A Four-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial of Topical Pain Control for Sentinel Node Radiotracer Injections in Patients with Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radioactive tracer injections for breast cancer sentinel lymph node mapping can be painful. In this randomized trial, we compared four approaches to topical pain control for radiotracer injections. METHODS: Breast cancer patients were randomized (9 April 2021-8 May 2022) to receive the institutional standard of ice prior to injection (n = 44), or one of three treatments: ice plus a vibrating distraction device (Buzzy®; n = 39), 4% lidocaine patch (n = 44), or 4% lidocaine patch plus ice plus Buzzy® (n = 40). Patients completed the Wong-Baker FACES® pain score (primary outcome) and a satisfaction with pain control received scale (secondary). Nuclear medicine technologists (n = 8) rated perceived pain control and ease of administration for each patient. At study conclusion, technologists rank-ordered treatments. Data were analyzed as intention-to-treat. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare pain scores of control versus pooled treatment arms (primary) and then control to each treatment arm individually (secondary). RESULTS: There were no differences in pain scores between the control and treatment groups, both pooled and individually. Eighty-five percent of patients were 'satisfied/very satisfied' with treatment received, with no differences between groups. No differences in providers' perceptions of pain were observed, although providers perceived treatments involving Buzzy© more difficult to administer (p < 0.001). Providers rated lidocaine patch as the easiest, with ice being second. CONCLUSION: In this randomized trial, no differences in patient-reported pain or satisfaction with treatment was observed between ice and other topical treatments. Providers found treatments using Buzzy® more difficult to administer. Given patient satisfaction and ease of administration, ice is a reasonable standard.

Spectral changes in skin blood flow during pressure manipulations or sympathetic stimulation.

Skin blood flow is commonly determined by laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF). It has been suggested that pathophysiological conditions can be assessed by analysis of specific frequency domains of the LDF signals. We tested whether physiological stimuli that activate myogenic and neurogenic mechanisms would affect relevant portions of the laser Doppler spectrum. LDF sensors were placed on the right forearm of 14 healthy volunteers for myogenic (six females) and 13 for neurogenic challenge (five females). Myogenic responses were tested by positioning the arm ∼50° above/below heart level. Neurogenic responses were tested by immersing the left hand into an ice slurry with and without topical application of local anaesthetic. Short-time Fourier analyses were computed over the range of 0.06 to 0.15 Hz for myogenic and 0.02 to 0.06 Hz for neurogenic. No significant differences in spectral density were observed (P = 0.40) in the myogenic range with arm above (7 ± 54 × 10-4 dB) and below heart (7 ± 14 × 10-4 dB). Neurogenic spectral density showed no significant increase from baseline to cold pressor test (0.0017 ± 0.0013 and 0.0038 ± 0.0039 dB; P = 0.087, effect size 0.47). After application of anaesthetic, neurogenic spectral density was unchanged between the baseline and cold pressor test (0.0014 ± 0.0025 and 0.0006 ± 0.0005 dB; P = 0.173). These results suggest that changes in the myogenic and neurogenic spectral density of LDF signals did not fully reflect the skin vascular function activated by pressure manipulation and sympathetic stimulation. Therefore, LDF myogenic and neurogenic spectral density data should be interpreted with caution.

Liposomal Bupivacaine for Peripheral Nerve Blockade: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover, Triple-blinded Pharmacodynamic Study in Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the pharmacodynamic characteristics of liposomal bupivacaine. Hypothesizing that they would not identify pharmacodynamic differences from plain bupivacaine during the initial period after administration, but would find better long-term pharmacodynamic characteristics, the authors designed a randomized, controlled, triple-blinded, single-center study in volunteers. METHODS: Volunteers aged 18 to 55 yr (body mass index, 18 to 35 kg/m2) received two ulnar nerve blocks under ultrasound guidance. Using a crossover design with a washout phase of 36 days or more, one block was performed with liposomal and one with plain bupivacaine. Which came first was determined by randomization. Sensory data were collected by pinprick testing and motor data by thumb adduction, either way in comparison with the contralateral arm. Endpoints included success, time to onset, and duration of blockade. Residual efficacy was assessed by the volunteers keeping a diary. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon signed-rank and exact McNemar's tests, as well as a generalized estimation equation model. RESULTS: Successful sensory blockade was noted in 8 of 25 volunteers (32%) after liposomal and in 25 of 25 (100%) after plain bupivacaine (P < 0.0001). Significant differences emerged for time to onset, defined as 0% response to pinpricking in four of five hypothenar supply areas (P < 0.0001), and for time from onset to 80% or 20% in one of five areas (P < 0.001; P < 0.001). Carryover effects due to the randomized sequencing were unlikely (estimate, -0.6286; sequence effect, 0.8772; P = 0.474). Self-assessment greater than 3.5 days did reveal, for liposomal bupivacaine only, intermittent but unpredictable episodes of residual sensory blockade. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that liposomal bupivacaine is not a suitable "sole" drug for intraoperative regional anesthesia. Findings of its limited long-term efficacy add to existing evidence that a moderate effect, at best, should be expected on postoperative pain therapy.

