The effects of pre-emptive analgesia with bupivacaine on acute post-laminectomy pain

Treatment Strategies for Generator Pocket Pain

OBJECTIVE

Generator site pain is a relatively common phenomenon in patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) that complicates management and effective pain relief. This pain may be managed conservatively, with repositioning of the battery and, in some cases, with explant. Here we explore our experience with management of generator site pain ("pocket pain") in a large single-center study.

METHODS

All SCS permanent implants and implantable pulse generator (IPG) placements over 9 years were reviewed. Of 785 cases, we identified 43 patients with pocket pain (5.5%). Demographics and treatments of the pocket pain cohort were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age (± SEM) of the pocket pain cohort was 46.86 ± 1.06, and there were 10/33 males/females. Females were overrepresented in pocket pain cohort (76.7%) when compared with the total SCS cohort (59.0%) (X2 = 5.93, P = 0.015). Diagnosis included failed back surgery syndrome (51.2%), complex regional pain syndrome (23.3%), and chronic neuropathic pain (25.5%). No patients improved with conservative therapy. All patients either went on to revision (n = 23) or explant (n = 20). Time from initial surgery to development of pocket pain was 7.5 months (range: 0.3-88) and from pocket pain to revision surgery was 4.5 months (range: 0.4-26). In addition, significantly more pocket pain patients (65.1%) had workers' compensation (WC) insurance compared with patients without pocket pain (24.9%) (X2 = 33.3, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In our institutional experience, pocket pain was inadequately managed with conservative treatments. Being female and having SCS filed under WC increased risk of pocket pain. Future work will explore the nuances in device placement based on body shape and manual activity responsibilities.

High-volume, multilevel local anesthetics-Epinephrine infiltration in kyphoscoliosis surgery: Intra and postoperative analgesia

Background and Aims:

Local anesthetic (LA) infiltration is one of the analgesic techniques employed during scoliosis correction surgery. However, its efficacy is controversial. In the present study for optimizing analgesia using the infiltration technique, we proposed two modifications; first is the preemptive use of high volume infiltration, second is applying three anatomical multilevel infiltrations involving the sensory, motor, and sympathetic innervations consecutively.

Material and Methods:

This prospective study involved 48 patients randomized into two groups. After general anesthesia (GA), the infiltration group (I) received bupivacaine 0.5% 2 mg/kg, lidocaine 5 mg/kg, and epinephrine 5 mcg/mL of the total volume (100 mL per 10 cm of the wound length) as a preemptive infiltration at three levels; subcutaneous, intramuscular, and the deep neural paravertebral levels, timed before skin incision, muscular dissection, and instrumentation consecutively. The control group (C) received normal saline in the same manner. Data were compared by Mann-Whitney, Chi-square, and t-test as suitable.

Results:

Intraoperatively, the LA infiltration reduced fentanyl, atracurium, isoflurane, nitroglycerine, and propofol consumption. Postoperatively, there was a 41% reduction in morphine consumption, longer time to the first analgesic request, lower VAS, early ambulation, and hospital discharge with high-patient satisfaction.

Conclusion:

The preemptive, high-volume, multilevel infiltration provided a significant intra and postoperative analgesia in scoliosis surgery.

Pain management after laminectomy: a systematic review and procedure-specific post-operative pain management (prospect) recommendations

PURPOSE

With lumbar laminectomy increasingly being performed on an outpatient basis, optimal pain management is critical to avoid post-operative delay in discharge and readmission. The aim of this review was to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after one- or two-level lumbar laminectomy.

METHODS

A systematic review utilizing the PROcedure-SPECific Post-operative Pain ManagemenT (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language from 1 January 2008 until 31 March 2020-assessing post-operative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions-were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.

RESULTS

Out of 65 eligible studies identified, 39 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The analgesic regimen for lumbar laminectomy should include paracetamol and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 selective inhibitor administered preoperatively or intraoperatively and continued post-operatively, with post-operative opioids for rescue analgesia. In addition, surgical wound instillation or infiltration with local anaesthetics prior to wound closure is recommended. Some interventions-gabapentinoids and intrathecal opioid administration-although effective, carry significant risks and consequently were omitted from the recommendations. Other interventions were also not recommended because there was insufficient, inconsistent or lack of evidence.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative pain management for lumbar laminectomy should include paracetamol and NSAID- or COX-2-specific inhibitor, continued into the post-operative period, as well as intraoperative surgical wound instillation or infiltration. Opioids should be used as rescue medication post-operatively. Future studies are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of our recommendations.

