Local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for preventing persistent postoperative pain in adults and children

Abstract

Background

Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017.

Objectives

To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery.

Search methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews.

Selection criteria

We included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery.

Data collection and analysis

At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

Main results

In this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 41 studies, enrolling a total of 3143 participants in our inclusive analysis.

Evidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

We did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution.

Full reference:

Weinstein, E.J. et al.  |Local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for preventing persistent postoperative pain in adults and children |Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2018 |Issue 4 |Art. No.: CD007105. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD007105.pub3.

The SR is available in full from the Cochrane Library

Advertisements

Rocuronium vs. succinylcholine for rapid sequence intubation: a Cochrane systematic review

Tran, D.T.T. et al. (2017) Anaesthesia 72(6) pp. 765–777

This systematic review was performed to determine whether rocuronium creates intubating conditions comparable to those of succinylcholine during rapid sequence intubation of the trachea.

Overall, succinylcholine was superior to rocuronium for achieving excellent intubating conditions (risk ratio (95%CI) 0.86 (0.81 to 0.92), n = 4151) and clinically acceptable intubation conditions (risk ratio (95%CI) 0.97 (0.95–0.99), n = 3992). A high incidence of detection bias amongst the trials coupled with significant heterogeneity means that the quality of evidence was moderate for these conclusions. Succinylcholine was more likely to produce excellent intubating conditions when using thiopental as the induction agent: risk ratio (95%CI) 0.81 (0.73–0.88), n = 2302) with or without the use of opioids (risk ratio (95%CI) 0.85 (0.78–0.93), n = 2292 or 0.85 (0.76–0.95), n = 1428).

Read the full abstract here

 

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals

Hedin, R. et al. (2016) Anesthesia & Analgesia. 123(4) pp.1018–1025

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are used by clinicians to derive treatment guidelines and make resource allocation decisions in anesthesiology. One cause for concern with such reviews is the possibility that results from unpublished trials are not represented in the review findings or data synthesis. This problem, known as publication bias, results when studies reporting statistically nonsignificant findings are left unpublished and, therefore, not included in meta-analyses when estimating a pooled treatment effect. In turn, publication bias may lead to skewed results with overestimated effect sizes. The primary objective of this study is to determine the extent to which evaluations for publication bias are conducted by systematic reviewers in highly ranked anesthesiology journals and which practices reviewers use to mitigate publication bias. The secondary objective of this study is to conduct publication bias analyses on the meta-analyses that did not perform these assessments and examine the adjusted pooled effect estimates after accounting for publication bias.

Methods: This study considered meta-analyses and systematic reviews from 5 peer-reviewed anesthesia journals from 2007 through 2015. A PubMed search was conducted, and full-text systematic reviews that fit inclusion criteria were downloaded and coded independently by 2 authors. Coding was then validated, and disagreements were settled by consensus. In total, 207 systematic reviews were included for analysis. In addition, publication bias evaluation was performed for 25 systematic reviews that did not do so originally. We used Egger regression, Duval and Tweedie trim and fill, and funnel plots for these analyses.

Results: Fifty-five percent (n = 114) of the reviews discussed publication bias, and 43% (n = 89) of the reviews evaluated publication bias. Funnel plots and Egger regression were the most common methods for evaluating publication bias. Publication bias was reported in 34 reviews (16%). Thirty-six of the 45 (80.0%) publication bias analyses indicated the presence of publication bias by trim and fill analysis, whereas Egger regression indicated publication bias in 23 of 45 (51.1%) analyses. The mean absolute percent difference between adjusted and observed point estimates was 15.5%, the median was 6.2%, and the range was 0% to 85.5%.

Conclusions: Many of these reviews reported following published guidelines such as PRISMA or MOOSE, yet only half appropriately addressed publication bias in their reviews. Compared with previous research, our study found fewer reviews assessing publication bias and greater likelihood of publication bias among reviews not performing these evaluations.

