Research priorities in regional anaesthesia: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia use is growing worldwide, and there is an increasing emphasis on research in regional anaesthesia to improve patient outcomes. However, priorities for future study remain unclear. We therefore conducted an international research prioritisation exercise, setting the agenda for future investigators and funding bodies. METHODS: We invited members of specialist regional anaesthesia societies from six continents to propose research questions that they felt were unanswered. These were consolidated into representative indicative questions, and a literature review was undertaken to determine if any indicative questions were already answered by published work. Unanswered indicative questions entered a three-round modified Delphi process, whereby 29 experts in regional anaesthesia (representing all participating specialist societies) rated each indicative question for inclusion on a final high priority shortlist. If ≥75% of participants rated an indicative question as 'definitely' include in any round, it was accepted. Indicative questions rated as 'definitely' or 'probably' by <50% of participants in any round were excluded. Retained indicative questions were further ranked based on the rating score in the final Delphi round. The final research priorities were ratified by the Delphi expert group. RESULTS: There were 1318 responses from 516 people in the initial survey, from which 71 indicative questions were formed, of which 68 entered the modified Delphi process. Eleven 'highest priority' research questions were short listed, covering themes of pain management; training and assessment; clinical practice and efficacy; technology and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: We prioritised unanswered research questions in regional anaesthesia. These will inform a coordinated global research strategy for regional anaesthesia and direct investigators to address high-priority areas.

Ambulatory total hip and knee arthroplasty: a literature review and perioperative considerations.

PURPOSE: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA), particularly for the hip and knee, is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures. The advancement/evolution of surgical and anesthesia techniques have allowed TJA to be performed on an ambulatory/same-day discharge basis. In this Continuing Professional Development module, we synthesize the perioperative evidence that may aid the development of successful ambulatory TJA pathways. SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for ambulatory or fast-track TJA articles. In the absence of direct evidence for the ambulatory setting, we extrapolated the evidence from the in-patient TJA literature. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Patient selection encompassing patient, medical, and social factors is fundamental for successful same-day discharge of patients following TJA. Evidence for the type of intraoperative anesthesia favours neuraxial technique for achieving same day discharge criteria and reduced perioperative complications. Availability of short-acting local anesthetic for neuraxial anesthesia would affect the anesthetic choice. Nonetheless, modern general anesthesia with multimodal analgesia and antithrombotics in a well selected population can be considered. Regional analgesia forms an integral part of the multimodal analgesia regime to reduce opioid consumption and facilitate same-day hospital discharge, reducing hospital readmission. For ambulatory total knee arthroplasty, a combination of adductor canal block with local anesthetic periarticular infiltration provided is a suitable regional analgesic regimen. CONCLUSION: Anesthesia for TJA has evolved as such that same-day discharge will become the norm for selected patients. It is essential to establish pathways for early discharge to prevent adverse effects and readmission in this population. As more data are generated from an increased volume of ambulatory TJA, more robust evidence will emerge for the ideal anesthetic components to optimize outcomes.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'arthroplastie par prothèse totale (APT), en particulier de la hanche et du genou, constitue l'une des interventions chirurgicales les plus couramment pratiquées. L'avancement et l'évolution des techniques chirurgicales et d'anesthésie ont permis de réaliser une APT en ambulatoire/sur la base d'un congé le jour même. Dans ce module de développement professionnel continu, nous proposons une synthèse des données probantes périopératoires qui pourraient contribuer à l'élaboration de trajectoires réussies pour l'APT en ambulatoire. SOURCES: Nous avons réalisé des recherches dans MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL et dans la base de données Cochrane des revues systématiques à la recherche d'articles sur les APT ambulatoires ou accélérées. En l'absence de données probantes directes dans un contexte ambulatoire, nous avons extrapolé les données probantes à partir de la littérature sur les APT en milieu hospitalier. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: La sélection des patient·es englobant les facteurs patient·es, médicaux et sociaux est fondamentale pour un congé réussi le jour même après une APT. Les données probantes portant sur le type d'anesthésie peropératoire privilégient la technique neuraxiale pour respecter les critères de congé le jour même et réduire les complications périopératoires. La disponibilité d'un anesthésique local à courte durée d'action pour l'anesthésie neuraxiale affecterait le choix de l'anesthésique. Néanmoins, dans une population bien sélectionnée, l'anesthésie générale moderne avec analgésie multimodale et antithrombotiques peut être envisagée. L'analgésie régionale fait partie intégrante d'un régime d'analgésie multimodale visant à réduire la consommation d'opioïdes et à faciliter le congé de l'hôpital le jour même, ce qui réduit le nombre de réadmissions. En ce qui concerne l'arthroplastie totale du genou en ambulatoire, la combinaison d'un bloc du canal des adducteurs et d'une infiltration périarticulaire d'anesthésique local constitue un régime approprié d'analgésie régionale. CONCLUSION: L'anesthésie pour les APT a évolué de telle sorte que le congé le jour même deviendra la norme pour certain·es patient·es. Il est essentiel d'établir des trajectoires de congé précoce afin de prévenir les effets indésirables et la réadmission dans cette population. Au fur et à mesure que davantage de données seront générées à partir d'un volume accru d'APT en ambulatoire, des données probantes plus solides émergeront pour appuyer les composantes idéales de l'anesthésie pour optimiser les devenirs.

