| Literature DB >> 35345625 |
Liangsong Song1, Shulian Tan2, Qingmin Chen3, He Li4.
Abstract
Objective: To assess if the addition of fentanyl to brachial plexus block has an impact on anesthetic outcomes and complication rates in patients undergoing upper extremity surgeries.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35345625 PMCID: PMC8957455 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8704569
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pain Res Manag ISSN: 1203-6765 Impact factor: 3.037
Figure 1Study flow chart.
Details of included studies.
| Study | Location | Approach of brachial plexus block | Local anesthetic used | Dose of fentanyl | Other anesthetic/sedative used | Sample size | Mean age (years) | Male gender (%) | Postoperative analgesic | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | Control | Study | Control | Study | Control | |||||||
| Kaur et al. [ | India | Supraclavicular | 25 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine | 1 | NR | 40 | 40 | NR | NR | NR | NR | Inj PCM IV 1 g if VAS > 3 |
| Hamed et al. [ | Egypt | Supraclavicular | Up to 40 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine | 1 | NR | 20 | 20 | 32.35 ± 9.2 | 30.2 ± 9.6 | 70 | 75 | Inj Diclofenac IM 1 mg/kg if VA S> 4 |
| Paluvadi et al. [ | India | Supraclavicular | 30 ml of 1.5% lidocaine | 1 | NR | 30 | 30 | 42.6 ± 11.8 | 38.16 ± 12.2 | 76.6 | 76.6 | NR |
| Farooq et al. [ | India | Supraclavicular | 3 mg/kg of 0.75% ropivacaine | 1 | IV Midazolam 2 mg (before block) | 35 | 35 | 38.3 ± 11.2 | 38.3 ± 11.2 | 54.2 | 54.2 | NR |
| Marashi et al. [ | Egypt | Supraclavicular | 30 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine | 100 | IV Midazolam 1 mg (before block) | 17 | 17 | 32.2 ± 9 | 32.7 ± 10 | 52.9 | 58.8 | Morphine PCA |
| Yaghoobi et al. [ | Iran | Axillary | 40 ml of 1% lidocaine | 100 | IV Midazolam 1 mg (before block) | 18 | 19 | 31.28 ± 6.05 | 30.01 ± 5.47 | 77.7 | 73.7 | Pethidine 25 mg |
| Chavan et al. [ | India | Supraclavicular | 20 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine plus 10 ml of 2% lignocaine | 50 | NR | 47 | 46 | 46 ± 16 | 48 ± 17 | 51 | 52.1 | NR |
| Moharari et al. [ | Iran | Interscalene | 30 ml of 1.5% lidocaine | 75 | IV Diazepam 10 mg (during surgery) | 41 | 39 | 44.89 ± 11.38 | 41.46 ± 10.93 | 53.6 | 56.4 | NR |
| Movafegh et al. [ | Iran | Axillary | 34 ml of 1.5% lidocaine | 100 | IV Midazolam 1 mg (before block) | 26 | 26 | 34.1 ± 10.7 | 33.3 ± 7.6 | 57.7 | 53.8 | NR |
| Fanelli [ | Italy | Axillary | 20 ml of 0.75% ropivacaine | 1 | IV Midazolam 0.05 mg/kg (before block) | 15 | 15 | 56 ± NR | 53 ± NR | 53.3 | 60 | Inj Ketoprofen IV 100 mg |
| Karakaya et al. [ | Turkey | Axillary | 40 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine | 2.5 | None | 20 | 20 | 38.7 ± 2.5 | 41.5 ± 3.8 | 50 | 55 | NR |
| Nishikawa et al. [ | Japan | Axillary | 40 ml of 1.5% lidocaine | 100 | IV Midazolam 2.5 mg (before block) | 22 | 22 | 56 ± 16 | 58 ± 17 | 54.5 | 50 | NR |
Note: IV, intravenous; IM, intramuscular; PCM, paracetamol; PCA, patient-controlled analgesia; NR, not reported; and VAS, visual analog scale.
Risk of bias in included studies.
| Study | Randomization process | Deviation from intended intervention | Missing outcome data | Measurement of outcomes | Selection of reported result | Overall risk of bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaur et al. [ | Some concerns | Some concerns | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Hamed et al. [ | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Paluvadi et al. [ | Some concerns | Some concerns | Low risk | High risk | Some concerns | High risk |
| Farooq et al. [ | Low risk | Some concerns | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Marashi et al. [ | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Yaghoobi et al. [ | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Chavan et al. [ | Some concerns | Some concerns | Low risk | High risk | Some concerns | High risk |
| Moharari et al. [ | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Movafegh et al. [ | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
| Fanelli [ | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns | Some concerns |
| Karakaya et al. [ | Some concerns | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Some concerns |
| Nishikawa et al. [ | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Figure 2Risk of bias plot for the included RCTs.
Figure 3Meta-analysis of onset of sensory anesthesia between fentanyl and control groups.
Figure 4Funnel plot for meta-analysis of onset of sensory anesthesia.
Subgroup analysis of the study outcomes.
| Variable | Category | Number of studies | Effect size (mean difference) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Block approach | Supraclavicular | 5 | −2.86 (95% CI −6.51, 0.79); |
| Local anesthetic | Lidocaine | 5 | 0.95 (95% CI −0.73, 2.62); |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Block approach | Supraclavicular | 4 | −4.77 (95% CI −10.55, 1.00); |
| Local anesthetic | Lidocaine | 3 | −0.88 (95% CI −2.21, 0.46); |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Block approach | Supraclavicular | 5 | 90.66 (95% CI 44.50, 136.83); |
| Local anesthetic | Lidocaine | 3 | 27.33 (95% CI −4.49, 58.96); |
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Block approach | Supraclavicular | 4 | 95.26 (95% CI 88.17, 102.34); |
| Local anesthetic | Lidocaine | 2 | 5.12 (95% CI −0.64, 10.88); |
Figure 5Meta-analysis of onset of motor anesthesia between fentanyl and control groups.
Figure 6Funnel plot for meta-analysis of onset of motor anesthesia.
Figure 7Meta-analysis of the duration of sensory anesthesia between fentanyl and control groups.
Figure 8Meta-analysis of the duration of motor anesthesia between fentanyl and control groups.
Figure 9Funnel plot for meta-analysis of the duration of sensory anesthesia.
Figure 10Funnel plot for meta-analysis of the duration of motor anesthesia.
Figure 11Meta-analysis of complications between fentanyl and control groups.
Postoperative analgesic outcomes.
| Study | Outcome | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Kaur et al. [ | Number of rescue analgesic injection | Significantly lower in the fentanyl group ( |
| Farooq et al. [ | Time for first rescue analgesic | Significantly higher in the fentanyl group ( |
| Marashi et al. [ | Postoperative pain scores | No statistically significant difference between the study groups |
| Yaghoobi et al. [ | Total analgesic consumption | Significantly lower in the fentanyl group ( |
| Moharari et al. [ | Time for first rescue analgesic | Significantly higher in the fentanyl group ( |
| Fanelli [ | Time for first rescue analgesic | No statistically significant difference between the study groups |