Erector spinae plane block vs. peri-articular injection for pain control after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

Interscalene brachial plexus block is the standard regional analgesic technique for shoulder surgery. Given its adverse effects, alternative techniques have been explored. Reports suggest that the erector spinae plane block may potentially provide effective analgesia following shoulder surgery. However, its analgesic efficacy for shoulder surgery compared with placebo or local anaesthetic infiltration has never been established. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the analgesic efficacy of pre-operative T2 erector spinae plane block with peri-articular infiltration at the end of surgery. Sixty-two patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder repair were randomly assigned to receive active erector spinae plane block with saline peri-articular injection (n = 31) or active peri-articular injection with saline erector spinae plane block (n = 31) in a blinded double-dummy design. Primary outcome was resting pain score in recovery. Secondary outcomes included pain scores with movement; opioid use; patient satisfaction; adverse effects in hospital; and outcomes at 24 h and 1 month. There was no difference in pain scores in recovery, with a median difference (95%CI) of 0.6 (-1.9-3.1), p = 0.65. Median postoperative oral morphine equivalent utilisation was significantly higher in the erector spinae plane group (21 mg vs. 12 mg; p = 0.028). Itching was observed in 10% of patients who received erector spinae plane block and there was no difference in the incidence of significant nausea and vomiting. Patient satisfaction scores, and pain scores and opioid use at 24 h were similar. At 1 month, six (peri-articular injection) and eight (erector spinae plane block) patients reported persistent pain. Erector spinae plane block was not superior to peri-articular injection for arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Satisfactory analgesia with minimal emesis in day surgeries: a randomised controlled trial of morphine versus hydromorphone.

BACKGROUND: Opioids remain the mainstay therapy for post-surgical pain. Although both morphine and hydromorphone are potent analgesics, it has been suggested that hydromorphone is clinically better. Our primary objective was to compare morphine with hydromorphone for achieving satisfactory analgesia with minimal emesis (SAME). METHODS: We performed a multicentre RCT in 402 patients having ambulatory surgery. A random computer-generated allocation, stratified by site, was developed by our pharmacy. Concealment was achieved by allocating patients to study groups by nurses using sequentially coded study medication syringes having equi-analgesic doses, made available in the postoperative recovery room. Patients, health providers, and research personnel were blinded. The operating-room protocol allowed for routine anaesthetic management, excluding the use of study medications. Study medications were administered by recovery nurses as per an algorithm. Analyses utilised the intention-to-treat principle, and regression analyses were used for outcomes as appropriate and using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Of 751 patients, 402 were randomised between morphine (n=199) and hydromorphone (n=203). Baseline and intraoperative variables were comparable across the groups. The odds of achieving SAME were similar between the groups (odds ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.80). There were no differences in the side-effects of severe itching, respiratory depression, or sedation. Patient satisfaction, discharge times, and post-discharge outcomes, including pain and nausea/vomiting over 24 h, were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between morphine and hydromorphone regarding analgesia and common side-effects. The appearance of dose-limiting side-effects is idiosyncratic; the clinical decision must be based on individual responses. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02223377.

Type 2 diabetes remission rates 1-year post-Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and validation of the DiaRem score: the Ontario Bariatric Network experience.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is associated with the remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). There are a number of scoring systems available that help predict type 2 diabetes remission rates after bariatric surgery; however, relatively few have been validated externally. The DiaRem score, comprised of four preoperative variables (age, haemoglobin A1c [HbA1c], sulfonylurea and insulin-sensitizing agent use and insulin use), allows for the identification of patients who are most likely to have DM remission following RYGB. Our primary objective was to determine the variables predictive of DM remission 1 year post-RYGB, determine how well the DiaRem score predicts DM remission 1 year post-RYGB and identify the optimal cut-off DiaRem score. The study is based on results of RYGB performed across multiple centres in Ontario, Canada, overseen by the Centre for Surgical Invention and Innovation in Hamilton, with direction from the Ontario Bariatric Network. Regression analysis was used to determine the predictive value of demographic and clinical variables and that of the DiaRem score. The optimal DiaRem cut-off score was determined using sensitivity and specificity analysis. Of 3874 patients in the Ontario Bariatric Registry between January 2010 and February 2015, 915 had complete 1-year follow-up data. Among these, 15 were not classified as having DM at baseline and were excluded. Of the remaining 900 patients with type 2 diabetes and who underwent RYGB surgery, 333 (37.0%) had DM remission at 1-year follow-up. Three of four DiaRem variables (age, HbA1c, insulin use), in addition to use of any hypoglycaemic agent, were associated with DM remission. DiaRem score had moderate predictive value. A DiaRem score cut-off of <5 had a sensitivity of 71.8% and specificity of 71.3%. This study provides guidance to clinicians in using the DiaRem score to inform the selection and prioritization of patients to ensure timely access to bariatric surgery for those who are likely to benefit the most.