Gildasio S. De Oliveira

Perioperative single dose systemic dexamethasone for postoperative pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Dexamethasone is frequently administered in the perioperative period to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. In contrast, the analgesic effects of dexamethasone are not well defined. The authors performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the dose-dependent analgesic effects of perioperative dexamethasone. Methods: We followed the PRISMA statement guidelines. A wide search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of a single dose systemic dexamethasone on postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Effects of dexamethasone dose were evaluated by pooling studies into three dosage groups: low (less than 0.1 mg/kg), intermediate (0.11–0.2 mg/kg) and high (≥0.21 mg/kg). Results: Twenty-four randomized clinical trials with 2,751 subjects were included. The mean (95% CI) combined effects favored dexamethasone over placebo for pain at rest (⩽4 h, −0.32 [0.47 to −0.18], 24 h, −0.49 [−0.67 to −0.31]) and with movement (⩽ 4 h, −0.64 [−0.86 to −0.41], 24 h, −0.47 [−0.71 to −0.24]). Opioid consumption was decreased to a similar extent with moderate −0.82 (−1.30 to −0.42) and high −0.85 (−1.24 to −0.46) dexamethasone, but not decreased with low-dose dexamethasone −0.18 (−0.39–0.03). No increase in analgesic effectiveness or reduction in opioid use could be demonstrated between the high- and intermediate-dose dexamethasone. Preoperative administration of dexamethasone appears to produce a more consistent analgesic effect compared with intraoperative administration. Conclusion: Dexamethasone at doses more than 0.1 mg/kg is an effective adjunct in multimodal strategies to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption after surgery. The preoperative administration of the drug produces less variation of effects on pain outcomes.

Dexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND:Dexamethasone has an established role in decreasing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV); however, the optimal dexamethasone dose for reducing PONV when it is used as a single or combination prophylactic strategy has not been clearly defined. In this study, we evaluated the use of 4 mg to 5 mg and 8 mg to 10 mg IV doses of dexamethasone to prevent PONV when used as a single drug or as part of a combination preventive therapy. METHODS:A wide search was performed to identify randomized clinical trials that evaluated systemic dexamethasone as a prophylactic drug to reduce postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. The effects of dexamethasone dose were evaluated by pooling studies into 2 groups: 4 mg to 5 mg and 8 mg to 10 mg. The first group represents the suggested dexamethasone dose to prevent PONV by the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) guidelines, and the second group represents twice the dose range recommended by the guidelines. The SAMBA guidelines were developed in response to studies, which have been performed to examine different dosages of dexamethasone. RESULTS:Sixty randomized clinical trials with 6696 subjects were included. The 4-mg to 5-mg dose dexamethasone group experienced reduced 24-hour PONV compared with control, odds ratio (OR, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23–0.41), and number needed to treat (NNT, 3.7; 95% CI, 3.0–4.7). When used together with a second antiemetic, the 4-mg to 5-mg dexamethasone group also experienced reduced 24-hour PONV compared with control (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35–0.72; NNT, 6.6; 95% CI, 4.3–12.8). The 8-mg to 10-mg dose dexamethasone group experienced decreased 24-hour PONV compared with control (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20–0.32; NNT, 3.8; 95% CI, 3.0–4.3). Asymmetric funnel plots were observed in the 8-mg to 10-mg dose analysis, suggesting the possibility of publication bias. When used together with a second antiemetic, the 8-mg to 10-mg dose group also experienced reduced incidence of 24-hour PONV (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.22–0.53; NNT, 6.2; 95% CI, 4.5–10). In studies that provided a direct comparison between groups, there was no clinical advantage of the 8-mg to 10-mg dexamethasone dose compared with the 4-mg to 5-mg dose on the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. CONCLUSIONS:Our results showed that a 4-mg to 5-mg dose of dexamethasone seems to have similar clinical effects in the reduction of PONV as the 8-mg to 10-mg dose when dexamethasone was used as a single drug or as a combination therapy. These findings support the current recommendation of the SAMBA guidelines for PONV, which favors the 4-mg to 5-mg dose regimen of systemic dexamethasone.

