Comparison of Intrathecal Morphine Versus Erector Spinae Plane Block for Perioperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spine surgery is associated with a significant degree of moderate-to-severe perioperative pain which can be alleviated by using different pain-relieving modalities; of these, erector spinae plane block and intrathecal morphine have promise. PURPOSE: To compare the analgesic efficacy between intrathecal morphine (ITM) versus erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for perioperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. METHOD: A total of 74 patients aged between 20 and 65 years of either sex were posted for elective lumbar spine surgery. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A patients received 0.3 mg intrathecal morphine and Group B received bilateral erector spinae plane block at L3 level by using 30 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine before starting the surgery for perioperative analgesia. In the perioperative period, pain was assessed by hemodynamic parameters (heart rate and mean arterial pressure), numeric rating scale (NRS), and patient satisfaction score.  Result: The difference in heart rate and mean arterial pressure was found to be statistically significant between groups at three, six, 12, and 24 hours (p<0.05). The patients who required rescue analgesia in Group A and Group B were 23 (62.2%) and 37 (100%) patients in the first 24 hours. The rate of complication was higher in Group A than in Group B (45% vs 5.4%). The patient satisfaction score was found to be better in Group A than in Group B. CONCLUSION: Intrathecal morphine provides more substantial and extended analgesia up to 48 hours postoperatively as compared to erector spinae plane block.

Post-spinal Anesthesia Low Back Pain in Obese Female Patients: Comparison of the Median Versus Paramedian Approach.

BACKGROUND: A side effect of spinal anesthesia is post-dural puncture backache (PDPB), which is characterized by ongoing discomfort at the location of the spinal puncture without any radicular pain. This study aims to compare the incidence and severity of post-dural puncture back pain following spinal anesthesia by median versus paramedian technique in obese female patients. METHODS:  A prospective randomized comparative study on 120 female patients, aged 20-50 years with a BMI of 30-40 kg/m2 and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status II, scheduled for elective surgery under spinal anesthesia, was included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups, with 60 patients in each group. Group P uses the paramedian approach for spinal anesthesia, and group M uses the midline approach for spinal anesthesia. RESULTS: Low back pain incidence was lower in group P than in group M at seven days, but at one month and after, its incidence remained the same in both groups. No difference in the severity of pain was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of back pain in the first seven days of surgery was significantly more frequent with the median approach. The pain severity decreased as the time passed from day seven to three months of follow-up. There is no difference in the severity of pain with either approach at different intervals.

Perioperative Anxiolysis and Analgesic Effect after Premedication with Melatonin and Pregabalin in Total Hip Arthroplasty under Spinal Anaesthesia: A Prospective Comparative Trial.

Background: Preoperative anxiety plays a critical role in post-operative pain response and other outcomes. Melatonin is a naturally secreted hormone which has anxiolytic, sedative, and analgesic properties. Pregabalin, analogue of gabapentin which has property of anxiolytic and analgesic effects. Materials and Methods: Total 96 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, divided into 3 groups of 32 each and were given placebo (group I), melatonin 6 mg (group II), and pregabalin 150 mg (group III). Anxiety level, postoperative pain score, sedation level and duration as well as characteristics of spinal anaesthesia were assessed with other vital parameters. Results: Group I showed an increment in the anxiety score from baseline whereas in group II and group III, there was a decline in pre-operative anxiety score from baseline at all the periods of observation and more significantly in group III. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score and total dose of rescue analgesia were highest in group I, but group II and group III were comparable to each other. However, the durations of spinal anaesthesia and motor blockade showed a statistically significant difference with maximum duration in group III followed by II and then I. The level of sedation among the three groups were comparable at all the periods of observation. Conclusions: Pregabalin was found better for perioperative anxiolysis, post-operative analgesia and for prolongation of duration of spinal anaesthesia when compared to melatonin.

The geographic diversity of authorship in leading general surgery journals; A study of 24,332 authors.

BACKGROUND: Research guides evidence-based general surgery practice, advocacy, policy and resource allocation, but is seemingly lacking representation from those countries with greatest disease burden and mortality. Accordingly, we conducted a geographic study of publications in the most impactful general surgery journals worldwide. METHODS: The six general surgery journals with the highest 2020 impact factors were selected. Only journals specific to general surgery were included. For all original articles over the past five years, the affiliated country and city were extracted for the first, second and last author. Number of publications were adjusted per capita, and compared to Human Development Index (HDI) using logistic regression. RESULTS: 8274 original articles were published in the top six ranked general surgery journals over 2016-2020, with 24,332 affiliated authors. Authors were most commonly associated with the US (27.88%), Japan (9.09%) and China (8.46%), or per capita, The Netherlands, Sweden and Singapore. There is a linear association between publishing in a top six journal and HDI of country of affiliation. Just four publications were from medium or low HDI countries over the period. CONCLUSION: Authorship in leading general surgery journals is predominantly from wealthy, Western countries. Authorship is associated with affiliation with a high HDI country, with few authors from medium or low HDI countries. There is a lack of representation in literature from Africa, Russia, and parts of Southeast Asia, and thus a lack of locally relevant evidence to guide surgical practice in these areas of high disease burden and low life expectancy.

Comparison of extraoral and intraoral routes of glossopharyngeal nerve block for pain relief in patient with carcinoma tongue: A prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Glossopharyngeal nerve block (GNB) technique has been used as alternative of treatment of cancer and noncancer pain of the oral cavity. The objective of the study is to compare the two approaches (extraoral and intraoral) of GNB in patients of carcinoma of the tongue in terms of efficacy, duration, and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective comparative randomized study over a period of 1 year. Fifty patients of either sex of ASA physical status and 2, between 21 and 70 years of age, suffering from carcinoma of the tongue, were selected. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group I received 4 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine combined with 40 mg, of triamcinolonacetonide by extraoral approach of GNB, and Group II received the same amount of drug by intraoral approach of GNB. Hemodynamic parameters, degree of pain relief using visual analog scale (VAS), number of attempts, effect on quality of life (QOL), and complication were noted during the performance of GNB. RESULTS: Demographic profile in both groups was comparable. Rate of complication and number of attempts to complete intervention were higher in Group I, which was found to be statistically significant. However, mean VAS scores in Group I were significantly higher as compared to those in Group II during most of the study period starting from the 1st follow-up at 30 min to the 2nd month postintervention (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference in mean QOL scores of two groups was observed for the entire study period except at 1 week when mean scores in Group I were higher as compared to those in Group II (P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: The intraoral approach of GNB was better with respect to pain control and improvement in QOL whereas the rate of complication and number of attempts was lower in extraoral approach of GNB.