No Benefits of Adding Dexmedetomidine, Ketamine, Dexamethasone, and Nerve Blocks to an Established Multimodal Analgesic Regimen after Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: An optimal opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic regimen to treat severe pain can enhance recovery after total knee arthroplasty. The hypothesis was that adding five recently described intravenous and regional interventions to multimodal analgesic regimen can further reduce opioid consumption. METHODS: In a double-blinded fashion, 78 patients undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty were randomized to either (1) a control group (n = 39) that received spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine, periarticular local anesthesia infiltration, intravenous dexamethasone, and a single injection adductor canal block or (2) a study group (n = 39) that received the same set of analgesic treatments plus five additional interventions: local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee, intraoperative intravenous dexmedetomidine and ketamine, and postoperatively, one additional intravenous dexamethasone bolus and two additional adductor canal block injections. The primary outcome measure was 24-h cumulative opioid consumption after surgery and secondary outcomes were other analgesics, patient recovery, functional outcomes, and adverse events. RESULTS: Opioid consumption was not different between groups at 24 h (oral morphine equivalents, mean ± SD; study: 23.7 ± 18.0 mg vs. control: 29.3 ± 18.7 mg; mean difference [95% CI], -5.6 mg [-2.7 to 13.9]; P = 0.189) and all other time points after surgery. There were no major differences in pain scores, quality of recovery, or time to reach rehabilitation milestones. Hypotensive episodes occurred more frequently in the study group (25 of 39 [64.1%] vs. 13 of 39 [33.3%]; P = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of periarticular local anesthesia infiltration, intrathecal morphine, single-shot adductor canal block and dexamethasone, the addition of five analgesic interventions-local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee, intravenous dexmedetomidine, intravenous ketamine, an additional intravenous dexamethasone dose, and repeated adductor canal block injections-failed to further reduce opioid consumption or pain scores or to improve functional outcomes after total knee arthroplasty.

Role of regional anesthesia and analgesia in enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Effective analgesia is an important element of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), but the clinical impact of regional anesthesia and analgesia for colorectal surgery remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the impact of regional anesthesia following colorectal surgery in the setting of ERAS. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We performed a systematic review of nine databases up to June 2020, seeking randomized controlled trials comparing regional anesthesia versus control in an ERAS pathway for colorectal surgery. We analyzed the studies with successful ERAS implementation, defined as ERAS protocols with a hospital length of stay of ≤5 days. Data were qualitatively synthesized. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. FINDINGS: Of the 29 studies reporting ERAS pathways, only 13 comprising 1170 patients were included, with modest methodological quality and poor reporting of adherence to ERAS pathways. Epidural analgesia had limited evidence of outcome benefits in open surgery, while spinal analgesia with intrathecal opioids may potentially be associated with improved outcomes with no impact on length of stay in laparoscopic surgery, though dosing must be further investigated. There was limited evidence for fascial plane blocks or other regional anesthetic techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was variable methodological quality and reporting of ERAS, we found little evidence demonstrating the clinical benefits of regional anesthetic techniques in the setting of successful ERAS implementation, and future studies must report adherence to ERAS in order for their interventions to be generalizable to modern clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020161200.

Determining the accuracy of zero-flux and ingestible thermometers in the peri-operative setting.

Accurately monitoring peri-operative core temperature is a cornerstone of good practice. Relatively invasive devices such as oesophageal temperature probes and pulmonary artery catheters facilitate this, but are inappropriate for many patients. There remains a need for accurate monitors of core temperature that can be used in awake patients. This study compared the accuracy of two core temperature thermometers that can be used for this purpose: the 3M Bair Hugger™ Temperature Monitoring System Zero Flux Thermometer and the CorTempR™ Wireless Ingestible Temperature Sensor. Readings were compared with the oesophageal probe, the current intraoperative standard. Thirty patients undergoing elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia were recruited. The ingestible sensor was ingested prior to induction of anaethesia, and post induction, the zero-flux electrode attached above the right eyebrow and oesophageal probe inserted. During surgery, the temperature on each device was recorded every minute. Measurements were compared using Bland-Altman analysis. The ingestible sensor experienced interference from use of diathermy and fluoroscopy in the operating theatre, rendering 39% of its readings unusable. These were removed from analysis. With remaining readings the bias compared with oesophageal probe was + 0.42 °C, with 95% limits of agreement - 2.4 °C to 3.2 °C. 75.4% of readings were within ± 0.5 °C of the OTP reading. The bias for the zero flux electrode compared to oesophageal probe was + 0.02 °C with 95% limits of agreement - 0.5 °C to 0.5 °C. 97.7% of readings were within ± 0.5 °C of the oesophageal probe. The study findings suggest the zero-flux thermometer is sufficiently accurate for clinical use, whereas the ingestible sensor is not.Trial registration The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT Number: NCT02121574.