Rebound pain and postoperative pain profile following brachial plexus block compared to general anaesthesia-An observational study.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-29 DOI:10.1111/aas.14318
Ann-Kristin Schubert, Thomas Wiesmann, Christian Volberg, Jenny Riecke, Alexander Schneider, Hinnerk Wulf, Hanns-Christian Dinges
{"title":"Rebound pain and postoperative pain profile following brachial plexus block compared to general anaesthesia-An observational study.","authors":"Ann-Kristin Schubert,&nbsp;Thomas Wiesmann,&nbsp;Christian Volberg,&nbsp;Jenny Riecke,&nbsp;Alexander Schneider,&nbsp;Hinnerk Wulf,&nbsp;Hanns-Christian Dinges","doi":"10.1111/aas.14318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Regional anaesthesia has the benefit of reducing the need for systemic analgesia and therefore, potentially reducing undesired side effects. With the end of the sensory nerve block however, many patients report severe pain that requires therapy with opioids and often compromise the initial opioid sparing effect. This study aimed to characterise the postoperative pain profile and the phenomenon of rebound pain after axillary brachial plexus anaesthesia (RA) compared to general anaesthesia (GA).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Single-centre observational, stratified cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The study was conducted at University Hospital Marburg from May 2020 until September 2022.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>One hundred thirty-two patients receiving elective hand and forearm surgery were enrolled in this study.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Group RA received ultrasound-guided brachial plexus anaesthesia via the axillary approach with 30 mL of prilocaine 1% and 10 mL ropivacaine 0.2%. Group GA received balanced or total intravenous general anaesthesia.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Primary endpoint were integrated pain scores (IPS) within 24 h postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were pain scores (NRS 0-10), morphine equivalents, patient satisfaction, quality of recovery and opioid-related side effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred thirty-two patients were analysed of which 66 patients received brachial plexus block and 66 patients received general anaesthesia. Following RA significantly lower IPS were seen directly after surgery (p < .001) and during the post-anaesthesia care unit interval (p < .001) but equalised after 3 h at the ward. No overshoot in pain scores or increased opioid consumption could be detected. Patient satisfaction and postoperative recovery were comparable between both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The IPS and NRS was initially lower in the RA group, increased with fading of the block until equal to the GA group and equal thereafter. Although various definitions of rebound pain were met during this phase, the opioid sparing effect of regional anaesthesia was not counteracted by it. The incidence of episodes with uncontrolled, severe pain did not differ between groups. We found no clinical implications of rebound pain in this setting, since the RA group did not show higher pain scores than the GA group at any time point.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00021764).</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"1414-1422"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14318","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Regional anaesthesia has the benefit of reducing the need for systemic analgesia and therefore, potentially reducing undesired side effects. With the end of the sensory nerve block however, many patients report severe pain that requires therapy with opioids and often compromise the initial opioid sparing effect. This study aimed to characterise the postoperative pain profile and the phenomenon of rebound pain after axillary brachial plexus anaesthesia (RA) compared to general anaesthesia (GA).

Design: Single-centre observational, stratified cohort study.

Setting: The study was conducted at University Hospital Marburg from May 2020 until September 2022.

Participants: One hundred thirty-two patients receiving elective hand and forearm surgery were enrolled in this study.

Interventions: Group RA received ultrasound-guided brachial plexus anaesthesia via the axillary approach with 30 mL of prilocaine 1% and 10 mL ropivacaine 0.2%. Group GA received balanced or total intravenous general anaesthesia.

Main outcome measures: Primary endpoint were integrated pain scores (IPS) within 24 h postoperatively. Secondary endpoints were pain scores (NRS 0-10), morphine equivalents, patient satisfaction, quality of recovery and opioid-related side effects.

Results: One hundred thirty-two patients were analysed of which 66 patients received brachial plexus block and 66 patients received general anaesthesia. Following RA significantly lower IPS were seen directly after surgery (p < .001) and during the post-anaesthesia care unit interval (p < .001) but equalised after 3 h at the ward. No overshoot in pain scores or increased opioid consumption could be detected. Patient satisfaction and postoperative recovery were comparable between both groups.

Conclusion: The IPS and NRS was initially lower in the RA group, increased with fading of the block until equal to the GA group and equal thereafter. Although various definitions of rebound pain were met during this phase, the opioid sparing effect of regional anaesthesia was not counteracted by it. The incidence of episodes with uncontrolled, severe pain did not differ between groups. We found no clinical implications of rebound pain in this setting, since the RA group did not show higher pain scores than the GA group at any time point.

Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00021764).

臂丛神经阻滞与全身麻醉后的反弹痛和术后疼痛情况的比较一项观察性研究。
背景:区域麻醉有减少全身镇痛需求的好处,因此有可能减少不期望的副作用。然而,随着感觉神经阻滞的结束,许多患者报告了严重的疼痛,需要使用阿片类药物进行治疗,并且往往会影响最初的阿片类治疗效果。本研究旨在描述腋下臂丛神经麻醉(RA)与全身麻醉(GA)后的术后疼痛情况和反弹疼痛现象。设计:单中心观察性分层队列研究。背景:该研究于2020年5月至2022年9月在马尔堡大学医院进行。参与者:132名接受选择性手部和前臂手术的患者被纳入本研究。干预措施:RA组通过腋窝入路接受超声引导的臂丛神经麻醉,共30例 mL 1%和10 mL罗哌卡因0.2%。GA组接受平衡或完全静脉全麻。主要结果指标:主要终点是24小时内的综合疼痛评分(IPS) 术后h。次要终点是疼痛评分(NRS 0-10)、吗啡当量、患者满意度、康复质量和阿片类药物相关副作用。结果:对132例患者进行分析,其中66例接受臂丛神经阻滞,66例接受全身麻醉。RA后,术后IPS明显降低(p 结论:RA组的IPS和NRS最初较低,随着阻滞的消退而增加,直到与GA组持平,此后持平。尽管在这一阶段满足了反弹疼痛的各种定义,但区域麻醉的阿片类药物保留效果并没有被其抵消。不受控制的剧烈疼痛发作的发生率在各组之间没有差异。在这种情况下,我们没有发现反弹疼痛的临床意义,因为RA组在任何时间点都没有表现出比GA组更高的疼痛评分。试验注册:德国临床试验注册中心(DRKS00021764)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信