The relative analgesic efficacy and side-effect profile of peripheral nerve blockade (PNB) techniques compared with lumbar epidural analgesia for major knee surgery is unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized trials comparing epidural analgesia with PNB for major knee surgery. Eight studies were identified that had enrolled a total of 510 patients of whom 464 (91%) had undergone total knee joint replacement. All were small trials and none was blinded (Jadad score 1-3). PNB technique was variable: in addition to a femoral catheter (n=5), femoral single shot (n=2), or lumbar plexus catheter (n=1) techniques, sciatic blockade was performed in three trials. There was no significant difference in pain scores between epidural and PNB at 0-12 or 12-24 h, WMD 0.22 (95% CI: -0.36, 0.81), 0.05 (-1.01, 0.91), respectively, and no clinically significant difference at 24-48 h, WMD -0.35 (-0.64, -0.02). There was also no difference in morphine consumption (mg) at 0-24 h, WMD -6.25 (-18.35, 5.86). Hypotension occurred more frequently among patients who received epidurals [OR 0.19 (0.08, 0.45)], but there was no difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Two studies reported a higher incidence of urinary retention in the epidural group. Patient satisfaction was higher with PNB in two of three studies which measured this, although rehabilitation indices were similar. PNB with a femoral nerve block provides postoperative analgesia which is comparable with that obtained with an epidural technique but with an improved side-effect profile and is less likely to cause a severe neuraxial complication.

Previous studies have investigated the role of volatile anaesthetic agents in myocardial protection during coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, and some have identified beneficial effects. However, these studies have been too small to identify a significant effect on myocardial infarction (MI) or mortality. We undertook a systematic overview and meta-analysis of all randomized trials comparing volatile with non-volatile anaesthesia in CABG surgery. We identified 27 trials that included 2979 patients. There was no significant difference in myocardial ischaemia, MI, intensive care unit length of stay or hospital mortality between the groups (all P>0.05). Post-bypass, patients randomized to receive volatile anaesthetics had 20% higher cardiac indices (P=0.006), significantly lower troponin I serum concentrations (P=0.002) and lesser requirement for inotropic support (P=0.004) compared with those randomized to receive i.v. anaesthetics. Duration of mechanical ventilation was reduced by 2.7 h (P=0.04), and there was a 1 day decrease in hospital length of stay (P<0.001). Some of these outcomes were based on a smaller number of trials because of incomplete data, largely because the individual trials focused on one or more surrogate endpoints. We found some evidence that volatile anaesthetic agents provide myocardial protection in CABG surgery, but larger adequately powered trials with agreed, defined outcomes need to be done to fully assess a possible beneficial effect of volatile anaesthetic agents on the risk of MI and mortality.

Nitrous oxide-based anesthesia increased plasma homocysteine and significantly impaired endothelial function in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Nitrous oxide-based anesthesia could be a risk factor for postoperative cardiovascular morbidity.

SummaryAdvances in technology have resulted in the development of several depth-of-anaesthesia monitors. Whether any of these monitors can reduce the incidence of awareness is an important issue for anaesthetists and their patients. We therefore surveyed a random selection of anaesthetists, asking for their opinions of awareness and depth-of-anaesthesia monitoring in current clinical practice. Approximately half (52%) of the anaesthetists surveyed had experienced a patient with awareness.

Further well-designed randomized controlled trials conducted in burn-specific populations are warranted, thus enabling the development of a relevant evidence base to support its clinical use.