Addition of Liposomal Bupivacaine to Standard Bupivacaine versus Standard Bupivacaine Alone in the Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Block: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The analgesic effect of adding liposomal bupivacaine to standard bupivacaine in supraclavicular brachial plexus block is not known. The authors hypothesized that addition of liposomal bupivacaine would reduce acute postoperative pain compared to standard bupivacaine alone. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded. Eighty patients undergoing distal radial fracture fixation during regional anesthesia with supraclavicular brachial plexus block were randomized into two groups. The liposomal bupivacaine group received 10 ml 0.5% plain bupivacaine immediately followed by 10 ml 1.33% liposomal bupivacaine (n = 40). The standard bupivacaine group received 20 ml 0.5% plain bupivacaine (n = 40). The primary outcome was weighted area under curve (AUC) numerical rating scale pain score at rest during the first 48 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included weighted AUC scores for pain with movement, overall benefit with analgesia score, and other functional scores. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, the liposomal bupivacaine group was associated with statistically significantly lower weighted AUC pain score at rest (0.6 vs. 1.4; P < 0.001) in the first 48 h. Of the secondary outcomes, no difference between treatment groups reached statistical significance with the exception of weighted AUC score for pain with movement (2.3 vs. 3.7; adjusted P < 0.001) and overall benefit with analgesia score (1.1 vs. 1.7; adjusted P = 0.020) in the first 48 h, as well as numerical rating scale pain score at rest (0.5 vs. 1.9; adjusted P < 0.001) and with movement (2.7 vs. 4.9; adjusted P < 0.001) on postoperative day 1. Differences in numerical rating scale pain scores on postoperative days 2, 3, and 4 did not reach the level of statistical significance. There were no statistically significant differences in sensory function. CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal bupivacaine given via supraclavicular brachial plexus block reduced pain at rest in the early postoperative period.

ANODYNE study: A double-blind randomized trial of greater occipital nerve block of methylprednisolone and lignocaine versus placebo as a transitional preventive treatment for episodic cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: There is inadequate evidence of the efficacy of greater occipital nerve block (GONB) for the preventive treatment of cluster headaches. We assessed the efficacy and tolerability of GONB injections as a transitional preventive treatment for episodic cluster headaches (ECH). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted at GB Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, New Delhi, India, included ECH patients diagnosed by ICHD-3 criteria, aged 18-65, with one or more attacks per 24 h for seven days before randomization (baseline). ECH patients were either not on preventive medications or on stable doses for at least three months. ECH patients were randomized to receive active GONB (2 ml methylprednisolone (80 mg) and 2 ml lignocaine (2%)) and placebo (4 ml saline injections). Before giving GONB, lignocaine jelly was applied topically to mask the effect of numbness following the GONB. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change in weekly attack frequency from baseline to Week 4. Efficacy analyses were performed in a modified intention-to-treat population that included all patients who received at least one injection of GONB and had a follow-up for one week following GONB. The safety analysis included treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAE) in all patients who received at least one dose of investigational product. The trial was registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2021/21/038397). RESULTS: Forty ECH patients were randomized between December 2021 and January 2023. Thirty-nine patients (19 in the active and 20 in the placebo groups) were available for efficacy analysis. The change in weekly attack frequency from baseline to Week 4 was -11.1 (95% CI: -8.5 to -4.4) for the active group compared to -7.7 (95% CI: -11.8 to -9.8) for placebo (mean difference -3.4 (95% CI: -5.2 to -1.7, p < 0.001). We noted TEAE in 18 (90%) of 20 patients who received the active drug and in 18 (90%) of 20 patients who received a placebo (p = 0.38). The common TEAE were local site bleeding and pain, which were mild and transient. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This study found that GONB with methylprednisolone and lignocaine significantly reduced the weekly attack frequency from baseline to Week 1 through Week 4 in ECH patients compared to a placebo. GONB was well tolerated.

