Search

Background: Spine surgery may be associated with severe acute postoperative pain. Compared with systemic analgesia alone, epidural analgesia may offer better pain control. However, epidural analgesia has sometimes been associated with rare but serious complications. Therefore, it is critical to quantify the real benefits of epidural analgesia over other modes of pain treatment., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia for acute postoperative pain control after thoraco-lumbar spine surgery in children., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature on 14 November 2018, together with the references lists of related reviews and retained trials, and two trials registers., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials performed in children undergoing any type of thoraco-lumbar spine surgery comparing epidural analgesia with systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. We applied no language or publication status restriction., Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed risk of bias of included trials using the Cochrane tool. We analysed data using random-effects models. We rated the quality of the evidence according to the GRADE scale., Main Results: We included 11 trials (559 participants) in the review, and seven trials (249 participants) in the analysis: 140 participants received epidural analgesia and 109 received systemic analgesia.Most studies included adolescents. Three trials included in the analysis contained some participants older than 18 years. The types of surgery were posterior spinal fusion for idiopathic scoliosis (nine trials), anterior correction for idiopathic scoliosis (one trial), or selective dorsal rhizotomy in children with cerebral palsy (one trial). The mean numbers of vertebrae operated on were between nine and 14.5 and the mean numbers of spinal levels were between three and four and a half. The length of surgery varied between three and six and a half hours.Compared with systemic analgesia, epidural analgesia reduced pain at rest at all time points. At six to eight hours, the mean pain score on a 0 to 10 scale with systemic analgesia was 3.1 (standard deviation 0.7) and with epidural analgesia was -1.32 points (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.83 to -0.82; 4 studies, 116 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 72 hours, the mean pain score with epidural analgesia was equivalent to a -0.8 point reduction on a 0 to 10 scale (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.65, 95% CI -1.19 to -0.10; 5 studies, 157 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Return of gastrointestinal functionThere was no difference for nausea and vomiting between groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.30; 6 studies, 215 participants; low-quality evidence). One study found epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the number of participants who had their first flatus within 48 hours (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.47; 30 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the number of participants in whom first bowel movement occurred within 48 hours (RR 11.52, 95% CI 2.36 to 56.26; 60 participants; low-quality evidence). It was uncertain whether epidural analgesia reduced the time to first bowel movement (MD 0.09 days, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.50; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) and time to first liquid ingestion following epidural infusion of an opioid alone or a local anaesthetic plus an opioid (mean difference (MD) -5.02 hours, 95% CI -13.15 to 3.10; 2 studies, 56 participants; very low-quality evidence). Epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics may have increased the risk of having first solid food ingestion within 48 hours (RR 7.00, 95% CI 1.91 to 25.62; 1 study, 30 participants; very low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesIt was uncertain whether there was a difference in time to ambulate (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.39; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-quality evidence) and hospital length of stay (MD -0.29 days, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.10; 2 studies, 89 participants; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found participants were more satisfied when treated with epidural analgesia (MD 1.62 on a scale from 0 to 10, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.97; 60 participants; very low-quality evidence). It was unclear whether there was a difference in parent satisfaction for epidural analgesia with an opioid alone (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.81 to 2.01; 1 trial, 27 participants; very low-quality evidence).ComplicationsIt was uncertain whether there was a difference in the risk of complications such as: respiratory depression (risk difference (RD) -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; 4 studies, 126 participants; very low-quality evidence); wound infection (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.08; 2 trials, 93 participants; very low-quality evidence); epidural abscess (RD 0, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 3 trials, 120 participants; very low-quality evidence); and neurological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.06; 4 studies, 151 participants; very low-quality evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate- and low-quality evidence that there may be a small additional reduction in pain up to 72 hours after surgery with epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia. Two very small studies showed epidural analgesia with local anaesthetic alone may accelerate the return of gastrointestinal function. The safety of this technique in children undergoing thoraco-lumbar surgery is uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. The study in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Background: This review focuses on the use of peripheral nerve blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia, or as a supplement to general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery and tries to determine if they offer any benefit in terms of pain on movement at 30 minutes after block placement, acute confusional state, myocardial infarction/ischemia, pneumonia, mortality, time to first mobilization, and cost of analgesic., Methods: Trials were identified by computerized searches of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to 2016 August week 1), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCO, 1982 to 2016 August week 1), trials registers, and reference lists of relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials involving the use of nerve blocks as part of the care for hip fractures in adults aged 16 years and older were included. