17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Systematic Review of Postoperative Pain Outcome Measurements Utilised in Regional Anesthesia Randomized Controlled Trials

      review-article
      1 , , 2 , 3 , 4
      Anesthesiology Research and Practice
      Hindawi

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Regional anesthesia is a rapidly growing subspecialty. There are few published meta-analyses exploring pain outcome measures utilised in regional anesthesia randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which may be due to heterogeneity in outcomes assessed. This systematic review explores postoperative pain outcomes utilised in regional anesthesia RCTs.

          Methods

          A literature search was performed using three databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL). Regional anesthesia RCTs with postoperative pain as a primary outcome were included if written in English and published in one of the top 20 impact factor journals between 2005 and 2017. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.

          Results

          From the 31 included articles, 15 different outcome measures in total were used to assess postoperative pain. The most commonly (16/31) used outcome measures were verbal numerical grading of pain out of 10, total opioid consumption, and visual analogue scale 10 cm (VAS). The need for analgesia was used as an outcome measure where studies did not use a pain rating score. Ten studies reported pain scores on activity and 27/31 studies utilised ≥2 pain outcomes. Time of measurement of pain score also varied with a total of 51 different time points used in total.

          Conclusion

          Analysis of the articles demonstrated heterogeneity and inconsistency in choice of pain outcome and time of measurement within regional anesthesia studies. Identification of these pain outcomes utilised can help to create a definitive list of core outcomes, which may guide future researchers when designing such studies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy of pectoral nerve block versus thoracic paravertebral block for postoperative analgesia after radical mastectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

          Pectoral nerve (PecS) block is a recently introduced technique for providing surgical anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia during breast surgery. The present study was planned to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided PecS II block with thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) for postoperative analgesia after modified radical mastectomy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dexmedetomidine added to ropivacaine extends the duration of interscalene brachial plexus blocks for elective shoulder surgery when compared with ropivacaine alone: a single-center, prospective, triple-blind, randomized controlled trial.

            Research suggests that the addition of dexmedetomidine to local anesthetics can prolong peripheral nerve blocks; however, clinical safety data are limited, and interscalene blocks have not been studied. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that dexmedetomidine added to ropivacaine would safely enhance the duration of analgesia without adverse effects when compared with ropivacaine alone. We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized, triple-blind, controlled trial of 62 patients undergoing elective shoulder surgery under general anesthesia with an interscalene block. Patients underwent ultrasound-guided interscalene blocks using either 12 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine or 0.5% ropivacaine plus 150-µg dexmedetomidine. The primary outcomes were self-reported duration of the nerve block and safety assessment (adverse effects and neurological sequelae). Data were analyzed in a blinded fashion. The median duration of the nerve block was 18 hours (95% confidence interval, 18-20) in the dexmedetomidine group and 14 hours (95% confidence interval, 14-16) in the ropivacaine group (P = 0.0001). Dexmedetomidine also lowered pain scores for the first 14 hours postoperatively and significantly hastened the time to sensory (P = 0.04) and motor (P = 0.002) block onset. Dexmedetomidine lowered heart rate but blood pressures were stable. Plasma levels of ropivacaine were not different between groups, and plasma dexmedetomidine levels were relatively low. There were no adverse events or neurological sequelae. Dexmedetomidine added to ropivacaine for interscalene blocks increased the duration of the nerve block and improved postoperative pain. These additional efficacy and safety data should encourage further study of peripheral perineural dexmedetomidine in humans.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Continuous saphenous nerve block as supplement to single-dose local infiltration analgesia for postoperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty.

              Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) reduces pain after total knee arthroplasty without the motor blockade associated with epidural analgesia or femoral nerve block. However, the duration and efficacy of LIA are not sufficient. A saphenous nerve block, in addition to single-dose LIA, may improve analgesia without interfering with early mobilization.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Anesthesiol Res Pract
                Anesthesiol Res Pract
                ARP
                Anesthesiology Research and Practice
                Hindawi
                1687-6962
                1687-6970
                2018
                29 July 2018
                : 2018
                : 9050239
                Affiliations
                1Department of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                2Department of Anaesthesia, University College Hospitals London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                3Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
                4Department of Anaesthesia, University College Hospitals London NHS Foundation Trust, University College London, London, UK
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Enrico Camporesi

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5190-2221
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4919-4542
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7770-0289
                Article
                10.1155/2018/9050239
                6087609
                e561162a-15bf-45ac-8aea-aacb7e62e761
                Copyright © 2018 E. Pushpanathan et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 24 March 2018
                : 24 June 2018
                Categories
                Review Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                Anesthesiology & Pain management

                Comments

                Comment on this article