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).

Extent of cervical lymph node dissection: Recommendations from the Francophone Association for Endocrine Surgery, the French Society of Endocrinology and the French Society of Nuclear Medicine.

When metastatic ipsilateral central lymph nodes from thyroid cancer are identified pre- or intraoperatively (cN1a), ipsilateral central lymph node dissection should be performed concomitantly with thyroidectomy. When the patient is N1a on one side, contralateral prophylactic central lymph node dissection can also be considered. Prophylactic ipsilateral lymph dissection is not recommended. Ipsilateral compartment lymph node dissection is recommended in the corresponding sector for treatment of thyroid cancer with lymph node involvement (cN1b). Lymph node dissection can be limited to sectors III and IV when one of these sectors (or both) is involved and ultrasound does not demonstrate involvement of the other lateral sectors. Associated prophylactic lymph node dissection of sectors IIA and IIB is not recommended, while lymph node dissection of sector V (and exceptionally sector I) is indicated only when metastatic lymph nodes are proven. Prophylactic lymph node dissection of sector VB can be considered when positive lymph nodes are identified in sectors II, III and IV. When isolated metastatic lateral lymph nodes are identified (cN1b), prophylactic central (sector VI) lymph node dissection is recommended on the same side as the lateral compartment in addition to ipsilateral lateral lymph node compartment dissection. The level of evidence is insufficient to recommend prophylactic lateral lymph node dissection on the contralateral side for unilateral cN1b tumors. This type of lymph node dissection can be discussed for tumors that are at high risk of recurrence, bilateral tumors, in case of ipsilateral lateral lymph nodes > 3cm or in presence of > 4 metastatic lymph nodes in the central compartment.

Comparison of the performance and safety of 2 ophthalmic viscosurgical devices in cataract surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance and safety of 2 ophthalmic viscosurgical devices (OVDs)-Twinvisc (OVD 1) and Duovisc (OVD 2)-in cataract surgery. SETTING: European multicenter study. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled study. METHODS: Patients with cataract had phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation in 1 eye. They were randomly assigned to receive OVD 1 or OVD 2. Preoperative and postoperative examinations over 3 months included mean intraocular pressure (IOP), incidence of IOP peaks (≥30 mm Hg and ≥24 mm Hg), endothelial cell count (ECC), corneal thickness, and intraocular inflammation. A subjective evaluation of the OVDs was performed. RESULTS: The study comprised 220 patients. The incidence of IOP peaks and the mean IOP were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups at any of the follow-up visits. At 6 hours, the incidence of IOP spikes 30 mm Hg or higher was 6.5% and 7.2% in the OVD 1 and the OVD 2 groups, respectively (P = .846). For the IOP spikes 24 mm Hg or higher, the incidence was 16.8% and 25.2%, respectively (P = .128). Three months postoperatively there was no statistically significant difference in ECC and pachymetry between the 2 groups. Mild inflammation was noticed up to 7 days postoperatively after which it resolved in both groups. Subjectively, the OVD 2 was easier to use, whereas the OVD 1 had better cohesive and dispersive properties. CONCLUSIONS: Both OVDs have similar performance and safety profiles in phacoemulsification cataract surgery. No clinically relevant differences were found between the 2 devices regarding transient IOP spikes, mean IOP, corneal endothelium injury, or inflammation.