Skip to main content
Download PDF

Functional recovery with peripheral nerve block versus general anesthesia for upper limb surgery: a systematic review

BMC Anesthesiology volume 23, Article number: 91 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Peripheral nerve block is a common anesthetic technique used during orthopedic upper limb surgery. Injection of local anesthetics around the target nerve inhibits the action of voltage-dependent sodium channels, inhibiting neurotransmission of pain impulses and providing motor immobility. Compared to general anesthesia, it could improve functional recovery by inhibiting nociceptive impulses and inflammation, thus reducing postoperative pain and immobilization and improving postoperative rehabilitation. This systematic review evaluates the impact of peripheral nerve block versus general anesthesia on postoperative functional recovery following orthopedic upper limb surgery.

Methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINHAL, EMBASE, and Scopus trial databases from inception until September 2021 for studies comparing peripheral nerve block to general anesthesia. We collected data on functional recovery, range of motion, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and return to work. We pooled studies using a random-effects model and summarized the quality of evidence with the GRADE approach.

Results

We assessed 373 citations and 19 full-text articles for eligibility, and included six studies. Six studies reported on functional recovery, but failed to detect a significant superiority of peripheral nerve block over general anesthesia (3 RCT studies, N = 160; SMD -0.15; CI at 95% -0.60–0.3; I2 = 45%; p = 0.07; low quality of evidence and 3 observational studies, N = 377; SMD -0.35; CI at 95% -0.71–0.01; I2 = 64%; p = 0.06; very low quality of evidence).

Conclusions

Current literature is limited and fails to identify the benefit of peripheral nerve block on functional recovery. More studies are needed to assess the impact on long-term recovery. Considering the potential impact on clinical practice and training, a prospective study on functional recovery is ongoing (NCT04541745).

Trial registration

PROSPERO ID CRD42018116298. Registered on December 4, 2018.

Peer Review reports

Background

More than 22 million orthopedic surgeries are performed worldwide each year [1]. Orthopedic upper limb surgeries represent more than half of the surgeries performed yearly and are associated with severe postoperative pain requiring multimodal analgesia [1, 2]. Indeed, more than 70% of patients report moderate to high postoperative pain and tend to have a higher average opioid consumption 24 h postoperatively than in other surgeries [3,4,5]. Following upper limb surgery, postoperative inflammation and pain lead to a decreased range of motion in the operated joint and promote mechanical hyperalgesia, delaying recovery [3, 5,6,7]. Interestingly, about 15 to 20% of patients report a lower level of functionality in activities of daily living after orthopedic surgery of the upper limb, compared to the preoperative state [8,9,10]. Postoperative pain, by delaying the rehabilitation, might impact long-term functional recovery [11].

Recent studies have demonstrated that functional recovery is a multidisciplinary concept that relates to the limitations imposed by the body's muscles and joints, limitations in daily activities, and environmental and personal factors emphasizing the importance of including patient-reported outcomes to evaluate functional recovery [12,13,14,15]. Postoperative functional recovery of the operated limb can be assessed by the range of motion of the articulation, muscle strength, radiological signs of fracture union and with psychometric evaluation tools [12, 13].

Peripheral nerve block (PNB) is a technique that provides long-term analgesia while preventing side effects of general anesthesia (GA) [14, 16, 17]. In orthopedics, local anesthesia provides several advantages over GA, including improved postoperative pain management, reduced hospital time, lower hospital costs, and prevention of significant complications associated with GA [18]. The injection of the local anesthetic around the nerve inhibits the action of voltage-dependent sodium channels, thus inhibiting neurotransmission of pain impulses and providing motor immobility [19, 20]. Furthermore, local anesthetic agents have multiple anti-inflammatory mechanisms: blocking the activation of C fibres, reduction of cytokines production and blocking sympathetic nerve activity, which helps reduce postoperative pain and promote early mobilization of the limb [6].

For orthopedic lower limb surgery, it has been demonstrated that the use of PNB has a beneficial impact on functional recovery post-surgery. Indeed, the authors hypothesized that the functional recovery benefits of PNB are due to the reduction in postoperative pain scores and earlier mobilization [21,22,23,24,25]. However, the impact of postoperative pain and early mobilization on functional recovery has been relatively unexplored for upper limb surgery [6, 18, 24]. To investigate this gap in the literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effect of PNB compared with GA on functional recovery after upper limb surgery.

