TY - JOUR
T1 - Regional anaesthesia to prevent chronic pain after surgery
T2 - A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Andreae, M. H.
AU - Andreae, D. A.
N1 - Funding Information:
National Institutes of Health (NIH), USA: the project described was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through CTSA grant numbers UL1TR000086, TL1RR000087, and KL2TR000088. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.
PY - 2013/11
Y1 - 2013/11
N2 - BackgroundRegional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of persistent (chronic) pain after surgery, a frequent and debilitating condition. We compared regional anaesthesia vs conventional analgesia for the prevention of persistent postoperative pain (PPP).MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL from their inception to May 2012, limiting the results to randomized, controlled, clinical trials (RCTs), supplemented by a hand search in conference proceedings. We included RCTs comparing regional vs conventional analgesia with a pain outcome at 6 or 12 months. The two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We report odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as our summary statistic based on random-effects models. We grouped studies according to surgical interventions.ResultsWe identified 23 RCTs. We pooled data from 250 participants in three trials after thoracotomy with outcomes at 6 months. Data favoured epidural anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP with an OR of 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.56). We pooled two studies investigating paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery; pooled data of 89 participants with outcomes ∼6 months favoured paravertebral block with an OR of 0.37 (95% CI 0.14-0.94). Adverse effects were reported sparsely.ConclusionsEpidural anaesthesia and paravertebral block, respectively, may prevent PPP after thoracotomy and breast cancer surgery in about one out of every four to five patients treated. Small numbers, performance bias, attrition, and incomplete outcome data especially at 12 months weaken our conclusions.
AB - BackgroundRegional anaesthesia may reduce the risk of persistent (chronic) pain after surgery, a frequent and debilitating condition. We compared regional anaesthesia vs conventional analgesia for the prevention of persistent postoperative pain (PPP).MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL from their inception to May 2012, limiting the results to randomized, controlled, clinical trials (RCTs), supplemented by a hand search in conference proceedings. We included RCTs comparing regional vs conventional analgesia with a pain outcome at 6 or 12 months. The two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. We report odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as our summary statistic based on random-effects models. We grouped studies according to surgical interventions.ResultsWe identified 23 RCTs. We pooled data from 250 participants in three trials after thoracotomy with outcomes at 6 months. Data favoured epidural anaesthesia for the prevention of PPP with an OR of 0.33 (95% CI 0.20-0.56). We pooled two studies investigating paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery; pooled data of 89 participants with outcomes ∼6 months favoured paravertebral block with an OR of 0.37 (95% CI 0.14-0.94). Adverse effects were reported sparsely.ConclusionsEpidural anaesthesia and paravertebral block, respectively, may prevent PPP after thoracotomy and breast cancer surgery in about one out of every four to five patients treated. Small numbers, performance bias, attrition, and incomplete outcome data especially at 12 months weaken our conclusions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84885901111&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84885901111&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/bja/aet213
DO - 10.1093/bja/aet213
M3 - Review article
C2 - 23811426
AN - SCOPUS:84885901111
SN - 0007-0912
VL - 111
SP - 711
EP - 720
JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia
JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia
IS - 5
ER -