Intraoperative neuraxial anesthesia but not postoperative neuraxial analgesia is associated with increased relapse-free survival in ovarian cancer patients after primary cytoreductive surgery.

Objectives: Regional anesthesia has been shown to blunt the response to surgical stress and decrease the use of volatile anesthetics and the consumption of opioids, which may reduce immune compromise and potentially delay tumor recurrence. The goal of this study was to find a possible association between intraoperative regional anesthesia and decreased cancer recurrence. Methods: Patients who underwent surgery for ovarian cancer between January 1, 2000, and October 1, 2006, were included. Subjects who had optimal surgical debulking (<1.0 cm of remaining tumor) were evaluated for time to tumor recurrence (carcinoantigen 125 >21 U/mL or computed tomography evidence of disease progression) and/or death. Results: One hundred eighty-two patients were evaluated; 127 did not receive epidural anesthesia/analgesia. Among the 55 who had epidural catheters placed, 26 were used intraoperatively and postoperatively; 29 were used only postoperatively. Cancer recurrence was documented in 121 patients. The median (interquartile range) time to recurrence was 40 (25-52) months. The intraoperative use epidural group had a mean (95% confidence interval) time to recurrence of 73 (56-91) months, which was longer than either the epidural postoperative group 33 (21-45) months (P = 0.002) or the no-epidural group 38 (30-47) months (P = 0.001). The postoperative-only and no-epidural groups were not different (P = 0.92). Intraoperative epidural significantly reduced (hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.73]) tumor recurrence risk. Conclusions: Intraoperative use of epidural anesthesia was associated with an increased time to tumor recurrence after surgery in ovarian cancer patients. This may be a result of preservation of the immune system function.

Perioperative single dose ketorolac to prevent postoperative pain: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND: Preventive analgesia using non-opioid analgesic strategies is recognized as a pathway to improve postoperative pain control while minimizing opioid-related side effects. Ketorolac is a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug frequently used to treat postoperative pain. However, the optimal dose and route of administration for systemic single dose ketorolac to prevent postoperative pain is not well defined. We performed a quantitative systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of perioperative ketorolac on postoperative analgesia. METHODS: We followed the PRISMA statement guidelines. A wide search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of a single dose of systemic ketorolac on postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Effects of ketorolac dose were evaluated by pooling studies into 30- and 60-mg dosage groups. Asymmetry of funnel plots was examined using Egger regression. The presence of heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup analysis according to the route of systemic administration (IV versus IM) and the time of drug administration (preincision versus postincision). RESULTS: Thirteen randomized clinical trials with 782 subjects were included. The weighted mean difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of combined effects showed a difference for ketorolac over placebo for early pain at rest of −0.64 (−1.11 to −0.18) but not at late pain at rest, −0.29 (−0.88 to 0.29) summary point (0–10 scale). Opioid consumption was decreased by the 60-mg dose, with a mean (95% CI) IV morphine equivalent consumption of −1.64 mg (−2.90 to −0.37 mg). The opioid-sparing effects of ketorolac compared with placebo were greater when the drug was administered IM compared with when the drug was administered IV, with a mean difference (95% CI) IV morphine equivalent consumption of −2.13 mg (−4.1 to −0.21 mg). Postoperative nausea and vomiting were reduced by the 60-mg dose, with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.49 (0.29–0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Single dose systemic ketorolac is an effective adjunct in multimodal regimens to reduce postoperative pain. Improved postoperative analgesia achieved with ketorolac was also accompanied by a reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting. The 60-mg dose offers significant benefits but there is a lack of current evidence that the 30-mg dose offers significant benefits on postoperative pain outcomes.