Methods

This systematic review is reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [26] and is registered on PROSPERO (rCRD42018116298). Complete protocol details have been previously published [27].

Search strategy

We performed a comprehensive search strategy of CENTRAL (The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, CINHAL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus and EMBASE from their inception to December 2018. Keyword search terms included: upper limb surgery, peripheral anesthesia, nerve block, brachial plexus, postoperative recovery, and functional recovery. Details on search strategy are available in Supplementary Tables 1, Additional File 1. We searched conference proceedings and abstracts presented between December 2016 and December 2018 from the following meetings: Canada Anesthesiologists’ Society Annual Meeting, World Congress on Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Society of Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting and, Euroanesthesia and Société Française d’Anesthésie et de Réanimation. Trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and Who.int) were searched for ongoing and unpublished eligible studies. The search strategy was repeated in September 2021 to include more recent articles.

Study selection

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the use of PNB compared to GA for orthopedic upper limb surgery. Studies were included if the population of interest was adults (≥ 18 years old) undergoing orthopedic surgery of the upper limb (e.g., total shoulder arthroscopy/arthroplasty, open reduction and internal fixation, tendon/muscle reimplantation, mass/tumour excision of soft tissues). We included studies comparing single-shot PNB anesthesia of the brachial plexus, defined as supraclavicular, infraclavicular, axillary and interscalene, to GA. We included studies assessing functional recovery with a validated upper limb psychometric tool and did not impose language restrictions or year of publication. We excluded studies if they were case reports or series, investigations using animal models, and no comparison between GA and PNB was performed. When a study included a proportion of patients with a concomitant PNB and GA, only the data on patients who did not receive concomitant GA were included.

Data extraction

We performed data extraction independently and in duplicate using predefined data extraction forms. Extracted data included study title, first author, study design, baseline characteristics, details of the intervention (e.g., type of block, a dose of local anesthetic, surgery), relevant controls, and information on methodological quality for each study. In addition, we included the following outcomes: functional recovery after an upper limb surgery at each follow-up visit using the assessment tool reported by the study authors, patient satisfaction regarding the anesthetic technique used, range of motion and delay from surgery to the return to work. If available, we collected the following adverse events: nerve damage or other neurological injuries, vascular puncture, infection at the puncture site and chronic pain. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved through discussion or third-party adjudication.

Quality assessment

Assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials

The risk of bias was evaluated independently and in duplicate for each study. We resolved disagreements by consensus. For RCTs, we used the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCT [28]. We assessed the following elements: 1) random sequence generation, 2) allocation concealment, 3) blinding, 4) incomplete outcome data, 5) selective outcome reporting and 6) other sources of bias. According to specific criteria available in the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool, biases were categorized as ‘low risk of bias, 'unclear risk of bias and ‘high risk of bias [28]. More information on the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCT is available in see Supplementary Table 2, Additional File 1. We considered studies to be ‘low risk’ if all aspects were considered to have ‘low’ risk of bias. Studies with at least one aspect considered to have ‘high’ risk of bias were considered overall to be ‘high’’ risk. We resolved disagreements by discussion or with the help of a third reviewer. Because of the limited number of studies, we did not address publication bias.

Assessment of risk of bias in observational studies

For observational studies, we used the Clinical Advances through Research and Information Translation (CLARITY) tools [29]. These tools assesses eight domains: 1)exposed and non-exposed cohorts were drawn from the same population; 2)confidence in the assessment of the exposure; 3) absence of an outcome of interest at the start of the study; 4) exposed and non-exposed cohorts matched for all variables or statistical adjustment; 5) confidence in the assessment of the presence or absence of prognostic factors; 6) confidence in the assessment of the outcome; 7) quality of follow-up; 8) similarity in co-interventions between the groups. For each criterion, we evaluated the risk of bias as 'definitely yes,' 'probably yes,' 'probably no,' and 'definitely no [29]. For more detail, see Supplementary Table 3, Additional File 1.

Assessment of confidence in pooled effect estimates

We assessed the quality of evidence of each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework [30]. GRADE approach evaluated five potential factors affecting the quality of evidence: 1) limitations in the design and implementation of available studies (individual study risk bias); 2) indirectness (the extent to which study population, intervention, and outcome deviate from those of interest for this systematic review); 3) inconsistency of results between studies; 4) imprecision of treatment effect, and 5) publication bias [28, 30]. Disagreements for GRADE assessments was resolved by discussion and consensus.