The Incidence and Predictors of Failed Spinal Anesthesia After Intrathecal Injection of Local Anesthetic for Cesarean Delivery: A Single-Center, 9-Year Retrospective Review.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of failed spinal anesthesia varies widely in the obstetric literature. Although many risk factors have been suggested, their relative predictive value is unknown. The primary objective of this retrospective cohort study was to determine the incidence of failed spinal anesthesia for cesarean deliveries at a tertiary care obstetric hospital, and its secondary objectives were to identify predictors of failed spinal anesthesia in the obstetrics population and quantify their relative importance in a predictive model for failure. METHODS: With local institutional ethics committee approval, a retrospective review of our hospital database identified the incidence of failed spinal anesthesia for 5361 cesarean deliveries between 2010 and 2019. We performed a multivariable analysis to assess the association of predictors with failure and a dominance analysis to assess the importance of each predictor. RESULTS: The incidence of failed spinal anesthesia requiring an alternative anesthetic was 2.1%, with conversion to general anesthesia occurring in 0.7% of surgeries. Supplemental analgesia or sedation was provided to an additional 2.0% of women. The most important predictors of a failed spinal anesthetic were previous cesarean delivery (odds ratio [OR], 11.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.09-18.20; P < .001), concomitant tubal ligation (OR, 8.23; 95% CI, 3.12-19.20; P < .001), lower body mass index (BMI) (kg·m -2 , OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98; P = .005), and longer surgery duration (minutes, OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .006). Previous cesarean delivery was the most significant risk factor, contributing to 9.6% of the total 17% variance predicted by all predictors examined. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia failed to provide a pain-free surgery in 4.1% of our cesarean deliveries. Previous cesarean delivery was the most important predictor of spinal failure. Other important predictors included tubal ligation, lower BMI, and longer surgery duration.

Reducing rebound pain severity after arthroscopic shoulder surgery under general anesthesia and interscalene block: a two-centre randomized controlled trial of pre-emptive opioid treatment compared with placebo.