Mepivacaine instillation for pain reduction during intrauterine device placement in nulliparous women: a double-blinded randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Fear of pain associated with intrauterine device (IUD) placement has been identified as a significant barrier to the adoption of long-acting reversible contraception, contributing to lower utilization of the most effective reversible contraceptive methods. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether instillation of intrauterine mepivacaine before IUD placement alleviates pain more effectively than a placebo. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving nulliparous women undergoing IUD placement. An intrauterine instillation of 10 mL of 20 mg/mL mepivacaine or 0.9 mg/mL sodium chloride was administrated through a hydrosonography catheter 2 minutes prior to IUD placement. Pain scores were assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) at prespecified time points. Primary outcome measured the difference in VAS pain scores between the intervention group and the placebo group during IUD placement. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain scores at instillation and 10 minutes after placement, tolerability of the placement pain, as well as acceptability of the analgesia method. RESULTS: We enrolled 151 participants, with 76 assigned to the mepivacaine group and 75 to the placebo group. The mean VAS pain score during IUD placement showed a difference of 13.3 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.75-20.87; P<.001): the mepivacaine group had a mean of 53.9 mm (standard deviation [SD] 22.8), while the placebo group had a mean of 67.2 mm (SD 22.4). After adjusting for each individual provider's impact, the difference in mean pain scores remained statistically significant (12.2 mm 95% CI 4.85-19.62; P<.001). A greater proportion of women in the intervention group reported tolerable pain during placement with 70/75 participants (93.3%) compared to 53/66 participants (80.3%) in the placebo group (P=.021). CONCLUSION: The intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine results in statistically significant reduction in pain score among nulliparous women during IUD placement. Although the precise clinical impact of this pain reduction method remains uncertain, the observed reduction in pain score result in a higher proportion of women reporting tolerable pain. This finding and the high acceptance as a pain reduction method thereby suggests clinical relevance. Intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine is a possible strategy to increase IUD utilization, particularly among nulliparous women who are at high risk of unintended pregnancy.

Eutectic mixture of local anesthetics and amethocaine as topical anesthetics in pediatrics: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients often receive topical anesthesia before skin procedures in the Emergency Department, with EMLA cream and amethocaine gel being common choices. The most effective option remains a subject of debate. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to compare EMLA cream with amethocaine gel in pediatric patients undergoing topical anesthesia, focusing on outcomes: first-attempt cannulation success, child-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) score, parent-reported VAS score, observed pain score, child-reported absence of pain, and child-reported acceptable anesthesia. METHODS: A database search for studies comparing EMLA cream and amethocaine gel in pediatric topical anesthesia was conducted. Two reviewers extracted and cross-verified data, with a third ensuring accuracy. Using R software, a pairwise meta-analysis was performed via the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios or standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects model. RESULTS: Amethocaine gel surpasses EMLA cream in child-reported pain absence and first cannulation success. No significant differences were found in child-reported acceptable anesthesia or observed pain scores. Similarly, child- and parent-reported VAS scores showed no variations between EMLA and amethocaine. CONCLUSION: This analysis favors amethocaine gel for pediatric topical anesthesia. Further large randomized trials comparing EMLA cream and amethocaine gel in pediatric patients are warranted. IMPACT: Procedural pain is a major concern for pediatric patients, their families, and physicians. Topical anesthesia is routinely given prior to children undergoing skin-related procedures in the Emergency Department. In pediatric patients, topical anesthetics such as eutectic mixture of local anesthetics cream and amethocaine gel have proved to be pioneering in pain reduction, but the most effective method is often disputed. Presently, this is the most comprehensive pooled analysis of trials comparing EMLA cream and amethocaine gel in pediatric patients undergoing topical anesthesia. Amethocaine performed better with regards to child-reported absence of pain and first attempt cannulation success.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Topical Analgesia Posthemorrhoidectomy (TAPH Trial).

