Search

ObjectiveTo review the published evidence regarding perioperative analgesic techniques for breast cancer-related surgery.DesignTopical review.MethodsRandomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for inclusion in the review. Also included were large prospective series providing estimates of potential risks and technical reports and small case series demonstrating a new technique or approaches of interest to clinicians.ResultsA total of 514 abstracts were reviewed, with 284 studies meeting criteria for full review. The evidence regarding preemptive ketamine, scheduled opioids, perioperative non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and intravenous lidocaine is mixed and deserves further investigation. There is strong evidence that both pregabalin and gabapentin provide analgesic benefits following breast surgery. There is minimal and conflicting data from high-quality randomized, controlled studies suggesting that directly infiltrating and/or infusing local anesthetic (liposome encapsulated or unencapsulated) into the surgical wound is a reliably effective analgesic. In contrast, there is a plethora of data demonstrating the potent analgesia, opioid sparing, and decreased opioid-related side effects from thoracic epidural infusion and both single-injection and continuous paravertebral nerve blocks (the latter two demonstrating decreased persistent post-surgical pain between 2.5 and 12 months). Techniques with limited-yet promising-data deserving additional investigation include brachial plexus blocks, cervical epidural infusion, interfascial plane blocks, and interpleural blocks.ConclusionsWhile there are currently multiple promising analgesic techniques for surgical procedures of the breast that deserve further study, the only modalities demonstrated to provide potent, consistent perioperative pain control are thoracic epidural infusion and paravertebral nerve blocks.

An online database search with subsequent article review was performed in order to review the various analgesic modalities for breast cancer surgery. Of 514 abstracts, 284 full-length manuscripts were reviewed. The effect of pharmacologic interventions is varied (NSAIDS, opioids, anticonvulsants, ketamine, lidocaine). Likewise, data from high-quality randomized, controlled studies on wound infiltration (including liposome encapsulated) and infusion of local anesthetic are minimal and conflicting. Conversely, abundant evidence demonstrates paravertebral blocks and thoracic epidural infusions provide effective analgesia and minimize opioid requirements, while decreasing opioid-related side effects in the immediate postoperative period. Other techniques with promising - but extremely limited - data include cervical epidural infusion, brachial plexus, interfascial plane and interpleural blocks. In conclusion, procedural interventions involving regional blocks are more conclusively effective than pharmacologic modalities in providing analgesia to patients following surgery for breast cancer.

While infraorbital nerve blocks have demonstrated analgesic benefits for pediatric nasal and facial plastic surgery, no studies to date have explored the effect of this regional anesthetic technique on adult postoperative recovery. We designed this study to test the hypothesis that infraorbital nerve blocks combined with a standardized general anesthetic decrease the duration of recovery following outpatient nasal surgery.At a tertiary care university hospital, healthy adult subjects scheduled for outpatient nasal surgery were randomly assigned to receive bilateral infraorbital injections with either 0.5% bupivacaine (Group IOB) or normal saline (Group NS) using an intraoral technique immediately following induction of general anesthesia. All subjects underwent a standardized general anesthetic regimen and were transported to the recovery room following tracheal extubation. The primary outcome was the duration of recovery (minutes) from recovery room admission until actual discharge to home. Secondary outcomes included average and worst pain scores, nausea and vomiting, and supplemental opioid requirements.Forty patients were enrolled. A statistically significant difference in mean [SD] recovery room duration was not observed between Groups IOB and NS (131 [61] min vs 133 [58] min, respectively; P = 0.77). Subjects in Group IOB did experience a reduction in average pain on a 0–100 mm scale (mean [95% confidence interval]) compared to Group NS (−11 [−21 to 0], P = 0.047), but no other comparison of secondary outcomes was statistically significant.When added to a standardized general anesthetic, bilateral IOB do not decrease actual time to discharge following outpatient nasal surgery despite a beneficial effect on postoperative pain.

Background and Objectives: Efficacy of perivascular axillary block (AXB) and double-stimulation infraclavicular block (ICB) techniques in providing brachial plexus anesthesia have not been previously compared. Methods: After IRB approval, we reviewed a regional anesthesia database to compare supplementation rates for 141 axillary and 157 infraclavicular blocks. Results: Supplementation rates for AXB and ICB were 52% and 20%, respectively (OR = 2.57, 95%CI 1.61 - 4.12). Conversion to general anesthesia was infrequent in both groups although higher in the AXB group (OR = 6.78, 95%CI 1.05 - 43.38). Discussion: Although ICB has significantly higher initial success, AXB provides reliable anesthesia when appropriately supplemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to assess the nationwide use of epidural analgesia (EA) and the incidence of postoperative complications in patients undergoing major liver resections (MLR) with and without EA in the United States. The 2001 to 2010 Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried to identify adult patients undergoing MLR. A 1:1 matched cohort of patients having MLR with and without EA was assembled using propensity-score matching techniques. Differences in the rate of postoperative complications were compared between the matched groups. We identified 68,028 MLR. Overall, 5.9% of patients in the database had procedural codes for postoperative EA. A matched cohort of 802 patients per group was derived from the propensity-matching algorithm. Although use of EA was associated with more blood transfusions (relative risk, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.65; P = 0.001) and longer hospital stay (median [interquartile range], 6 [5-8] vs 6 [4-8] days), the use of coagulation factors and the incidence of postoperative hemorrhage/hematomas or other postoperative complications were not higher in patients receiving EA. In conclusion, the use of EA for MLR is low, and EA does not seem to influence the incidence of postoperative complications. EA, however, was associated with an increased use of blood transfusions and a longer hospital stay.