Search

Introduction: The rise of opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) aims to reduce postoperative pain while reducing opioid-related side effects during surgery. However, the various adjuvant agents used in OFA complicate the evaluation of their effectiveness and risks. Recent reviews question the clinical benefits of OFA, highlighting the need for thorough evaluation. This protocol describes a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of OFA with opioid-based anaesthesia and will identify key components for optimal postoperative outcomes., Methods and Analysis: We will perform a systematic search of literature published in English without time restriction in Embase, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (via PubMed) and CINAHL, along with Google Scholar for grey literature. The final search will be performed on 1 October 2024. We will include randomised controlled trials with adult patients undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia, excluding preclinical, observational, regional anaesthesia-only and prolonged anaesthesia outside the operating room studies. The primary outcome is postsurgical pain scores, with secondary outcomes including quality of recovery, opioid consumption, adverse effects and long-term events. We will assess bias using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and conduct Bayesian network meta-analyses for pooled estimates. We will report effect estimates as ORs and standardised mean differences with 95% credible intervals and assess certainty using GRADE methodology., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not required for this systematic review. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international anaesthesia and pain management conferences., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42024505853., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MWH is the Executive Section Editor in Pharmacology with Anesthesia & Analgesia, Editor with Journal of Clinical Medicine, and Editor Frontiers in Physiology. MWH received honorarium for consultancy from IDD Pharma, Medical Developments & PAION. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Significant acute postoperative pain remains prevalent among patients who undergo truncal surgery and is associated with increased morbidity, prolonged patient recovery, and increased healthcare costs. The provision of high-quality postoperative analgesia is an important component of postoperative care, particularly within enhanced recovery programmes. Regional anaesthetic techniques have become increasingly prevalent within multimodal analgesic regimens and the widespread adoption of ultrasonography has facilitated the development of novel fascial plane blocks. The number of described fascial plane blocks has increased significantly over the past decade, leading to a burgeoning area of clinical investigation. Their applications are increasing, and truncal fascial plane blocks are increasingly recommended as part of procedure-specific guidelines. Some fascial plane blocks have been shown to be more efficacious than others, with favourable side-effect profiles compared with neuraxial analgesia, and are increasingly utilised in breast, thoracic, and other truncal surgery. However, use of these blocks is debated in regional anaesthesia circles because of limitations in our understanding of their mechanisms of action. This narrative review evaluates available evidence for the analgesic efficacy of the most commonly practised fascial plane blocks in breast, thoracic, and abdominal truncal surgery, in particular their efficacy compared with systemic analgesia, alternative blocks, and neuraxial techniques. We also highlight areas where investigations are ongoing and suggest priorities for original investigations., (Copyright © 2024 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT (PROSPECT) guidelines recommend erector spinae plane (ESP) block or paravertebral block (PVB) for postoperative analgesia after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). However, there are few trials comparing the effectiveness of these techniques on patient-centric outcomes, and none evaluating chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). Furthermore, there are no available trials comparing ultrasound-guided ESP with surgically placed PVB in this patient cohort., Methods: We conducted a two-centre, prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial, comparing anaesthesiologist-administered, ultrasound-guided ESP catheter with surgeon-administered, video-assisted PVB catheter analgesia among 80 adult patients undergoing VATS. Participants received a 20 ml bolus of levobupivacaine 0.375% followed by infusion of levobupivacaine 0.15% (10-15 ml h -1 ) for 48 h. Primary outcome was Quality of Recovery-15 score (QoR-15) at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included QoR-15 at 48 h, peak inspiratory flow (ml s -1 ) at 24 h and 48 h, area under the pain verbal response score vs time curve (AUC), opioid consumption, Comprehensive Complication Index, length of stay, and CPSP at 3 months after surgery., Results: Median (25-75%) QoR-15 at 24 h was higher in ESP (n=37) compared with PVB (n=37): 118 (106-134) vs 110 (89-121) (P=0.03) and at 48 h: 131 (121-139) vs 120 (111-133) (P=0.03). There were no differences in peak inspiratory flow, AUC, Comprehensive Complication Index, length of hospital stay, and opioid consumption. Incidence of CPSP at 3 months was 12 (34%) for ESP and 11 (31%) for PVB (P=0.7)., Conclusions: Compared with video-assisted, surgeon-placed paravertebral catheter, erector spinae catheter improved overall QoR-15 scores at 24 h and 48 h but without differences in pain or opioid consumption after minimally invasive thoracic surgery., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04729712., (Copyright © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whilst general anaesthesia is commonly used to undertake spine surgery, the use of neuraxial and peripheral regional anaesthesia techniques for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia is an evolving practice. Variations in practice have meant that it is difficult to know which modalities achieve optimal outcomes for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Our objective was to identify available evidence on the use of regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques for adult patients undergoing spinal surgery., Methods: This study was conducted using a framework for scoping reviews. This included a search of six databases searching for articles published since January 1980. We included studies that involved adult patients undergoing spinal surgery with regional or neuraxial techniques used as the primary anaesthesia method or as part of an analgesic strategy., Results: Seventy-eight articles were selected for final review. All original papers were included, including case reports, case series, clinical trials, or conference publications. We found that general anaesthesia remains the most common anaesthesia technique for this patient cohort. However, regional anaesthesia, especially non-neuraxial techniques such as fascial plane blocks, is an emerging practice and may have a role in terms of improving postoperative pain relief, quality of recovery, and patient satisfaction. In comparison with neuraxial techniques, the popularity of fascial plane blocks for spinal surgery has significantly increased since 2017., Conclusions: Regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques have been used both to provide analgesia and anaesthesia for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Outcome metrics for the success of these techniques vary widely and more frequently use physiological outcome metrics more than patient-centred ones., (Copyright © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)