Wide-Awake Local Anesthesia No Tourniquet (WALANT) versus Local or Intravenous Regional Anesthesia with Tourniquet in Atraumatic Hand Cases in Orthopedics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (04) ◽  
pp. 469-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ted Matthew P. Evangelista ◽  
John Hubert C. Pua ◽  
Mara Therese P. Evangelista-Huber
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Intravenous Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Post Operative Pain

Background: To compare outcomes of atraumatic hand surgeries using the WALANT technique versus intravenous regional anesthesia or local anesthesia with tourniquet. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to October 2018. All randomized or quasi-randomized trials and cohort studies comparing WALANT procedure versus local anesthesia or intravenous regional anesthesia with tourniquet among atraumatic hand surgeries were included. Methodological quality and risk of bias of eligible studies were assessed by three independent reviewers. The random effects model was used due to both statistical and clinical heterogeneity among studies. Results: The search yielded 496 records, of which 9 studies were included in the systematic review. We were able to pool findings for operative time, post-operative pain scores, patient satisfaction, and complication rates. On the average, the WALANT group had longer operative times by 2.06 minutes (pooled mean difference, random effects, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 3.67 minutes, p = 0.01, I2 0%, p = 0.66). The post-operative pain scores were lower in the WALANT group by an average of two VAS points (random effects, pooled mean difference −2.40, 95% confidence interval −3.41 to −1.38, p < 0.00001; I2 0% p = 0.99). We had insufficient evidence to demonstrate a difference in terms of patient satisfaction (random effects, pooled risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03, p = 0.36, I2 0%, p = 0.64) and complication rates (random effects, pooled risk ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.18, p = 0.29, I2 60% p = 0.08) between WALANT versus conventional methods. Conclusions: The WALANT group reported lower post-operative pain scores, but had slightly longer operative times. There are no significant differences between WALANT and conventional methods in terms of patient satisfaction and complication rates.

scholarly journals Pain Perception of the First Eye versus the Second Eye during Phacoemulsification under Local Anesthesia for Patients Going through Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuying Shi ◽  
Jinqiu Yuan ◽  
Benny Zee
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Eye Surgery ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
The Difference

Background. Phacoemulsification under local anesthesia is regarded as the major surgery for cataract treatment. Recent research has compared the pain perception between the first eye and the second eye during phacoemulsification. However, these studies have also yielded controversial findings. Consequently, we performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to investigate the difference in the pain perception between the first and second eyes during phacoemulsification. Method. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for the studies published up to October 5, 2018. Prospective observational studies were included. The meta-analysis was conducted by means of random-effects model and fixed-effects model according to the heterogeneity. Evaluation of the methodological quality of studies was based on Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results. Overall, eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. The analysis of pooled data showed that the pain scores of the first eye shortly after surgery under local anesthesia were significantly lower as compared to the second eye (WMD: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.98; P<0.00001). The average pain scores of the first eye shortly after surgery under the topical anesthesia were also lower than those of the second eye (WMD: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.36; P<0.00001). Conversely, anxiety scores in the first eye surgery were significantly higher than those in the second eye surgery (SMD: −0.40; 95% CI: −0.64, −0.16; P=0.001). However, the difference of the pain scores accessed on the first postoperative day between the first and second eye surgeries (WMD: −0.05; 95% CI −0.40, 0.31; P=0.79) as well as cooperation grades of patients between the first and second eye surgeries (WMD: 0.35; 95% CI −0.07, 0.76; P=0.10) was not statistically significant. Conclusion. Patients experienced more pain in the surgery of the second eye than that of the first eye, which probably related to lower anxiety before the second surgery. It suggests that we should consider preoperative intervention to reduce the perceived pain during second eye cataract surgery.

Ropivacaine 0.2% and Lidocaine 0.5% for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Outpatient Surgery

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 627-631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Atanassoff ◽  
Carlos A. Ocampo ◽  
Marcos Castro Bande ◽  
Maximilian W. B. Hartmannsgruber ◽  
Thomas M. Halaszynski
Keyword(s):  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Outpatient Surgery ◽  
Postanesthesia Care Unit ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lidocaine Group ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Intravenous Regional Anesthesia

Background A longer-acting local anesthetic agent, such as ropivacaine, may offer advantages over lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether the findings of volunteer investigations with intravenous regional anesthesia with ropivacaine (which have shown prolonged analgesia after release of the tourniquet) translates into improved pain control after surgery. Methods With Human Investigation Committee approval and a double-blind study design, 20 healthy patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II classification who were scheduled to undergo forearm and hand surgery were randomly assigned to administration of 40 ml of either 0.2% ropivacaine or 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia. Evidence of central nervous system side effects, such as lightheadedness, tinnitus, and metallic taste, as well as cardiac arrhythmias, were evaluated and treated (if necessary) after local anesthetic administration, before and during surgery, and after release of the tourniquet until discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Regression of sensory anesthesia in the nerve distributions of the forearm and hand was recorded. Verbal numerical pain scores were monitored and quantified until the patients were discharged to home from the postanesthesia care unit. Patient pain scores, side effect profiles, time to first oral intake, and total amount of oral analgesics were recorded 24 h postoperatively. Results Intravenous regional anesthesia with 0.2% ropivacaine and 0.5% lidocaine provided equivalent levels of surgical anesthesia. After release of the tourniquet, the first evidence for return of sensation in the distribution of the five peripheral nerves occurred later in the ropivacaine group (median, 20 min; range, 15-40 min) than in the lidocaine group (median, 1 min; range, 1-25 min). Verbal numerical pain scores were significantly lower at the time of admission, whereas during the remainder of the postanesthesia care unit stay and later at home, the difference in verbal numerical pain scores between the two groups was no longer statistically significant. Conclusions Ropivacaine 0.2% may be an alternative to 0.5% lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia in the outpatient surgical setting. Longer-lasting analgesia in the immediate postoperative period may be due to a more profound and prolonged tissue binding effect of ropivacaine.