PURPOSE: Although a single-injection interscalene block provides effective early postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery, patients may experience "rebound pain" when the block resolves. Our objective was to determine if oral hydromorphone (2 mg) given six hours after a single-injection interscalene block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery leads to a clinically significant reduction in the severity of rebound pain. METHODS: After approval from research ethics boards, we conducted a two-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial. Patients received preoperative interscalene block, general anesthesia, and either hydromorphone or placebo six hours after the block. The primary outcome was the worst pain score in the first 24 hr postoperatively, measured on an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants were randomly assigned to either the hydromorphone or placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean (standard deviation) worst pain score within 24 hr between the hydromorphone and placebo groups (6.5 [2.4] vs 5.9 [2.3]; mean difference, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 1.8). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the pain trajectory, opioid use, or incidence of nausea and vomiting between the groups. The mean time to worst pain was 14.6 hr, and the mean time to first rescue analgesia was 11.3 hr after interscalene block. CONCLUSION: Hydromorphone 2 mg given six hours after interscalene block did not reduce the severity of rebound pain postoperatively compared with placebo in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); registered 19 October 2016.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Bien qu'un bloc interscalénique à injection unique fournisse une analgésie postopératoire précoce efficace après une chirurgie de l'épaule, les patient·es peuvent ressentir une « douleur de rebond ¼ lorsque le bloc se résorbe. Notre objectif était de déterminer si l'hydromorphone orale (2 mg) administrée six heures après une injection unique de bloc interscalénique pour une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule entraînait une réduction cliniquement significative de la gravité de la douleur de rebond. MéTHODE: Après l'approbation des comités d'éthique de la recherche, nous avons mené une étude de supériorité dans deux centres, en groupes parallèles, à double insu, randomisée et contrôlée par placebo. Les patient·es ont reçu un bloc interscalénique préopératoire, une anesthésie générale et de l'hydromorphone ou un placebo six heures après le bloc. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le pire score de douleur au cours des premières 24 heures postopératoires, mesuré sur une échelle d'évaluation numérique de 11 points (0 à 10). RéSULTATS: Au total, 73 personnes ont participé à l'étude et ont été aléatoirement assignées au groupe hydromorphone ou au groupe placebo. Il n'y avait pas de différence statistiquement significative dans le score moyen (écart type) de la pire douleur dans les 24 heures entre les groupes hydromorphone et placebo (6,5 [2,4] vs 5,9 [2,3]; différence moyenne, 0,6; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, −0,5 à 1,8). De même, nous n'avons trouvé aucune différence significative dans la trajectoire de la douleur, la consommation d'opioïdes ou l'incidence de nausées et vomissements entre les groupes. Le temps moyen jusqu'à la pire douleur était de 14,6 heures, et le temps moyen jusqu'à la première analgésie de secours était de 11,3 heures après le bloc interscalénique. CONCLUSION: L'hydromorphone 2 mg administrée six heures après le bloc interscalénique n'a pas réduit la gravité de la douleur de rebond postopératoire par rapport au placebo chez les patient·es bénéficiant d'une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); enregistrée le 19 octobre 2016.

Comparative efficacy and safety of non-neuraxial analgesic techniques for midline laparotomy: a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Fascial plane blocks provide effective analgesia after midline laparotomy; however, the most efficacious technique has not been determined. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials to synthesise the evidence with respect to pain, opioid consumption, and adverse events. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Scopus databases for studies comparing commonly used non-neuraxial analgesic techniques for midline laparotomy in adult patients. The co-primary outcomes of the study were 24-h cumulative opioid consumption and 24-h resting pain score, reported as i.v. morphine equivalents and 11-point numerical rating scale, respectively. We performed a frequentist meta-analysis using a random-effects model and a cluster-rank analysis of the co-primary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 6115 studies screened, 67 eligible studies were included (n=4410). Interventions with the greatest reduction in 24-h cumulative opioid consumption compared with placebo/no intervention were single-injection quadratus lumborum block (sQLB; mean difference [MD] -16.1 mg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -29.9 to -2.3, very low certainty), continuous transversus abdominis plane block (cTAP; MD -14.0 mg, 95% CI -21.6 to -6.4, low certainty), single-injection transversus abdominis plane block (sTAP; MD -13.7 mg, 95% CI -17.4 to -10.0, low certainty), and continuous rectus sheath block (cRSB; MD -13.2 mg, 95% CI -20.3 to -6.1, low certainty). Interventions with the greatest reduction in 24-h resting pain score were cRSB (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.8 to -0.6, low certainty), cTAP (MD -1.0, 95% CI -1.7 to -0.2, low certainty), and continuous wound infusion (cWI; MD -0.7, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4, low certainty). Clustered-rank analysis including the co-primary outcomes showed cRSB and cTAP blocks to be the most efficacious interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, continuous rectus sheath block and continuous transversus abdominis plane block were the most efficacious non-neuraxial techniques at reducing 24-h cumulative opioid consumption and 24-h resting pain scores after midline laparotomy (low certainty). Future studies should compare techniques for upper vs lower midline laparotomy and other non-midline abdominal incisions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021269044.

