6 mL/kg to 8.1 mL/kg while high tidal volumes varied from 10 mL/kg to 12 mL/kg.Based on 12 studies including 1207 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on 0- to 30-day mortality were uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.53; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Based on seven studies including 778 participants, lower tidal volumes probably reduced postoperative pneumonia (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.82; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 24, 95% CI 16 to 160), and it probably reduced the need for non-invasive postoperative ventilatory support based on three studies including 506 participants (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.64; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 13, 95% CI 11 to 24). Based on 11 studies including 957 participants, low tidal volumes during surgery probably decreased the need for postoperative invasive ventilatory support (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.77; I2 = 0%; NNTB 39, 95% CI 30 to 166; moderate-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 898 participants, there may be little or no difference in the intensive care unit length of stay (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.10; I2 = 33%; low-quality evidence). Based on 14 studies including 1297 participants, low tidal volumes may have reduced hospital length of stay by about 0.8 days (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; I2 = 27%; low-quality evidence). Based on five studies including 708 participants, the effects of low volume ventilation on barotrauma (pneumothorax) were uncertain (RR 1.77, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.99; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that low tidal volumes (defined as less than 10 mL/kg) decreases pneumonia and the need for postoperative ventilatory support (invasive and non-invasive). We found no difference in the risk of barotrauma (pneumothorax), but the number of participants included does not allow us to make definitive statement on this. The four studies in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

A Three-arm Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Continuous Femoral Plus Single-injection Sciatic Peripheral Nerve Blocks versus Periarticular Injection with Ropivacaine or Liposomal Bupivacaine for Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia is standard practice for total knee arthroplasty; however, the role of regional techniques in improved perioperative outcomes remains unknown. The authors hypothesized that peripheral nerve blockade would result in lower pain scores and opioid consumption than two competing periarticular injection solutions. METHODS: This three-arm, nonblinded trial randomized 165 adults undergoing unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty to receive (1) femoral catheter plus sciatic nerve blocks, (2) ropivacaine-based periarticular injection, or (3) liposomal bupivacaine-based periarticular injection. Primary outcome was maximal pain during postoperative day 1 (0 to 10, numerical pain rating scale) in intention-to-treat analysis. Additional outcomes included pain scores and opioid consumption for postoperative days 0 to 2 and 3 months. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven study patients received peripheral nerve block (n = 50), ropivacaine (n = 55), or liposomal bupivacaine (n = 52) and reported median maximal pain scores on postoperative day 1 of 3, 4, and 4.5 and on postoperative day 0 of 1, 4, and 5, respectively (average pain scores for postoperative day 0: 0.6, 1.7, and 2.4 and postoperative day 1: 2.5, 3.5, and 3.7). Postoperative day 1 median maximal pain scores were significantly lower for peripheral nerve blockade compared to liposomal bupivacaine-based periarticular injection (P = 0.016; Hodges-Lehmann median difference [95% CI] = -1 [-2 to 0]). After postanesthesia care unit discharge, postoperative day 0 median maximal and average pain scores were significantly lower for peripheral nerve block compared to both periarticular injections (ropivacaine: maximal -2 [-3 to -1]; P < 0.001; average -0.8 [-1.3 to -0.2]; P = 0.003; and liposomal bupivacaine: maximal -3 [-4 to -2]; P < 0.001; average -1.4 [-2.0 to -0.8]; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine-based periarticular injections provide pain control comparable on postoperative days 1 and 2 to a femoral catheter and single-injection sciatic nerve block. This study did not demonstrate an advantage of liposomal bupivacaine over ropivacaine in periarticular injections for total knee arthroplasty.

The Use of Ultrasound Guidance for Perioperative Neuraxial and Peripheral Nerve Blocks in Children: A Cochrane Review.