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted the data. The quality of evidence was judged according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations Working Group scale., Results: Based on 8 trials with 373 participants, peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement: standardized mean difference, -1.41 (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I statistic = 90%; high quality of evidence). The effect size was proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used (P < .00001). Based on 7 trials with 676 participants, no difference was found in the risk of acute confusional state: risk ratio, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.38-1.27; I statistic = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Based on 3 trials with 131 participants, the risk for pneumonia was decreased: risk ratio, 0.41 (95% CI, 0.19-0.89; I statistic = 3%; number needed-to-treat for additional beneficial outcome, 7 [95% CI, 5-72]; moderate quality of evidence). No difference was found for the risk of myocardial ischemia or death within 6 months but the number of participants included was well below the optimum information size for these 2 outcomes. Based on 2 trials with 155 participants, peripheral nerve blocks also reduced the time to first mobilization after surgery: mean difference, -11.25 hours (95% CI, -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I statistic = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). From 1 trial with 75 participants, the cost of analgesic drugs when used as a single-shot block was lower: standardized mean difference, -3.48 (95% CI, -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence)., Conclusions: There is high-quality evidence that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. There is moderate quality of evidence for a decreased risk of pneumonia, reduced time to first mobilization, and reduced cost of analgesic regimen (single-shot blocks).

Background: It is estimated that over 300,000 total hip replacements are performed each year in the USA. For European countries, the number of hip replacement procedures per 100,000 people performed in 2007 varied from less than 50 to over 250. To facilitate postoperative rehabilitation, pain must be adequately treated. Peripheral nerve blocks and neuraxial blocks have been proposed to replace or supplement systemic analgesia., Objectives: We aimed to compare the relative effects (benefits and harms) of the different nerve blocks that may be used to relieve pain after elective hip replacement in adults., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 12, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1946 to December Week 49, 2016), Embase (Ovid SP) (1980 to December week 49, 2016), CINAHL (EBSCO host) (1982 to 6 December 2016), ISI Web of Science (1973 to 6 December 2016), Scopus (from inception to December 2016), trials registers, and relevant web sites., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in adults undergoing elective primary hip replacement and comparing peripheral nerve blocks to any other pain treatment modality. We applied no language or publication status restrictions., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted independently by two review authors. We contacted study authors., Main Results: We included 51 RCTs with 2793 participants; of these 45 RCTs (2491 participants: peripheral nerve block = 1288; comparators = 1203) were included in meta-analyses. There are 11 ongoing studies and three awaiting classification.Compared to systemic analgesia alone, peripheral nerve blocks reduced: pain at rest on arrival in the postoperative care unit (SMD -1.12, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.56; 9 trials, 429 participants; equivalent to 3.2 on 0 to 10 scale; moderate-quality evidence); risk of acute confusional status: risk ratio (RR) 0.10 95% CI 0.02 to 0.54; 1 trial, 225 participants; number needed to treat for additional benefit (NNTB) 12, 95% CI 11 to 22; very low-quality evidence); pruritus (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.70; 2 trials, 259 participants for continuous peripheral nerve blocks; NNTB 4 (95% CI 4 to 8); very low-quality evidence); hospital length of stay (SMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.02 to -0.48; very low-quality evidence; 2 trials, 249 participants; equivalent to 0.75 day). Participant satisfaction increased (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; low-quality evidence; 5 trials, 363 participants; equivalent to 2.4 on 0 to 10 scale). We did not find a difference for the number of participants walking on postoperative day one (very low-quality evidence). Two nerve block-related complications were reported: one local haematoma and one delayed persistent paresis.Compared to neuraxial blocks, peripheral nerve blocks reduced the risk of pruritus (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.58; 6 trials, 299 participants; moderate-quality evidence; NNTB 6 (95% CI 5 to 9). We did not find a difference for pain at rest on arrival in the postoperative care unit (moderate-quality evidence); number of nerve block-related complications (low-quality evidence); acute confusional status (very low-quality evidence); hospital length of stay (low quality-evidence); time to first walk (low-quality evidence); or participant satisfaction (high-quality evidence).We found that peripheral nerve blocks