Consensus Practice Guidelines on Postdural Puncture Headache From a Multisociety, International Working Group: A Summary Report.

Importance: Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures, such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. Objective: To fill the practice guidelines void and provide comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing PDPH. Evidence Review: With input from committee members and stakeholders of 6 participating professional societies, 10 review questions that were deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH were developed. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE on March 2, 2022. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews, and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for practice guideline development and shared with collaborator groups. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations that were rated according to the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence. Collaborators were asked to vote anonymously on each recommendation using 2 rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Findings: After 2 rounds of electronic voting by a 21-member multidisciplinary collaborator team, 47 recommendations were generated to provide guidance on the risk factors for and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH, along with ratings for the strength and certainty of evidence. A 90% to 100% consensus was obtained for almost all recommendations. Several recommendations were rated as having moderate to low certainty. Opportunities for future research were identified. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this consensus statement suggest that current approaches to the treatment and management of PDPH are not uniform due to the paucity of evidence. The practice guidelines, however, provide a framework for individual clinicians to assess PDPH risk, confirm the diagnosis, and adopt a systematic approach to its management.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on postdural puncture headache: a consensus report from a multisociety international working group.

INTRODUCTION: Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH. METHODS: Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach. RESULTS: Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients' interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Preoperative assessment of postoperative delirium: a cross-sectional study of patients and anesthesiologists in Canada.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate 1) patient- and anesthesiologist-reported rates of postoperative delirium (POD) risk discussion during preoperative meetings, 2) patients' and anesthesiologists' ratings of the importance of POD, and 3) predictors of patient-reported discussion of POD risk during preoperative meetings. METHODS: In this multicentre two-part cross-sectional survey study, patients ≥ 65 yr scheduled to undergo elective noncardiac surgery completed a five-minute survey after preoperative anesthesia consultation. Patients were asked about their perception of POD importance, and whether they discussed or were assessed for POD risk. Anesthesiologists were surveyed using self-administered surveys circulated via institutional email lists. Anesthesiologists were asked about the frequency of POD risk assessment and discussion in older adults, tools used, and perception of POD-screening barriers. RESULTS: Four hundred and twelve (of 510 approached) patients (50% male; mean age, 73 yr) and 267 anesthesiologists (of 1,205 invited via e-mail) participated in this study conducted in five Canadian hospitals. Postoperative delirium screening and discussion was reported by 88/412 (22%) patients and 229/267 (86%) anesthesiologists. Postoperative delirium was rated as "somewhat-extremely" important by 64% of patients. A previous history of delirium, higher education, the number of daily medications, and longer surgical duration were associated with POD discussion. On average, anesthesiologists rated the importance of POD at 8/10, and 42% ranked "patient risk factors" as the top reason prompting discussion. CONCLUSION: The combined evaluation of patients' and anesthesiologists' perspectives provides valuable information on preoperative POD screening and risk assessment, and highlights areas for improvement in the current practice. Most factors we identified to be associated with higher odds of POD discussion are recognized risk factors of POD.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à évaluer 1) les taux de discussion concernant le risque de delirium postopératoire (DPO) déclarés par les patient·es et les anesthésiologistes lors des rencontres préopératoires, 2) les évaluations des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes de l'importance de DPO, et 3) les prédicteurs d'une discussion telle que rapportée par les patient·es sur le risque de DPO pendant les rencontres préopératoires. MéTHODE: Dans ce sondage transversal multicentrique en deux parties, les patient·es ≥ 65 ans devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente ont rempli un sondage de cinq minutes après la consultation d'anesthésie préopératoire. Les patient·es ont été interrogé·es sur leur perception de l'importance du DPO et si leur risque de DPO avait été discuté ou évalué. Des sondages auto-administrés ont été distribués aux anesthésiologistes via les listes de courriels institutionnelles. Ce sondage interrogeait les anesthésiologistes quant à la fréquence de l'évaluation et de la discussion des risques de DPO chez les personnes âgées, aux outils utilisés et à la perception des obstacles au dépistage de DPO. RéSULTATS: Quatre cent douze (des 510 personnes approchées) patient·es (50 % d'hommes; âge moyen, 73 ans) et 267 anesthésiologistes (sur 1205 invité·es par courriel) ont participé à cette étude menée dans cinq hôpitaux canadiens. Le dépistage et la discussion sur le delirium postopératoire ont été signalés par 88/412 (22 %) des patient·es et 229/267 (86 %) des anesthésiologistes. Le delirium postopératoire a été jugé « assez ­ extrêmement ¼ important par 64 % des patient·es. Des antécédents de delirium, des études supérieures, le nombre de médicaments quotidiens et une durée chirurgicale plus longue ont été associés à la discussion sur le DPO. En moyenne, les anesthésiologistes ont évalué l'importance du DPO à 8/10, et 42 % ont classé les « facteurs de risque liés au/à la patient·e ¼ comme la principale raison suscitant la discussion. CONCLUSION: L'évaluation combinée des points de vue des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes fournit des informations précieuses sur le dépistage préopératoire des DPO et l'évaluation des risques, et met en évidence les domaines à améliorer dans la pratique actuelle. La plupart des facteurs que nous avons identifiés comme étant associés à des probabilités plus élevées de discussion sur le DPO sont des facteurs de risque reconnus de DPO.

