Safety and efficacy of addition of hyaluronidase to a mixture of lidocaine and bupivacaine in scalp nerves block in elective craniotomy operations; comparative study

A Scoping Review of Hyaluronidase Use in Managing the Complications of Aesthetic Interventions

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronidase is used as an adjunct or main treatment to manage complications associated with cosmetic hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injections such as necrosis, blindness, hypersensitivity, delayed nodules, and poor aesthetic outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically map the available evidence and identify the gaps in knowledge on the effectiveness of hyaluronidase use in managing the aesthetic complications associated with HA injections (vascular occlusion, blindness, nodules, delayed hypersensivity, granuloma, poor aesthetic outcome).

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were used up to May 2022, to look for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical trials, and retrospective case-control studies reporting on the use of hyaluronidase for managing the HA filler injection complications.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 395 studies; of those 5 RCTs (all carried out in the USA) were selected (53 subjects), indicating the effectiveness of hyaluronidase for removal of un-complicated injected HA nodules (forearm, upper arm, or back skin). The follow-ups ranged from 14 days to 4 years. The amount of HA filler injected into each site varied from 0.2 to 0.4 mL. A dose dependent response was observed for most HA fillers. No major adverse reactions were reported. Overall, for removal of every 0.1 mL of HA filler they injected 1.25-37.5 units of hyaluronidase (single injections). When 3 consecutive weekly hyaluronidase injection was used much lower doses of 0.375-2.25 unit was utilised. There was no evidence in a form of RCTs, clinical trials, and retrospective case-control studies on the removal/reversal of HA injections in the facial skin, or management of over-corrections, inflammatory nodules, or tissue ischemia/necrosis associated with HA filler injection.

CONCLUSION

Based on studies on the forearm, upper arm and back skin, hyaluronidase can be used for the reversal of uncomplicated HA filler injection nodule. However, further adequately powered studies are warranted to establish the ideal treatment protocol/dose of hyaluronidase for reversal of HA filler injections in the facial region or management of complications associated with aesthetic HA injection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation on remifentanil dosage during craniotomy aneurysm clipping: a prospective, randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Craniotomy aneurysm clipping is one of the main treatments for intracranial aneurysm (IA). Endotracheal intubation and intraoperative operation may induce dramatic hemodynamic fluctuations and increase the risk of aneurysm rupture. Intraoperative high-dose opioid use is the main measure to reduce the intraoperative stress response, but it increases the incidence of complications such as postoperative vomiting and delayed awakening. Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) stimulates β-endorphin expression levels and reduces opioid requirements. In this study, we aimed to assess the effects of TEAS on remifentanil dosage and oxidative stress (OS) in craniotomy aneurysm clipping.

METHOD

Forty-two patients with craniotomy aneurysm clipping were randomized into two groups: the TEAS group (T group) and the sham TEAS group (S group). "Hegu" (LI4), "Neiguan" (PC6) and "Zusanli" points (ST36) were selected, and a "HANS" percutaneous acupoint electrical stimulator was used for intervention 30 min before anesthesia induction until the end of the operation. The primary outcome was intraoperative remifentanil dosage. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative propofol dosage, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) 5 min before the TEAS intervention (T0), 5 min before head holder pinning (T1), immediately after pinning (T2), 5 min before craniotomy (T3), immediately after craniotomy (T4), at craniotomy (T5), and at the end of surgery (T6), as well as serum β-endorphin levels at T1, T2 and T6 and neuron-specific enolase (NSE), S100β, superoxide dismutase (SOD) and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels at T1, T2 and 24 h after surgery (T7).

RESULTS

The dosage of remifentanil in the T group was reduced compared to that in the S group (P < 0.05). At T2, T4 and T5, the MAP and HR in the T group were lower than those in the S group (P < 0.05). At T2 and T7, the levels of NSE, S100β and MDA in group T were lower than those in group S (P < 0.05), while the SOD levels in group T were higher than those in group S (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TEAS can reduce the dosage of remifentanil and reduce hemodynamic fluctuations during craniotomy aneurysm clipping. It reduces the occurrence of OS and central nervous system damage during surgery and has a certain brain protective effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2100052353. https://www.chictr.org.cn/about.html .

How long to wait after local infiltration anaesthesia: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Conflicting evidence exists regarding the optimal waiting time for stable analgesic and vasoconstrictive effects after local infiltration of lidocaine with epinephrine. An objective review is needed to dispel surgical dogma.