provide better pain control compared to systemic analgesia with no major differences between peripheral nerve blocks and neuraxial blocks. We also found that peripheral nerve blocks may be associated with reduced risk of postoperative acute confusional state and a modest reduction in hospital length of stay that could be meaningful in terms of cost reduction considering the increasing numbers of procedures performed annually., Authors' Conclusions: Compared to systemic analgesia alone, there is moderate-quality evidence that peripheral nerve blocks reduce postoperative pain, low-quality evidence that patient satisfaction is increased and very low-quality evidence for reductions in acute confusional status, pruritus and hospital length of stay .We found moderate-quality evidence that peripheral nerve blocks reduce pruritus compared with neuraxial blocks.The 11 ongoing studies, once completed, and the three studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Background: The aim of this review was to compare the effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anesthetics to postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, hospital length of stay, and cost after abdominal surgery., Methods: Trials were identified by computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (from 1950 to December, 2014) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of postoperative epidural local anesthetic with regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids. The quality of the studies was rated according to the Cochrane tool. Two authors independently extracted data. We judged the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group scale., Results: Based on 22 trials including 1138 participants, an epidural containing a local anesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time required to observe the first flatus after an abdominal surgery standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28 (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportional to the concentration of local anesthetic used. Based on 28 trials including 1559 participants, we also found a decrease in time to first feces (stool): SMD -0.67 (95% CI, -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Based on 35 trials including 2731 participants, pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery is also reduced: SMD -0.89 (95% CI, -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on a scale from 0 to 10). Based on 22 trials including 1154 participants, we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours: risk ratio 0.84 (95% CI, 0.57-1.23); low quality of evidence. Based on 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak: risk ratio 0.74 (95% CI, 0.41-1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on 30 trials including 2598 participants, epidural analgesia reduces length of hospital stay for an open surgery: SMD -0.20 (95% CI, -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to 1 day). Data on cost were very limited., Conclusions: An epidural containing a local anesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of the gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after an abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anesthetic does not affect the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For an open surgery, an epidural containing a local anesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).

Background: Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2016., Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults undergoing elective abdominal aortic surgery., Search Methods: In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and five trial registers in November 2014, together with reference checking to identify additional studies., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data when required. We assessed the level of evidence according to the scale provided by the GRADE working group., Main Results: We included 15 trials published from 1987 to 2009 with 1498 participants in this updated review. Participants had a mean age between 60.5 and 71.3 years. The percentage of women in the included studies varied from 0% to 28.1%. Adding an epidural to general anaesthesia for people undergoing abdominal aortic repair reduced myocardial infarction (risk ratio (RR) 0.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.97); I(2) statistic = 0%; number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 28 (95% CI 19 to 1423), visual or verbal analogical scale (VAS) scores up to three days after the surgery (mean difference (MD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.32 to -1.25); I(2) statistic = 0% for VAS scores on movement at postoperative day one), time to tracheal extubation (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.42 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.15); I(2) statistic = 83%; equivalent to a mean reduction of 36 hours), postoperative respiratory failure (RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.85); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 8 (95% CI 6 to 16)), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.65); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 32 (95% CI 27 to 74)) and time spent in the intensive care unit (SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.06); I(2) statistic = 0%; equivalent to a mean reduction of six hours). We did not demonstrate a reduction in the mortality rate up to 30 days (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.86); I(2) statistic = 0%). The level of evidence was low for mortality and time before tracheal extubation; moderate for myocardial infarction, respiratory failure and intensive care unit length of stay; and high for gastrointestinal bleeding and VAS scores., Authors' Conclusions: Epidural analgesia provided better pain management, reduced myocardial infarction, time to tracheal extubation, postoperative respiratory failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intensive care unit length of stay compared with systemic opioid-based drugs. For mortality, we did not find a difference at 30 days.

