TY - JOUR
T1 - Local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for preventing persistent postoperative pain in adults and children
AU - Weinstein, Erica J.
AU - Levene, Jacob L.
AU - Cohen, Marc S.
AU - Andreae, Doerthe A.
AU - Chao, Jerry Y.
AU - Johnson, Matthew
AU - Hall, Charles B.
AU - Andreae, Michael H.
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding sources: this research work was fully funded by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (RGC reference no. CUHK4406/05, project code 2140452) Conflicts of interest: the study authors declare no conflict of interest
Funding Information:
Funding sources: supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Conflicts of interest: conflicts of interest were not reported
Funding Information:
The source of funding and conflict of interest statements for many studies were either addressed in the manuscript or clarified in correspondence with study authors, with the exception of eleven studies for which no information was available (Baudry 2008; Brown 2004; Chiu 2008; Choi 2016; Gupta 2006; Ibarra 2011; Kairaluoma 2006; Katsuly-Liapis1996; Lam 2015; Lu 2008; Paxton 1995). The studies were mostly supported by funds from the department or the institution. For those studies that described support by outside funding, we did not find any undue influence by the sponsors.
Funding Information:
Funding sources: “this study was supported in part by a grant from the Lawson Health Research Institute.” Conflicts of interest: “the authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.”
Funding Information:
Continuous: none Dichotomus: overall pain/no pain at 3 months No adverse events reported Study characteristics and data combined with Strazisar 2014. Axillary lymphadenectomy and breast reconstruction performed on 60 participants per procedure. Results from both procedures were combined to best represent pain outcomes Funding sources: financial support was not described. Conflicts of interest: no conflict of interest statement was provided
Funding Information:
Dichotomous: pain and dysaesthesia vs none at 3 months post-op Continuous: none Other reported: none Postoperatively, all participants in all groups received reinjection of LA (5 mL NaCl and 12.5 mg bupivacaine) into iliac crest when donor site became painful. Thus, control group did receive some bupivacaine in post-op period. Average number of injections received reported by group We acknowledge the response provided by the study author regarding blinding, randomization, allocation concealment and source of funding and conflict of interest statement Funding sources: the study author reports the study was ”not funded by any kind of resource.“ Conflicts of interest: ”the authors have no conflict of interests of any kind (financial, commercial or otherwise).“
Funding Information:
Funding sources: study supported by grants from Research and Development Foundation of Peking University People’s Hospital Conflicts of interest: no conflict of interest statement given
Funding Information:
Dichotomous: none Continuous: SF-36 Other: adverse effects reported on include nausea, vomiting, pruritus, urine retention We acknowledge the study author’s response that no dichotomous pain data were collected at 6 months, only SF-36 Funding sources: “Dr McKeen acknowledges the support of the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society (CAS) GE Healthcare Canada Research Award in Perioperative Imaging Operating Grant. Dr George held an IWK Recruitment & Establishment Grant and acknowledges the support of a CAS Career Scientist Award. Dr Allen held a Canadian Institutes of Health Research New Investigator Award and a Dalhousie University Clinical Research Scholar Award. Dr Pink acknowledges Dalhousie University Medical Research Foundation Summer Research Studentship Funding.”
Funding Information:
We acknowledge the response provided by the study author regarding blinding, randomization, allocation concealment and source of funding and conflict of interest statement Funding sources: “this study was funded by a Research Award from the North Staffordshire Medical Institute, UK.” Conflicts of interest: the study authors have no conflicts of interest
Funding Information:
Funding sources: “PL received a research grant from the South of Ireland Association of Anaesthetists.” Conflicts of interest: “nothing to declare”
Funding Information:
Dichotomous: pain and analgesic consumption at 18 months Continuous: verbal rating scale at 18 months Secondary: allodynia at 6 and 12 months We contacted the study author for missing information. He provided a data table with unpublished data from the follow-up study to Kavanagh 1994, the second manuscript reporting on (Katz 1996). Funding sources: “this study was supported by a research scholarship from the Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC) and by MRC grant MT-12052 to Dr Katz.” Conflicts of interest: a conflict of interest statement was not given
Funding Information:
Dichotomous: none reported Continuous: health status measured by SF-36 at 6 months, but without randomization list We contacted the study author for missing information on SF-36 outcome. He provided original data and comments, but regretted that the randomization list was no longer available. Therefore the data could not be included Funding sources: this study was supported by a grant from the Aetna Foundation, Hart-
Funding Information:
supported by an unrestricted grant from Astra Zeneca initially to study the effects of ropivacaine. When the study authors could not obtain approval to study this drug, the company maintained their support. The study author wrote that “the results were analysed with the help of a statistician at Astra Zeneca... we were allowed to keep the equipment... and that Astra financed my travel to a conference...” Conflicts of interest: the author had “no conflict of interest... and did not receive any [other] salary or economic compensation from Astra Zeneca.”