METHODS

This systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022362414) included RCTs and prospective cohort studies. Primary outcomes were (1) onset of analgesia and (2) onset of stable hypoperfusion, assessed directly, or measured indirectly using perfusion imaging. Other data extracted include waiting strategies, means of outcome assessment, anaesthetic concentrations, volume/endpoint of infiltration, and injection sites. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. Articles describing waiting strategies were critically appraised by the Joanna Briggs Institute tools.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were analysed, comprising 1013 participants. Ten investigated analgesia onset. Their pooled mean was 2.1 min (range 0.4-9.0 min). This varied with anatomic site and targeted nerve diameter. Fourteen articles investigated onset of stable hypoperfusion. Four observed bleeding intraoperatively, finding the minimum time to hypoperfusion at 7.0 min in the eyelid skin and 25.0 min in the upper limb. The ten remaining studies used perfusion imaging, reporting a wide range of results (0.0-30.0 min) due to differences in anatomic sites and depth, resolution and artefacts. Studies using near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging correlated with clinical observations. Thirteen articles discussed waiting strategies, seven relating to large-volume tumescent local infiltration anaesthesia. Different waiting strategies exist for emergency, arthroscopic and cosmetic surgeries, according to the degree of hypoperfusion required. In tumescent liposuction, waiting 10.0-60.0 min is the norm.

CONCLUSION

Current literature suggests that around 2 min are required for most patients to achieve complete analgesia in all sites and with all anaesthesia concentrations. Waiting around 7 min in eyelids and at least 25 min in other regions results in optimal hypoperfusion. The strategies discussed inform decisions of when and how long to wait.

Hyaluronidase following buccal infiltrations of articaine with epinephrine for anesthesia of mandibular first molars: A split-mouth, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Adjunctive hyaluronidase has been widely used for ophthalmic anesthesia; however, in Dentistry, very few studies are available so far. Thus, the present study aimed to evaluate anesthetic outcomes of adjunctive hyaluronidase administration following buccal infiltration of articaine with epinephrine for anesthesia of mandibular first molars.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-eight patients received a buccal supraperiosteal infiltration of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine for anesthesia of the mandibular first molars, in a split-mouth approach. Afterward, randomly and using the same technique, they received either 1.0 mL of hyaluronidase (150 UTR/mL) or a placebo solution. Considering patients' pain perceptions provoked by electric and mechanical stimulations, as well as using a pain scale, success rate, action onset time, duration of both pulpal and soft tissue anesthesia, and pain immediately after both punctures and on the 2nd day were assessed.

RESULTS

The pulpal anesthetic success rate was 85.7% for hyaluronidase and placebo groups. Soft tissue anesthesia showed a shorter action onset time and a longer duration when hyaluronidase was used; however, there was no difference between the groups regarding action onset time and duration of pulpal anesthesia. Pain at the puncture sites did not differ between the groups, regardless of the time point evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive hyaluronidase following buccal infiltration of articaine with epinephrine for mandibular first molars seems not to provide any advantage in anesthetic outcomes in which the nerve fibers are intraosseous (i.e., pulpal anesthesia). On the other hand, soft tissue anesthesia may be improved substantially by using this pharmacological strategy. Key words:Hyaluronidase, local anesthesia, dentistry.

Multimodal analgesia in neurosurgery: a narrative review

Pain following brain surgery can compromise the result of surgery. Several pharmacological interventions have been used to prevent postoperative pain in adults undergoing brain surgery. Pain following craniotomy is considered to be moderate to severe during the first two post-operative days. Opioids have been historically the mainstay and are the current prominent strategy for pain treatment. They produce analgesia but may alter respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and neuroendocrine functions. All these side effects may affect the normal postoperative course of craniotomy by affecting neurological function and increasing intracranial pressure. Therefore, their use in neurosurgery is limited, and opioids are used in case of strict necessity or as rescue medication. In addition to opioids, drugs with differing mechanisms of actions target pain pathways, resulting in additive and/or synergistic effects. Some of these agents include acetaminophen/non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, gabapentinoids, and local anesthesia techniques. Multimodal analgesia should be a balance between adequate analgesia and less drug-induced sedation, respiratory depression, hypercapnia, nausea, and vomiting, which may increase intracranial pressure. Non-opioid analgesics can be an useful pharmacological alternative in multimodal regimes to manage post-craniotomy pain. This narrative review aims to outline the current clinical evidence of multimodal analgesia for post craniotomy pain control.