Background and Objectives: Although hypertension has long been recognized as a factor that might increase intraoperative blood losses in major orthopedic surgery, the effects of postoperative pain-induced hypertension on blood losses have not so far been evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pain on perioperative blood losses of patients undergoing primary total knee replacement (TKR)., Methods: Data from patients participating in a randomized clinical trial comparing intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) (N = 20) with PCA plus continuous femoral nerve (three-in-one) block (N = 20) or PCA plus continuous posterior lumbar plexus (psoas compartment) block (N = 20) were prospectively and retrospectively collected. Correlations between relevant variables and measured and calculated blood loss, number of transfused unit, and late (96 hours) postoperative hemoglobin were tested by linear regressions. Stepwise regressions for each of the four above-mentioned goals were constructed using a probability to enter of 0.25 and to leave of 0.1. A P < 0.05 was considered significant., Results: At the stepwise regressions there was a significant positive correlation between measured blood losses and morphine consumption from 12 to 18 hours (P = 0.006); between calculated blood loss and preoperative mean arterial blood pressure (P = 0.01) and preoperative hemoglobin value (P = 0.02); and between late postoperative hemoglobin and body weight (P = 0.047)., Conclusion: In patients undergoing TKR, there is a significant correlation between measured blood loss and morphine consumption from 12 to 18 hours. It is concluded that postoperative pain significantly influences postoperative blood loss in patients undergoing TKR.

The purpose of this metaanalysis was to determine the benefits of postoperative epidural analgesia in patients operated on under general anesthesia. By searching the American National Library of Medicine's Pubmed database from 1966 to July 10, 2004, 70 studies were identified. These included 5402 patients, of which 2660 had had epidural analgesia. Epidural analgesia reduces the incidence of arrhythmia, odds ratio (OR) = 0.59 (95%CI = 0.42, 0.81, P = 0.001); time to tracheal extubation, OR = -3.90 h (95%CI = -6.37, -1.42, P = 0.002); intensive care unit stay, OR = -2.94 h (95%CI = -5.66, -0.22, P = 0.03); visual analogical pain (VAS) scores at rest, OR = -0.78 (95%CI = -0.99, -0.57, P < 0.00001) and during movement, OR = -1.28 (95%CI = -1.81, -0.75, P < 0.00001); maximal blood epinephrine, OR = -165.70 pg.ml(-1) (95%CI = -252.18, -79.23, P = 0.0002); norepinephrine, OR = -134.24 pg.ml(-1) (95%CI = -247.92, -20.57, P = 0.02); cortisol, OR = -55.81 nmol.l(-1) (95%CI = -79.28, -32.34, P < 0.00001); and glucose concentrations achieved, OR = -0.87 nmol.l(-1) (95%CI = -1.37, -0.37, P = 0.0006). It also reduces the first 24-h morphine consumption, OR = -13.62 mg (95%CI = -22.70, -4.54, P = 0.003), and improves the forced vital capacity (FVC), OR = 0.23 l (95%CI = 0.09, 0.37, P = 0.001) at 24 h. A thoracic epidural containing a local anesthetic reduces the incidence of renal failure: OR = 0.34 (95%CI = 0.14, 0.81, P = 0.01). Epidural analgesia may thus offer many advantages over other modes of postoperative analgesia.