Data and statistical analyses

We calculated chance-corrected agreement for relevance and eligibility decision using the kappa statistic [31]. We conducted the statistical analysis with R (R Core Team, v.4.0.2, 2021) using the ‘metafor’ package [32]. Continuous outcomes were evaluated with a standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (Cl). We used SMD because functional recovery is measured in a variety of ways [33]. We used a random-effects model of DerSimonian for pooled analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed with a chi-squared test and the I2 statistic. In the use of multiple evaluations of functional recovery, we used the data available at the final follow-up visit. With the aim of limiting the impact of the heterogeneity and variability of the estimates on the results we also performed subgroup analysis based on the design subtype. We did not perform subgroup or sensitivity analysis.

Results

Study selection

We identified 373 potentially relevant citations (Fig. 1). Following the study selection, six studies were included in the systematic review [34,35,36,37,38,39]. Agreement between reviewers for relevance (k = 0.85) and eligibility (k = 1) was considered excellent. Ultimately we included three RCTs [36, 39, 40], two retrospective cohort studies [34, 35] and one prospective cohort study [37]. All studies were published in English between 2012 and 2020. There was no ongoing study comparing regional to PNB to GA on clinicaltrial.org.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart of the screening and selected studies

Full size image

Study characteristics

Study characteristics are summarized in Table 1 and for more details see Supplementary Table 4, Additional File 1. Five studies assessed clinical outcomes of the wrist using infraclavicular block [34, 36, 37, 39, 40], and one evaluated the shoulder joint using an interscalene block approach [35]. The surgical indication was distal radial fracture fixation [34, 36, 39, 40], proximal humerus fracture fixation [35] and multiples wrist surgery (e.g. carpal tunnel release, wrist mass excision, ganglion cyst excision, metacarpal fracture Open Reduction Internal Fixation (ORIF), fracture correction, hardware removal, arthroscopic surgery and tendon/ligament repair) [37]. The lengths of follow-up were, respectively, seven days [37], three months [36], six months [39, 40] and twelve months [34, 35].

Table 1 Description of studies included in the systematic review
Full size table

Risk of bias assessment

All RCTs were categorized at high-risk-of-bias for the absence of blinding of the patient and operating staff on the anesthesia technique, PNB vs GA, and absence of blinding of the research team responsible for collection of postoperative and specific outcome data (Table 2) [37, 39, 40]. All observational studies were judged to be at high-risk-of-bias for the absence of matching of exposed and unexposed participants for variables associate with an impact on the outcome of interest, for example the type of surgery (Table 2) [34, 35, 37]. In two studies, there was an unclear risk of bias for assessment on prognostic data since the authors failed to provide information on the staff collecting the data for each outcome and for the follow-up quality since there were a lot of losses to follow-up with plausible impact on the outcome of interest [34, 35].

Table 2 Risk of Bias
Full size table

Outcomes

Six studies (N = 563) assessed the functional recovery post upper limb surgery performed under PNB versus GA.

Assessment of functional recovery

The data for assessing functional recovery at the final follow-up were pooled (Fig. 2). For observational retrospective studies, functional recovery following upper limb surgery at the final follow-up suggests a superiority of PNB over GA with a small size effect (3 studies, N = 377; SMD -0.35; 95% CI -0.71–0.01; I2 = 64%; very low confidence). We rated the overall quality of evidence very low because of the high-risk bias aforementioned and for inconsistency and imprecision in the studies included. For RCTs, no significant difference was detected between PNB and GA for the functional recovery (3 studies, N = 160; SMD -0.15; CI at 95% -0.60–0.3; I2 = 45%; low confidence). The quality of evidence was deemed very low because of imprecision and inconsistency and the presence of multiples bias in the studies. Details on the assessment of the quality of evidence is available in Supplementary Table 4, Additional File 1.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Functional recovery at the latest follow-up and maximal recovery follow-up with superiority of PNB over GA

