Pehora Carolyne, Pearson Annabel Me, Kaushal Alka, Crawford Mark W, Johnston Bradley
Department of Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5G 1X8.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Nov 9;11(11):CD011770. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011770.pub2.
Peripheral nerve block (infiltration of local anaesthetic around a nerve) is used for anaesthesia or analgesia. A limitation to its use for postoperative analgesia is that the analgesic effect lasts only a few hours, after which moderate to severe pain at the surgical site may result in the need for alternative analgesic therapy. Several adjuvants have been used to prolong the analgesic duration of peripheral nerve block, including perineural or intravenous dexamethasone.
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of perineural dexamethasone versus placebo, intravenous dexamethasone versus placebo, and perineural dexamethasone versus intravenous dexamethasone when added to peripheral nerve block for postoperative pain control in people undergoing surgery.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, DARE, Web of Science and Scopus from inception to 25 April 2017. We also searched trial registry databases, Google Scholar and meeting abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia.
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perineural dexamethasone with placebo, intravenous dexamethasone with placebo, or perineural dexamethasone with intravenous dexamethasone in participants receiving peripheral nerve block for upper or lower limb surgery.
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
We included 35 trials of 2702 participants aged 15 to 78 years; 33 studies enrolled participants undergoing upper limb surgery and two undergoing lower limb surgery. Risk of bias was low in 13 studies and high/unclear in 22. Perineural dexamethasone versus placeboDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) 6.70 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.54 to 7.85; participants1625; studies 27). Postoperative pain intensity at 12 and 24 hours was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with control (MD -2.08, 95% CI -2.63 to -1.53; participants 257; studies 5) and (MD -1.63, 95% CI -2.34 to -0.93; participants 469; studies 9), respectively. There was no significant difference at 48 hours (MD -0.61, 95% CI -1.24 to 0.03; participants 296; studies 4). The quality of evidence is very low for postoperative pain intensity at 12 hours and low for the remaining outcomes. Cumulative 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD 19.25 mg, 95% CI 5.99 to 32.51; participants 380; studies 6). Intravenous dexamethasone versus placeboDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD 6.21, 95% CI 3.53 to 8.88; participants 499; studies 8). Postoperative pain intensity at 12 and 24 hours was significantly lower in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD -1.24, 95% CI -2.44 to -0.04; participants 162; studies 3) and (MD -1.26, 95% CI -2.23 to -0.29; participants 257; studies 5), respectively. There was no significant difference at 48 hours (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.41; participants 172; studies 3). The quality of evidence is moderate for duration of sensory block and postoperative pain intensity at 24 hours, and low for the remaining outcomes. Cumulative 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the intravenous dexamethasone group compared with placebo (MD -6.58 mg, 95% CI -10.56 to -2.60; participants 287; studies 5). Perinerual versus intravenous dexamethasoneDuration of sensory block was significantly longer in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with intravenous by three hours (MD 3.14 hours, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.59; participants 720; studies 9). We found that postoperative pain intensity at 12 hours and 24 hours was significantly lower in the perineural dexamethasone group compared with intravenous, however, the MD did not surpass our pre-determined minimally important difference of 1.2 on the Visual Analgue Scale/Numerical Rating Scale, therefore the results are not clinically significant (MD -1.01, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.50; participants 217; studies 3) and (MD -0.77, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.08; participants 309; studies 5), respectively. There was no significant difference in severity of postoperative pain at 48 hours (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.61; participants 227; studies 3). The quality of evidence is moderate for duration of sensory block and postoperative pain intensity at 24 hours, and low for the remaining outcomes. There was no difference in cumulative postoperative 24-hour opioid consumption (MD -3.87 mg, 95% CI -9.93 to 2.19; participants 242; studies 4). Incidence of severe adverse eventsFive serious adverse events were reported. One block-related event (pneumothorax) occurred in one participant in a trial comparing perineural dexamethasone and placebo; however group allocation was not reported. Four non-block-related events occurred in two trials comparing perineural dexamethasone, intravenous dexamethasone and placebo. Two participants in the placebo group required hospitalization within one week of surgery; one for a fall and one for a bowel infection. One participant in the placebo group developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I and one in the intravenous dexamethasone group developed pneumonia. The quality of evidence is very low due to the sparse number of events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that when used as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in upper limb surgery, both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone may prolong duration of sensory block and are effective in reducing postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption. There is not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in lower limb surgeries and there is no evidence in children. The results of our review may not apply to participants at risk of dexamethasone-related adverse events for whom clinical trials would probably be unsafe.There is not enough evidence to determine the effectiveness of dexamethasone as an adjuvant to peripheral nerve block in lower limb surgeries and there is no evidence in children. The results of our review may not be apply to participants who at risk of dexamethasone-related adverse events for whom clinical trials would probably be unsafe. The nine ongoing trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov may change the results of this review.