Funding Information:
We were unable to obtain additional information about randomization and blinding methods from the study author Funding sources: “this work was supported by Natural Science Foundation of Jinling Hospital.” Conflicts of interest: the study authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose
Funding Information:
We acknowledge the study author’s clarification on blinding methods Funding sources: ”intramural grant from the Mayo Foundation.“ Conflicts of interest: ”none declared.“
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration.
PY - 2018/4/25
Y1 - 2018/4/25
N2 - Background: Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017. Objectives: To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews. Selection criteria: We included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery. Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. Main results: In this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 41 studies, enrolling a total of 3143 participants in our inclusive analysis. Evidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence). We did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution. Authors' conclusions: We conclude that there is moderate-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP after three to 18 months after thoracotomy and three to 12 months after caesarean section. There is low-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery. There is moderate evidence that intravenous infusion of local anaesthetics may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery. Our conclusions are considerably weakened by the small size and number of studies, by performance bias, null bias, attrition and missing data. Larger, high-quality studies, including children, are needed. We caution that except for breast surgery, our evidence synthesis is based on only a few small studies. On a cautionary note, we cannot extend our conclusions to other surgical interventions or regional anaesthesia techniques, for example we cannot conclude that paravertebral block reduces the risk of PPP after thoracotomy. There are seven ongoing studies and 12 studies awaiting classification that may change the conclusions of the current review once they are published and incorporated.
AB - Background: Regional anaesthesia may reduce the rate of persistent postoperative pain (PPP), a frequent and debilitating condition. This review was originally published in 2012 and updated in 2017. Objectives: To compare local anaesthetics and regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months in adults and children undergoing elective surgery. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase to December 2016 without any language restriction. We used a combination of free text search and controlled vocabulary search. We limited results to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We updated this search in December 2017, but these results have not yet been incorporated in the review. We conducted a handsearch in reference lists of included studies, review articles and conference abstracts. We searched the PROSPERO systematic review registry for related systematic reviews. Selection criteria: We included RCTs comparing local or regional anaesthesia versus conventional analgesia with a pain outcome beyond three months after elective, non-orthopaedic surgery. Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We presented outcomes as pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), based on random-effects models (inverse variance method). We analysed studies separately by surgical intervention, but pooled outcomes reported at different follow-up intervals. We compared our results to Bayesian and classical (frequentist) models. We investigated heterogeneity. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE. Main results: In this updated review, we identified 40 new RCTs and seven ongoing studies. In total, we included 63 RCTs in the review, but we were only able to synthesize data on regional anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP beyond three months after surgery from 41 studies, enrolling a total of 3143 participants in our inclusive analysis. Evidence synthesis of seven RCTs favoured epidural anaesthesia for thoracotomy, suggesting the odds of having PPP three to 18 months following an epidural for thoracotomy were 0.52 compared to not having an epidural (OR 0.52 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.84, 499 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Simlarly, evidence synthesis of 18 RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia for the prevention of persistent pain three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.43 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.68, 1297 participants, low-quality evidence). Pooling data at three to 8 months after surgery from four RCTs favoured regional anaesthesia after caesarean section with an OR of 0.46, (95% CI 0.28 to 0.78; 551 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence synthesis of three RCTs investigating continuous infusion with local anaesthetic for the prevention of PPP three to 55 months after iliac crest bone graft harvesting (ICBG) was inconclusive (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.09; 123 participants, low-quality evidence). However, evidence synthesis of two RCTs also favoured the infusion of intravenous local anaesthetics for the prevention of PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery with an OR of 0.24 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.69, 97 participants, moderate-quality evidence). We did not synthesize evidence for the surgical subgroups of limb amputation, hernia repair, cardiac surgery and laparotomy. We could not pool evidence for adverse effects because the included studies did not examine them systematically, and reported them sparsely. Clinical heterogeneity, attrition and sparse outcome data hampered evidence synthesis. High risk of bias from missing data and lack of blinding across a number of included studies reduced our confidence in the findings. Thus results must be interpreted with caution. Authors' conclusions: We conclude that there is moderate-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP after three to 18 months after thoracotomy and three to 12 months after caesarean section. There is low-quality evidence that regional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to 12 months after breast cancer surgery. There is moderate evidence that intravenous infusion of local anaesthetics may reduce the risk of developing PPP three to six months after breast cancer surgery. Our conclusions are considerably weakened by the small size and number of studies, by performance bias, null bias, attrition and missing data. Larger, high-quality studies, including children, are needed. We caution that except for breast surgery, our evidence synthesis is based on only a few small studies. On a cautionary note, we cannot extend our conclusions to other surgical interventions or regional anaesthesia techniques, for example we cannot conclude that paravertebral block reduces the risk of PPP after thoracotomy. There are seven ongoing studies and 12 studies awaiting classification that may change the conclusions of the current review once they are published and incorporated.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045890259&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045890259&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD007105.pub3
DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD007105.pub3
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29694674
AN - SCOPUS:85045890259
SN - 1465-1858
VL - 2018
JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
IS - 4
M1 - CD007105
ER -