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to determine whether the use of ultrasound guidance offers any clinical advantage in the performance of neuraxial or peripheral nerve blocks in children in terms of increasing the success rate or decreasing the rate of complications. METHODS: We searched the following databases to March 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), and Scopus (to January 2015). We included all parallel randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of ultrasound guidance to perform a regional blockade technique in children. We assessed the selected studies for risk of bias with the Cochrane collaboration tool. We graded the level of evidence for each outcome according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group scale. RESULTS: We included 20 studies (1241 participants). Ultrasound guidance increases the success rate by decreasing the occurrence of a failed block: risk difference -0.11 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.17 to -0.05); I 64%; number needed for additional beneficial outcome for peripheral nerve blocks 6 (95% CI, 5-8). The younger the child, the greater the benefit. From 8 studies (414 participants), pain scores at 1 hour in the postanesthesia care unit were reduced when ultrasound guidance was used; however, the clinical relevance of the difference was unclear (equivalent to -0.2 on a scale from 0 to 10). From 8 studies (358 participants), block duration was longer when ultrasound guidance was used: standardized mean difference (SMD) 1.21 (95% CI, 0.76-1.65: I 73%; equivalent to 62 minutes). Here again, younger children benefited the most from ultrasound guidance. Time to perform the procedure was reduced when ultrasound guidance was used for prescanning before a neuraxial block (SMD -1.97; 95% CI, -2.41 to -1.54; I 0%; equivalent to 2.4 minutes) or as an out-of-plane technique (SMD -0.68; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.40; I 0%; equivalent to 94 seconds). From 2 studies (122 participants), ultrasound guidance reduced the number of needle passes required to perform the block: SMD -0.90 (95% CI, -1.27 to -0.52; I 0%; equivalent to 0.6 needle pass per participant). From 2 studies (204 participants), we could not demonstrate a difference in the incidence of bloody puncture when ultrasound guidance was used for neuraxial blockade, but we found that the number of participants was well below the optimal information size (risk difference -0.07, 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.04). No major complications were reported for any of the 1241 participants. We rated the quality of evidence as high for success, pain scores at 1 hour, block duration, time to perform the block, and number of needle passes. We rated the quality of evidence as low for bloody punctures. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound guidance seems advantageous, particularly in young children, for whom it improves the success rate and increases block duration. Additional data are required before conclusions can be drawn on the effect of ultrasound guidance in reducing the rate of bloody puncture.

Nerve blocks or no nerve blocks for pain control after elective hip replacement (arthroplasty) surgery in adults.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that over 300,000 total hip replacements are performed each year in the USA. For European countries, the number of hip replacement procedures per 100,000 people performed in 2007 varied from less than 50 to over 250. To facilitate postoperative rehabilitation, pain must be adequately treated. Peripheral nerve blocks and neuraxial blocks have been proposed to replace or supplement systemic analgesia. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the relative effects (benefits and harms) of the different nerve blocks that may be used to relieve pain after elective hip replacement in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 12, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1946 to December Week 49, 2016), Embase (Ovid SP) (1980 to December week 49, 2016), CINAHL (EBSCO host) (1982 to 6 December 2016), ISI Web of Science (1973 to 6 December 2016), Scopus (from inception to December 2016), trials registers, and relevant web sites. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in adults undergoing elective primary hip replacement and comparing peripheral nerve blocks to any other pain treatment modality. We applied no language or publication status restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two review authors. We contacted study authors. MAIN RESULTS: We included 51 RCTs with 2793 participants; of these 45 RCTs (2491 participants: peripheral nerve block = 1288; comparators = 1203) were included in meta-analyses. There are 11 ongoing studies and three awaiting classification.Compared to systemic analgesia alone, peripheral nerve blocks reduced: pain at rest on arrival in the postoperative care unit (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.56; 9 trials, 429 participants; equivalent to 3.2 on 0 to 10 scale; moderate-quality evidence); risk of acute confusional status: risk ratio (RR) 0.10 95% CI 0.02 to 0.54; 1 trial, 225 participants; number needed to treat for additional benefit (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 11 to 22; very low-quality evidence); pruritus (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.70; 2 trials, 259 participants for continuous peripheral nerve blocks; NNTB 4 (95% CI 4 to 8); very low-quality evidence); hospital length of stay (SMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.48; very low-quality evidence; 2 trials, 249 participants; equivalent to 0.75 day). Participant satisfaction increased (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; low-quality evidence; 5 trials, 363 participants; equivalent to 2.4 on 0 to 10 scale). We did not find a difference for the number of participants walking on postoperative day one (very low-quality evidence). Two nerve block-related complications were reported: one local haematoma and one delayed persistent paresis.Compared to neuraxial blocks, peripheral nerve blocks reduced the risk of pruritus (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.58; 6 trials, 299 participants; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). We did not find a difference for pain at rest on arrival in the postoperative care unit (moderate-quality evidence); number of nerve block-related complications (low-quality evidence); acute confusional status (very low-quality evidence); hospital length of stay (low quality-evidence); time to first walk (low-quality evidence); or participant satisfaction (high-quality evidence).We found that peripheral nerve blocks provide better pain control compared to systemic analgesia with no major differences between peripheral nerve blocks and neuraxial blocks. We also found that peripheral nerve blocks may be associated with reduced risk of postoperative acute confusional state and a modest reduction in hospital length of stay that could be meaningful in terms of cost reduction considering the increasing numbers of procedures performed annually. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to systemic analgesia alone, there is moderate-quality evidence that peripheral nerve blocks reduce postoperative pain, low-quality evidence that patient satisfaction is increased and very low-quality evidence for reductions in acute confusional status, pruritus and hospital length of stay .We found moderate-quality evidence that peripheral nerve blocks reduce pruritus compared with neuraxial blocks.The 11 ongoing studies, once completed, and the three studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures.