周围神经阻滞(在神经周围注射局部麻醉药)用于麻醉或镇痛。其用于术后镇痛的一个局限性在于镇痛效果仅持续数小时,之后手术部位的中度至重度疼痛可能需要采用其他镇痛疗法。已使用多种佐剂来延长周围神经阻滞的镇痛持续时间,包括神经周围或静脉注射地塞米松。
评估在接受手术的患者中,神经周围注射地塞米松与安慰剂、静脉注射地塞米松与安慰剂,以及神经周围注射地塞米松与静脉注射地塞米松相比,添加到周围神经阻滞中用于术后疼痛控制的相对疗效和安全性。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、MEDLINE、Embase、DARE、Web of Science和Scopus,检索时间从各数据库建库至2017年4月25日。我们还检索了试验注册数据库、谷歌学术以及美国麻醉医师协会、加拿大麻醉医师协会、美国区域麻醉学会和欧洲区域麻醉学会的会议摘要。
我们纳入了所有比较神经周围注射地塞米松与安慰剂、静脉注射地塞米松与安慰剂,或神经周围注射地塞米松与静脉注射地塞米松的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验的参与者接受上肢或下肢手术的周围神经阻滞。
我们采用了Cochrane期望的标准方法程序。
我们纳入了35项试验,共2702名年龄在15至78岁之间的参与者;33项研究纳入了接受上肢手术的参与者,2项纳入了接受下肢手术的参与者。13项研究的偏倚风险较低,22项研究的偏倚风险较高/不明确。神经周围注射地塞米松与安慰剂相比神经周围注射地塞米松组的感觉阻滞持续时间显著长于安慰剂组(平均差(MD)6.70小时,95%置信区间(CI)5.54至7.85;参与者1625名;研究27项)。与对照组相比,神经周围注射地塞米松组在术后12小时和24小时的疼痛强度显著更低(MD -2.08,95%CI -2.63至-1.53;参与者257名;研究5项)以及(MD -1.63,95%CI -2.34至-0.93;参与者469名;研究9项)。在48小时时无显著差异(MD -0.61,95%CI -1.24至0.03;参与者296名;研究4项)。术后12小时疼痛强度的证据质量极低,其余结果的证据质量低。与安慰剂相比,神经周围注射地塞米松组术后24小时阿片类药物累计消耗量显著更低(MD 19.25mg,95%CI 5.99至32.51;参与者380名;研究6项)。静脉注射地塞米松与安慰剂相比静脉注射地塞米松组的感觉阻滞持续时间显著长于安慰剂组(MD 6.21,95%CI 3.53至8.88;参与者499名;研究8项)。与安慰剂相比,静脉注射地塞米松组在术后12小时和24小时的疼痛强度显著更低(MD -1.24,95%CI -2.44至-0.04;参与者162名;研究3项)以及(MD -1.26,95%CI -2.23至-0.29;参与者257名;研究5项)。在48小时时无显著差异(MD -0.21,95%CI -0.83至0.41;参与者172名;研究3项)。感觉阻滞持续时间和术后24小时疼痛强度的证据质量为中等,其余结果的证据质量低。与安慰剂相比,静脉注射地塞米松组术后24小时阿片类药物累计消耗量显著更低(MD -6.58mg,95%CI -10.56至-2.60;参与者287名;研究5项)。神经周围注射与静脉注射地塞米松相比神经周围注射地塞米松组的感觉阻滞持续时间比静脉注射地塞米松组显著长3小时(MD 3.14小时,95%CI 1.68至4.59;参与者720名;研究9项)。我们发现,与静脉注射相比,神经周围注射地塞米松组在术后12小时和24小时的疼痛强度显著更低,然而,平均差未超过我们预先确定的视觉模拟量表/数字评定量表上1.2的最小重要差异,因此结果无临床意义(MD -1.01,95%CI -1.51至-0.50;参与者217名;研究3项)以及(MD -0.77,95%CI -1.47至-0.08;参与者309名;研究5项)。在48小时时术后疼痛严重程度无显著差异(MD 0.13,95%CI -0.35至0.61;参与者227名;研究3项)。感觉阻滞持续时间和术后24小时疼痛强度的证据质量为中等,其余结果的证据质量低。术后24小时阿片类药物累计消耗量无差异(MD -3.87mg,95%CI -9.93至2.19;参与者242名;研究4项)。严重不良事件发生率报告了5起严重不良事件。在一项比较神经周围注射地塞米松和安慰剂的试验中一名参与者发生了1起与阻滞相关的事件(气胸);然而未报告分组情况。在两项比较神经周围注射地塞米松、静脉注射地塞米松和安慰剂的试验中发生了4起与阻滞无关的事件。安慰剂组的两名参与者在术后一周内需要住院治疗;一名因跌倒,一名因肠道感染。安慰剂组的一名参与者发生了Ⅰ型复杂性区域疼痛综合征,静脉注射地塞米松组的一名参与者发生了肺炎。由于事件数量稀少,证据质量极低。
低至中等质量的证据表明,在上肢手术中用作周围神经阻滞的佐剂时,神经周围和静脉注射地塞米松均可延长感觉阻滞持续时间,并有效降低术后疼痛强度和阿片类药物消耗量。没有足够的证据来确定地塞米松作为下肢手术周围神经阻滞佐剂的有效性,且在儿童中无相关证据。我们的综述结果可能不适用于有地塞米松相关不良事件风险的参与者,对他们进行临床试验可能不安全。没有足够的证据来确定地塞米松作为下肢手术周围神经阻滞佐剂的有效性,且在儿童中无相关证据。我们的综述结果可能不适用于有地塞米松相关不良事件风险的参与者,对他们进行临床试验可能不安全。在ClinicalTrials.gov注册的9项正在进行的试验可能会改变本综述的结果。