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy of a continuous posterior lumbar plexus (PSOAS) block to a continuous three-in-one femoral nerve (FEM) block in patients undergoing primary total knee replacement (TKR)., Methods: Sixty patients were randomly allocated to receive iv patient-controlled morphine analgesia (PCA), PCA plus a continuous FEM block with 30 mL ropivacaine 0.5% and epinephrine 1:200,000 bolus followed by an infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% at 12 mL.hr(-1) for 48 hr, or PCA plus a continuous PSOAS block with the same bolus and infusion regimen as the FEM group. Postoperative morphine consumption, verbal analogue scale pain scores at rest and during physiotherapy, and evidence of sensory and motor blockades were noted., Results: Both regional techniques significantly reduced 48 hr morphine consumption (FEM 37.3 +/- 34.7 mg, P = 0.0002; PSOAS 36.1 +/- 25.8 mg, P < 0.0001) compared to PCA (72.2 +/- 26.6 mg). Pain scores at rest, six and 24 hr after TKR were lower in the FEM and PSOAS groups compared to the PCA group (P < 0.0001). Although sensory and motor blockades of the obturator nerve were achieved more often in the PSOAS group than in the FEM group (P < 0.0001), morphine consumption and pain scores did not differ between the two groups., Conclusion: Both continuous PSOAS block and continuous three-in-one FEM block provided better analgesia than PCA but no differences were seen between the two regional techniques.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of interpleural bupivacaine on analgesia and ventilatory capacity after cholecystectomy. Forty-two patients undergoing elective cholecystectomy were randomly assigned to two groups: one to receive interpleural administration of bupivacaine-adrenaline mixture (Group 1 = 22 patients) and the other standard administration of intramuscular meperidine (Group 2 = 20 patients) for postoperative pain relief. The intensity of pain was evaluated by a visual analogue scale (VAS) preoperatively as well as at 2, 8, 24 and 48 hr postoperatively. At the same time, FVC and FEV1.0 measurements were obtained for all patients. The group given interpleural bupivacaine had better pain relief with mean VAS of 0.6 +/- 0.9 (mean +/- SD) 1.1 +/- 1.4, 0.6 +/- 0.9 and 0.8 +/- 1.2 compared with 5.2 +/- 2.2, 5.8 +/- 2.7, 5.5 +/- 2.2 and 4.5 +/- 1.8 for patients receiving meperidine (P less than 0.001). The patients in Group 1 also had larger FVC and FEV than those in Group 2: FVC 22 +/- 14.5 per cent vs 32 +/- 15.2 per cent (P less than 0.005), FEV1.0 25 +/- 15.5 vs 38 +/- 14.8 per cent (P less than 0.001) (mean +/- SD). We conclude that the interpleural analgesia can achieve better pain relief with greater ventilatory capacity than a standard analgesic regimen in the first two days after cholecystectomy.

Acetaminophen is frequently administered orally to children for its analgesic properties, although its potency has never been clearly evaluated in this population. In certain situations (patients vomiting or unconscious), acetaminophen has to be given rectally. However, the rectal absorption of suppositories is frequently erratic. We undertook this study first, to measure the absorption of an aqueous solution of acetaminophen administered rectally. Secondly, we evaluated acetaminophen's postoperative analgesic effects in children aged 1 to 8 years old undergoing adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy and compared its efficacy to meperidine. Twenty children received 20 mg.kg-1 of acetaminophen at the time of induction of anaesthesia while 20 others received 1 mg.kg-1 of meperidine intramuscularly. Thirty-two patients required meperidine in the Recovery Room. There was no statistical difference between the patients who received acetaminophen (18), and those who received meperidine (14). The absorption of acetaminophen was incomplete (peak serum concentration: 70.8 mumol.L-1) and delayed. We conclude that the rectal administration of acetaminophen at the induction of anesthesia results in incomplete and delayed absorption and does not prevent the occurrence of immediate postoperative pain in children undergoing adeno-tonsillectomy.