Effectiveness of Erector Spinae Plane Block as Perioperative Analgesia in Midline Sternotomies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: With the advancements in regional anesthesia and ultrasound techniques, the use of non-neuraxial blocks like the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been increasing in cardiac surgeries with promising outcomes. A total of 3,264 articles were identified through a literature search. Intervention was defined as ESPB. Comparators were no regional technique performed or sham blocks. Four studies with a total of 226 patients were included. Postoperative opioid consumption was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -204.08; 95% CI: -239.98 to -168.19; P < 0.00001). Intraoperative opioid consumption did not differ between the two groups (WMD: -398.14; 95% CI: -812.17 to 15.98; P = 0.06). Pain scores at 0 hours were lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.56; P = 0.0005). Pain scores did not differ between the two groups at 4-6 hours (WMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.13; P = 0.09) and 12 hours (WMD: -0.83; 95% CI: -1.82 to 0.16; P = 0.10). Duration of mechanical ventilation in minutes was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -45.12; 95% CI: -68.82 to -21.43; P = 0.0002). Given the limited number of studies and the substantial heterogeneity of measured outcomes and interventions, further studies are required to assess the benefit of ESPB in midline sternotomies.

The Effect of Sedation on Diagnostic Lumbar Medial Branch Blocks for Facetogenic Low Back Pain: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar medial branch blocks (MBB) are some of the most commonly performed pain procedures in the United States. Diagnostic MBBs are performed to confirm if the generator of low back pain is the facet joint. However, with diagnostic injections, false positive blocks may occur. OBJECTIVES:   Our prospective observational study aims to investigate the effects of midazolam sedation on patients' perceived intensity of pain relief following lumbar MBB. STUDY DESIGN: This is a single-center multi-site prospective observational study registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04453449). SETTING: The study was approved by the Henry Ford Health System Institutional Review Board (IRB) in June 2020 (IRB# 14010) and registered on clinicaltrials.gov in July 2020 (NCT04453449). This manuscript adheres to the applicable EQUATOR STROBE guidelines for an observational cohort study. METHODS: Patients that underwent MBB without sedation were compared to sedated patients. Patients were asked to complete the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline, one day after their diagnostic blocks, as well as 4 weeks and 8 weeks after their lumbar radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The primary outcome is the difference between baseline NRS pain scores and the lowest reported score in the 8 hours following MBB. For patients who proceed to RFA, the frequency of false positive blocks was evaluated. A patient was considered to have a false positive block when they failed to achieve 50% pain relief from RFA after 2 successful sequential MBBs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the NRS pain score change between the sedated and non-sedated groups for diagnostic block one (P = 0.167) and diagnostic block 2 (P = 0.6145). There was no significant difference of false positive rates between non-sedation and sedation patients at 4-weeks post-RFA (P = 0.7178) and at 8-weeks post-RFA (P = 1.000). LIMITATIONS: Some of the limitations of this study include its nonrandomized design, patient self-reported pain scores, as well as the small variability in the injection technique of proceduralists and in the anatomical location of the injection site. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that midazolam did not change patients' perceived intensity of pain following MBB, as well as false positive rates after RFA. Larger studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.

Chronic Pelvic Pain, Quality of Life, and Patient Satisfaction After Robotic Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Background and objective When evaluating repair outcomes in robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), it has become evident that surgeons usually focus on anatomical improvements and neglect equally important parameters of patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL). Investigating these factors would aid in achieving a more patient-centered approach to treatment. This study aimed to examine QoL and satisfaction outcomes in women after RSC. Methods This study analyzed self-reported patient data regarding RSC for POP performed between October 2009 and February 2017 by fellowship-trained urologists in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. These patients participated in a survey to assess overall satisfaction and QoL, as well as contributing factors, such as changes in bladder and bowel function, vaginal bulge, and vaginal pain on a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from markedly worse to markedly improved). Data were examined using multivariate regression analysis. Positive treatment response was defined as scores of 6 or 7, whereas negative response was defined as scores of 1 to 5. Results The response rate was 41% (156/380), and the median age of the participants was 70 years [interquartile range (IQR): 63, 73]. Of note, 98.7% were Caucasian, with 73% currently in a significant relationship. The median duration since RSC was 2.12 years (IQR: 1.2, 3.7). Overall, 93 (66.9%), patients (23.0%), and 123 patients (88.5%) had a positive treatment response for bladder function, bowel function, and vaginal bulge, respectively. Furthermore, 66% of women had improved QoL, 84% reported improved overall satisfaction, and 91.4% stated that they would recommend RSC to a friend. After controlling for significant covariates, results of a multivariate analysis demonstrated positive treatment response for bladder function [odds ratio (OR): 14.6; p < 0.0001], bowel function (OR: 9.72; p = 0.003), and vaginal bulge (OR: 41.7; p < 0.0001), significantly associated with increased odds of having improved QoL, whereas positive treatment response for vaginal bulge (OR: 26.9; p = 0.023) and recommending RSC to a friend (OR: 175; p = 0.0009) were associated with positive overall satisfaction. Conclusions Our findings endorse using RSC surgery for patients with POP based on both QoL improvement and overall post-procedure satisfaction perspective. This study may help encourage surgeons and clinicians to employ a surgical modality that incorporates each patient's unique treatment desires and goals and provide patients with realistic post-procedure goals and expectations regarding treatment.