Full size image

The timeframe for assessing functional recovery at final follow-up was variable among the studies included in the review ranging from seven days to twelve months [34,35,36,37, 39, 40]. No differences between anesthetic technique on functional recovery were detected at seven days and three and six months follow-ups after wrist surgery in six studies [34, 36, 37, 39, 40]. However, Egol et al. showed that for proximal humerus fracture fixation, PNB was superior to GA for functional recovery at twelve months post-surgery (DASH questionnaire (mean)- PNB: 38.6; GA:53.1; p = 0.003) [35]. Furthermore, in one study, the authors demonstrated that at the follow-up visits preceding the final follow-up, functional recovery following radial distal fracture fixation with PNB was superior to GA (3 months follow-up: DASH questionnaire (mean; Standard Deviation (SD)) – PNB: 18.4 (19.6) vs GA: 26.3 (27.6); p = 0.04) (6 months follow-up: DASH questionnaire (mean; SD) – PNB: 10.2 (18.2) vs GA: 17.8 (20.7); p = 0.02) [34] Information on the assessment of functional recovery at each time frame for individual studies is available in Supplementary Table 5, Additional File 1.

Psychometric questionnaires

Six different psychometric questionnaires were used to assess functional recuperation post-surgery [41,42,43,44,45,46]. In one study, the QoR-40 K questionnaire was used for the postoperative period and found no difference between the anesthesia technique and the recovery at seven days [37]. At twelve weeks, one study used both the DASH and SFMA questionnaire and found no difference between PNB and GA with both scores [36]. Six months post-surgery, two studies used, respectively, the PRWE and DASH questionnaires the PRWE and EQ-ED-3L questionnaires and failed to identify a difference between the type of anesthesia and the results of the psychometric questionnaires [39, 40]. At twelve months, two studies assessed functional recovery with the DASH questionnaire and found no difference between PNB and GA groups [34, 35]. All questionnaires aforementioned have been previously validated [43,44,45,46,47,48].For more information psychometrics properties of each questionnaire, see Supplementary Table 6, Additional File 1.

Range of motion

Three RCTs assessed the patient’s range of motion ROM [34, 35, 39]. The timeframe for evaluating ROM at final follow-up was between six months and twelve months [34, 35, 39]. Two studies evaluated the wrist and hand ROM [34, 39], and one evaluated the shoulder ROM [35]. Due to the difference in the articulation studied (shoulder versus wrist) and the different range of motion measured in each study, data could not be pooled. ROM results are available in Supplementary Table 7, Additional File 1.

Patient satisfaction

No study assessed satisfaction concerning the anesthesia technique or the time frame between surgery and the return to work.

Adverse events

Three studies evaluated peripheral nerve block related adverse events. There was no difference of neurological complications associated with the type anesthesia [35, 49, 50].

Discussion

We systematically reviewed six studies comparing the impact of the type of anesthesia (PNB vs GA) on functional recovery after upper limb surgery. Individual studies used different types of PNB and assess various study outcomes. Our initial hypothesis was that PNB would improve postoperative functional recovery in comparison to GA since the reduction in postoperative pain and early mobilization had an impact on functional recovery for the lower limb [21,22,23,24,25]. Very few studies suggested any difference between PNB and GA for functional recovery [34, 35] and the pooled results did not support a treatment effect. Several factors could explain the lack of association between the type of anesthesia for upper limb orthopedic surgery and functional recovery.

