Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal paralysis, nausea and vomiting and pain are major clinical problems following abdominal surgery. Anaesthetic and analgesic techniques that reduce pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), while preventing or reducing postoperative ileus, may reduce postoperative morbidity, duration of hospitalization and hospital costs. This review was first published in 2001 and was updated by new review authors in 2016. OBJECTIVES: To compare effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics versus postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of anastomotic leak, length of hospital stay and costs after abdominal surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials by conducting computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1950 to December 2014) and EMBASE (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. When we reran the search in February 2016, we added 16 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate these studies into formal review findings during the next review update. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing effects of postoperative epidural local anaesthetic versus regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We rated the quality of studies by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently extracted data and judged the quality of evidence according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) scale. MAIN RESULTS: We included 128 trials with 8754 participants in the review, and 94 trials with 5846 participants in the analysis. Trials included in the review were funded as follows: charity (n = 19), departmental resources (n = 8), governmental sources (n = 15) ...

BACKGROUND: The use of ultrasound guidance for regional anaesthesia has become popular over the past two decades. However, it is not recognized by all experts as an essential tool. The cost of an ultrasound machine is substantially higher than the cost of other tools such as a nerve stimulator. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether ultrasound guidance offers any clinical advantage when neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks are performed in children in terms of increasing the success rate or decreasing the rate of complications. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to March 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and Scopus (from inception to 27 January 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of ultrasound guidance used when a regional blockade technique was performed in children, and that included any of our selected outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed selected studies for risk of bias by using the assessment tool of The Cochrane Collaboration. Two review authors independently extracted data. We graded the level of evidence for each outcome according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group scale. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies (1241 participants) for which the source of funding was a government organization (two studies), a charitable organization (one study), an institutional department (four studies) or an unspecified source (11 studies); two studies declared that they received help from the industry (equipment loan). In 14 studies (939 participants), ultrasound guidance increased the success rate by decreasing the occurrence of a failed block: risk difference (RD) ‐0.11 (95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.17 to ‐0.05); I(2) = 64%; number needed for additional beneficial outcome for a peripheral nerve block (NNTB) 6 (95% CI 5 to 8). Blocks were performed under general anaesthesia (usual clinical ...

Background There is heterogeneity in the names and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques. This may have adverse consequences on education, research, and implementation into clinical practice. We aimed to produce standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal, and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques. Methods We conducted an international consensus study involving experts using a three-round Delphi method to produce a list of names and corresponding descriptions of anatomical targets. After long-list formulation by a Steering Committee, the first and second rounds involved anonymous electronic voting and commenting, with the third round involving a virtual round table discussion aiming to achieve consensus on items that had yet to achieve it. Novel names were presented where required for anatomical clarity and harmonization. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50% to 74% agreement. Results Sixty expert Collaborators participated in this study. After three rounds and clarification, harmonization, and introduction of novel nomenclature, strong consensus was achieved for the names of 16 block names and weak consensus for four names. For anatomical descriptions, strong consensus was achieved for 19 blocks and weak consensus was achieved for one approach. Several areas requiring further research were identified. Conclusions Harmonization and standardization of nomenclature may improve education, research, and ultimately patient care. We present the first international consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of blocks of the abdominal wall, chest wall, and paraspinal blocks. We recommend using the consensus results in academic and clinical practice.