ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The dural puncture epidural (DPE) technique has been associated with better sacral analgesia compared with a traditional epidural (EPL) technique in laboring parturients. The aim of this study was to investigate whether DPE with a 27-gauge pencil-point needle compared with a traditional EPL technique produces more rapid bilateral sacral blockade in nulliparous parturients. METHODS: Patients were randomized to a DPE or EPL technique. Epidural analgesia in both groups was initiated with ropivacaine 0.1% and sufentanil 0.5⯵g/mL (15â¯mL) and maintained via programmed intermittent epidural boluses. Analgesic blockade was tested bilaterally beginning 10â¯min after initiation, and then at predefined intervals until delivery. The presence of an S2 blockade at 20â¯min was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Among 108 (54 per group) patients enrolled, bilateral sacral (S2) blockade at 20â¯min was significantly more common in the DPE than in the EPL group [47 (87%) vs. 23 (43%), absolute risk reduction (ARR) 44%, 95% CI 28 to 60; Pâ¯<â¯0.001]. Time to a numeric pain rating scale score (0-10 scale)â¯≤â¯3 (20 [20,30] min in both groups, HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.15; Pâ¯=â¯0.50), number of rescue doses [0 (0, 1) vs 0 (0, 1); P 0.08], and presence of bilateral S2 blockade at delivery were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The DPE technique with a 27-gauge pencil-point spinal needle more often provides bilateral sacral blockade at 20â¯min following block initiation compared with the EPL technique. The time to adequate analgesia and need for supplemental analgesia did not appear to differ between techniques.
Subject(s)
Analgesia, Epidural , Labor, Obstetric , Humans , Female , Pregnancy , Delivery, Obstetric , Cesarean SectionABSTRACT
The procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) working group develops evidence-based pain management recommendations. PROSPECT methodology is unique and rigorous. However, several limitations were recognised that needed to be addressed, and several new factors were identified that improved PROSPECT methodology. The aim of this article is to present updated PROSPECT methodology for development of recommendations for procedure-specific pain management, focusing on the methodological revisions we will implement. In future, included randomised clinical trials will need to be prospectively registered on a publicly accessible clinical trials database and the study design, including the primary outcome in the registration, should coincide with that in the published manuscript. Placebo-controlled studies in which the analgesic intervention of interest is solely paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitors or opioids will not be included. Studies comparing one drug in a particular class with another in the same class will also not be included. Future projects will use the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for quality of reporting of methodology and results. A modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will be used for grading of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. Finally, the updated PROSPECT methodology addresses several other limitations and implements new factors that all add rigour and transparency to developing procedure-specific pain management recommendations.
Subject(s)
Analgesics , Pain Management , Humans , Pain Management/methods , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicSubject(s)
Cesarean Section , Elective Surgical Procedures , Pregnancy , Humans , Female , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
The aim of neuraxial analgesia is to achieve excellent pain relief with the fewest adverse effects. The most recently introduced technique for epidural analgesia maintenance is the programmed intermittent epidural bolus. In a recent study, we compared this with patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion and found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus was associated with less breakthrough pain, lower pain scores, higher local anaesthetic consumption and comparable motor block. However, we had compared 10 ml programmed intermittent epidural boluses with 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. To overcome this potential limitation, we designed a randomised, multicentre non-inferiority trial using 10 ml boluses in each group. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain and total analgesic intake. Secondary outcomes included motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. The trial was considered positive if two endpoints were met: non-inferiority of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with respect to breakthrough pain; and superiority of patient-controlled epidural analgesia with respect to local anaesthetic consumption. A total of 360 nulliparous women were allocated randomly to patient-controlled epidural analgesia-only or programmed intermittent epidural bolus groups. The patient-controlled group received 10 ml boluses of ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 µg.ml-1 ; the programmed intermittent group received 10 ml boluses supplemented by 5 ml patient-controlled boluses. The lockout period was 30 min in each group and the maximum allowed hourly local anaesthetic/opioid consumption was identical between the groups. Breakthrough pain was similar between groups (11.2% patient controlled vs. 10.8% programmed intermittent, p = 0.003 for non-inferiority). Total ropivacaine consumption was lower in the PCEA-group (mean difference 15.3 mg, p < 0.001). Motor block, patient satisfaction scores and maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar across both groups. In conclusion, patient-controlled epidural analgesia is non-inferior to programmed intermittent epidural bolus if equal volumes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia are used to maintain labour analgesia and superior with respect to local anaesthetic consumption.
Subject(s)
Analgesia, Epidural , Analgesia, Obstetrical , Breakthrough Pain , Pregnancy , Infant, Newborn , Female , Humans , Anesthetics, Local , Ropivacaine , Breakthrough Pain/etiology , Analgesics , Analgesia, Epidural/methods , Analgesia, Patient-Controlled/methods , Analgesia, Obstetrical/methods , Double-Blind MethodABSTRACT
Competency-based training and active teaching methods are increasingly becoming accepted and utilized in medical schools and hospitals, and obstetric anesthesiology training is expected to follow this process. This article summarizes current modalities of obstetric anesthesiology training in five countries from various parts of the world. Analysis of these curricula shows that implementation of new educational methods is variable, incomplete, and lacking in data related to patient outcomes. Research in assessments and practical applications are required to avoid wide ranges of educational strategies.