The first potential explanation is the great heterogeneity observed within the studies included in this systematic review. The most striking elements explaining this clinical heterogeneity are the variability within the methodology for the assessment of clinical outcomes, the surgical indication, the joint involved and the timing of the follow-up of the participants between the studies included in this review. We had four self-reported clinical questionnaires for six studies assessing different aspects of the postoperative phase [34,35,36,37, 39, 40]. Certain questionnaires focused on carrying out daily activities and pain, such as the DASH, the QuickDASH and the PWRE questionnaire [41, 42, 44], while others included emotional aspects related to postoperative recoveries, such as SFMA, the Global QoR-40 K and the EQ-ED-3L [43, 46, 51]. Consequently, it is challenging to compare the score obtained from various questionnaires and the functional recovery may not be generalizable between studies due to the lack of standardization in the field [52]. Furthermore, the surgical indication between studies were variables including acute condition (e.g. fracture), minor condition (e.g. cyst excision) or chronic indication (e.g. carpal tunnel release, material removal, tendon/ligament repair) [34,35,36,37, 39, 40]. The impact of the surgical indication is essential to consider because the pain level, duration, and recovery time are not equivalent to a carpal tunnel release versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) [11, 53]. Moreover, the level of preoperative functionality is not the same for an acute condition versus a chronic condition [47, 54, 55]. Indeed, in terms of preoperative scores, a patient with a chronic condition will have higher disability scores [47, 54, 55]. This difference may result in the persistence of a higher postoperative disability score and would result in a decrease in the strength of association between the type of anesthesia and functional recovery. However, no corrections were made in this study to assess this limitation since, in one study, acute and chronic conditions were jointly assessed [37]. Finally, there was a difference between studies in the joint involved and the duration of the follow-up period. Five studies [34, 36, 37, 39, 40] assessed the wrist, while one study assessed the shoulder [35], and the duration of patient follow-up lasted from seven days to twelve months [34,35,36,37, 39, 40]. An essential element to consider is the expected duration of the postoperative recovery phase depending on the type of surgery, which is three months for the wrist and six to twelve months for the shoulder [56]. Thus, considering the joint involved, the time frame between the surgery and the evaluation of functional recovery could impact the results and be a confounding factor. In the statistical analysis, this would decrease the strength of the association between the PNB and functional recovery, contributing to the non-statistical difference. Considering that we hypothesized that the use of locoregional anesthesia decreases postoperative pain and inflammation, comparing different surgery types could have impacted the results obtained with the psychometric questionnaires and consequently limit the possible comparison.

The studies were included in the review and had great variability in the study design and the presence of multiples bias. To limit the impact of this factor, we analyzed by study design subtype since three studies were RCTs [37, 39, 40], and three were observational studies [34,35,36]. Despite this, the heterogeneity coefficients remained high, indicating that the sources of heterogeneity were multiple. Indeed, the lack of blinding of the participants and staff collecting the data, the important loss of participants in one study [36], the variability in the time frame follow-up of the participants and the low number of total events contributed to the low and the very low quality of evidence of the results in this review.

The second potential explanation for the absence of difference between PNB and GA on functional recovery is the low number of studies included in this review. We excluded surgery performed under a combined anesthesia technique (PNB and GA). The reason behind this methodological choice was to determine the effectiveness of the PNB for the perioperative period and thus ensure the validity of the data taken postoperatively. We also excluded the technique with the catheter placement versus a single-shot technique. Moreover, due to the novelty of using functional recovery for postoperative assessment of orthopedic surgery, a limited number of studies were identified. Interestingly, only six studies were published on this topic since the last narrative review, which was ten years ago [21].

The final potential explanation for the lack of association is the possibility that there is no clinical association between PNB and postoperative functional recovery. However, we respectfully believe that there are several factors going against this hypothesis. First, Egol et al., in two independent studies, demonstrate an association between PNB and functional recovery using the DASH questionnaire and the ROM [34, 35]. Indeed, for functional recovery post distal radius fracture fixation, there was an association between PNB and functional recovery at the three-month and six-month follow-ups [34]. However, there was no difference at twelve months post-surgery, which was the last follow-up and the data used in the statistical analysis [34] The implication is that PNB might favour functional recovery in the initial recovery period, but has no impact on long-term. Second, as previously mentioned, the association between PNB and postoperative functional recovery is more established for the lower limb [21,22,23,24,25]. Indeed, there is a higher number of studies investigating lower limb surgeries resulting in a greater number of participants, and studies are using standardized functional recovery assessment tools between the studies [21,22,23,24,25].

This systematic review highlights three challenges of research in the field of PNB and functional recovery following upper limb orthopedic surgery: duration of recovery according to the joint involved (i.e., wrist, elbow, shoulder) involved, type of surgery performed, as well as the variability and the complexity of assessing functional recovery. Thus, we suspect/hypothesize that by normalizing questionnaires and surgery indications we could reduce the heterogeneity and optimize the assessment of functional recovery in this population. Indeed, in a prospective study, we are currently investigating the functional recovery of upper limb surgery with multiple psychometrics tools (NCT04541745).

