Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Department of Anesthesia, Women's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Anaesthesia. 2020 Sep;75(9):1236-1246. doi: 10.1111/anae.14996. Epub 2020 Feb 9.
Effective analgesic alternatives to interscalene brachial plexus block are sought for shoulder surgery. Peri-articular infiltration analgesia is a novel, less invasive technique, but evidence surrounding its use is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the utility of peri-articular infiltration analgesia in shoulder surgery. We searched literature for trials comparing peri-articular infiltration analgesia with control or with interscalene brachial plexus block. Control groups received no intervention, placebo or systemic opioids. The primary outcome was cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included: rest pain scores up to 48 h; risk of side-effects; and durations of post-anaesthetic care unit and hospital stay. Data were pooled with random-effects modelling. Seven trials (383 patients) were included. Compared with control, peri-articular infiltration analgesia reduced 24-h oral morphine consumption by a mean difference (95%CI) of -38.0 mg (-65.5 to -10.5; p = 0.007). It also improved pain scores up to 6 h, 36 h and 48 h, with the greatest improvement observed at 0 h (-2.4 (-2.7 to -1.6); p < 0.001). Peri-articular infiltration analgesia decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting by an odds ratio (95%CI) of 0.3 (0.1-0.7; p = 0.006). In contrast, peri-articular infiltration analgesia was not different from interscalene brachial plexus block for analgesic consumption, pain scores or side-effects. This review provides moderate evidence supporting peri-articular infiltration for postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery. The absence of difference between peri-articular infiltration analgesia and interscalene brachial plexus block for analgesic outcomes suggests that these interventions are comparable, but further trials are needed to support this conclusion and identify the optimal peri-articular infiltration technique.
对于肩部手术,人们正在寻找一种比经斜角肌间阻滞更有效的镇痛替代方法。关节周围浸润镇痛是一种新颖的、微创技术,但目前其使用效果的证据尚不清楚。本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估关节周围浸润镇痛在肩部手术中的应用效果。我们检索了比较关节周围浸润镇痛与对照组或与经斜角肌间阻滞的试验文献。对照组未接受任何干预、安慰剂或全身阿片类药物。主要结局是术后 24 小时内累计口服吗啡等效消耗量。次要结局包括:术后 48 小时内静息疼痛评分、不良反应风险以及麻醉后监护病房和住院时间。数据采用随机效应模型进行汇总。共纳入 7 项试验(383 例患者)。与对照组相比,关节周围浸润镇痛使 24 小时口服吗啡消耗量平均减少(95%CI)-38.0mg(-65.5 至-10.5;p=0.007)。它还改善了术后 6 小时、36 小时和 48 小时的疼痛评分,在 0 小时时改善最大(-2.4(-2.7 至-1.6);p<0.001)。关节周围浸润镇痛使术后恶心呕吐的比值比(95%CI)降低 0.3(0.1-0.7;p=0.006)。相比之下,关节周围浸润镇痛在镇痛消耗、疼痛评分或不良反应方面与经斜角肌间阻滞无差异。本综述提供了中等质量的证据,支持关节周围浸润用于肩部手术后的术后镇痛。关节周围浸润镇痛与经斜角肌间阻滞在镇痛效果方面无差异表明,这两种干预措施是等效的,但需要进一步的试验来支持这一结论,并确定最佳的关节周围浸润技术。