1
|
Boyev A, Popat K, Gottumukkala VNR, Kwater AP, Chiang YJ, Prakash LR, Newhook TE, Arvide EM, Dewhurst WL, Bruno ML, Van Meter A, Hancher-Hodges S, Ghebremichael S, Williams U, Donahue H, Soliz J, Tzeng CWD. Postoperative pain scores and opioid use after standard bupivacaine vs. liposomal bupivacaine regional blocks for abdominal cancer surgery: A propensity score matched study. Am J Surg 2024; 237:115770. [PMID: 38789322 DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.05.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2024] [Revised: 05/11/2024] [Accepted: 05/17/2024] [Indexed: 05/26/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fascial plane blocks (FPBs) are widely used for abdominal surgery with the assumption that liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is more effective than standard bupivacaine (SB). METHODS This was a single-institution retrospective cohort study of patients administered FPBs with LB or SB + admixtures (dexamethasone/dexmedetomidine) for open abdominal cancer surgery. Propensity score matching generated a 2:1 (LB:SB) matched cohort. Opioid use (mg oral morphine equivalents, OME) and severe pain (≥3 pain scores ≥7 in a 24-h period) were compared. RESULTS Opioid use was >150 mg OME in 19.9 % (29/146) LB and 16.4 % (12/73) SB patients (p = 0.586). Severe pain was experienced by 44 % (64/146) LB and 53 % (39/73) SB patients (p = 0.198). On multivariable analysis, SB vs LB choice was not associated with high opioid volume >150 mg or severe pain. CONCLUSIONS FPBs with standard bupivacaine were not associated with higher 72-h opioid use or more severe pain compared to liposomal bupivacaine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Artem Boyev
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Keyuri Popat
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Vijaya N R Gottumukkala
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Andrzej P Kwater
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yi-Ju Chiang
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Laura R Prakash
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Timothy E Newhook
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Elsa M Arvide
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Whitney L Dewhurst
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Morgan L Bruno
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Antoinette Van Meter
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Shannon Hancher-Hodges
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Semhar Ghebremichael
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Uduak Williams
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Hart Donahue
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jose Soliz
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Wei D Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Hussain N, Speer J, Abdallah FW. Analgesic Effectiveness of Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Plain Local Anesthetics for Abdominal Fascial Plane Blocks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials. Anesthesiology 2024; 140:906-919. [PMID: 38592360 DOI: 10.1097/aln.0000000000004932] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/10/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liposomal bupivacaine is reported to prolong the duration of analgesia when used for abdominal fascial plane blocks compared to plain local anesthetics; however, evidence from randomized trials is mixed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the analgesic effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine to plain local anesthetics in adults receiving abdominal fascial plane blocks. METHODS Randomized trials comparing liposomal bupivacaine and plain (nonliposomal) local anesthetics in abdominal fascial plane blocks were sought. The primary outcome was area under the curve rest pain between 24 to 72 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at individual timepoints (1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h); analgesic consumption at 0 to 24, 25 to 48, and 49 to 72 h; time to analgesic request; hospital stay duration; and opioid-related side effects. Data were pooled using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects method. RESULTS Sixteen trials encompassing 1,287 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 667; plain local anesthetics, 620) were included. The liposomal bupivacaine group received liposomal bupivacaine mixed with plain bupivacaine in 10 studies, liposomal bupivacaine alone in 5 studies, and both preparations in 1 three-armed study. No difference was observed between the two groups for area under the curve pain scores, with a standardized mean difference (95% CI) of -0.21 cm.h (-0.43 to 0.01; P = 0.058; I2 = 48%). Results were robust to subgroup analysis based on (1) potential conflict of interest and (2) mixing of plain local anesthetics with liposomal bupivacaine. The two groups were not different for any of the day 2 or day 3 secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests similar analgesic effectiveness between liposomal bupivacaine and plain local anesthetics when used for fascial plane block of the abdominal wall. The authors' analysis does not support an evidence-based preference for liposomal bupivacaine compared to plain local anesthetics for abdominal fascial plane blocks. EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nasir Hussain
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Jarod Speer
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
| | - Faraj W Abdallah
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lirk P, Badaoui J, Stuempflen M, Hedayat M, Freys SM, Joshi GP. PROcedure-SPECific postoperative pain management guideline for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: A systematic review with recommendations for postoperative pain management. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2024; 41:161-173. [PMID: 38298101 DOI: 10.1097/eja.0000000000001945] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/02/2024]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer diagnosed in women and third most common in men. Laparoscopic resection has become the standard surgical technique worldwide given its notable benefits, mainly the shorter length of stay and less postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current literature on postoperative pain management following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and update previous procedure-specific pain management recommendations. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. We also considered study quality, clinical relevance of trial design, and a comprehensive risk-benefit assessment of the analgesic intervention. We performed a literature search to identify randomised controlled studies (RCTs) published before January 2022. Seventy-two studies were included in the present analysis. Through the established PROSPECT process, we recommend basic analgesia (paracetamol for rectal surgery, and paracetamol with either a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitor for colonic surgery) and wound infiltration as first-line interventions. No consensus could be achieved either for the use of intrathecal morphine or intravenous lidocaine; no recommendation can be made for these interventions. However, intravenous lidocaine may be considered when basic analgesia cannot be provided.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philipp Lirk
- From the Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital (PL, JB, MS), Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA (MH), Department of Surgery, DIAKO Ev. Diakonie-Krankenhaus, Bremen, Germany (SMF) and Department of Anesthesiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA (GPJ)
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nguyen A, Grape S, Gobbetti M, Albrecht E. The postoperative analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus long-acting local anaesthetics for peripheral nerve and field blocks: A systematic review and meta-analysis, with trial sequential analysis. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2023; 40:624-635. [PMID: 37038770 PMCID: PMC10860892 DOI: 10.1097/eja.0000000000001833] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liposomal bupivacaine is claimed by the manufacturer to provide analgesia for up to 72 h postoperatively. OBJECTIVES To compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine versus long-acting local anaesthetics for peripheral nerve or field blocks. DESIGN A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, among others, up to June 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We retrieved randomised controlled trials comparing liposomal bupivacaine versus bupivacaine, levobupivacaine or ropivacaine for peripheral nerve and field blocks after all types of surgery. Our primary endpoint was rest pain score (analogue scale 0 to 10) at 24 h. Secondary endpoints included rest pain score at 48 and 72 h, and morphine consumption at 24, 48 and 72 h. RESULTS Twenty-seven trials including 2122 patients were identified. Rest pain scores at 24 h were significantly reduced by liposomal bupivacaine with a mean difference (95% CI) of -0.9 (-1.4 to -0.4), I2 = 87%, P < 0.001. This reduction in pain scores persisted at 48 h and 72 h with mean differences (95% CI) of -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), I2 = 82%, P = 0.001 and -0.7 (-1.1 to -0.3), I2 = 80%, P < 0.001, respectively. There were no differences in interval morphine consumption at 24 h ( P = 0.15), 48 h ( P = 0.15) and 72 h ( P = 0.07). The quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS There is moderate level evidence that liposomal bupivacaine reduces rest pain scores by 0.9 out of 10 units, when compared with long-acting local anaesthetics at 24 hours after surgery, and by 0.7 up to 72 hours after surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandre Nguyen
- From the Department of Anaesthesia, University Hospital of Lausanne and University of Lausanne, Lausanne (AN, MG, EA), the Department of Anaesthesia, Valais Hospital, Sion (SG), and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (SG)
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|