Three-step tumescent local anesthesia technique for inguinal hernia repair

The optimal method of anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair is still controversial. We have developed "three-step tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) technique" for inguinal hernia repair, and recently showed that this technique is acceptable in view of short- and long-term clinical outcomes. Our study included 273 consecutive cases (290 sides) of elective inguinal hernia repair performed under the newly developed technique between September 2003 and May 2019, and overall clinical outcomes were considered to be safe and feasible. Herein, we report the surgical procedure of "three-step TLA technique." Briefly, we rapidly inject the diluted solution of local anesthetic and epinephrine step-by-step into the three following closed tissue space. Initially, 80 mL injection into the subcutaneous tissue before skin incision (Step 1). After the external oblique fascia is exposed, injection of 20 mL into the inguinal canal before the external oblique fascia is incised and opened (Step 2). The hernia sac and spermatic cord are then dissected, and the blunt dissection of the preperitoneal space is made by injecting 20 mL under the internal inguinal ring (Step 3), followed by placing a gauze into the preperitoneal space, creating the space for mesh placement. We consider that the most important point of this technique is achieved through the rapid injection of TLA solution into each closed tissue space, which makes for easier dissection, hemostasis, and good pain control.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults following brain surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain following brain surgery can compromise recovery. Several pharmacological interventions have been used to prevent pain after craniotomy; however, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding which interventions are most effective.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives are to assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing brain surgery; compare them in terms of additional analgesic requirements, incidence of chronic headache, sedative effects, length of hospital stay and adverse events; and determine whether these characteristics are different for certain subgroups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and two trial registries together with reference checking and citation searching on 28th of November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included blinded and non-blinded, randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing neurosurgery, which had at least one validated pain score outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated mean differences for the primary outcome of pain intensity; any pain scores reported on a 0 to 100 scale were converted to a 0 to 10 scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 completed studies (3548 participants) and identified one ongoing study. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) reduce pain up to 24 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -1.16, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.76; 12 hours, MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.14; 24 hours, MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.13; 6 studies, 742 participants; all high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesic requirements: MD 1.29 mg, 95% CI -5.0 to 2.46, 4 studies, 265 participants; nausea and vomiting RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.94, 2 studies, 345 participants; both low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine reduces pain up to 12 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.51, moderate-quality evidence; 12 hours, MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42, low-quality evidence). It did not show efficacy at 24 hours (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.16; 2 studies, 128 participants; low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine may decrease additional analgesic requirements (MD -21.36 mg, 95% CI -34.63 to -8.1 mg, 2 studies, 128 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR -0.43, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.08, 3 studies, 261 participants; hypotension RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.28, 3 studies, 184 participants; both low-quality evidence). Scalp blocks may reduce pain up to 48 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.3, 10 studies, 414 participants; 12 hours, MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.37, 8 studies, 294 participants; 24 hours, MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, 9 studies, 433 participants, all low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD -1.34, 95% CI -2.57 to -0.11, 4 studies, 135 participants, very low-quality evidence. When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, significance remained at 12 hours only. Scalp blocks may decrease additional analgesia requirements (SMD -1.11, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.25, 7 studies, 314 participants). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32, 4 studies, 165 participants, very low-quality evidence). Scalp Infiltration may reduce pain postoperatively but efficacy was inconsistent, with a significant effect at 12 and 48 hours only (12 hours, MD -0.71, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.08, 7 studies, 309 participants, low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD - 1.09, 95% CI -2.13 to - 0.06, 3 studies, 128 participants, moderate-quality evidence). No benefit was observed at other times (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.00, 9 studies, 475 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.39, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.27,6 studies, 260 participants, low-quality evidence. Scalp infiltration may reduce additional analgesia requirements MD -9.56 mg, 95% CI -15.64 to -3.49, 6 studies, 345 participants, very low-quality evidence). When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, scalp infiltration lost the pain benefit at 12 hours and effects on additional analgesia requirements, but retained the pain-reducing benefit at 48 hours (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.32, 2 studies, 100 participants, very low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.41, 4 studies, 318 participants, low-quality evidence). Pregabalin or gabapentin may reduce pain up to 6 hours (2 studies, 202 participants), MD -1.15,95% CI -1.66 to -0.6, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). One study examined analgesic efficacy at 12 hours showing significant benefit. No analgesia efficacy was shown at later times (24 hours, MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.19; 48 hours, MD - 0.06, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.77, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). Additional analgesia requirements were not significantly less (MD -0.37 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Risk of nausea and vomiting was significantly reduced (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, 3 studies, 273 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesia requirements: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Acetaminophen did not show analgesic benefit (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.30; 12 hours, MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.03, 3 studies, 332 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.34, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.52, 4 studies, 439 participants, high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes remained imprecise (additional analgesia requirements, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.99, 4 studies, 459 participants, high-quality evidence; length of hospitalizations, MD -3.71, 95% CI -14.12 to 6.7, 2 studies, 335 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that NSAIDs reduce pain up to 24 hours postoperatively. The evidence for reductions in pain with dexmedetomidine, pregabalin or gabapentin, scalp blocks, and scalp infiltration is less certain and of very low to moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that scalp blocks and dexmedetomidine may reduce additional analgesics requirements. There is low-quality evidence that gabapentin or pregabalin may decrease nausea and vomiting, with the caveat that the total number of events for this comparison was low.