A review of peripheral nerve blocks for cesarean delivery analgesia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mitchell KD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7182469 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A review of peripheral nerve blocks for cesarean delivery analgesia.
Mitchell Kelsey D KD Smith C Tyler CT Mechling Courtney C Wessel Charles B CB Orebaugh Steven S Lim Grace G
Regional anesthesia and pain medicine 20191025
Peripheral nerve blocks have a unique role in postcesarean delivery multimodal analgesia regimens. In this review article, options for peripheral nerve blocks for cesarean delivery analgesia will be reviewed, specifically paravertebral, transversus abdominis plane, quadratus lumborum, iliohypogastric and ilioinguinal, erector spinae, and continuous wound infiltration blocks. Anatomy, existing literature evidence, and specific areas in need of future research will be assessed. Considerations for ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The purpose of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to determine the analgesic effectiveness of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs), including each anatomical approach, with or without intrathecal morphine (ITMP) in cesarean delivery (CD). All relevant randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic effectiveness of PNBs with or without ITMP after CD until July 2021. The two co-primary outcomes were designated as (1) pain at rest 6 h after surgery and (2) postoperative cumulative 24-h morphine equivalent consumption. Secondary outcomes were the time to first analgesic request, pain at rest 24 h, and dynamic pain 6 and 24 h after surgery. Seventy-six studies (6278 women) were analyzed. The combined ilioinguinal nerve and anterior transversus abdominis plane (II-aTAP) block in conjunction with ITMP had the highest SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) values for postoperative rest pain at 6 h (88.4%) and 24-h morphine consumption (99.4%). Additionally, ITMP, ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block in conjunction with ITMP, lateral TAP block, and wound infiltration (WI) or continuous infusion (WC) below the fascia also showed a significant reduction in two co-primary outcomes. Only the II-aTAP block had a statistically significant additional analgesic effect compared to ITMP alone on rest pain at 6 h after surgery (-7.60 (-12.49, -2.70)). In conclusion, combined II-aTAP block in conjunction with ITMP is the most effective post-cesarean analgesic strategy with lower rest pain at 6 h and cumulative 24-h morphine consumption. Using the six described analgesic strategies for postoperative pain management after CD is considered reasonable. Lateral TAP block, WI, and WC below the fascia may be useful alternatives in patients with a history of sensitivity or severe adverse effects to opioids or when the CD is conducted under general anesthesia.
| S-EPMC9033028 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundContinuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNBs) have been investigated to control pain for abdominal surgery via midline laparotomy while avoiding the adverse events of opioid or epidural analgesia. The review compiles the evidence comparing CPNBs to multimodal and epidural analgesia.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review using broad search terms in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane. Primary outcomes were pain scores and cumulative opioid consumption at 48 hours. Secondary outcomes were length of stay and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We rated the quality of the evidence using Cochrane and GRADE recommendations. The results were synthesized by meta-analysis using Revman.ResultsOur final selection included 26 studies (1,646 patients). There was no statistically significant difference in pain control comparing CPNBs to either multimodal or epidural analgesia (low quality evidence). Less opioids were consumed when receiving epidural analgesia than CPNBs (mean difference [MD]: -16.13, 95% CI [-32.36, 0.10]), low quality evidence) and less when receiving CPNBs than multimodal analgesia (MD: -31.52, 95% CI [-42.81, -20.22], low quality evidence). The length of hospital stay was shorter when receiving epidural analgesia than CPNBs (MD: -0.78 days, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.27], low quality evidence) and shorter when receiving CPNBs than multimodal analgesia (MD: -1.41 days, 95% CI [-2.45, -0.36], low quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference in PONV comparing CPNBs to multimodal (high quality evidence) or epidural analgesia (moderate quality evidence).ConclusionsCPNBs should be considered a viable alternative to epidural analgesia when contraindications to epidural placement exist for patients undergoing midline laparotomies.
