Comparison of the efficacy of different interventions for rebound pain after brachial plexus block in upper extremity surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 7.8 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Wenhui Ma, Lihai Chen, Di Zhou, Jiayu Jin, Liu Han
{"title":"Comparison of the efficacy of different interventions for rebound pain after brachial plexus block in upper extremity surgery: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Wenhui Ma, Lihai Chen, Di Zhou, Jiayu Jin, Liu Han","doi":"10.1097/EJA.0000000000002486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rebound pain is a common transient severe pain after peripheral nerve block subsidence, impairing block efficacy and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the preventive and therapeutic effects of six interventions - dexamethasone, esketamine, dexmedetomidine, liposomal bupivacaine, continuous nerve block and combined nerve block (brachial plexus block via multiple approaches) - on rebound pain after upper extremity surgery brachial plexus block to provide evidence-based references for optimising clinical analgesic regimens.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Bayesian network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Datasources: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched up to 10 October 2025.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of the above interventions for rebound pain prevention and treatment after brachial plexus block in upper extremity surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 22 RCTs involving 1699 patients were included. Network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, dexamethasone [odds ratio (OR) = 0.22 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.42), dexmedetomidine (OR = 0.23 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.68)] and continuous nerve block [OR = 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.33)] significantly reduced rebound pain incidence. Dexamethasone [mean difference (MD) = -2.54 (95% CI, -4.76 to -0.26)] and continuous nerve block [MD = -3.10 (95% CI, -5.86 to -0.23)] lowered 12-h postoperative pain scores. Compared with placebo, combined nerve block [MD = -0.86 (95% CI, -1.59 to -0.13)] reduced postoperative 24-h pain scores. SUCRA results ranked continuous nerve block as the most favourable intervention for reducing rebound pain and 12-h/24-h postoperative pain scores. These reflect relative probabilities rather than absolute efficacy and require further validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients undergoing upper-extremity surgery with brachial plexus block, current network meta-analysis findings suggest that continuous nerve block is associated with a lower incidence of rebound pain and reduced pain scores at 12 and 24 h postoperatively, although further validation is still required. We recommend that continuous nerve block may be considered for patients at high risk of rebound pain to balance efficacy and safety. Given the limited certainty of evidence, these findings should be regarded as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than definitive conclusions.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD420251251811).</p>","PeriodicalId":11920,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002486","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Rebound pain is a common transient severe pain after peripheral nerve block subsidence, impairing block efficacy and patient satisfaction.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the preventive and therapeutic effects of six interventions - dexamethasone, esketamine, dexmedetomidine, liposomal bupivacaine, continuous nerve block and combined nerve block (brachial plexus block via multiple approaches) - on rebound pain after upper extremity surgery brachial plexus block to provide evidence-based references for optimising clinical analgesic regimens.

Design: Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Datasources: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched up to 10 October 2025.

Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of the above interventions for rebound pain prevention and treatment after brachial plexus block in upper extremity surgery.

Results: A total of 22 RCTs involving 1699 patients were included. Network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, dexamethasone [odds ratio (OR) = 0.22 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.42), dexmedetomidine (OR = 0.23 (95% CI, 0.08 to 0.68)] and continuous nerve block [OR = 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.33)] significantly reduced rebound pain incidence. Dexamethasone [mean difference (MD) = -2.54 (95% CI, -4.76 to -0.26)] and continuous nerve block [MD = -3.10 (95% CI, -5.86 to -0.23)] lowered 12-h postoperative pain scores. Compared with placebo, combined nerve block [MD = -0.86 (95% CI, -1.59 to -0.13)] reduced postoperative 24-h pain scores. SUCRA results ranked continuous nerve block as the most favourable intervention for reducing rebound pain and 12-h/24-h postoperative pain scores. These reflect relative probabilities rather than absolute efficacy and require further validation.

Conclusion: In patients undergoing upper-extremity surgery with brachial plexus block, current network meta-analysis findings suggest that continuous nerve block is associated with a lower incidence of rebound pain and reduced pain scores at 12 and 24 h postoperatively, although further validation is still required. We recommend that continuous nerve block may be considered for patients at high risk of rebound pain to balance efficacy and safety. Given the limited certainty of evidence, these findings should be regarded as exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than definitive conclusions.

Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD420251251811).

不同干预措施对上肢手术臂丛神经阻滞后反跳痛的疗效比较:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
背景:反跳痛是周围神经阻滞下陷后常见的一过性剧烈疼痛,影响阻滞效果和患者满意度。目的:本研究旨在评价地塞米松、艾氯胺酮、右美托咪定、布比卡因脂质体、连续神经阻滞和联合神经阻滞(多路臂丛阻滞)6种干预措施对上肢手术后反跳性疼痛的预防和治疗效果,为优化临床镇痛方案提供循证参考。设计:贝叶斯网络元分析。数据来源:PubMed, Web of Science, Embase和Cochrane Library检索截止到2025年10月10日。入选标准:随机对照试验(rct)评估上述干预措施预防和治疗上肢手术后臂丛神经阻滞后反跳疼痛的疗效。结果:共纳入22项rct,涉及1699例患者。网络荟萃分析显示,与安慰剂相比,地塞米松[比值比(OR) = 0.22 (95% CI, 0.11 ~ 0.42),右美托咪啶(OR = 0.23 (95% CI, 0.08 ~ 0.68)]和连续神经阻滞[OR = 0.04 (95% CI, 0.01 ~ 0.33)]显著降低了反跳疼痛发生率。地塞米松[平均差值(MD) = -2.54 (95% CI, -4.76至-0.26)]和持续神经阻滞[MD = -3.10 (95% CI, -5.86至-0.23)]降低了术后12小时疼痛评分。与安慰剂相比,联合神经阻滞组[MD = -0.86 (95% CI, -1.59至-0.13)]降低了术后24小时疼痛评分。SUCRA结果将连续神经阻滞列为减少反跳性疼痛和术后12小时/24小时疼痛评分的最有利干预措施。这些反映的是相对概率,而不是绝对功效,需要进一步验证。结论:在接受上肢手术并进行臂丛神经阻滞的患者中,目前的网络荟萃分析结果表明,持续神经阻滞与术后12和24小时的反跳痛发生率降低和疼痛评分降低相关,尽管仍需要进一步验证。我们建议对有反跳性疼痛高风险的患者考虑持续神经阻滞,以平衡疗效和安全性。鉴于证据的有限确定性,这些发现应被视为探索性和假设生成,而不是确定的结论。试验注册:PROSPERO (CRD420251251811)。
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
6.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
351
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA) publishes original work of high scientific quality in the field of anaesthesiology, pain, emergency medicine and intensive care. Preference is given to experimental work or clinical observation in man, and to laboratory work of clinical relevance. The journal also publishes commissioned reviews by an authority, editorials, invited commentaries, special articles, pro and con debates, and short reports (correspondences, case reports, short reports of clinical studies).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书