Conclusions

Current studies do not support the benefits of PNB for patients undergoing upper limb surgery. However, the low quality of evidence and high heterogenicity in the studies make it insufficient to rule out the possibility of benefits concerning functional recovery. Consequently, future studies evaluating functional recovery following upper limb surgery under PNB using appropriate psychometric evaluation and physical examination are needed.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CENTRAL:

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

CINHAL:

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature

DASH:

Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand

EQ-ED-3L:

EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3

GA:

General Anesthesia

N/A:

Not Available

NS:

No statistical

ORIF:

Open Reduction Internal Fixation

PNB:

Peripheral Nerve Block

PO:

Postoperative

PWRE:

Patient Rated Wrist Evaluation

QoR-40 K:

Quality of Recovery – 40 Korean

QuickDASH:

Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand

RCT:

Randomized Control Trial

ROM:

Range of Motion

SG:

Standard Deviation

SMFA:

Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment

References

  1. Markets R and. Global Orthopedic Surgery Market Report, 2017 to 2022 - Procedure Volume Trends by Type, Country, and Region. GlobeNewswire News Room. 2019 [Cited 2021 Jan 6]. Available from: http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/08/13/1901268/0/en/Global-Orthopedic-Surgery-Market-Report-2017-to-2022-Procedure-Volume-Trends-by-Type-Country-and-Region.html

  2. Borys M, Zyzak K, Hanych A, Domagała M, Gałkin P, Gałaszkiewicz K, et al. Survey of postoperative pain control in different types of hospitals: a multicenter observational study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18(1):83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ootes D, Lambers KT, Ring DC. The epidemiology of upper extremity injuries presenting to the emergency department in the United States. Hand N Y N. 2012;7(1):18–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arefayne NR, Seid Tegegne S, Gebregzi AH, Mustofa SY. Incidence and associated factors of post-operative pain after emergency Orthopedic surgery: a multi-centered prospective observational cohort study. Int J Surg Open. 2020;27:103–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ekstein MP, Weinbroum AA. Immediate postoperative pain in orthopedic patients is more intense and requires more analgesia than in post-laparotomy patients. Pain Med. 2011;12(2):308–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kettner SC, Willschke H, Marhofer P. Does regional anaesthesia really improve outcome? Br J Anaesth. 2011;1(107):i90–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Patel AA, Buller LT, Fleming ME, Chen DL, Owens PW, Askari M. National trends in ambulatory surgery for upper extremity fractures: a 10-year analysis of the US National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery. Hand N Y N. 2015;10(2):254–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldfarb CA, Ricci WM, Tull F, RayJB. D Jr. Functional outcome after fracture of both bones of the forearm. J BONE Jt Surg. 2005;87(3):6.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Phadnis J, Trompeter A, Gallagher K, Bradshaw L, Elliott DS, Newman KJ. Mid-term functional outcome after the internal fixation of distal radius fractures. J Orthop Surg. 2012;7(1):4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ludvigsen T, Matre K, Vetti N, Kristoffersen PM, Toppe MK, Gudmundsdottir R, et al. Is there a correlation between functional results and radiographic findings in patients with distal radius fracture A0 type A3 treated with volar locking plate or external fixator? OTA Int Open Access J Orthop Trauma. 2021;4(3): e142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hah JM, Nwaneshiudu CA, Cramer EM, Carroll IR, Curtin CM. Acute pain predictors of remote postoperative pain resolution after hand surgery. Pain Ther. 2021;10(2):1105–19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Jayakumar P, Williams M, Ring D, Lamb S, Gwilym S. A Systematic review of outcome measures assessing disability following upper extremity trauma. JAAOS Glob Res Rev. 2017;1(4): e021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper Extremity-Specific Measures of Disability and Outcomes in Orthopaedic Surgery. J Bone Jt Surg-Am Vol. 2012;94(3):277–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jeng CL, Torrillo TM, Rosenblatt MA. Complications of peripheral nerve blocks. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:i97-107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Auroy Y, Benhamou D, Bargues L, Ecoffey C, Falissard B, Mercier FJ, et al. Major complications of regional anesthesia in France: the SOS Regional Anesthesia Hotline Service. Anesthesiology. 2002;97(5):1274–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jenkins K, Baker AB. Consent and anaesthetic risk. Anaesthesia. 2003;58(10):962–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brull R, Mccartney CJL, Chan VWS, El-beheiry H. Neurological complications after regional anesthesia: contemporary estimates of risk. Anesth Analg. 2007;104(4):965–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cozowicz C, Poeran J, Memtsoudis SG. Epidemiology, trends, and disparities in regional anaesthesia for orthopaedic surgery. BJA Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(suppl_2):ii57-67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Neal JM, Gerancher JC, Hebl JR, Ilfeld BM, McCartney CJL, Franco CD, et al. Upper Extremity Regional Anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009;34(2):134–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Vadhanan P, Tripaty DK, Adinarayanan S. Physiological and pharmacologic aspects of peripheral nerve blocks. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2015;31(3):384–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kessler J, Marhofer P, Hopkins PM, Hollmann MW. Peripheral regional anaesthesia and outcome: lessons learned from the last 10 years. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114(5):728–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nader A, Kendall MC, Wixson RL, Chung B, Polakow LM, Mccarthy RJ. A randomized trial of epidural analgesia followed by continuous femoral analgesia compared with oral opioid analgesia on short- and long-term functional recovery after total knee replacement. Pain Med. 2012;13(7):937–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Carli F, Clemente A, Asenjo JF, Kim DJ, Mistraletti G, Gomarasca M, et al. Analgesia and functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty: periarticular infiltration vs continuous femoral nerve block. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105(2):185–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hopkins PM. Does regional anaesthesia improve outcome? Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:ii26-33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stein BE, Srikumaran U, Tan EW, Freehill MT, Wilckens JH. Lower-extremity peripheral nerve blocks in the perioperative pain management of orthopaedic patients: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A. 2012;94(22). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84870194021&doi=10.2106%2fJBJS.K.01706&partnerID=40&md5=f984dc6684f79da436b3edf33db1792a