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain remains the greatest problem after hemorrhoidectomy. Pain is hypothesized to arise from bacterial infection, sphincter spasm, and local inflammation. OBJECTIVE: This trial was conducted to assess the effects of metronidazole, diltiazem, and lidocaine on posthemorrhoidectomy pain. DESIGN: A double-blinded randomized controlled factorial trial. SETTINGS: This multicenter trial was conducted in Auckland, New Zealand. PATIENTS: A total of 192 participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into 4 parallel arms. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned into 1 of 4 groups receiving topical treatment with 10% metronidazole, 10% metronidazole + 2% diltiazem, 10% metronidazole + 4% lidocaine, or 10% metronidazole + 2% diltiazem + 4% lidocaine. Participants were instructed to apply treatment to the anal verge 3 times daily for 7 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was pain on the visual analog scale on day 4. The secondary outcomes included analgesia usage, pain during bowel movement, and functional recovery index. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the pain and recovery scores when diltiazem or lidocaine was added to metronidazole (score difference between presence and absence of diltiazem in the formulation: -3.69; 95% CI, -13.3 to 5.94; p = 0.46; between presence and absence of lidocaine: -5.67; 95% CI, -15.5 to 3.80; p = 0.24). The combination of metronidazole + diltiazem + lidocaine did not further reduce pain. Secondary analysis revealed a significant difference between the best (metronidazole + lidocaine) and worst (metronidazole + diltiazem + lidocaine) groups in both pain and functional recovery scores. There were no significant differences in analgesic usage, complications, or return to work between the groups. No clinically important adverse events were reported. The adverse event rate did not change in the intervention groups. LIMITATIONS: Topical metronidazole was used in the control group rather than a pure placebo. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in pain when topical diltiazem, lidocaine, or both were added to topical metronidazole. See Video Abstract . CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT04276298. ENSAYO CONTROLADO ALEATORIZADO DE ANALGESIA TPICA POSTERIOR A HEMORROIDECTOMA ENSAYO TAPH: ANTECEDENTES:El dolor postoperatorio sigue siendo el mayor problema tras hemorroidectomía. La hipótesis es que el dolor se debe a infección bacteriana, el espasmo esfínteriano e inflamación local.OBJETIVO:Se realizó un ensayo factorial aleatorizado y controlado para evaluar los efectos del metronidazol, el diltiazem y la lidocaína en el dolor posthemorroidectomía.DISEÑO:Ensayo factorial controlado aleatorizado doble ciego.ESCENARIO:Se realizó un ensayo multicéntrico en Auckland, Nueva Zelanda.PACIENTES:Se aleatorizó a 192 participantes (1:1:1:1) en cuatro brazos paralelos.INTERVENCIONES:Los participantes se asignaron aleatoriamente a uno de los cuatro grupos que recibieron tratamiento tópico con metronidazol al 10% (M), metronidazol al 10% + diltiazem al 2% (MD), metronidazol al 10% + lidocaína al 4% (ML), o metronidazol al 10% + diltiazem al 2% + lidocaína al 4% (MDL). Se indicó a los participantes que lo aplicaran en el margen anal 3 veces al día durante 7 días.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado primario fue el dolor en la escala analógica visual en el día 4. Los resultados secundarios incluyeron el uso de analgesia, el dolor al defecar y el índice de recuperación funcional.RESULTADOS:No hubo diferencias significativas en las puntuaciones de dolor y recuperación cuando se añadió diltiazem o lidocaína al metronidazol (diferencia de puntuación entre la presencia y la ausencia de D en la formulación: -3.69; IC del 95%: -13.3; 5.94; p = 0.46; entre la presencia y la ausencia de L: -5.67; IC del 95%: -15.5; 3.80; p = 0.24). La combinación de MDL no redujo más el dolor. El análisis secundario reveló una diferencia significativa entre los grupos mejor (ML) y peor (MDL) tanto en las puntuaciones de dolor como en las de recuperación funcional. No hubo diferencias significativas en el uso de analgésicos, las complicaciones o la reincorporación al trabajo entre los grupos. No se notificaron eventos adversos clínicamente importantes. La tasa de eventosadversos no cambió en los grupos de intervención.LIMITACIONES:Se utilizó metronidazol tópico en el grupo de control, en lugar de un placebo puro.CONCLUSIONES:No hubo diferencias significativas en el dolor cuando se añadió diltiazem tópico o lidocaína, o ambos, al metronidazol tópico. ( Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco )Identificador de registro del ensayo clínico:NCT04276298.

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine for gastroscopy: a double-blinded, randomized cross-over study in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The benefits of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for gastroscopy remain under debate. Articaine, a local anesthetic with fast onset and offset of action as well as low systemic toxicity, could be a promising choice for topical anesthesia. The objective of this study was to assess whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine is beneficial in sedated gastroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized double-blinded cross-over study included nine volunteers who underwent two gastroscopies under conscious sedation. One was performed with topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine and the other with placebo. Hemodynamic parameters including autonomic nervous system state were recorded prior to and during the endoscopic procedure. The endoscopist and the volunteer assessed the endoscopy after the examination. RESULTS: Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine resulted in less discomfort during esophageal intubation and higher patient satisfaction with the procedure. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia with articaine did not increase satisfaction or facilitate the procedure as rated by the endoscopist. There were no clinically relevant differences in hemodynamic parameters. CONCLUSION: The use of articaine for topical pharyngeal anesthesia results in less intubation-related discomfort and better satisfaction.

