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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

Local anaesthesia for pain control in first trimester surgical abortion.

BACKGROUND: Abortions prior to 14 weeks are among the most common outpatient surgical procedures performed on people capable of becoming pregnant. Various methods have been used to control pain; however, many people still experience pain with the procedure. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of local anaesthesia given for pain control during surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, POPLINE, and Google Scholar to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials of pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using suction aspiration. We searched the reference lists of related reviews and articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected effectiveness and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials that studied local anaesthesia with common local anaesthetics and administration routes given for pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using uterine aspiration. Outcomes included intraoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We computed mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables reporting a mean. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 1992 participants met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity of interventions, we could not pool more than two studies for any outcome. We used 13 mm improvement on a visual/verbal analogue scale to indicate a clinically meaningful difference in pain with surgical abortion (pain with dilation, aspiration, or during procedure). Based on type of pain control, we divided studies into three groups. Paracervical block (PCB) effectiveness trials A 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB reduced pain with dilation (MD -37.00, 95% CI -45.64 to -28.36), and aspiration (MD -26.00, 95% CI -33.48 to -18.52) compared to a sham PCB (1 RCT, 120 participants; high-certainty evidence). A PCB with 14 mL of 1% chloroprocaine resulted in a slight reduction in pain with aspiration compared to a PCB with normal saline injected at two or four sites (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.55; 1 RCT, 79 participants; high-certainty evidence). PCB comparative effectiveness trials An ultracaine PCB probably results in little to no clinically meaningful difference in pain during procedure compared to topical cervical lidocaine spray (median 1 point higher, interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A 1000 mg dose of intravenous paracetamol probably does not decrease pain as much as ultracaine PCB during procedure (median 2 points higher, IQR 1 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Various local anaesthetics in PCB comparative effectiveness trials A 10 mL buffered 2% lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.80, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.71; 1 RCT, 167 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A buffered lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, 291 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique effectiveness trials PCB: waiting versus no waiting Waiting three to five minutes between 1% lidocaine PCB injection and dilation probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to not waiting (MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Topical cervical analgesia Topical 10 mL 2% lignocaine gel probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to KY Jelly (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.14; 1 RCT, 131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants who also received a PCB, 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain during the procedure compared to two pumps of normal saline spray (median -1 point, IQR -2 to -1; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 55 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intravenous paracetamol 1000 mg compared to two pumps of cervical lidocaine spray probably does not results in a clinically meaningful difference in pain procedure (median 1 point, IQR -2 to 2; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique comparative effectiveness trials Depth of PCB The evidence suggests that a 3-cm deep PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to a 1.5-cm deep PCB (MD -1.00, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.91; 2 RCTs, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). PCB: four sites versus two sites A two-site (4-8 o'clock) 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a four-site (2-4-8-10 o'clock) PCB (MD 8.60, 95% CI 0.69 to 16.51; 1 RCT, 163 participants; high-certainty evidence). Overall, participants reported moderately high satisfaction with pain control and studies reported few adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this updated review indicates that a 20 mL 1% plain lidocaine PCB decreases pain during an abortion procedure. Evidence supports forgoing buffering lidocaine and a wait time between PCB injection and cervical dilation. A 1.5-cm deep injection as opposed to a 3-cm deep injection is sufficient. A two-site PCB injection as opposed to a four-site injection has similar effectiveness. Topical cervical anaesthesia (10 mL 2% lignocaine gel or 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray) as compared to placebo did not decrease pain based on moderate-certainty evidence, but then when compared to PCB, pain control was similar. Due to this inconsistency in evidence regarding the effectiveness of topical anaesthesia, its routine use is presently not supported. This review did not include studies of pain management with conscious sedation but, based on the results of our prior Cochrane review and the 2022 WHO guidelines, we recommend that the option of combination of pain management using conscious sedation plus PCB and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be offered where conscious sedation is available as it further decreases pain.

Lidocaine spray vs mepivacaine local infiltration for suturing 1st/2nd grade perineal lacerations: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Perineal lacerations are a very common complication of post-partum. Usually, the repair of 1st and 2nd-grade lacerations is performed after the administration of local anesthesia. Despite the great relevance of the problem, there are only a few studies about the best choice of local anesthetic to use during suturing. We performed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of a local anesthetic spray during the suturing of perineal lacerations in the post-partum. METHODS: We compared the spray with the standard technique, which involves the infiltration of lacerated tissues, using the NRS scale. 136 eligible women who had given birth at University Hospital of Udine were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive nebulization of Lidocaine hydrochloride 10% spray (experimental group) or subcutaneous/submucosal infiltration of mepivacaine hydrochloride (control group) during suturing of perineal laceration. RESULTS: The lacerations included 84 1st-grade perineal traumas (61.7%) and 52 2nd-grade perineal traumas (38.2%). All the procedures were successfully completed without severe complications or serious adverse reactions. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of blood losses or total procedure time. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of NRS to none of the intervals considered. Regarding the application of the spray in the B group, in 36 cases (52.9%) it was necessary to improve the number of puffs previously supposed to be sufficient (5 puffs). Just in 3 cases, an additional injection was necessary (4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that lidocaine spray alone can be used as a first line of local anesthetic during the closure of I-II-grade perineal lacerations, as it has comparable efficacy to mepivacaine infiltration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was recorded on https://clinicaltrials.gov . Identification number: NCT05201313. First registration date: 21/01/2022. Unique Protocol ID: 0042698/P/GEN/ARCS.