  26. PRISMA. [Cited 2021 Jan 5]. Available from: http://prisma-statement.org/

  27. Heroux J, Belley-Cote E, Echave P, Loignon MJ, Bessette PO, Patenaude N, et al. Functional recovery with peripheral nerve block versus general anesthesia for upper limb surgery: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. [Cited 2018 Jul 15]. Available from: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/

  29. Lansche J. Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies. :7.

  30. GRADE handbook. [Cited 2018 Jul 23]. Available from: http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html

  31. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Medica. 2012;22(3):276–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Meta-Analysis Package for R. 2022.

  33. Higgins J, Thomas, James, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. [Cited 2022 Jul 25]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current

  34. Egol KA, Soojian MG, Walsh M, Katz J, Rosenberg AD, Paksima N. Regional anesthesia improves outcome after distal radius fracture fixation over general anesthesia. J Orthop Trauma. 2012;26(9):545–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Egol KA, Forman J, Ong C, Rosenberg A, Karia R, Zuckerman JD. Regional Anesthesia Improves Outcome in Patients Undergoing Proximal Humerus Fracture Repair. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis N Y. 2014;72(3):231–6.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Galos DK, Taormina DP, Crespo A, Ding DY, Sapienza A, Jain S, et al. Does brachial plexus blockade result in improved pain scores after distal radius fracture fixation? A Randomized Trial Clin Orthop. 2016;474(5):1247–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Doo AR, Kang S, Kim YS, Lee TW, Lee JR, Kim DC. The effect of the type of anesthesia on the quality of postoperative recovery after orthopedic forearm surgery. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2020;73(1):58–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wong J, Chung F. Development of the Functional Recovery Index for Ambulatory Surgery and Anesthesia. 2009;110(3):7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rundgren J, Mellstrand Navarro C, Ponzer S, Regberg A, Serenius S, Enocson A. Regional or general anesthesia in the surgical treatment of distal radial fractures: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(13):1168–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wong SS, Chan WS, Fang C, Chan CW, Lau TW, Leung F, et al. Infraclavicular nerve block reduces postoperative pain after distal radial fracture fixation: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20(1):130.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. quickdash_info_2010.pdf. [Cited 2018 Nov 20]. Available from: http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/sites/dash/files/downloads/quickdash_info_2010.pdf

  42. dash_scoring_2010.pdf. [Cited 2018 Nov 20]. Available from: http://www.dash.iwh.on.ca/sites/dash/files/downloads/dash_scoring_2010.pdf