Subject(s)
Anesthesiology , Internship and Residency , Humans , Anesthesiology/education , Curriculum , Hospitals , Clinical CompetenceABSTRACT
Up to 1% of pregnant women undergo anaesthesia for non-obstetric surgery. This study investigated neurodevelopmental outcomes after prenatal anaesthesia for maternal surgery. A bidirectional cohort study of children born between 2001 and 2018 was performed: neurodevelopmental outcomes of children who had received prenatal anaesthesia for maternal surgery were prospectively compared with unexposed children, with exposure status being assessed retrospectively. Children exposed to anaesthesia for obstetric and fetal surgery were excluded. The primary outcome was the global executive composite of the behaviour rating inventory of executive function score. Our secondary outcomes were: total problems; internalising problems and externalising problems derived from the child behaviour checklist; psychiatric diagnoses; and learning disorders. In 90% of exposed children, there was a single mean (SD) antenatal anaesthesia exposure lasting 91(94) min. There was a broad spectrum of indications, with abdominal surgery being most frequent. Parents of 129 exposed (response rate 68%) and 453 unexposed (response rate 63%) children participated. There were no arguments for non-response bias. After propensity weighting, there were no statistically significant differences in primary outcome, with a weighted mean difference (95%CI) of exposed minus unexposed children of 1.9 (-0.4-4.2), p = 0.10; or any of the secondary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness. Exploratory analyses, however, showed significant differences in certain subgroups for the primary outcome, (e.g. for intra-abdominal surgery, exposure duration > 1 h) and some cognitive subdomains (e.g. working memory and attention). This bidirectional cohort study, the largest investigation on the subject to date, has found no evidence in the general population for an association between prenatal exposure to anaesthesia and impaired neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia , Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects , Child , Humans , Female , Pregnancy , Cohort Studies , Child Development , Retrospective Studies , Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects/epidemiologySubject(s)
Cesarean Section , Elective Surgical Procedures , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular due to faster recovery times and reduced postoperative pain compared with thoracotomy. However, analgesic regimens for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery vary significantly. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. A systematic review was undertaken using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language, between January 2010 and January 2021 assessing the effect of analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. We retrieved 1070 studies of which 69 randomised controlled trials and two reviews met inclusion criteria. We recommend the administration of basic analgesia including paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitors pre-operatively or intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra-operative intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion may be used, specifically when basic analgesia and regional analgesic techniques could not be given. In addition, a paravertebral block or erector spinae plane block is recommended as a first-choice option. A serratus anterior plane block could also be administered as a second-choice option. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period.
Subject(s)
Analgesics/administration & dosage , Nerve Block/standards , Pain Management/standards , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted/methods , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/administration & dosage , Drug Therapy, Combination , Humans , Nerve Block/methods , Pain Management/methods , Pain, Postoperative/epidemiology , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted/adverse effectsABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review was to develop recommendations for the management of postoperative pain after primary elective total hip arthroplasty, updating the previous procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) guidelines published in 2005 and updated in July 2010. Randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses published between July 2010 and December 2019 assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic, surgical or other interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Five hundred and twenty studies were initially identified, of which 108 randomised trials and 21 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. Peri-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain include: paracetamol; cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective inhibitors; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone. In addition, peripheral nerve blocks (femoral nerve block; lumbar plexus block; fascia iliaca block), single-shot local infiltration analgesia, intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia also improved pain. Limited or inconsistent evidence was found for all other approaches evaluated. Surgical and anaesthetic techniques appear to have a minor impact on postoperative pain, and thus their choice should be based on criteria other than pain. In summary, the analgesic regimen for total hip arthroplasty should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and cyclo-oxygenase-2-selective inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. In addition, intra-operative intravenous dexamethasone 8-10 mg is recommended. Regional analgesic techniques such as fascia iliaca block or local infiltration analgesia are recommended, especially if there are contra-indications to basic analgesics and/or in patients with high expected postoperative pain. Epidural analgesia, femoral nerve block, lumbar plexus block and gabapentinoid administration are not recommended as the adverse effects outweigh the benefits. Although intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg can be used, the PROSPECT group emphasises the risks and side-effects associated with its use and provides evidence that adequate analgesia may be achieved with basic analgesics and regional techniques without intrathecal morphine.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Pain Management/methods , Pain, Postoperative/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , HumansSubject(s)
Pain Management , Pain, Postoperative , Humans , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & controlSubject(s)
Cesarean Section , Elective Surgical Procedures , Dexamethasone , Female , Humans , PregnancyABSTRACT
If an accidental dural puncture occurs, one option is to insert a catheter and use it as an intrathecal catheter. This avoids the need for a further injection and can rapidly provide labour analgesia and anaesthesia for caesarean section. However, there are no recommendations for managing intrathecal catheters and, therefore, significant variation in clinical practice exists. Mismanagement of the intrathecal catheter can lead to increased motor block, high spinal anaesthesia, drug error, hypotension and fetal bradycardia. Care must be taken with an intrathecal catheter to adhere to strict aseptic technique, meticulous labelling, cautious administration of medications and good communication with the patient and other staff. Every institution considering the use of intrathecal catheters should establish a protocol. For labour analgesia, we recommend the use of dilute local anaesthetic agents and opioids. For caesarean section anaesthesia, gradual titration to the level of the fourth thoracic dermatome, with full monitoring, in a facility equipped to manage complications, should be performed using local anaesthetics combined with lipophilic opioids and morphine or diamorphine. Although evidence of the presence and duration of intrathecal catheters on the development of post-dural puncture headache and need for epidural blood patch is limited, we suggest considering leaving the intrathecal catheter in for 24 hours to reduce the chance of developing a post-dural puncture headache while maintaining precautions to avoid drug error and cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Injection of sterile normal saline into the intrathecal catheter may reduce post-dural puncture headache. The level of evidence for these recommendations was low.