Breast surgery analgesia: another perspective for PROSPECT guidelines

Fascial plane blocks for cardiothoracic surgery: a narrative review

In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the limitations and risks associated with the overreliance on opioids in various surgical procedures, including cardiothoracic surgery.This shift on pain management toward reducing reliance on opioids, together with need to improve patient outcomes, alleviate suffering, gain early mobilization after surgery, reduce hospital stay, and improve patient satisfaction and functional recovery, has led to the development and widespread implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.In this context, fascial plane blocks are emerging as part of a multimodal analgesic in cardiac surgery and as alternatives to conventional neuraxial blocks for thoracic surgery, and there is a growing body of evidence suggesting their effectiveness and safety in providing pain relief for these procedures. In this review, we discuss the most common fascial plane block techniques used in the field of cardiothoracic surgery, offering a comprehensive overview of regional anesthesia techniques and presenting the latest evidence on the use of chest wall plane blocks specifically in this surgical setting.

Factors to consider for fascial plane blocks' success in acute and chronic pain management

The outcome of fascial plane blocks (FPBs) has a certain variability that may depend on many factors, which can be divided into three main categories: operator-related, patient-related and drug-related. Operator-related factors include personal skills, choice of needle and injection modalities. Patient variables include anthropometric features, the type of targeted fascia, anatomical variants, patient positioning, muscle tone and breathing. Ultimately, efficacy, onset, and duration of fascial blocks may be affected by characteristics of the injected solution, including the type of local anesthetic, volume, concentration, pH, temperature and the use of adjuvants. In this article, we investigated all the factors that may influence the outcome of FPBs from a generic perspective, without focusing on any specific technique. Also, we provided suggestions to optimize techniques for everyday practitioners and insights to researchers for future studies.

Ultrasound Guided Parasternal Block for Perioperative Analgesia in Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Study

Ultrasound guided parasternal block is a regional anaesthesia technique targeting the anterior branches of intercostal nerves, which supply the anterior thoracic wall. The aim of this prospective study is to assess the efficacy of parasternal block to manage postoperative analgesia and reduce opioid consumption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery throughout sternotomy. A total of 126 consecutive patients were allocated to two different groups, receiving (Parasternal group) or not (Control group) preoperative ultrasound guided bilateral parasternal block with 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine per side. The following data were recorded: postoperative pain expressed by a 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS), intraoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative morphine consumption, time to extubation and perioperative pulmonary performance at incentive spirometry. Postoperative NRS was not significantly different between Parasternal and Control groups with a median (IQR) of 2 (0-4.5) vs. 3 (0-6) upon awakening (p = 0.07); 0 (0-3) vs. 2 (0-4) at 6 h (p = 0.46); 0 (0-2) vs. 0 (0-2) at 12 h (p = 0.57). Postoperative morphine consumption was similar among groups. However, intraoperative fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in the Parasternal group [406.3 ± 81.6 mcg vs. 864.3 ± 154.4, (p < 0.001)]. Parasternal group showed shorter times to extubation [(191 ± 58 min vs. 305 ± 72 min, (p)] and better performance at incentive spirometer with a median (IQR) of 2 raised balls (1-2) vs. 1 (1-2) after awakening (p = 0.04). Ultrasound guided parasternal block provided an optimal perioperative analgesia with a significant reduction in intraoperative opioid consumption, time to extubation and a better postoperative performance at spirometry when compared to the Control group.

A Meta-Analysis Showing the Quantitative Evidence Base of Preemptive Pregabalin for Postoperative Pain from Cancer-Related Surgery

Background and Objectives: As an adjunct to postoperative multimodal analgesic regimens, pregabalin has been reported in reducing postoperative acute pain and opioid consumption. However, there is only a small amount of evidence for preemptive pregabalin in patients undergoing cancer-related surgery. This systematic review was conducted to integrate high-quality evidence to evaluate the preemptive analgesic effects of pregabalin in cancer-related surgery. Materials and Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched in a combination of subject terms and free words. Efficacy and safety of preemptive pregabalin on postoperative pain for cancer-related surgery were evaluated by assessing resting and dynamic pain scores postoperatively, cumulative morphine equivalent consumption, time to first analgesic request, hemodynamic parameters, and the safety indicators. Results: Thirteen trials were incorporated for quantitative synthesis. The pooled results showed administration of pregabalin preoperatively is clinically significant for improving resting (weighted mean difference (WMD), -1.53 cm; 95% CI, -2.30 to -0.77) and dynamic (WMD, -1.16 cm; 95% CI, -2.22 to -0.11) pain severity scores at 2 h postoperatively and prolonging time to first analgesic request (WMD, 2.28 h; 95% CI, 0.79 to 3.77) in cancer-related surgery. Preemptive pregabalin was also statistically effective in some other pain indicators but would increase the risk of pregabalin-related side effects after surgery. Conclusions: Our findings do not support the administration of pregabalin in doses larger than 300 mg when put in cancer-related surgery. Taken together, more high-quality research particularly focused on the optimal dosages and timing of pregabalin in cancer-related surgery is needed in the future to establish stronger evidence for therapeutic effects.