Assessing the effectiveness of greater occipital nerve block in chronic migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic migraine poses a global health burden, particularly affecting young women, and has substantial societal implications. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of Greater Occipital Nerve Block (GONB) in individuals with chronic migraine, focusing on the impact of local anesthetics compared with placebo. METHODS: A meta-analysis and systematic review were conducted following the PRISMA principles and Cochrane Collaboration methods. Eligible studies included case-control, cohort, and randomized control trials in adults with chronic migraine, adhering to the International Classification of Headache Disorders, third edition (ICHD3). Primary efficacy outcomes included headache frequency, duration, and intensity along with safety assessments. RESULTS: Literature searches across multiple databases yielded eight studies for qualitative analysis, with five included in the final quantitative analysis. A remarkable reduction in headache intensity and frequency during the first and second months of treatment with GONB using local anesthetics compared to placebo has been reported. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the intervention and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: The analysis emphasized the safety and efficacy of GONB, albeit with a cautious interpretation due to the limited number of studies and relatively small sample size. This study advocates for further research exploring various drugs, frequencies, and treatment plans to enhance the robustness and applicability of GONB for chronic migraine management.

Continuous stellate ganglion block for ventricular arrhythmias: case series, systematic review, and differences from thoracic epidural anaesthesia.

AIMS: Percutaneous stellate ganglion block (PSGB) through single-bolus injection and thoracic epidural anaesthesia (TEA) have been proposed for the acute management of refractory ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). However, data on continuous PSGB (C-PSGB) are scant. The aim of this study is to report our dual-centre experience with C-PSGB and to perform a systematic review on C-PSGB and TEA. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients receiving C-PSGB at two centres were enrolled. The systematic literature review follows the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Our case series (26 patients, 88% male, 60 ± 16 years, all with advanced structural heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction 23 ± 11%, 32 C-PSGBs performed, with a median duration of 3 days) shows that C-PSGB is feasible and safe and leads to complete VAs suppression in 59% and to overall clinical benefit in 94% of cases. Overall, 61 patients received 68 C-PSGBs and 22 TEA, with complete VA suppression in 63% of C-PSGBs (61% of patients). Most TEA procedures (55%) were performed on intubated patients, as opposed to 28% of C-PSGBs (P = 0.02); 63% of cases were on full anticoagulation at C-PSGB, none at TEA (P < 0.001). Ropivacaine and lidocaine were the most used drugs for C-PSGB, and the available data support a starting dose of 12 and 100 mg/h, respectively. No major complications occurred, yet TEA discontinuation rate due to side effects was higher than C-PSGB (18 vs. 1%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Continuous PSGB seems feasible, safe, and effective for the acute management of refractory VAs. The antiarrhythmic effect may be accomplished with less concerns for concomitant anticoagulation compared with TEA and with a lower side-effect related discontinuation rate.

Sequential administration of peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of chronic migraine and other headache disorders-A retrospective tolerability and safety study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the tolerability and safety of concurrent peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA treatment during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. BACKGROUND: Procedural interventions are available for the treatment of headache disorders. OnabotulinumtoxinA and peripheral nerve blocks are used as alternatives or in addition to oral therapies to reduce the frequency and intensity of migraine attacks. There is currently a lack of safety data focusing on the sequential administration of local anesthetic via peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA during a single clinical encounter for the treatment of headache. The primary aim of the study was to determine the safety and tolerability of concurrent peripheral nerve blockade and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single outpatient clinic procedure visit. We hypothesized that the dual intervention would be safe and well tolerated by patients with chronic migraine and other headache disorders. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using clinical data from patients seen by multiple providers over a 16-month timeframe at one outpatient headache clinic. Patients were identified by procedure codes and those receiving peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections during a single encounter within the study period were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were (1) patients 18 years and older who were (2) receiving both peripheral nerve blocks and onabotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of chronic migraine. Patients were excluded if they were under age 18, received their procedure outside of the clinic (emergency room, inpatient ward), or were receiving sphenopalatine ganglion blocks. Age- and sex-matched patients who received one procedure, either peripheral nerve blocks or onabotulinumtoxinA, were used for control. The primary outcome of this safety study was the number of adverse events that occurred in the dual intervention group compared to the single intervention control arms. Information regarding adverse events was gathered via retrospective chart review. If an adverse event was recorded, it was then graded by the reviewer utilizing the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events ranging from Grade 1 Mild Event to Grade 5 Death. Additionally, it was noted whether the adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: In total, 375 patients were considered eligible for inclusion in the study. After age and sex matching of controls, 131 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 131 patients receiving onabotulinumtoxinA alone and 104 patients receiving dual intervention were able to be compared to 104 patients receiving peripheral nerve block(s) alone. The primary endpoint analysis showed no significant difference in total adverse events between dual intervention compared to nerve blocks alone or onabotulinumtoxinA alone. The number of adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation approached but did not reach statistical significance for those receiving dual intervention versus onabotulinumtoxinA alone in the number of adverse events that led to treatment termination (4.6%, 6/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131, p = 0.065); however, the number of patients who discontinued therapy was not significantly different between those groups (2.3%, 3/131 vs. 0.8%, 1/131; p = 0.314; odds ratio 0.3 [0-3.2]; p = 0.338). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective chart review, there was no significant difference in adverse events or therapy discontinuation between patients receiving sequential peripheral nerve block(s) and onabotulinumtoxinA injections versus those receiving either peripheral nerve block(s) or onabotulinumtoxinA injections alone. As a result, we concluded that the combination procedure is likely safe and well tolerated in routine clinical practice.