Transversus abdominis plane block to ameliorate postoperative pain outcomes after laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND:Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has been used as a multimodal strategy to optimize postoperative pain outcomes; however, it remains unclear which type of surgical procedures can benefit from the administration of a TAP block. Several studies have examined the effect of the TAP block on postoperative pain outcomes after laparoscopic surgical procedures and generated conflicting results. Our main objective in the current investigation was to evaluate the effect of TAP block on postoperative analgesia outcomes for laparoscopic surgical procedures. METHODS:A search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of the TAP block compared with an inactive group (placebo or “no treatment”) on postoperative pain outcomes in laparoscopic surgical procedures. Primary outcomes included early (0–4 hours) and late (24 hours) postoperative pain at rest and on movement and postoperative opioid consumption (up to 24 hours). Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Publication bias was evaluated by examining the presence of asymmetric funnel plots using Egger regression test. Meta-regression analysis was performed to establish an association between the local anesthetic dose and the evaluated outcomes. RESULTS:Ten randomized clinical trials with 633 subjects were included in the analysis. The weighted mean difference (99% confidence interval) of the combined effects favored TAP block over control for pain at rest (⩽4 hours, −2.41 [−3.6 to −1.16]) and (at 24 hours, −1.33 [−2.19 to −0.48]) (0–10 numerical scale). Postoperative opioid consumption was decreased in the TAP block group compared with control, weighted mean difference (99% confidence interval) of −5.74 (−8.48 to −2.99) mg morphine IV equivalents. Publication bias was not present in any of the analysis. Preoperative TAP block administration resulted in greater effects on early pain and opioid consumption compared with postoperative administration. Meta-regression analysis revealed an association between local anesthetic dose and the TAP block effect on late pain at rest and postoperative opioid consumption. None of the studies reported symptoms of local anesthetic toxicity. CONCLUSIONS:TAP block is an effective strategy to improve early and late pain at rest and to reduce opioid consumption after laparoscopic surgical procedures. In contrast, the TAP block was not superior compared with control to reduce early and late pain during movement. Preoperative administration of a TAP block seems to result in greater effects on postoperative pain outcomes. We also detected a local anesthetic dose response on late pain and postoperative opioid consumption.

Systemic Lidocaine to Improve Postoperative Quality of Recovery After Ambulatory Laparoscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND:Perioperative systemic lidocaine has been shown to have beneficial postoperative analgesic effects. The only previous study examining the use of lidocaine in the outpatient setting did not detect an opioid-sparing effect after hospital discharge. More importantly, it is unknown whether systemic lidocaine provides a better postoperative quality of recovery to patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. Our objective in the current study was to examine the effect of systemic lidocaine on postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopic surgery. METHODS:The study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Healthy female subjects were randomized to receive lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by a 2 mg/kg/h infusion until the end of the surgical procedure) or the same volume of saline. The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire at 24 hours after surgery. A 10-point difference represents a clinically relevant improvement in quality of recovery based on previously reported values on the mean and range of the Quality of Recovery-40 score in patients after anesthesia and surgery. Other data collected included opioid consumption, pain scores, and time to meet hospital discharge. Data were compared using group t tests and the Wilcoxon exact test. The association between opioid consumption and quality of recovery was evaluated using Spearman &rgr;. P < 0.01 was used to reject the null hypothesis for the primary outcome. RESULTS:Seventy subjects were recruited and 63 completed the study. There were no baseline differences regarding subject and surgical characteristics between the study groups. Patients in the lidocaine group had better global quality of recovery scores compared with the saline group, median difference of 16 (99% confidence interval [CI], 2–28), P = 0.002. Patients in the lidocaine group met hospital discharge criteria faster than the saline group, mean difference of −26 minutes (95% CI, −6 to −46 minutes) (P = 0.03). After hospital discharge, subjects in the lidocaine group required less oral opioids, median difference of −10 (95% CI, 0 to −30) (oral milligrams morphine equivalents), than the saline group (P = 0.01). There was an inverse association between postoperative opioid consumption and quality of recovery (&rgr; = 0.64, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Systemic lidocaine improves postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopy. Patients who received lidocaine had less opioid consumption, which translated to a better quality of recovery. Lidocaine is a safe, inexpensive, effective strategy to improve quality of recovery after ambulatory surgery.