Paravertebral block versus erector spinae plane block for analgesia in modified radical mastectomy: a randomized, prospective, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Pain control after breast surgery is crucial and supported with regional techniques. Paravertebral block (TPVB) is shown to be effective in postoperative pain management. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is assumed to have a similar analgesic effect as an easier and safer block. Our aim was to compare TPVB and ESPB for modified radical mastectomy (MRM) in terms of analgesic efficiency and dermatomal spread.

METHODS

Patients were randomized into Group E (ESPB) and Group P (TPVB). Total 83 patients completed study 42 in Group E and 41 in Group P. Blocks were performed under ultrasonography with 20 mL 0.375% bupivacaine at T4 prior to surgery. T1-10 dermatomal block was examined via pin-prick sensation on the midaxillary and midclavicular lines. Primary outcome was 24-hour morphine consumption. Dermatomal coverage, postoperative 0th minute, 30th minute, 1st, 4th, 6th, 12th and 24th hours pain scores, rescue analgesia requirement and adverse events were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Morphine consumption was lower in Group P (19.2±2.9 vs. 21±3.1, P=0.007; mean difference 1.8 mg, 95%CI=0.48-3.1 mg). The number of dermatomes with total loss of sensation was higher in Group P. Pain scores were significantly lower in Group P at all time points. The incidence of complications and adverse events was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Thoracal paravertebral block reduced morphine consumption compared to ESPB after MRM, albeit a small difference. A through coverage of TPVB may be preferred with experienced operators in MRM due to lower pain scores.

Analgesia and spread of erector spinae plane block in breast cancer surgeries: a randomized controlled trial

Background

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy and spread of variable volumes of local anesthetics (LA) in Erector spinae plane block (ESPB).

Methods

Sixty patients aged between 18 and 50 years with an ASA I-II and scheduled for breast cancer surgery were randomized to receive either ESPB with 20 ml 0.25% bupivacaine (Standard volume ESPB), or with 40 ml 0.125% bupivacaine (High volume ESPB), or no ESPB (GA only group). The primary outcome was pain intensity evaluated by the visual analogue scale (VAS), 12 hours after surgery. P-values < 0.05 were considered the cutoff point for statistical significance. The secondary outcomes were pain at rest and pain on movement evaluated by the VAS, craniocaudal injectate spread, to paravertebral (PV) and epidural spaces assessed by CT, clinical dermatomal spread, level of sedation or agitation, and patient satisfaction with anesthesia and analgesia.

Results

VAS at rest 12 h after surgery was less in both intervention groups compared to the control (1.75 ± 0.79 vs. 1.6 ± 0.88 vs. 3.4 ± 1.96, p = 0.001). The LA had extended further in the high volume group than the standard volume group (11.20 ± 3.07 vs. 9.15 ± 2.54 vertebral levels, p = 0.027). No difference of the spread to PV or epidural spaces between the 2 intervention groups. More dermatomes were covered in the high volume group (7.20 ± 2.12 vs. 5.75 ± 1.37 dermatomes, p = 0.014). Agitation was higher in the GA only group than both ESPB groups in the first 8 postoperative hours. Patients were more satisfied in both ESPB groups than the GA only group.

Conclusions

Preoperative ESPB is an excellent analgesic modality and it can also attenuate both postoperative agitation and sedation. Doubling the injectate volume enhances the craniocaudal spreading and may be useful for surgeries requiring multiple dermatomes. However, larger volume has no effect on analgesic efficacy or patient satisfaction as there is no further spread to the PV, epidural spaces or spinal nerve rami.

Trial registration

NCT04796363 (12/3/2021).

The association of Serratus Anterior Plane blocks with postoperative opioid use and analgesia following simple lumpectomy: a retrospective cohort analysis

Background

The potential benefit of regional interventions for simple lumpectomy breast cancer surgeries has not been well investigated. Understanding which patients to not offer a regional intervention to can be just as important as knowing which would benefit. It is unclear whether fascial plane blocks, such as serratus anterior plane (SAP) block, should be routinely performed for less extensive breast surgeries. Therefore, our goal in this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the association of integrating SAP blocks into a standard perioperative multimodal analgesia plan in patients undergoing simple lumpectomies (without node biopsies) with perioperative opioid consumption. As secondary outcomes, we also analyzed postoperative pain scores and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay.

Methods

This was a single institution retrospective cohort study (surgical site infiltration only versus SAP block cohorts) assessing the association of SAP blocks to our outcomes of interest. In the adjusted analysis, we created matched cohorts using 1:1 (surgical site infiltration only: SAP block) propensity-score matching using nearest neighbor-matching without replacement. To compare the primary and secondary outcomes in the matched cohorts, we used the Wilcoxon signed rank test. A P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

There were 419 patients included in the analysis, in which 116 (27.7%) received a SAP block preoperatively in addition to our standard perioperative analgesia plan. In an unadjusted analysis, no differences were seen in perioperative opioid consumption, PACU pain scores, and PACU length of stay. Among the matched cohorts, the median [quartile] perioperative opioid consumption in the surgical site infiltration only versus SAP block cohorts were 10 mg [10, 13.25 mg] and 10 mg [7, 15 mg], respectively (P = 0.16). No differences were seen in the other outcomes.

Conclusions

In this study, we evaluated the impact of SAP blocks on patients undergoing simple lumpectomies, which are relatively less involved breast surgeries. We concluded that routine use of preoperative regional anesthesia is not beneficial for these specific patients. Future studies should focus on identifying patients that would directly benefit from regional interventions.