Defining the optimal local anaesthetic infusion regimen for erector spinae plane block catheters: the devil is in the details.

Ni Eochagain and colleagues report that programmed intermittent bolus and continuous infusion regimens in continuous erector spinae plane (ESP) block catheters produced similar quality of recovery (QoR-15) scores, pain scores, and use of rescue opioids after video-assisted thoracic surgery. This is a reassuring finding for practitioners without access to pumps with programmed intermittent bolus functionality. Nevertheless, it remains plausible that the benefit of one regimen over another might vary depending on the specific infusion parameters. There continues to be scope for research into optimising programmed intermittent bolus delivery and dosing regimens and identifying the most appropriate clinical applications for this mode of infusion.

Intravenous versus perineural dexamethasone to prolong analgesia after interscalene brachial plexus block: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of perineural vs intravenous dexamethasone as a local anaesthetic adjunct to increase duration of analgesia could be particular to specific peripheral nerve blocks because of differences in systemic absorption depending on the injection site. Given this uncertainty, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis comparing dexamethasone administered perineurally or intravenously combined with local anaesthetic for interscalene brachial plexus block. METHODS: Following a search of various electronic databases, we included 11 trials (1145 patients). The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia defined as the time between peripheral nerve block or onset of sensory blockade and the time to first analgesic request or initial report of pain. RESULTS: The primary outcome, duration of analgesia, was greater in the perineural dexamethasone group, with a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of 122 (62-183) min, I2=73%, P<0.0001. Trial sequential analysis indicated that firm evidence had been reached. The quality of evidence was downgraded to low, mainly because of moderate inconsistency and serious publication bias. No significant differences were present for any of the secondary outcomes, except for onset time of sensory and motor blockade and resting pain score at 12 h, but the magnitude of differences was not clinically relevant. CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that perineural administration of dexamethasone as a local anaesthetic adjunct increases duration of analgesia by an average of 2 h compared with intravenous injection for interscalene brachial plexus block. Given the limited clinical relevance of this difference, the off-label use of perineural administration, and the risk of drug crystallisation, we recommend intravenous dexamethasone administration. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO (CRD42023466147).

Programmed intermittent bolus versus continuous infusion for catheter-based erector spinae plane block on quality of recovery in thoracoscopic surgery: a single-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia techniques, including the erector spinae fascial plane (ESP) block, reduce postoperative pain after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Fascial plane blocks rely on spread of local anaesthetic between muscle layers, and thus, intermittent boluses might increase their clinical effectiveness. We tested the hypothesis that postoperative ESP analgesia with a programmed intermittent bolus (PIB) regimen is better than a continuous infusion (CI) regimen in terms of quality of recovery after VATS. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, double-blinded, randomised, controlled trial involving 60 patients undergoing VATS. All participants received ESP block catheters and were randomly assigned to CI or PIB of local anaesthetic regimen for postoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative respiratory function, opioid consumption, verbal rating pain score, time to first mobilisation, nausea, vomiting, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Overall QoR-15 scores at 24 h after VATS were similar (PIB 115.5 [interquartile range 107-125] vs CI 110 [93-128]; Δ<6, P=0.29). The only quality of recovery descriptor showing a significant difference was nausea and vomiting, which was favourable in the PIB group (10 [10-10] vs 10 [7-10]; P=0.03). Requirement for rescue antiemetics up to 24 h after surgery was lower in the PIB group (4 [14%] vs 11 [41%]; P=0.04). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering ESP block analgesia after VATS via a PIB regimen resulted in similar QoR-15 at 24 h compared with a CI regimen.