A dose-ranging study of the effect of transversus abdominis block on postoperative quality of recovery and analgesia after outpatient laparoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain can delay functional recovery after outpatient surgery. Multimodal analgesia can improve pain and possibly improve quality of recovery. In this study, we evaluated the dose-dependent effects of a preoperative transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block on patient recovery using the Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) questionnaire after ambulatory gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Global QoR-40 scores range from 40 to 200, representing very poor to outstanding quality of recovery, respectively. METHODS: Healthy women undergoing outpatient gynecological laparoscopy were randomly allocated to receive a preoperative TAP block using saline, ropivacaine 0.25%, or ropivacaine 0.5%. Needle placement for the TAP blocks was performed using ultrasound guidance and 15 mL of the study solution was injected bilaterally by a blinded investigator. QoR-40 score and analgesic use were assessed 24 hours postoperatively. The primary outcome was global QoR-40 score at 24 hours after surgery. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were made using the Dunn test with P values and 95% confidence intervals Bonferroni corrected for 6 comparisons. RESULTS: Seventy-five subjects were enrolled and 70 subjects completed the study. The median (range) for the QoR-40 score after the TAP block was 157 (127–193), 173 (133–195), and 172 (130–196) for the saline group and 0.25% and 0.5% ropivacaine groups, respectively. The median difference (99.2% confidence interval) in QoR-40 score for 0.5% bupivacaine (16 [1–30], P = 0.03) and 0.25% bupivacaine (17 [2–31], P = 0.01) was more than saline but not significantly different between ropivacaine groups (−1 [−16 to 12], P = 1.0). Increased global QoR-40 scores correlated with decreased area under the pain score time curve during postanesthesia recovery room stay (&rgr; = −0.56, 99.2% upper confidence limit [UCL] = −0.28), 24-hour opioid consumption (&rgr; = −0.61, 99.2% UCL = −0.34), pain score (0–10 scale) at 24 hours (&rgr; = −0.53, 99.2% UCL = −0.25), and time to discharge readiness (&rgr; = −0.65, 99.2% UCL = −0.42). The aforementioned variables were lower in the TAP block groups receiving ropivacaine compared with saline. CONCLUSIONS: The TAP block is an effective adjunct in a multimodal analgesic strategy for ambulatory laparoscopic procedures. TAP blocks with ropivacaine 0.25% and 0.5% reduced pain, decreased opioid consumption, and provided earlier discharge readiness that was associated with better quality of recovery.

Perioperative systemic magnesium to minimize postoperative pain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background:Systemic magnesium has been used to minimize postoperative pain with conflicting results by clinical studies. It remains unknown whether the administration of perioperative systemic magnesium can minimize postoperative pain. The objective of the current investigation was to evaluate the effect of systemic magnesium on postoperative pain outcomes. Methods:A wide search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of systemic magnesium on postoperative pain outcomes in surgical procedures performed under general anesthesia. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Publication bias was evaluated by examining the presence of asymmetric funnel plots using Egger regression. Results:Twenty randomized clinical trials with 1,257 subjects were included. The weighted mean difference (99% CI) of the combined effects favored magnesium over control for pain at rest (⩽4 h, −0.74 [−1.08 to −0.48]; 24 h, −0.36 [−0.63 to −0.09]) and with movement at 24 h, −0.73 (−1.37 to −0.1). Opioid consumption was largely decreased in the systemic magnesium group compared with control, weighted mean difference (99% CI) of −10.52 (−13.50 to −7.54) mg morphine IV equivalents. Publication bias was not present in any of the analysis. Significant heterogeneity was present in some analysis, but it could be partially explained by the sole intraoperative administration of magnesium compared with the intraoperative and postoperative administration. None of the studies reported clinical toxicity related to toxic serum levels of magnesium. Conclusion:Systemic administration of perioperative magnesium reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Magnesium administration should be considered as a strategy to mitigate postoperative pain in surgical patients.