Pectoral Nerve Block II for Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the pectoral nerves (PECS) II block in facilitating cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) insertion in a sample of 120 patients, with a focus on the percentage of cases completed without additional intraoperative local anesthesia. METHODS: PECS II blocks were performed on the left side using ultrasound guidance in all 120 patients. Feasibility was assessed by the proportion of cases completed without the need for extra intraoperative local anesthetic. Secondary outcomes included the amount of additional local anesthetic used, intraoperative opioid requirements, postoperative pain scores, time to first postoperative analgesia, analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, and block-related complications. RESULTS: Of the 120 patients, 78 (65%) required additional intraoperative local anesthetic, with a median volume of 8.2 mL (range 3-13 mL). Fifteen patients (12.5%) needed intraoperative opioid supplementation. Nine patients (7.5%) required postoperative tramadol for pain relief. In total, 98 patients (81.7%) reported high satisfaction levels with the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The PECS II block, when combined with supplementary local anesthetic, provided effective postoperative analgesia for at least 24 h in 120 patients undergoing CIED insertion. While it did not completely replace surgical anesthesia in most cases, the PECS II block significantly contributed to a smoother intraoperative experience for patients.

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine as a Local Anesthetic Adjuvant for Iliac Fascia Compartment Block on Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients Undergoing Elective Hip Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: We analyzed the effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX) as a local anesthetic adjuvant on postoperative delirium (POD) in elderly patients undergoing elective hip surgery. METHODS: In this study, 120 patients undergoing hip surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to two groups: fascia iliaca compartment block with DEX + ropivacaine (the Y group, n = 60) and fascia iliaca compartment block with ropivacaine (the R group, n = 60). The primary outcomes: presence of delirium during the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) period and on the first day (D1), the second day (D2), and the third day (D3) after surgery. The secondary outcomes: preoperative and postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), occurrence of insomnia on the preoperative day, day of operation, D1 and D2; HR values of patients in both groups before iliac fascia block (T1), 30 min after iliac fascia block (T2), at surgical incision (T3), 20 min after incision (T4), when they were transferred out of the operating room (T5) and after leaving the recovery room (T6) at each time point; VAS for T1, PACU, D1, D2; the number of patients requiring remedial analgesics within 24 h after blockade and related complications between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients were included in the final analysis, with 11 and 12 patients withdrawing from the R and Y groups, respectively. The overall incidence of POD and its incidence in the PACU and ward were all lesser in the Y group than in the R group (p < 0.05). Additionally, fewer cases required remedial analgesia during the PACU period, and more vasoactive drugs were used for maintaining circulatory system stability in the Y group as compared to the R group (p < 0.05). At the same time, the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative bradycardia in the Y group was higher than that in the R group, accompanied by lower postoperative CRP and ESR (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided high fascia iliaca compartment block with a combination of ropivacaine and DEX can reduce the incidence of POD, the use of intraoperative opioids and postoperative remedial analgesics, and postoperative inflammation in elderly patients who have undergone hip surgery, indicating that this method could be beneficial in the prevention and treatment of POD.

A systematic review of procedural modalities in the treatment of notalgia paresthetica.

BACKGROUND: Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a rare condition characterized by localized pain and pruritus of the upper back, associated with a distinct area of hyperpigmentation. Given the lack of standardized treatment and the uncertain efficacy of available options, applying procedural methods is of growing interest in treating NP. AIMS: We sought to comprehensively evaluate the role of procedural treatments for NP. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed/Medline, Ovid Embase, and Web of Science until November 14th, 2023. We also performed a citation search to detect all relevant studies. Original clinical studies published in the English language were included. RESULTS: Out of 243 articles, sixteen studies have reported various procedural modalities, with or without pharmacological components, in treating NP. Pharmacological procedures, including injections of botulinum toxin, lidocaine, and corticosteroids, led to a level of improvement in case reports and case series. However, botulinum toxin did not show acceptable results in a clinical trial. Moreover, non-pharmacological procedures were as follows: physical therapy, exercise therapy, kinesiotherapy, acupuncture and dry needling, electrical muscle stimulation, surgical decompression, and phototherapy. These treatments result in significant symptom control in refractory cases. Physical therapy can be considered a first-line choice or an alternative in refractory cases. CONCLUSION: Procedural modalities are critical in the multidisciplinary approach to NP, especially for patients who are refractory to topical and oral treatments. Procedural modalities include a spectrum of options that can be applied based on the disease's symptoms and severity.