Efficacy of augmenting a subacromial continuous-infusion pump with a preoperative interscalene block in outpatient arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a prospective, randomized, blinded, and placebo-controlled study

PURPOSE

This study's purpose was to determine the effectiveness of adding a preoperative interscalene brachial plexus block to standard postoperative management, including oral narcotics and a subacromial bupivacaine infusion pump, after arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

METHODS

After performing a prospective power analysis and obtaining institutional board approval, we conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial of 53 patients separated into a preoperative interscalene brachial plexus group and a control group. Group 1 received an interscalene block with 30 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine. Group 2 received a placebo with 10 mL of saline solution. All patients postoperatively received an arthroscopically placed subacromial infusion pump catheter for 72 hours and oral narcotics. Pain scores on a visual analog scale (VAS) and narcotic pill use were recorded at 6, 12, 20, 32, 40, 52, 60, 72, and 80 hours.

RESULTS

Preoperative pain scores between groups were not significant (P > .05). A statistically significant difference was found for decreased pain scores at 6 hours after discharge in patients receiving an interscalene block (P = .001) (VAS of 30.9 in group 1 v 61.8 in group 2). There was also a decrease in the number of narcotic pills taken at the 6-hour time interval (P = .1) (0.6 pills v 1.1 pills). Group 1 had a rebound phenomenon 20 hours after discharge. Pain scores spiked as the effects of the block wore off (P = .08) (net change in VAS score increase, 25.0 v 10.3). No other statistical or clinical differences were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of a preoperative interscalene block to a postoperative subacromial infusion pump provided significant improvement of pain control only at 6 hours after discharge. Twelve hours after discharge, this benefit had disappeared. A rebound phenomenon of increased pain at 20 hours was seen after the interscalene block had worn off. After 20 hours, no statistically significant or clinically applicable differences were found.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Preoperative and postoperative anesthetic and analgesic techniques for minimally invasive surgery of the spine

STUDY DESIGN

A review of methods to optimize anesthesia and analgesia for minimally invasive spine procedures.

OBJECTIVE

To provide information to surgeons and anesthesiologists of methods to provide optimal anesthesia and pain control for minimally invasive spine surgery with an emphasis on preoperative planning.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Postoperative pain management in patients undergoing minimally invasive spine surgery is a challenge for the perioperative anesthesiologist. In addition to the incisional pain, trauma to deeper tissues, such as ligaments, muscles, intervertebral discs, and periosteum are reasons for significant pain. The increasing number of minimally invasive surgeries and the need for improved and rapid return of the patient of functionality have brought the perioperative anesthesiologist and the surgeon closer.

METHODS

We undertook a review of the literature currently available on anesthesia and analgesia for minimally invasive spine surgery with an emphasis on preoperative planning. A large number of reports of randomized controlled clinical trials with respect to perioperative anesthetic and postoperative pain management for minimally invasive spine surgery are reviewed and the applicability of some of the principles and protocols used for other types of minimally invasive surgical procedures are placed in the context of spine surgery.

RESULTS

It is important to understand and implement a multimodal analgesic therapy during a patient's preoperative visits. Perioperative multimodal analgesia with a fast-track anesthetic protocol is also important and provided in the manuscript. This protocol poses a challenge to the anesthesiologist with respect to neurophysiologic monitoring, which requires further study. The postoperative analgesic management should be a continuance of the multimodal analgesia provided before surgery. Some drugs are not appropriate for patients undergoing fusion surgery because of their effect on bone healing.

CONCLUSION

An optimal preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative anesthesia and analgesia protocol is important to best possible pain relief and rapid return to normal function. Communication between the anesthesiologist and spine surgeon is important to achieve a protocol with the best short- and long-term outcomes for the benefit of the patient.