  43. EQ-5D-3L – EQ-5D. [Cited 2021 Oct 14]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-3l-about/

  44. MacDermid JC, Turgeon T, Richards RS, Beadle M, Roth JH. Patient rating of wrist pain and disability: a reliable and valid measurement tool. J Orthop Trauma. 1998;12(8):577–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Swiontkowski MF, Engelberg R, Martin DP, Agel J. Short Musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire: validity, reliability, and responsiveness*. J Bone Jt Surg. 1999;81(9):1245–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lee JH, Kim D, Seo D, seon Son J, Kim DC. Validity and reliability of the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018;71(6):467–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Gummesson C, Ward MM, Atroshi I. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;18(7):44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gummesson C, Atroshi I, Ekdahl C. The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4(1):11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Hadzic A, Williams BA, Karaca PE, Hobeika P, Unis G, Dermksian J, et al. For outpatient rotator cuff surgery, nerve block anesthesia provides superior same-day recovery over general anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2005;102(5):1001–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Hadzic A, Arliss J, Kerimoglu B, Karaca PE, Yufa M, Claudio RE, et al. A comparison of infraclavicular nerve block versus general anesthesia for hand and wrist day-case surgeries. Anesthesiol J Am Soc Anesthesiol. 2004;101(1):127–32.

    Google Scholar 

  51. goelx039. MFA & SMFA Resources. Medical School - University of Minnesota. 2018 [Cited 2021 Apr 8]. Available from: https://med.umn.edu/ortho/research/project-resources

  52. Wiitavaara B, Florin J. Content and psychometric evaluations of questionnaires for assessing physical function in people with arm–shoulder–hand disorders. A systematic review of the literature. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;1–12.

  53. Niedermeier SR, Crouser N, Hidden K, Jain SA. Pain Management following open reduction and internal fixation of distal radius fractures. J Wrist Surg. 2021;10(1):27–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kadzielski J, Malhotra LR, Zurakowski D, Lee SGP, Jupiter JB, Ring D. Evaluation of preoperative expectations and patient satisfaction after carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg. 2008;33(10):1783–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Cheema AS, O’Brien PJ, Broekhuyse HM, Lefaivre KA. Measuring outcomes over time in distal radius fractures: a comparison of generic, upper extremity-specific and wrist-specific outcome measures. J Hand Surg Glob Online. 2020;2(5):272–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Borak J. The Medical Disability Advisor: Workplace Guidelines for Disability Duration, 5th Edition. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(3):346–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge Ms. Kathy Rose for the help in selecting and performing the research strategy and Samuel Lemaire-Paquette for the statistical analysis and insight on the results of this manuscript.

Funding

The authors have no sources of funding to declare for this manuscript. Dr. Belley-Côté is supported by the National New Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and by the E.J. Moran Campbell McMaster Internal Medicine career award. Dr D’Aragon is supported by the Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    Jennifer Héroux, Pierre-Olivier Bessette, Daphnée Lamarche, Pablo Échavé, Marie-Josée Loignon & Frédérick D’Aragon

  2. Divisions of Cardiology and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Emilie Belley-Côté

  3. Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Emilie Belley-Côté

  4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    Nicolas Patenaude

  5. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    Jean-Patrice Baillargeon

  6. Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada

    Jean-Patrice Baillargeon & Frédérick D’Aragon

Authors
  1. Jennifer Héroux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pierre-Olivier Bessette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emilie Belley-Côté
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daphnée Lamarche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pablo Échavé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marie-Josée Loignon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nicolas Patenaude
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-Patrice Baillargeon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Frédérick D’Aragon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JH contributed to all the aspects of this manuscript: conception and design, data collection, interpretation of data and drafting of the article. JPB, FD contributed to the conception and design, interpretation of data and drafting of the article. POB contributed to the conception and design and data collection. EBC, PE, NP, MJL, DL contributed substantially to the revision of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Héroux.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Belley-Côté has received research grants from Bayer, BMS-Pfizer and Roche.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Research Strategy. Table S2. Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for RCT. Table S3. CLARITY for Cohort studies. Table S4. Quality of Evidence. Table S5. Functional recovery at individual timeframe. Table S6. Psychometric questionnaires. Table S7. ROM at individual timeframe.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Héroux, J., Bessette, PO., Belley-Côté, E. et al. Functional recovery with peripheral nerve block versus general anesthesia for upper limb surgery: a systematic review. BMC Anesthesiol 23, 91 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02038-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02038-8

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us