Effects of Bispectral Index monitoring on ambulatory anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and a cost analysis

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory surgery is growing in popularity worldwide. For example, 50-70% of surgical procedures in North America are performed on an ambulatory basis. Use of Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring for titration of general anesthesia may allow use of less anesthetics, reduction in side effects, and faster patient recovery. METHODS: MEDLINE and other databases were searched for randomized controlled trials examining the use of BIS monitoring versus standard practice in ambulatory surgery patients. Outcomes were extracted from these articles, and a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred eighty subjects from 11 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The use of BIS monitoring significantly reduced anesthetic consumption by 19%, reduced the incidence of nausea/vomiting (32% vs. 38%; odds ratio, 0.77), and reduced time in the recovery room by 4 min. However, these benefits did not result in significant reduction in time until patient discharge from the ambulatory surgery unit. Cost analysis using pooled costs to reflect North America, Europe, and Asia indicated that use of BIS monitoring increased the cost per patient by 5.55 US dollars because of the cost of BIS electrodes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of BIS monitoring modestly reduced anesthetic consumption, risk of nausea and vomiting, and recovery room time. These benefits did not reduce time spent in the ambulatory surgery unit, and cost of the BIS electrode exceeded any cost savings.     

Sevoflurane versus desflurane for early postoperative vomiting after general anesthesia in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Study objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at assessing the effects of two commonly used anesthetics in general anesthesia (GA), sevoflurane and desflurane, on early postoperative vomiting (POV) in hospitalized adults.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).SettingEarly postoperative vomiting after GA.PatientsA total of 266 adult patients receiving inpatient surgeries under GA maintained with sevoflurane or desflurane.InterventionsWe searched PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ScienceDirect, and Embase for eligible RCTs comparing postoperative outcomes following sevoflurane- or desflurane-maintained anesthesia.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was early POV. Secondary outcomes included late POV, early and late postoperative nausea (PON), time to extubation, and emergence time.Main resultsEight trials were included. There was no significant difference in the risk of early POV (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64–1.64, p = 0.91). No significant difference in early PON was observed (RR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.77–1.56; p = 0.62). Nevertheless, the incidence of late POV and late PON were significantly lower in the sevoflurane group than that in the desflurane group (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23–0.94, p = 0.03; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.24–0.84, p = 0.01, respectively). The extubation time was longer in the sevoflurane group than in the desflurane group (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.56, 95% CI 0.14–0.97, p = 0.009). The emergence time of patients in the sevoflurane group was longer than that in those receiving desflurane (SMD 0.76, 95% CI 0.1–1.42, p = 0.02).ConclusionsDesflurane had the same effects on early POV and early PON as sevoflurane. However, the association between late POV and late PON with desflurane was stronger than that with sevoflurane if the effects of opioids were not considered. The desflurane group had shorter time to extubation and emergence time than the sevoflurane group. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020218988.     

A comparison of local intraarticular anesthesia versus general anesthesia for ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery

Various anesthetic techniques including local, regional, and general anesthesia have been utilized for ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery. The choice of anesthetic technique for this surgical procedure can have a significant impact on postoperative recovery, side effects, and patient satisfaction. The objective of this randomized, prospective study is to evaluate the efficacy of utilizing either intraarticular (IA) local anesthesia or general anesthesia (GA) for patients undergoing outpatient arthroscopic knee surgery. Patients assigned to the local anesthesia group were administered an IA injection of 30 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% approximately 20-30 min before surgery. Intraoperative sedation was provided with the administration of propofol. Patients assigned to the GA group were administered propofol and fentanyl for induction and maintained with sevoflurane combined with nitrous oxide in oxygen by laryngeal mask airway. The surgeon injected 30 mL of bupivacaine 0.25% through the arthroscope at the completion of the surgical procedure. This study demonstrates that IA anesthesia provides for improved pain relief, decreased postoperative opioid use, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), time spent in the recovery room, and improved patient satisfaction with similar operating conditions comparable to general anesthesia in patients undergoing outpatient arthroscopic knee surgery. Although both groups received a similar dose of IA bupivacaine, administering the local anesthetic prior to surgery resulted in more effective analgesia. We currently believe that intraarticular local anesthesia fulfills all the criteria for the optimal anesthetic technique for outpatient arthroscopic knee surgery.     