BACKGROUND: Various nerve blocks with local anaesthetic agents have been used to reduce pain after hip fracture and subsequent surgery. This review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2017. OBJECTIVES: This review focuses on the use of peripheral nerves blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia or as a supplement to general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. We undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards. SEARCH METHODS: For the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to August week 1 2016), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to August week 1 2016), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving use of nerve blocks as part of the care provided for adults aged 16 years and older with hip fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed new trials for inclusion, determined trial quality using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE Working Group approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 trials (1760 participants; 897 randomized to peripheral nerve blocks and 863 to no regional blockade). Results of eight trials with 373 participants show that peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I2 = 90%; high quality of evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P < 0.00001). Based on seven trials with 676 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; I2 = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Three trials with 131 participants reported decreased risk for pneumonia (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; I2 = 3%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in risk of myocardial ischaemia or death within six months, but the number of participants included was well below the optimal information size for these two outcomes. Two trials with 155 participants reported that peripheral nerve blocks also reduced time to first mobilization after surgery (mean difference -11.25 hours, 95% CI -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I2 = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated that the cost of analgesic drugs was lower when they were given as a single shot block (SMD -3.48, 95% CI -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High-quality evidence shows that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. Moderate-quality evidence shows reduced risk for pneumonia, decreased time to first mobilization and cost reduction of the analgesic regimen (single shot blocks).

Epidural Local Anesthetics Versus Opioid-Based Analgesic Regimens for Postoperative Gastrointestinal Paralysis, Vomiting, and Pain After Abdominal Surgery: A Cochrane Review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this review was to compare the effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anesthetics to postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, hospital length of stay, and cost after abdominal surgery. METHODS: Trials were identified by computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (from 1950 to December, 2014) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of postoperative epidural local anesthetic with regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted data. We judged the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group scale. RESULTS: Based on 22 trials including 1138 participants, an epidural containing a local anesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time required to observe the first flatus after an abdominal surgery standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used. Based on 28 trials including 1559 participants, we also found a decrease in time to first feces (stool): SMD -0.67 (95% CI, -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Based on 35 trials including 2731 participants, pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery is also reduced: SMD -0.89 (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10). Based on 22 trials including 1154 participants, we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours: risk ratio 0.84 (95% CI, 0.57-1.23); low quality of evidence. Based on 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak: risk ratio 0.74 (95% CI, 0.41-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on 30 trials including 2598 participants, epidural analgesia reduces length of hospital stay for an open surgery: SMD -0.20 (95% CI, -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to 1 day). Data on cost were very limited. CONCLUSIONS: An epidural containing a local anesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of the gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after an abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic does not affect the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For an open surgery, an epidural containing a local anesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).