Search

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Guidelines are increasingly being used for clinical decision-making. Such guidelines are usually based on meta-analyses, which are generally derived from RCTs. However, their interpretations are often hindered as they do not always consider current clinical relevance. Analyses of RCTs assessing analgesic efficacy of advanced regional analgesic techniques in knee arthroplasty show that the majority of trials do not include a package of basic analgesics such as paracetamol, NSAIDs or cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitors, dexamethasone, and local infiltration analgesia in the comparator group. Consequently, the current approach to analyse meta-analyses of pain interventions is not optimal, and may lead to inadequate or inappropriate conclusions and clinical guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regional analgesia is a core component of an optimal multimodal analgesia technique. Several advanced regional analgesic techniques have been evaluated for mastectomy; however, the optimal choice remains unclear. Many randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating various local/regional analgesic techniques do not include basic analgesics (i.e. paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cyclooxygenase-2 specific inhibitors, and dexamethasone) which precludes objective evaluation of their efficacy. The aim of this scoping review was to assess the use of basic analgesics in RCTs evaluating efficacy of local and regional analgesic techniques in patients undergoing mastectomy. PubMed was searched to identify relevant articles from January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2023. The key finding of this study is that almost 90% (n =82/92) of the RCTs evaluating local/regional analgesic techniques in patients undergoing mastectomy did not administer well accepted basic analgesics in the comparator groups. Consequently, the conclusions of the RCTs assessing local/regional analgesic techniques for mastectomy should be interpreted with caution. Also, clinical guidelines based on meta-analyses of these RCTs could be inadequate or inappropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways are essential for ambulatory surgery. They usually recommend lower intraoperative opioid use to avoid opioid-related adverse effects. This has led to opioid-sparing anaesthesia (OSA) techniques, with the extreme approach of opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) mostly with dexmedetomidine. As evidence is lacking in day-case primary total hip arthroplasty, this study was performed to assess the potential benefits in postoperative analgesia of OFA over OSA. In this single-centre, prospective, triple blind study, we randomly allocated 80 patients undergoing day-case primary THA under general anaesthesia. Patients received a total intravenous anaesthesia with a laryngeal mask and multimodal analgesic regimen with non-opioid analgesics. The OSA group received low dose of sufentanil, and the OFA group received dexmedetomidine The primary outcome was the opioid consumption in the first 24 h in oral morphine equivalents (OME). There was no difference in median cumulative OME consumption at 24 h between the OSA and OFA groups (12 [0–25] mg vs 16 [0–30] mg, respectively; P =0.7). Pain scores were similar and low in both groups with comparable walking recovery time. Adverse events were sparse and equivalent in both groups except for dizziness, which was more frequent in the OSA group (P <0.05). In day-case total hip arthoplasty under general anaesthesia, opioid-free anaesthesia and opioid-sparing anaesthesia both provide early recovery and effective postoperative pain relief. When compared with opioid-sparing anaesthesia, opioid-free anaesthesia does not decrease opioid consumption in the first 24 h. These findings do not suggest any significant benefit from complete intraoperative avoidance of opioids. NCT0507270. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For most procedures, there is insufficient evidence to guide clinicians in the optimal timing of advanced analgesic methods, which should be based on the expected time course of acute postoperative pain severity and aimed at time points where basic analgesia has proven insufficient.Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the literature of analgesic trials for total hip arthroplasty (THA), extracting and pooling pain scores across studies, weighted for study size. Patients were grouped according to basic anaesthetic method used (general, spinal), and adjuvant analgesic interventions such as nerve blocks, local infiltration analgesia, and multimodal analgesia. Special consideration was given to high-risk populations such as chronic pain or opioid-dependent patients.Results: We identified and analysed 71 trials with 5973 patients and constructed pain trajectories from the available pain scores. In most patients undergoing THA under general anaesthesia on a basic analgesic regimen, postoperative acute pain recedes to a mild level (<4/10) by 4 h after surgery. We note substantial variability in pain intensity even in patients subjected to similar analgesic regimens. Chronic pain or opioid-dependent patients were most often actively excluded from studies, and never analysed separately.Conclusions: We have demonstrated that it is feasible to construct procedure-specific pain curves to guide clinicians on the timing of advanced analgesic measures. Acute intense postoperative pain after THA should have resolved by 4-6 h after surgery in most patients. However, there is a substantial gap in knowledge on the management of patients with chronic pain and opioid-dependent patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many regional anaesthetic techniques have been proposed to manage pain after total knee arthroplasty, but the best approach is unclear. We compared opioid consumption in the first 48 h between two different regional anaesthesia strategies in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.Methods: In this single-centre, prospective study, we randomly allocated 90 patients to a combination of IPACK (interspace between popliteal artery and capsule of the posterior knee), triangle femoral and obturator nerve blocks (distal group), or a combination of sciatic, femoral, obturator, and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve blocks (proximal group). All patients received an opioid-sparing general anaesthesia regimen. The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 48 h. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption in the first 24 h and verbal rating pain scores in the first 48 h.Results: There was no difference in median cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption at 48 h between the distal and the proximal block groups (33 [18-78] mg vs 30 [22-51] mg, respectively; P=0.29). Median oral morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h was higher in the distal group compared with the proximal group (30 [13-59] vs 15 [0-18], respectively; P<0.001). Verbal rating pain scores were lower in the proximal group compared with the distal group on arrival to the postanaesthesia care unit and at 6 and 12 h.Conclusions: In patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty under total intravenous general anaesthesia with a multimodal analgesia regimen, proximal nerve blocks resulted in improved pain scores in the first 12 h and reduced opioid consumption in the first 24 h when compared with distal nerve blocks. No difference in pain scores or opioid consumption was seen at 48 h.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04499716. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]