Narinder Pal Singh1, Jeetinder Kaur Makkar2, Aswini Kuberan3, Ryan Guffey4, Vishal Uppal5. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, MMIMSR, MM (DU), Mullana-Ambala, Ambala, India. 2. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 3. Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Puducherry, India. 4. Department of Anesthesia, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Department of Anesthesia, Perioperative Medicine and Pain Management, Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia Health Authority and Izaak Walton Killam Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada. v.uppal@dal.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal regional technique to control pain after breast cancer surgery remains unclear. We sought to synthesize available data from randomized controlled trials comparing pain-related outcomes following various regional techniques for major oncologic breast surgery. METHODS: In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched trials in PubMed, Embase Scopus, Medline, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar, from inception to 31 July 2020, for commonly used regional techniques. The primary outcome was the 24-hr resting pain score measured on a numerical rating score of 0-10. We used surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to establish the probability of an intervention ranking highest. The analysis was performed using the Bayesian random effects model, and effect sizes are reported as 95% credible interval (Crl). We conducted cluster-rank analysis by combining 24-hr pain ranking with 24-hr opioid use or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Seventy-nine randomized controlled trials containing 11 different interventions in 5,686 patients were included. The SUCRA values of the interventions for 24-hr resting pain score were continuous paravertebral block (0.83), serratus anterior plane block (0.76), continuous wound infusion (0.76), single-level paravertebral block (0.68), erector spinae plane block (0.59), modified pectoral block (0.49), intercostal block (0.45), multilevel paravertebral block (0.41), wound infiltration (0.33), no intervention (0.12), and placebo (0.08). When compared with placebo, the continuous paravertebral block (mean difference, 1.26; 95% Crl, 0.43 to 2.12) and serratus anterior plane block (mean difference, 1.12; 95% Crl, 0.32 to 1.9) had the highest estimated probability of decreasing 24-hr resting pain scores. Cluster ranking analysis combining 24-hr resting pain scores and opioid use showed that most regional analgesia techniques were more effective than no intervention or placebo. Nevertheless, wound infiltration and continuous wound infusion may be the least effective active interventions for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Continuous paravertebral block and serratus anterior plane block had a high probability of reducing pain at 24 hr after major oncologic breast surgery. The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. Future studies should compare different regional anesthesia techniques, including surgeon-administered techniques such as wound infiltration or catheters. Trials comparing active intervention with placebo are unlikely to change clinical practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020198244); registered 19 October 2020.
BACKGROUND: The optimal regional technique to control pain after breast cancer surgery remains unclear. We sought to synthesize available data from randomized controlled trials comparing pain-related outcomes following various regional techniques for major oncologic breast surgery. METHODS: In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched trials in PubMed, Embase Scopus, Medline, Cochrane Central and Google Scholar, from inception to 31 July 2020, for commonly used regional techniques. The primary outcome was the 24-hr resting pain score measured on a numerical rating score of 0-10. We used surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to establish the probability of an intervention ranking highest. The analysis was performed using the Bayesian random effects model, and effect sizes are reported as 95% credible interval (Crl). We conducted cluster-rank analysis by combining 24-hr pain ranking with 24-hr opioid use or incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Seventy-nine randomized controlled trials containing 11 different interventions in 5,686 patients were included. The SUCRA values of the interventions for 24-hr resting pain score were continuous paravertebral block (0.83), serratus anterior plane block (0.76), continuous wound infusion (0.76), single-level paravertebral block (0.68), erector spinae plane block (0.59), modified pectoral block (0.49), intercostal block (0.45), multilevel paravertebral block (0.41), wound infiltration (0.33), no intervention (0.12), and placebo (0.08). When compared with placebo, the continuous paravertebral block (mean difference, 1.26; 95% Crl, 0.43 to 2.12) and serratus anterior plane block (mean difference, 1.12; 95% Crl, 0.32 to 1.9) had the highest estimated probability of decreasing 24-hr resting pain scores. Cluster ranking analysis combining 24-hr resting pain scores and opioid use showed that most regional analgesia techniques were more effective than no intervention or placebo. Nevertheless, wound infiltration and continuous wound infusion may be the least effective active interventions for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Continuous paravertebral block and serratus anterior plane block had a high probability of reducing pain at 24 hr after major oncologic breast surgery. The certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. Future studies should compare different regional anesthesia techniques, including surgeon-administered techniques such as wound infiltration or catheters. Trials comparing active intervention with placebo are unlikely to change clinical practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020198244); registered 19 October 2020.
Authors: Ellen L Poleshuck; Jennifer Katz; Carl H Andrus; Laura A Hogan; Beth F Jung; Dale I Kulick; Robert H Dworkin Journal: J Pain Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Nasir Hussain; Richard Brull; Colin J L McCartney; Patrick Wong; Nicolas Kumar; Michael Essandoh; Tamara Sawyer; Timothy Sullivan; Faraj W Abdallah Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Brian Hutton; Georgia Salanti; Deborah M Caldwell; Anna Chaimani; Christopher H Schmid; Chris Cameron; John P A Ioannidis; Sharon Straus; Kristian Thorlund; Jeroen P Jansen; Cynthia Mulrow; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peter C Gøtzsche; Kay Dickersin; Isabelle Boutron; Douglas G Altman; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kariem El-Boghdadly; Morné Wolmarans; Angela D Stengel; Eric Albrecht; Ki Jinn Chin; Hesham Elsharkawy; Sandra Kopp; Edward R Mariano; Jeff L Xu; Sanjib Adhikary; Başak Altıparmak; Michael J Barrington; Sébastien Bloc; Rafael Blanco; Karen Boretsky; Jens Børglum; Margaretha Breebaart; David Burckett-St Laurent; Xavier Capdevila; Brendan Carvalho; Alwin Chuan; Steve Coppens; Ioana Costache; Mette Dam; Christian Egeler; Mario Fajardo; Jeff Gadsden; Philippe Emmanuel Gautier; Stuart Alan Grant; Admir Hadzic; Peter Hebbard; Nadia Hernandez; Rosemary Hogg; Margaret Holtz; Rebecca L Johnson; Manoj Kumar Karmakar; Paul Kessler; Kwesi Kwofie; Clara Lobo; Danielle Ludwin; Alan MacFarlane; John McDonnell; Graeme McLeod; Peter Merjavy; Eml Moran; Brian D O'Donnell; Teresa Parras; Amit Pawa; Anahi Perlas; Maria Fernanda Rojas Gomez; Xavier Sala-Blanch; Andrea Saporito; Sanjay Kumar Sinha; Ellen M Soffin; Athmaja Thottungal; Ban C H Tsui; Serkan Tulgar; Lloyd Turbitt; Vishal Uppal; Geert J van Geffen; Thomas Volk; Nabil M Elkassabany Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Chenchen Tian; Laura Hawryluck; George Tomlinson; Frances Chung; Scott Beattie; Matthew Miller; Najia Hassan; David T Wong; Jean Wong; Julie Hudson; Timothy Jackson; Mandeep Singh Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 9.452
Authors: Dmitriy Viderman; Mina Aubakirova; Yerlan Umbetzhanov; Gulnara Kulkaeva; S B Shalekenov; Yerkin G Abdildin Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-07-04