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of network meta-analyses in anesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-epidemiological study.

PURPOSE: The scientific rigour of the conduct and reporting of anesthesiology network meta-analyses (NMAs) is unknown. This systematic review and meta-epidemiological study assessed the methodological and reporting quality of NMAs in anesthesiology. METHODS: We searched four databases, including MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, for anesthesiology NMAs published from inception to October 2020. We assessed the compliance of NMAs against A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA), and PRISMA checklists. We measured the compliance across various items in AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists and provided recommendations to improve quality. RESULTS: Using the AMSTAR-2 rating method, 84% (52/62) of NMAs were rated "critically low." Quantitatively, the median [interquartile range] AMSTAR-2 score was 55 [44-69]%, while the PRISMA score was 70 [61-81]%. Methodological and reporting scores showed a strong correlation (R = 0.78). Anesthesiology NMAs had a higher AMSTAR-2 score and PRISMA score if they were published in higher impact factor journals (P = 0.006 and P = 0.01, respectively) or followed PRISMA-NMA reporting guidelines (P = 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Network meta-analyses from China had lower scores (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Neither score improved over time (P = 0.69 and P = 0.67, respectively). CONCLUSION: The current study highlights numerous methodological and reporting deficiencies in anesthesiology NMAs. Although the AMSTAR tool has been used to assess the methodological quality of NMAs, dedicated tools for conducting and assessing the methodological quality of NMAs are urgently required. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021227997); first submitted 23 January 2021.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La rigueur scientifique de la conduite et de la communication des méta-analyses en réseau (MAR) en anesthésiologie est inconnue. Cette revue systématique et étude méta-épidémiologique a évalué la qualité méthodologique et de communication des MAR en anesthésiologie. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené des recherches dans quatre bases de données, soit MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase et la base de données des revues systématiques Cochrane, pour trouver des MAR en anesthésiologie publiées depuis la création de ces bases de données jusqu'en octobre 2020. Nous avons évalué la conformité des MAR par rapport à trois outils, soit : AMSTAR-2 (outil de mesure pour évaluer les revues systématiques), PRISMA-NMA et les listes de contrôle PRISMA. Nous avons mesuré la conformité de divers éléments des listes de contrôle AMSTAR-2 et PRISMA et formulé des recommandations pour améliorer la qualité. RéSULTATS: En utilisant la méthode de notation AMSTAR-2, 84 % (52/62) des MAR ont reçu la cote « extrêmement faible ¼. Quantitativement, le score médian [écart interquartile] sur l'AMSTAR-2 était de 55 [44-69] %, tandis que le score PRISMA était de 70 [61-81] %. Les scores méthodologiques et de communication ont montré une forte corrélation (R = 0,78). Les MAR en anesthésiologie avaient un score AMSTAR-2 et un score PRISMA plus élevés si elles étaient publiées dans des revues à facteur d'impact plus élevé (P = 0,006 et P = 0,01, respectivement) ou avaient suivi les lignes directrices de PRISMA-NMA en matière de communication des résultats (P = 0,001 et P = 0,002, respectivement). Les méta-analyses en réseau provenant de Chine avaient des scores plus faibles (P < 0,001 et P < 0,001, respectivement). Aucun des deux scores ne s'est amélioré au fil du temps (P = 0,69 et P = 0,67, respectivement). CONCLUSION: La présente étude met en évidence de nombreuses lacunes méthodologiques et de communication dans les MAR en anesthésiologie. Bien que l'outil AMSTAR ait été utilisé pour évaluer la qualité méthodologique des MAR, il est urgent de disposer d'outils spécialisés pour mener des MAR et en évaluer la qualité méthodologique. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42021227997); soumis pour la première fois le 23 janvier 2021.