The impact of timing, type, and method of instillation of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic in laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pain is common after laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic (IPLA) is effective in reducing pain and opioid use after laparoscopic surgery, although the optimum type, timing, and method of administration remains uncertain. We aimed to determine the optimal approach for delivering IPLA which minimises opioid consumption and pain after laparoscopic abdominal surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials comparing different combinations of the type (bupivacaine vs lidocaine vs levobupivacaine vs ropivacaine), timing (pre-vs post-pneumoperitoneum at the beginning or end of surgery), and method (aerosol vs liquid) of IPLA instillation in patients undergoing any laparoscopic abdominal surgery. A network meta-analysis was conducted to ascertain the optimum approach for delivering IPLA resulting in the least cumulative opioid consumption and pain (overall and localising to the shoulder) 24 h after surgery. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) assessments (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022307595). RESULTS: Twenty-five RCTs were included, among which 15 different combinations of delivering IPLA were analysed across 2401 participants. Aerosolised bupivacaine instilled at the end of surgery, before deflation of the pneumoperitoneum, was associated with significantly less postoperative opioid consumption compared with all other approaches for delivering IPLA (98.7% of comparisons; moderate certainty), aside from liquid levobupivacaine instilled before surgery and during or after creation of the pneumoperitoneum (mean difference -11.6, 95% credible interval: -26.1 to 2.5 i.v. morphine equivalent doses). There were no significant differences between different IPLA approaches regarding overall pain scores and incidence of shoulder pain up to 24 h after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There are limited studies and low-quality evidence to conclude on the optimum method of delivering IPLA in laparoscopic abdominal surgery. While aerosolised bupivacaine instilled at the end of surgery but before deflation of the pneumoperitoneum minimises postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores up to 24 h did not differ between the different modalities of delivering IPLA. The generalisability of these results is limited by the lack of utilisation of non-opioid analgesics in most trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022307595.

Ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca compartment block and early postoperative analgesia after total hip arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip replacement surgery can be painful; postoperative analgesia is crucial for comfort and to facilitate recovery. Regional anaesthesia can reduce pain and postoperative opioid requirements. The role of ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca block for analgesia after elective total hip arthroplasty is not well defined. This randomised trial evaluated its analgesic efficacy. METHODS: Consenting participants (134) scheduled for elective primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca block with ropivacaine 0.5% or sham block with saline. The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Additional outcomes included pain scores at 4, 8, 12, and 16 h, opioid-related side-effects (nausea, vomiting, pruritis), ability to perform physiotherapy on the first postoperative day, and physiotherapist-assessed quadriceps weakness. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in 24-h opioid consumption (block vs sham block, mean difference -3.2 mg oral morphine equivalent, 95% confidence interval -15.3 to 8.1 mg oral morphine equivalent, P=0.55) or any other prespecified outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty, ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca block with ropivacaine did not confer a significant opioid-sparing effect compared with sham block. There were no differences in other secondary outcomes including pain scores, opioid-related side-effects, or ability to perform physiotherapy on the first postoperative day. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT03069183).

The analgesic effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for acute and chronic persistent postsurgical pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and tumour resection carries a high prevalence of chronic persistent postsurgical pain (CPSP). Perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion has been proposed as protective against CPSP; however, evidence of its benefits is conflicting. This review evaluates the effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Randomised trials comparing perioperative lidocaine infusions with parenteral analgesia in breast cancer surgery patients were sought. The two co-primary outcomes were the odds of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after operation. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0-24 and 25-48 h; quality of recovery; opioid-related side-effects; and lidocaine infusion side-effects. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) random effects modelling was used. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1039 patients; lidocaine: 518, control: 521) were included. Compared with control, perioperative lidocaine infusion did not decrease the odds of developing CPSP at 3 and 6 months. Lidocaine infusion improved postoperative pain at 1 h by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.65 cm (-0.73 to -0.57 cm) (P<0.0001); however, this difference was not clinically important (1.1 cm threshold). Similarly, lidocaine infusion reduced oral morphine consumption by 7.06 mg (-13.19 to -0.93) (P=0.029) over the first 24 h only; however, this difference was not clinically important (30 mg threshold). The groups were not different for any of the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate-quality evidence that perioperative lidocaine infusion does not reduce CPSP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Routine use of lidocaine infusions for perioperative analgesia and CPSP prevention is not supported in this population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023420888.