The effects of perineural versus intravenous dexamethasone on sciatic nerve blockade outcomes: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND:Perineural dexamethasone has been investigated as an adjuvant for brachial plexus nerve blocks, but it is not known whether the beneficial effect of perineural dexamethasone on analgesia duration leads to a better quality of surgical recovery. We hypothesized that patients receiving dexamethasone would have a better quality of recovery than patients not receiving dexamethasone. We also sought to compare the effect of perineural with that of IV dexamethasone on block characteristics. METHODS:Patients undergoing elective ankle and foot surgery were recruited over a 9-month period. Patients received ultrasound-guided sciatic nerve blocks by using 0.5% bupivacaine with epinephrine 1:300,000 (0.45 mL/kg) and were randomized into 3 groups: group 1 = perineural dexamethasone 8 mg/2 mL with 50 mL IV normal saline, group 2 = perineural saline/2 mL with IV 8 mg dexamethasone in 50 mL normal saline, and group 3 = perineural saline/2 mL with 50 mL normal saline. The primary outcome was the global score in the quality of recovery (QoR-40). The secondary outcomes included analgesia duration, opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, numeric pain rating scores, and postoperative neurologic symptoms. RESULTS:Eighty patients were randomized, and 78 patients completed the study protocol. There was no improvement in the global QoR-40 score at 24 hours between the perineural dexamethasone and saline, median (97.5% CI) difference of −3 (−7 to 3); IV dexamethasone and saline, median difference of −1 (−8 to 5); or perineural dexamethasone and IV dexamethasone median difference of −2 (−6 to 5). Analgesia duration (P < 0.001) and time to first toe movement (P < 0.001) were prolonged by perineural dexamethasone compared with saline. IV dexamethasone prolonged time to first toe movement compared with saline (P = 0.008) but not analgesia duration (P = 0.18). There was no significant difference in the time to first toe movement or analgesia duration between the perineural and IV dexamethasone groups. Postoperative opioid consumption was not different among study groups. Self-reported neurologic symptoms at 24 hours were not different among perinueral dexamethasone (17, 63%), IV dexamethasone (10, 42%), or normal saline (8, 30%) (P = 0.31). All postoperative neurologic sequelae were resolved by 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS:Preoperative administration of IV and perineural dexamethasone compared with saline did not improve overall QoR-40 or decrease opioid consumption but did prolong analgesic duration in patients undergoing elective foot and ankle surgery and receiving sciatic nerve block. Given the lack of clinical benefit and the concern of dexamethasone neurotoxicity as demonstrated in animal studies, the practice of perineural dexamethasone administration needs to be further evaluated.

Operative duration as an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in single-level lumbar fusion: an analysis of 4588 surgical cases.

Study Design. Multicenter retrospective cohort study. Objective. To estimate the impact of increasing surgical duration on outcomes after single-level lumbar fusion. Summary of Background Data. Lumbar fusion is a widely used practice for the treatment of disability and chronic low back pain. Longer operative duration is shown to correlate with increased morbidity and mortality in various surgical disciplines, but no large-scale study has been performed to validate this relationship in lumbar spine surgery. Methods. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients who underwent lumbar fusion procedures during 2006 to 2011. Thirty-day morbidity and mortality rates were reported on the basis of operative time, whereas multivariate logistic regression model was used to examine operative duration as an independent risk factor for outcomes. Results. A total of 4588 patients were included in the analysis. The mean operative duration for all patients was 197 ± 105 minutes. Our multivariate risk-adjusted regression models demonstrated that increasing operative time was associated with step-wise increase in risk for overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 2.09–5.73), medical complications (OR, 2.18–6.21), surgical complications (OR, 1.65–2.90), superficial surgical site infection (OR, 2.65–3.97), and postoperative transfusions (OR, 3.25–12.19). Operative duration of 5 hours or more was also associated with increased risk of reoperation (OR, 2.17), organ/space surgical site infection (OR, 9.72), sepsis/septic shock (OR, 4.41), wound dehiscence (OR, 10.98), and deep vein thrombosis (OR, 17.22). Conclusion. Our data suggest that increasing operative duration is associated with a wide array of complications. Operative duration is, therefore, an important quality metric in the performance of lumbar fusion. Strategies to reduce operative time and further research to identify risk factors that are associated with longer surgical duration are needed for improved patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: 3