General versus regional anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Hip fracture surgery is common and the population at risk is generally elderly. There is no consensus of opinion regarding the safest form of anaesthesia for these patients. We performed a meta-analysis of 15 randomized trials that compare morbidity and mortality associated with general or regional anaesthesia for hip fracture patients. There was a reduced 1-month mortality and incidence of deep vein thrombosis in the regional anaesthesia group. Operations performed under general anaesthesia had a reduction in operation time. No other outcome measures reached a statistically significant difference. There was a tendency towards a lower incidence of myocardial infarction, confusion and postoperative hypoxia in the regional anaesthetic group, and cerebrovascular accident and intra-operative hypotension in the general anaesthetic group. We conclude that there are marginal advantages for regional anaesthesia compared to general anaesthesia for hip fracture patients in terms of early mortality and risk of deep vein thrombosis.      

Minilaparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE: We evaluated reports of minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy as compared to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for randomized controlled trials reported between January 1996 to December 2005. The outcome measures used were operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, postoperative analgesic requirement, and cosmetic results. Meta-analysis methods were used to measure the pooled estimate of the effect size. RESULTS: Data from 712 patients (352 minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy and 360 conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy) in 12 randomized controlled trials were analyzed. The statistically significant advantages of minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy were less postoperative pain and better cosmesis. Conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy showed a trend to shorter operative time that did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Minilaparoscopic cholecystectomy could be a feasible alternative to conventional laparoscopic cholecystectomy in select patients, resulting in less pain and better cosmetic results. Additional well-designed randomized controlled and, if possible, blinded trials, with large sample sizes, are required to confirm this conclusion.     

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of laparoscopic versus conventional appendectomy

BACKGROUND: Despite many randomized controlled trials, the merits of laparoscopic appendectomy remain unclear. A meta-analysis may provide insights not evident from any individual studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic literature search yielded 17 trials (1,962 subjects) of true randomized design with usable statistical data comparing laparoscopic and conventional appendectomy in adults. The effect sizes for operating time, hospitalization, postoperative pain, return to normal activity, wound infection, and intra-abdominal abscess were calculated, using the random effects model to allow for heterogeneity. An estimate of the robustness of all positive findings was also calculated. RESULTS: Modest but statistically significant effect sizes were found for four of the six outcome measures. Laparoscopic appendectomy takes 31% longer to perform, but results in less postoperative pain, faster recovery (by 35%), and lower wound infection rates (by 60%). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic appendectomy offers significant improvement in postoperative outcomes at the cost of a longer operation.     

Single- versus two- layer intestinal anastomosis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background  

To compare single- with two- layer intestinal anastomosis after intestinal resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.     

Pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The best reconstruction method for the pancreatic remnant after pancreaticoduodenectomy remains debatable. We aimed to investigate the perioperative outcomes of 2 popular reconstruction methods: pancreaticogastrostomy and pancreaticojejunostomy.

Data Sources

Randomized controlled trials comparing pancreaticogastrostomy versus pancreaticojejunostomy were identified from literature databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library).The meta-analysis included 8 studies: 607 patients who underwent pancreaticogastrostomy and 604 who underwent pancreaticojejunostomy. Postoperative pancreatic fistula and intra-abdominal fluid collection rates were significantly lower after pancreaticogastrostomy compared with pancreaticojejunostomy. No statistically significant differences were found in the incidence of delayed gastric emptying, biliary fistula, hemorrhage, reoperation, wound infection, overall morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis suggests that pancreaticogastrostomy not only reduces the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula but also decreases its severity. Pancreaticogastrostomy is associated with a lower rate of intra-abdominal fluid collection. Our results suggest that pancreaticogastrostomy should be the preferred reconstruction method.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术的硬膜外和全身麻醉比较(500例随机对照研究)

目的比较硬膜外麻醉和气管内全麻在腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)中的应用效果.方法 500例择期LC术随机分为硬膜外麻醉组(E组,n=250)和气管内全麻组(G组,n=250). 结果 1.血流动力学:CO2气腹后两组心输出量均显著下降(P<0.05),10 min后开始回升,30 min后均恢复到气腹前水平(P>0.05),两组间比较无明显差异;气腹后两组中心静脉压均有显著升高(P<0.05),30 min后恢复正常;气腹后G组平均动脉压显著升高(P<0.05),至停气腹后5 min仍未恢复到气腹前水平,而E组整个气腹期间平均动脉压无明显变化或略低(P>0.05),与G组比较有显著差异(P<0.001); E组气腹后5 min心率明显降低(P<0.05),15 min后恢复到气腹前水平,G组气腹前后心率无明显变化(P>0.05),两组间比较无明显差异.2.呼吸参数:整个气腹期间G组平均气道压、气道峰压显著增高(P<0.01),气腹后E组呼吸频率、每分通气量显著增加(P<0.05),潮气量无明显变化或略有升高,停气腹后5 min即恢复正常.3.动脉血气:气腹后两组PaCO2、HCO3-、pH、PaO2的变化在正常值范围,无临床意义.4.费用:E组住院费用明显低于G组(t=127.192,P=0.000). 结论 ASA I级～II级的患者择期行腹腔镜胆囊切除术,选择硬膜外麻醉安全可行且经济.     