scholarly journals Comparison of regional and local anesthesia for arteriovenous fistula creation in end-stage renal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Gao ◽  
Chunyan Weng ◽  
Chenghai He ◽  
Jingli Xu ◽  
Liqiang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Renal Disease ◽  
Arteriovenous Fistula ◽  
Local Anesthesia ◽  
End Stage Renal Disease ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Patency ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Stage Renal Disease ◽  
End Stage

Abstract Background Arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) are the hemodialysis access modality of choice for patients with end-stage renal disease. However, they have a high early failure rate. Good vascular access is essential to manage long-term hemodialytic treatment, but some anesthesia techniques directly affect venous diameter as well as intra- and post- operative blood flow. The main purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the results of regional and local anesthesia for arteriovenous fistula creation in end-stage renal disease.Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize evidence from 7 randomized controlled trials (565 patients) and 2 observational studies (524 patients) aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of regional anesthesia (RA) versus local anesthesia (LA) in AVF surgical construction.Results: Pooled data showed that RA was associated with higher primary patency rates than LA (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 - 2.84; P = 0.003; I 2 = 31%; Figure 2a). Additionally, brachial artery diameter was significantly increased in the RA versus LA group (mean difference [MD] = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.75 - 0.92; P < 0.001; I 2 = 97%) and the need for intra- as well as post- operative pain killers was significantly less (RA, p = 0.0363; LA, p = 0.0318). Moreover, operation duration was significantly reduced in the RA (67.5 ± 8.9 min) versus LA (134.7 ± 14.8 min) group (p = 0.0007).Conclusions: In conclusion, compared with LA, RA shows higher primary patency rates and it also associated with significantly better intra- as well as post- operative pain control, reduced operative times, which are extremely important in patients with end-stage renal disease and severe comorbidities.

scholarly journals Dexmedetomidine as an Adjuvant to Lignocaine for Intravenous Regional Anesthesia for Forearm and Hand Surgeries: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moumita Roychowdhury ◽  
Anjum Naz
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Tourniquet Pain ◽  
Intravenous Regional Anesthesia ◽  
Upper Limb Surgery ◽  
Fentanyl Consumption ◽  
Group B ◽  
Preservative Free

Objective: Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) is an effective anesthetic technique for surgical procedures of short duration involving the distal parts of the limbs. Intraoperative tourniquet pain is the major restraint of this technique, and to overcome this limitation, various adjuvants to local anesthetics have been used. This study investigated the effect of a fixed low dose of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to lignocaine on intraoperative tourniquet pain, onset of block, duration of block, and patient satisfaction. Methods: A total of 100 adult patients with ASA grade I and II who were scheduled for upper limb surgery of approximately 1 hour in duration were randomly divided into two groups (n=50 in each group). Group A received 35 mL of preservative-free lignocaine alone and Group B received 35 mL of preservative-free lignocaine along with 30 μg of dexmedetomidine. The incidence of tourniquet pain, intraoperative fentanyl consumption, duration of onset and recovery of sensory and motor block after tourniquet deflation, postoperative numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores, duration of analgesia, and overall patient satisfaction were noted. Result: The incidence of tourniquet pain and intraoperative fentanyl consumption were significantly lower in Group B. The onset and duration of sensory and motor blocks were faster and longer, respectively, in Group B. Postoperative NPRS scores were lower, duration of analgesia was longer, and overall patient satisfaction was better in the dexmedetomidine group. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine at a dose of 30 μg as a lignocaine adjuvant significantly reduces tourniquet pain and intraoperative fentanyl consumption in IVRA. Dexmedetomidine shortens the onset of block, prolongs the duration of block, and provides a more satisfactory anesthesia than lignocaine alone.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Platelet-rich Plasma for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 81 (06) ◽  
pp. 529-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaopeng Xuan ◽  
Wenjun Yu ◽  
Yichen Dou ◽  
Tao Wang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Control Intervention

Abstract Background Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) may be beneficial for patients with low back pain. However, the results remain controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy of PRP for low back pain. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of PRP on low back pain were included. Two investigators independently searched articles, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcome was pain scores within 8 weeks. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Results Three RCTs involving 131 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control intervention for low back pain, PRP injection was found to reduce pain scores significantly (mean difference: − 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], − 2.12 to − 0.81; p < 0.0001), improve the number of patients with > 50% pain relief at 3 months (risk ratio [RR]: 4.14; 95% CI, 2.22–7.74; p < 0.00001), and offer relatively good patient satisfaction (RR: 1.91; 95% CI, 1.04–3.53; p = 0.04). No increase in adverse events was reported after PRP injection (RR: 1.92; 95% CI, 0.94-3.91; p = 0.07). Conclusions Compared with control intervention for low back pain, PRP injection was found to improve pain relief and patient satisfaction significantly with no increase in adverse events.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document