| S-EPMC8497905 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3409967 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundVarious nerve blocks with local anaesthetic agents have been used to reduce pain after hip fracture and subsequent surgery. This review was published originally in 1999 and was updated in 2001, 2002, 2009 and 2017.ObjectivesThis review focuses on the use of peripheral nerves blocks as preoperative analgesia, as postoperative analgesia or as a supplement to general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. We undertook the update to look for new studies and to update the methods to reflect Cochrane standards.Search methodsFor the updated review, we searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to August week 1 2016), Embase (Ovid SP, 1988 to 2016 August week 1) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO, 1982 to August week 1 2016), as well as trial registers and reference lists of relevant articles.Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving use of nerve blocks as part of the care provided for adults aged 16 years and older with hip fracture.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed new trials for inclusion, determined trial quality using the Cochrane tool and extracted data. When appropriate, we pooled results of outcome measures. We rated the quality of evidence according to the GRADE Working Group approach.Main resultsWe included 31 trials (1760 participants; 897 randomized to peripheral nerve blocks and 863 to no regional blockade). Results of eight trials with 373 participants show that peripheral nerve blocks reduced pain on movement within 30 minutes of block placement (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.14 to -0.67; equivalent to -3.4 on a scale from 0 to 10; I2 = 90%; high quality of evidence). Effect size was proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used (P < 0.00001). Based on seven trials with 676 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state (risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.27; I2 = 48%; very low quality of evidence). Three trials with 131 participants reported decreased risk for pneumonia (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.89; I2 = 3%; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 7, 95% CI 5 to 72; moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in risk of myocardial ischaemia or death within six months, but the number of participants included was well below the optimal information size for these two outcomes. Two trials with 155 participants reported that peripheral nerve blocks also reduced time to first mobilization after surgery (mean difference -11.25 hours, 95% CI -14.34 to -8.15 hours; I2 = 52%; moderate quality of evidence). One trial with 75 participants indicated that the cost of analgesic drugs was lower when they were given as a single shot block (SMD -3.48, 95% CI -4.23 to -2.74; moderate quality of evidence).Authors' conclusionsHigh-quality evidence shows that regional blockade reduces pain on movement within 30 minutes after block placement. Moderate-quality evidence shows reduced risk for pneumonia, decreased time to first mobilization and cost reduction of the analgesic regimen (single shot blocks).
| S-EPMC6481480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of peripheral nerve blocks for anesthesia and postoperative analgesia has increased significantly in recent years. Adjuvants are frequently added to local anesthetics to prolong analgesia following peripheral nerve blockade. Numerous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have examined the pros and cons of the use of various individual adjuvants.ObjectivesTo systematically review adjuvant-related randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses and provide clinical recommendations for the use of adjuvants in peripheral nerve blocks.MethodsRandomized controlled trials and meta-analyses that were published between 1990 and 2014 were included in the initial bibliographic search, which was conducted using Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Only studies that were published in English and listed block analgesic duration as an outcome were included. Trials that had already been published in the identified meta-analyses and included adjuvants not in widespread use and published without an Investigational New Drug application or equivalent status were excluded.ResultsSixty one novel clinical trials and meta-analyses were identified and included in this review. The clinical trials reported analgesic duration data for the following adjuvants: buprenorphine (6), morphine (6), fentanyl (10), epinephrine (3), clonidine (7), dexmedetomidine (7), dexamethasone (7), tramadol (8), and magnesium (4). Studies of perineural buprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, and magnesium most consistently demonstrated prolongation of peripheral nerve blocks.ConclusionsBuprenorphine, clonidine, dexamethasone, magnesium, and dexmedetomidine are promising agents for use in prolongation of local anesthetic peripheral nerve blocks, and further studies of safety and efficacy are merited. However, caution is recommended with use of any perineural adjuvant, as none have Food and Drug Administration approval, and concerns for side effects and potential toxicity persist.
| S-EPMC4565585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The PROSPECT (Procedure-Specific Postoperative Pain Management) Group recommended a single injection femoral nerve block in 2008 as a guideline for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty. Other authors have recommended the addition of sciatic and obturator nerve blocks. The lateral femoral cutaneous nerve is also involved in pain syndrome following total knee arthroplasty. We hypothesized that preoperative blocking of all four nerves would offer superior analgesia to femoral nerve block alone. This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, and observer-blinded clinical study. A total of 107 patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: a femoral nerve block group, a multiple nerve block group, and a control group. All patients were treated postoperatively using patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine. Pain intensity at rest, during flexion and extension, and morphine consumption were compared between groups over three days. A total of 90 patients completed the study protocol. Patients who received multiple nerve blocks experienced superior analgesia and had reduced morphine consumption during the postoperative period compared to the other two groups. Pain intensity during flexion was significantly lower in the "blocks" groups versus the control group. Morphine consumption was significantly higher in the control group. Pain relief after total knee arthroplasty immediately after surgery and on the first postoperative day was significantly superior in patients who received multiple blocks preoperatively, with morphine consumption significantly lower during this period. A preoperative femoral nerve block alone produced partial and insufficient analgesia immediately after surgery and on the first postoperative day. (Clinical trial registration number (NIH): NCT01303120).