An Innovative Approach to Determine Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus Pump Settings for Labor Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Three settings are required on a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) pump for labor analgesia: the PIEB next bolus (PIEBnb), PIEB interval (PIEBi), and PIEB volume (PIEBv). The ideal settings for these parameters are still unknown. We hypothesized a mathematical modeling tool, response surface methodology (RSM), could estimate 3 PIEB pump parameters while balancing 3 clinically important patient outcomes simultaneously. The study objective was to use RSM to estimate PIEB settings (PIEBnb, PIEBi, and PIEBv) while maximizing maternal satisfaction, minimizing the need for clinician-administered boluses, and optimizing the ratio of delivered/requested patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) boluses simultaneously. METHODS: With institutional ethics approval, a double-blind randomized trial was completed in a tertiary care labor and delivery center. Nulliparous, English-speaking American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II patients aged 18 to 45 years at full term, single gestation in vertex presentation, in spontaneous labor and ≤7 cm cervical dilation were included. Patients with comorbidities, contraindications to neuraxial analgesia, using chronic analgesics, <152 cm, or body mass index (BMI) >45 kg/m 2 were excluded. After informed consent, labor analgesia was initiated using 10 mL ropivacaine 0.2% with 10 µg/mL fentanyl solution and PCEA (volume 6 mL every 10 minutes). Patients were randomized to predetermined PIEB settings. RSM identified 3 pump settings that represented a stationary point that best maximized or minimized 3 outcomes simultaneously: PCEA ratio (a ratio closest to 1), clinician bolus (optimal is 0), and maternal satisfaction (visual analog scale, 0-100, ideal response is ≥90). RESULTS: Of 287 potential participants, 192 did not meet inclusion criteria or declined to participate, and 26 were withdrawn, leaving 69 patients for study inclusion. Using RSM, the suggested PIEB settings for all the primary study outcomes were as follows: PIEBnb = 29.4 minutes, PIEBi = 59.8 minutes, and PIEBv = 6.2 mL. These PIEB settings corresponded to the following clinical outcomes: maternal satisfaction at 93.9%, PCEA ratio at 0.77, and need for clinician bolus at 0.29. The dermatome sensory score was between T10 and T5 in 89% of the patients. The median lowest Bromage score was 4. CONCLUSIONS: This novel study used a mathematical model to estimate PIEB pump settings while simultaneously maximizing 3 clinical outcomes. Equally weighted clinical outcomes prevent maximal outcome optimization and may not reflect patient priorities. Future studies or quality improvement endeavors could use RSM methodology to estimate PIEB pump settings targeting optimal values for a single clinical outcome of determined importance to parturients.

What Is the Role of a Periarticular Injection for Knee Arthroplasty Patients Receiving a Multimodal Analgesia Regimen Incorporating Adductor Canal and Infiltration Between the Popliteal Artery and Capsule of the Knee Blocks? A Randomized Blinded Placebo-Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal analgesic protocols for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients remain controversial. Multimodal analgesia is advocated, often including peripheral nerve blocks and/or periarticular injections (PAIs). If 2 blocks (adductor canal block [ACB] plus infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee [IPACK]) are used, also performing PAI may not be necessary. This noninferiority trial hypothesized that TKA patients with ACB + IPACK + saline PAI (sham infiltration) would have pain scores that were no worse than those of patients with ACB + IPACK + active PAI with local anesthetic. METHODS: A multimodal analgesic protocol of spinal anesthesia, ACB and IPACK blocks, intraoperative ketamine and ketorolac, postoperative ketorolac followed by meloxicam, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and oral opioids was used. Patients undergoing primary unilateral TKA were randomized to receive either active PAI or control PAI. The active PAI included a deep injection, performed before cementation, of bupivacaine 0.25% with epinephrine, 30 mL; morphine; methylprednisolone; cefazolin; with normal saline to bring total volume to 64 mL. A superficial injection of 20 mL bupivacaine, 0.25%, was administered before closure. Control injections were normal saline injected with the same injection technique and volumes. The primary outcome was numeric rating scale pain with ambulation on postoperative day 1. A noninferiority margin of 1.0 was used. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were randomized. NRS pain with ambulation at POD1 in the ACB + IPACK + saline PAI group was not found to be noninferior to that of the ACB + IPACK + active PAI group (difference = 0.3, 95% confidence interval [CI], [-0.9 to 1.5], P = .120). Pain scores at rest did not differ significantly among groups. No significant difference was observed in opioid consumption between groups. Cumulative oral morphine equivalents through postoperative day 2 were 89 ± 40 mg (mean ± standard deviation), saline PAI, vs 73 ± 52, active PAI, P = .1. No significant differences were observed for worst pain, fraction of time in severe pain, pain interference, side-effects (nausea, drowsiness, itching, dizziness), quality of recovery, satisfaction, length of stay, chronic pain, and orthopedic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For TKA patients given a comprehensive analgesic protocol, use of saline PAI did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to active PAI. Neither the primary nor any secondary outcomes demonstrated superiority for active PAI, however. As we cannot claim either technique to be better or worse, there remains flexibility for use of either technique.