Anaesthesia
-
Review Meta Analysis
Efficacy of regional blocks or local anaesthetic infiltration for analgesia after caesarean delivery: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Caesarean delivery is common and can cause severe postoperative pain but injection of local anaesthetic at various sites for regional blocks or local anaesthetic infiltration may reduce this. We aimed to compare and rank these sites. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and CENTRAL to June 2021 for randomised controlled trials and performed a random-effects Bayesian model network meta-analysis. ⋯ Ordered efficacies for injection sites were different for other relevant outcomes, including pain (to 4-6 h and to 24 h) and time to rescue analgesia: there was no single preferred route of injection. The ordered mean (95% credible interval) reduction in dynamic pain scores (0-10 scale) at 24 h compared with placebo were as follows: wound infusion 1.2 (0.2-2.1); erector spinae 1.3 (-0.5 to 3.1); quadratus lumborum 1.0 (0.1-1.8); ilio-inguinal-iliohypogastric 0.6 (-0.5 to 1.8); transverse abdominis 0.6 (-0.1 to 1.2); wound infiltration 0.5 (-0.3 to 1.3); transversalis fascia -0.8 (-3.4 to 1.9); ilio-inguinal -0.9 (-3.6 to 1.7); and no intervention -0.8 (-1.8 to 0.2). We categorised our confidence in effect sizes as low or very low.
-
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, few studies have reported anaesthetic outcomes in parturients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We reviewed the labour analgesic and anaesthetic interventions utilised in symptomatic and asymptomatic parturients who had a confirmed positive test for SARS-CoV-2 across 10 hospitals in the north-west of England between 1 April 2020 and 31 May 2021. Primary outcomes analysed included the analgesic/anaesthetic technique utilised for labour and caesarean birth. ⋯ Eight neonates tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 while no differences in adverse composite neonatal outcomes were observed between those born to symptomatic and asymptomatic mothers (25.8% vs. 23.8%; OR 1.11, 95%CI 0.78-1.57; p = 0.55). In women with COVID-19, non-neuraxial analgesic regimens were commonly utilised for labour while neuraxial anaesthesia was employed for the majority of caesarean births. Symptomatic women with COVID-19 are at increased risk of significant maternal morbidity including preterm birth, caesarean birth and peripartum critical care admission.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study
Analgesia for major laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a randomised feasibility trial using intrathecal morphine.
Effective pain control enhances patient recovery after surgery. Laparoscopic techniques for major abdominal surgery are increasingly utilised to reduce surgical trauma. Intrathecal morphine is an attractive analgesic option that is gaining popularity. ⋯ For secondary endpoints, fewer patients in the intrathecal morphine group required opioids in the post-anaesthesia care unit, their postoperative pain scores at rest were lower across the four time-points measured (p = 0.007), but not dynamic pain scores (p = 0.061), and pruritus was more common following intrathecal morphine (p = 0.007). Total oral morphine equivalents until postoperative day 3 were less in the intrathecal morphine group (median (95%CI) difference 82 (-13 to 168) mg), but this reduction was not statistically significant (p = 0.10). These findings support conducting a definitive clinical trial.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
'Dear Doctor': a randomised controlled trial of a text message intervention to reduce burnout in trainee anaesthetists.
One in four doctors in training in the UK reports feeling 'burnt out' due to their work and similar figures are reported in other countries. This two-group non-blinded randomised controlled trial aimed to determine if a novel text message intervention could reduce burnout and increase well-being in UK trainee anaesthetists. A total of 279 trainee anaesthetists (Core Training Year 2, Specialty Training Years 3 or 4) were included. ⋯ Exploratory post-hoc analysis found the intervention was associated with reduced burnout in participants reporting personal or work-related difficulties during the trial period (-9.56, -17.35 to -1.77, p = 0.02) and in participants reporting that the COVID-19 pandemic had a big negative impact on their well-being (-10.38, -20.57 to -0.19, p = 0.05). Overall, this trial found the intervention had no impact. However, given this intervention is low cost and requires minimal time commitment from recipients, it may warrant adaptation and further evaluation.