胃肠手术后肠内/肠外营养临床对照研究的荟萃分析

目的 分析国内外相关文献资料,比较肠内营养(EN)、肠外营养(PN)对胃肠手术患者预后的影响,探讨胃肠术后早期应用EN的合理性.方法 检索PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库,对1970年至2008年中胃肠手术后给予EN、PN相关的临床随机对照试验进行荟萃分析.评价终止的指标包括吻合口裂开、感染(包括导管脓毒症、伤口感染、肺炎、腹腔脓肿、泌尿系感染)、呕吐及腹胀、其他并发症、住院天数和病死率.结果 23组临床随机实验共2784例患者符合录入标准.与PN组比较,EN可减少吻合口裂开(RR=0.67,95%Cl:0.50～0.91;P=0.010)、感染(RR=0.72,95%CI:0.64～0.81;P<0.001),其他并发症(RR=0.82,95%CI:0.73～0.92;P<0.001)和住院的时间(加权均数差值=-3.60;95% CI:-3.88～-3.32;P<0.001).但EN组腹胀和呕吐的不良反应更多见(RR=1.39,95%CI:1.21～1.59;P<0.001).两组病死率比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.400).结论 胃肠手术后患者没有"禁食水"的必要,早期给予EN辅助治疗,有利于促进患者恢复,减少并发症的发生.     

Sutures versus staples for the management of surgical wounds: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Surgical sutures are conventionally used in skin closure of surgical wounds. Alternative wound closure techniques include staples and adhesive strips. We aimed to evaluate sutures versus staples as methods of surgical wound closure by performing a meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials that compared sutures with staples for surgical wound closure. Trials referring to orthopedic operations were excluded. Twenty studies (involving a total of 2111 patients) were included. Five studies referred to obstetrics/gynecological operations, seven to general surgery, four to emergency care treatment, three to head/neck operations, and one to vascular surgery. Regarding the time needed for wound closure, staples were superior to sutures; the mean difference observed between the sutures and staples groups was 5.56 minutes per wound (95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.05 to 11.07). Wound infections were significantly fewer in the staples group compared with the sutures group(s) (12 studies, 1529 patients; odds ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.51). In five studies, the use of staples was associated with significantly more pain compared with sutures. The majority of studies with available relevant data reported nonsignificant differences regarding the cosmetic result and patient's satisfaction. Our findings suggest that staples are associated with fewer wound infections compared with sutures in the evaluated types of surgery. However, in a rather limited number of studies, the use of staples was associated with more pain. Further studies incorporating more objective methods for assessment cosmetic and patient satisfaction are required to clarify this issue.     

Immunosuppressive treatments for immunoglobulin A nephropathy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy is a worldwide disease that causes end-stage kidney disease (ESRD) in up to 15-20% of affected patients within 10 years from the apparent onset of disease and in up to 30-40% of individuals within 20 years from diagnosis. No specific treatment has been established and there is wide variation in current practice. This systematic review evaluates the use of immunosuppressive agents to treat patients with IgA nephropathy. The Cochrane Renal Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry, MEDLINE, EMBASE and article reference lists were searched for randomized or quasi randomized trials. Two independent reviewers assessed studies for inclusion criteria (biopsy proven IgA nephropathy, randomized trial, use of immunosuppressive agents) and extracted data regarding the effects of immunosuppressive agents on ESRD, doubling of serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate, urinary protein excretion and side-effects. Data were analysed with a random effects model. The published trials were few (13 trials, 623 patients) and were generally of poor quality. Compared with placebo, steroids were associated with a lower risk of progression to ESRD (six trials, 341 patients, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25-0.80) and lower end-of-trial proteinuria (six trials, 263 patients, weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.49 g/day, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.72). Treatment with alkylating agents significantly reduced end of treatment proteinuria (two trials, 122 patients, WMD -0.94, 95% CI -0.46 to -1.43). Although the optimal management of patients with IgA nephropathy remains uncertain because of limitations with the existing published data, immunosuppressive agents are a promising strategy and should be investigated further.     

Opioid versus non-opioid analgesia for spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

Opioids are the primary analgesics used in patients undergoing spine surgery. Postoperative pain is common despite their liberal use and so are opioid-associated side effects. Non-opioid analgesics are gaining popularity as alternative to opioids in spine surgery.

Methods

This systematic review evaluated current evidence regarding opioid and non-opioid intraoperative analgesia and their influence on immediate postoperative pain and adverse events in spine surgery.