Quality of recovery after pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia: a randomised controlled observer-blinded trial.

BACKGROUND: The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a novel regional anaesthesia technique that has been proposed as an effective motor-sparing block for total hip arthroplasty. Recent randomised studies show conflicting results regarding the analgesic efficacy of the PENG block for total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled observer-blinded single-centre superiority trial comparing the efficacy of the PENG block with no block for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. All subjects received multimodal analgesia consisting of paracetamol and celecoxib. The primary outcome was quality of recovery (QoR) at 24 h as measured by the QoR-15 questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 112 participants (56 in each group) were included in the analysis. The median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 24-h QoR-15 scores were higher in subjects who received a PENG block (132 [116-138]) compared with subjects who did not (103 [97-112]) with a median difference of 26 (95% confidence interval, 18-31; P<0.001). Similarly, QoR-15 at 48 h was higher in the PENG group, and opioid use at 24 and 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the PENG group. However, we did not find significant differences in pain score, distance to ambulation, or anti-emetic use at any time point. We did not observe any PENG block-related complications. CONCLUSION: Adding a PENG block to a multimodal analgesia regimen that includes paracetamol and celecoxib improves the quality of recovery and reduces opioid requirements for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04591353.

Epidemiological, methodological, and statistical characteristics of network meta-analysis in anaesthesia: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) combine direct and indirect estimates to provide mixed (or network) estimates of effect sizes. The scientific rigour of the conduct and reporting of anaesthesia NMAs is unknown. This review assessed the epidemiological, methodological, and statistical characteristics of anaesthesia NMAs. METHODS: We searched four databases for anaesthesia NMAs and developed a 64-item checklist to evaluate NMAs. For 29 binary items, we defined compliance as 'the ratio of NMAs that was awarded a 'yes' for that item, divided by the total number of NMAs. The compliance of such binary items was reclassified as very low (≤25%), low (26-50%), fair (51-75%), and high (>75%). We amalgamated findings from 29 key items to provide specific recommendations (post hoc). We compared the compliance of NMAs in anaesthesia across 26 items, with that of cancer NMAs and Cochrane NMAs, and analysed improvement over time (post hoc). RESULTS: Among 62 included NMAs, compliance was low (26-50%) for protocol registration, use of PRISMA-NMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for NMA), publication bias assessment, evidence appraisal, reporting of Bayesian methodology and consistency evaluation. Compliance was very low (≤25%) for bias assessment, biostatistician involvement, search specialist, and use of predefined important differences. CONCLUSIONS: Anaesthesia NMAs need improvement in their conduct and reporting. Anaesthesia journals should mandate the registration of protocols and reporting of NMAs using PRISMA-NMA. Authors should carefully assess publication bias, and use updated bias assessment tools, and evidence appraisal methods designed for NMAs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021227608.