| S-EPMC5298367 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8130997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPercutaneous auricular nerve stimulation has been used for the treatment of symptoms associated with opioid withdrawal, including abdominal pain, nausea, and general discomfort. However, its potential utility for pain management and opioid minimization after surgery has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a trial protocol designed to assess the effectiveness of the NSS2-Bridge device as a non-pharmacologic alternative to opioids after cesarean delivery.MethodsIn a randomized control design, healthy women receiving cesarean delivery were randomized to receive the active device, placebo device, or no device. Devices were placed on the ear following cesarean delivery and left in place for 5 days. Feasibility and acceptability of the device was assessed by patient reports of device tolerability (rated on a 100mm visual analog scale where 0 is not tolerable at all and 100 is the most tolerable) as well as qualitative reporting. Additional outcomes assessed included proportion of patients not using opioids in hospital, as well as pain at rest, pain with movement, and total opioid consumption in the hospital and for the first 5 days after surgery.ResultsThere were 60 patients included in the final analysis. Device tolerability was rated highly, with an average daily score of >75 mm on the visual analog scale. The trial retention rate was 89.7% with most exclusions (42.9%) occurring due to unanticipated development of care complexity (e.g., hemorrhage and additional surgical procedures), with only 1 exclusion (14.3%) due to device discomfort. The active device group achieved the highest proportion of opioid-free hospitalizations (40%) compared to placebo (20%) and no device groups (30%). Pain at rest and with movement was similar between treatment groups.ConclusionsThis trial protocol designed to test the efficacy of NSS2-Bridge device for post-cesarean pain management is feasible and acceptable. Larger proportions of patients not using opioids in the active device group justifies additional investigation on device effectiveness in pregnant and postpartum people at highest risk for pain.
| S-EPMC9581440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic reviews associate peripheral nerve blocks based on anatomic landmarks or nerve stimulation with reduced pain and need for systemic analgesia in hip fracture patients. We aimed to investigate the effect of ultrasound-guided nerve blocks compared to conventional analgesia for preoperative pain management in hip fractures. Five databases were searched until June 2021 to identify randomised controlled trials. Two independent authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data was pooled for meta-analysis and quality of evidence was evaluated using Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We included 12 trials (976 participants) comparing ultrasound-guided nerve blocks to conventional systemic analgesia. In favour of ultrasound, pain measured closest to two hours after block placement decreased with a mean difference of -2.26 (VAS 0 to 10); (p < 0.001) 95% CI [-2.97 to -1.55]. In favour of ultrasound, preoperative analgesic usage of iv. morphine equivalents in milligram decreased with a mean difference of -5.34 (p=0.003) 95% CI [-8.11 to -2.58]. Time from admission until surgery ranged from six hours to more than three days. Further, ultrasound-guided nerve blocks may be associated with a lower frequency of delirium: risk ratio 0.6 (p = 0.03) 95% CI [0.38 to 0.94], fewer serious adverse events: risk ratio 0.33 (p = 0.006) 95% CI [0.15 to 0.73] and higher patient satisfaction: mean difference 25.9 (VAS 0 to 100) (p < 0.001) 95% CI [19.74 to 32.07]. However, the quality of evidence was judged low or very low. In conclusion, despite low quality of evidence, ultrasound-guided blocks were associated with benefits compared to conventional systemic analgesia.
| S-EPMC9210678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntrathecal opioids are routinely administered during spinal anesthesia for postcesarean analgesia. The effectiveness of intrathecal morphine for postcesarean analgesia is well established, and the use of intrathecal hydromorphone is growing. No prospective studies have compared the effectiveness of equipotent doses of intrathecal morphine versus intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen for postcesarean analgesia. The authors hypothesized that intrathecal morphine would result in superior analgesia compared with intrathecal hydromorphone 24 h after delivery.MethodsIn this single-center, double-blinded, randomized trial, 138 parturients undergoing scheduled cesarean delivery were randomized to receive 150 µg of intrathecal morphine or 75 µg of intrathecal hydromorphone as part of a primary spinal anesthetic and multimodal analgesic regimen; 134 parturients were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale score for pain with movement 24 h after delivery. Static and dynamic pain scores, nausea, pruritus, degree of sedation, and patient satisfaction were assessed every 6 h for 36 h postpartum. Total opioid consumption was recorded.ResultsThere was no significant difference in pain scores with movement at 24 h (intrathecal hydromorphone median [25th, 75th] 4 [3, 5] and intrathecal morphine 3 [2, 4.5]) or at any time point (estimated difference, 0.5; 95% CI, 0 to 1; P = 0.139). Opioid received in the first 24 h did not differ between groups (median [25th, 75th] oral morphine milligram equivalents for intrathecal hydromorphone 30 [7.5, 45.06] vs. intrathecal morphine 22.5 [14.0, 37.5], P = 0.769). From Kaplan-Meier analysis, the median time to first opioid request was 5.4 h for hydromorphone and 12.1 h for morphine (log-rank test P = 0.200).ConclusionsAlthough the hypothesis was that intrathecal morphine would provide superior analgesia to intrathecal hydromorphone, the results did not confirm this. At the doses studied, both intrathecal morphine and intrathecal hydromorphone provide effective postcesarean analgesia when combined with a multimodal analgesia regimen.
| S-EPMC8754417 | biostudies-literature