Results

A total of 10,459 records were obtained by searching Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases and six randomized controlled trials were included. Differences in postoperative pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups were not significant at 1 h: 4 studies, mean difference (MD) = 0.65 units, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [−0.12 to 1.41], p = 0.10, but favored non-opioid at 24 h after surgery: 3 studies, MD = 0.75 units, 95%CI [0.03 to 1.46], p = 0.04. The time for first postoperative analgesic requirement was shorter (MD = −45.06 min, 95%CI [−72.50 to −17.62], p = 0.001), and morphine consumption during first 24 h after surgery was higher in opioid compared to non-opioid group (MD = 4.54 mg, 95%CI [3.26 to 5.82], p < 0.00001). Adverse effects of postoperative nausea and vomiting (Relative risk (RR) = 2.15, 95%CI [1.37 to 3.38], p = 0.0009) and shivering (RR = 2.52, 95%CI [1.08 to 5.89], p = 0.03) were higher and bradycardia was lower (RR = 0.35, 95%CI [0.17 to 0.71], p = 0.004) with opioid analgesia.

Conclusion

The certainty of evidence on GRADE assessment is low for studied outcomes. Available evidence supports intraoperative non-opioid analgesia for overall postoperative pain outcomes in spine surgery. More research is needed to find the best drug combination and dosing regimen.

Prospero Registration: CRD42020209042.

     

Combined spinal and general anesthesia vs general anesthesia for robotic sacrocervicopexy: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction and hypothesis

Gynecologic laparoscopic surgery is frequently accompanied by early postoperative pain. This study assessed the effect of combined general and spinal anesthesia on postoperative pain score, analgesic use, and patient satisfaction following robotic surgeries.

Methods

This was a randomized controlled trial. Thirty-eight consecutive women who underwent robotic surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse (sacrocolpopexy with or without subtotal hysterectomy) were randomly assigned to receive general anesthesia (control group, n?=?20) or combined general with spinal anesthesia (study group, n?=?18). Pain scores were assessed at rest and while coughing using a visual analog scale (VAS) 0–10. Dosage of analgesic medication consumption was retrieved from patients’ charts.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to demographic data and intraoperative hemodynamic parameters. In the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) mean total IV morphine and meperidine dosages were significantly lower for the study than the control group (0.33 vs 7.59 mg, 1.39 vs 27.89 mg, respectively, P?<?0.003, <0.001, respectively). In addition, a significantly lower percentage of patients belonging to the study group demanded analgesic medications while in the PACU (33 vs 53 %, P?=?0.042). Pain scores in the PACU and during postoperative day 1 were significantly lower in the study group than in the control group (delta VAS 1.9 vs 3.0, P?=?0.04). Satisfaction with pain treatment among both patients and nurses was significantly higher in the study group.

Conclusions

Reported levels of pain and analgesic use during the first 24 h following robotic gynecologic surgery were significantly lower following general and spinal anesthesia compared to general anesthesia alone.     

Dexmedetomidine versus other sedatives for non-painful pediatric examinations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Study objectiveProcedural sedation for non-painful pediatric examinations outside the operating room remains a challenge, this study was designed to compare the safety and effectiveness of sedation provided by dexmedetomidine versus other sedatives including chloral hydrate, midazolam, and pentobarbital for pediatric patients to complete diagnostic examinations.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.SettingPediatric procedural sedation.InterventionsComparison of sedation by dexmedetomidine and chloral hydrate, or pentobarbital, or midazolam for pediatric non-painful sedation.PatientsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for randomized clinical trials were searched and limited the studies to those published in English through July 30, 2018.MeasurementsProspective randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine to chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, and midazolam for pediatric procedural examinations outside the operating room were included in the meta-analysis. Search terms included dexmedetomidine, precede, adrenergic alpha-2 receptor agonists, adrenergic alpha 2 agonists, adrenergic alpha-agonists, adrenergic alpha 2 receptor agonists, chloral hydrate, pentobarbital, midazolam, AND sedation.Main resultsA total of 1486 studies were screened and nine RCTs were identified; 1076 patients were analyzed. Sedation with dexmedetomidine provided statistically higher incidences in completing examinations with fewer episodes of desaturation than the other sedatives did (OR 2.90, 95% CI: 1.39–6.07, P = 0.005, I² = 77%; OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.15–0.57, P = 0.0004, I² = 0%, respectively).ConclusionsThe meta-analysis shows that sedation by dexmedetomidine has lower incidence of respiratory depression and provides higher success rates in completing examinations than other traditional sedatives without compromising safety, indicating a prospective clinical use for procedural sedation.