Read the abstract here

Publication Bias and Nonreporting Found in Majority of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Anesthesiology Journals

Hedin, R.J. et al. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 17 August 2016

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are used by clinicians to derive treatment guidelines and make resource allocation decisions in anesthesiology. One cause for concern with such reviews is the possibility that results from unpublished trials are not represented in the review findings or data synthesis. This problem, known as publication bias, results when studies reporting statistically nonsignificant findings are left unpublished and, therefore, not included in meta-analyses when estimating a pooled treatment effect. In turn, publication bias may lead to skewed results with overestimated effect sizes. The primary objective of this study is to determine the extent to which evaluations for publication bias are conducted by systematic reviewers in highly ranked anesthesiology journals and which practices reviewers use to mitigate publication bias. The secondary objective of this study is to conduct publication bias analyses on the meta-analyses that did not perform these assessments and examine the adjusted pooled effect estimates after accounting for publication bias.

Methods: This study considered meta-analyses and systematic reviews from 5 peer-reviewed anesthesia journals from 2007 through 2015. A PubMed search was conducted, and full-text systematic reviews that fit inclusion criteria were downloaded and coded independently by 2 authors. Coding was then validated, and disagreements were settled by consensus. In total, 207 systematic reviews were included for analysis. In addition, publication bias evaluation was performed for 25 systematic reviews that did not do so originally. We used Egger regression, Duval and Tweedie trim and fill, and funnel plots for these analyses.

Results: Fifty-five percent (n = 114) of the reviews discussed publication bias, and 43% (n = 89) of the reviews evaluated publication bias. Funnel plots and Egger regression were the most common methods for evaluating publication bias. Publication bias was reported in 34 reviews (16%). Thirty-six of the 45 (80.0%) publication bias analyses indicated the presence of publication bias by trim and fill analysis, whereas Egger regression indicated publication bias in 23 of 45 (51.1%) analyses. The mean absolute percent difference between adjusted and observed point estimates was 15.5%, the median was 6.2%, and the range was 0% to 85.5%.

Conclusions: Many of these reviews reported following published guidelines such as PRISMA or MOOSE, yet only half appropriately addressed publication bias in their reviews. Compared with previous research, our study found fewer reviews assessing publication bias and greater likelihood of publication bias among reviews not performing these evaluations.

Read the abstract here

Cervical epidural analgesia in current anaesthesia practice: systematic review of its clinical utility and rationale, and technical considerations

Shanthanna, H. et al. British Journal of  Anaesthesia (2016) 116 (2): 192-207.

3598036289_94b3e79821_z.jpg
Image source: Amin Ashaari

Cervical epidural analgesia (CEA) is an analgesic technique, potentially useful for surgeries involving the upper body. Despite the inherent technical risks and systemic changes, it has been used for various surgeries. There have been no previously published systematic reviews aimed at assessing its clinical utility. This systematic review was performed to explore the perioperative benefits of CEA. The review was also aimed at identifying the rationale of its use, reported surgical indications and the method of use.

We performed a literature search involving PubMed and Embase databases, to identify studies using CEA for surgical indications. Out of 467 potentially relevant articles, 73 articles were selected. Two independent investigators extracted data involving 5 randomized controlled trials, 17 observational comparative trials, and 51 case reports (series). The outcomes studied in most comparative studies were on effects of local anaesthetics and other agents, systemic effects, and feasibility of CEA. In one randomized controlled study, CEA was observed to decrease the resting pain scores after pharyngo-laryngeal surgeries. In a retrospective study, CEA was shown to decrease the cancer recurrence after pharyngeal-hypopharyngeal surgeries.

The limited evidence, small studies, and the chosen outcomes do not allow for any specific recommendations based on the relative benefit or harm of CEA. Considering the potential for significant harm, in the face of better alternatives, its use must have a strong rationale mostly supported by unique patient and surgical demands. Future studies must aim to assess analgesic comparator effectiveness for clinically relevant outcomes.

Read the abstract here