To evaluate the analgesic effect of pectoral nerve block in implant-based mammoplasty.
EMbase, PubMed, Web of science, MEDLINE, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP and other databases were searched from establishment to February 2022 by computer to collect randomized controlled trials which applied pectoral nerve block in implant-based mammoplasty, and meta-analysis was conducted after data extraction and quality evaluation of the literature meeting the inclusion criteria.
A total of 336 patients in seven RCT studies were included in this study. Pectoral nerve block has a significant effect on postoperative analgesia in patients with implant-based mammoplasty with 1h VAS score significantly reduced in the resting state (MD=-1.85, 95%CI: -2.64~-1.07, P<0.00001); VAS score was significantly decreased 4-6 hours after operation (MD=-1.51, 95%CI: -2.47~-0.55, P=0.002); postoperative opioid consumption was reduced (SMD=-1.37, 95%CI: -2.51~-0.24, P=0.02) in PECS block group; and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the PECS block group was significantly lower (RR: 0.30, 95 %CI: 0.19-0.38, P<0.00001).
The application of PECS block in submuscular implant-based mammoplasty can effectively reduce the degree of acute postoperative pain, opioid consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, indicating its broad prospects in clinical application.
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Ultrasound-guided interfascial plane blocks performed on the anterior and lateral thoracic wall have become an important adjuvant method to general anesthesia and an independent method of local anesthesia and pain management. These procedures diminish the harmful effects of anesthesia on respiratory function and reduce the risk of phrenic nerve paralysis or iatrogenic pneumothorax. In postoperative pain management, interfascial plane blocks decrease the dosage of intravenous drugs, including opioids. They can also eliminate the complications associated with general anesthesia when used as the sole method of anesthesia for surgical procedures. The following procedures are classified as interfascial plane blocks of the anterior and lateral thoracic wall: pectoral nerve plane block (PECS), serratus anterior plane block (SAP), transversus thoracic muscle plane block (TTP), pectoral interfascial plane block (PIF), and intercostal nerve block (ICNB). These blocks are widely used in emergency medicine, oncologic surgery, general surgery, thoracic surgery, cardiac surgery, orthopedics, cardiology, nephrology, oncology, palliative medicine, and pain medicine. Regional blocks are effective for analgesic treatment, both as an anesthesia procedure for surgery on the anterior and lateral thoracic wall and as an analgesic therapy after trauma or other conditions that induce pain in this area. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, ultrasound-guided interfascial plane blocks are safe alternatives for anesthesia in patients with symptoms of respiratory distress related to SARS-CoV-2 and appear to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection among medical personnel.

Although pectoralis (PECS) blocks are commonly used for breast surgery, recommendations regarding the efficacy of these blocks have thus far not been developed by any professional anesthesia society. Given the potential impact of PECS blocks on analgesia after outpatient breast surgery, The Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) convened a task force to develop a practice advisory on the use of this analgesic technique. In this practice advisory, we compare the efficacy of PECS blocks with systemic analgesia, local infiltration anesthesia, and paravertebral blockade. Our objectives were to advise on two clinical questions. (1) Does PECS-1 and/or -2 blockade provide more effective analgesia for breast-conserving surgery than either systemic analgesics or surgeon-provided local infiltration anesthesia? (2) Does PECS-1 and/or -2 blockade provide equivalent analgesia for mastectomy compared with a paravertebral block (PVB)? Among patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery, PECS blocks moderately reduce postoperative opioid use, prolong time to analgesic rescue, and decrease postoperative pain scores when compared with systemic analgesics. SAMBA recommends the use of a PECS-1 or -2 blockade in the absence of systemic analgesia (Strength of Recommendation A). No evidence currently exists that strongly favors the use of PECS blocks over surgeon-performed local infiltration in this surgical population. SAMBA cannot recommend PECS blocks over surgical infiltration (Strength of Recommendation C). For patients undergoing a mastectomy, a PECS block may provide an opioid-sparing effect similar to that achieved with PVB; SAMBA recommends the use of a PECS block if a patient is unable to receive a PVB (Strength of Recommendation A).

We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of pectoral nerve block (Pecs) I and II with control or other techniques used during breast cancer surgeries such as local anesthesia, paravertebral block, and erector spinae plane block (ESPB).
We searched 4 search engines (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) for relevant trials, then extracted the data and combined them under random-effect model using Review Manager Software.
We found 47 studies, 37 of them were included in our meta-analysis. Regarding intraoperative opioid consumption, compared with control, a significant reduction was detected in Pecs II (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-1.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-2.66, -0.85], P=0.0001) and Pecs I combined with serratus plane block (SMD=-0.90, 95% CI [-1.37, -0.44], P=0.0002). Postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lowered in Pecs II (SMD=-2.28, 95% CI [-3.10, -1.46], P<0.00001) compared with control and Pecs II compared with ESPB (SMD=-1.75, 95% CI [-2.53, -0.98], P<0.00001). Furthermore, addition of dexmedetomidine to Pecs II significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption compared with Pecs II alone (SMD=-1.33, 95% CI [-2.28, -0.38], P=0.006).
Pecs block is a safe and effective analgesic procedure during breast cancer surgeries. It shows lower intra and postoperative opioid consumption than ESPB, and reduces pain compared with control, paravertebral block, and local anesthesia, with better effect when combined with dexmedetomidine.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women, and more than half of breast surgery patients experience severe acute postoperative pain. This meta-analysis is designed to examine the clinical analgesic efficacy of Pecs block in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.
METHODS: An electronic literature search of the Library of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was conducted to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to November 2018. These RCTs compared the effect of Pecs block in combination with general anesthesia (GA) to GA alone in mastectomy surgery. Pain scores, intraoperative and postoperative opioid consumption, time to first request for analgesia, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were analyzed.
RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs with 940 patients were included in our analysis. The use of Pecs block significantly reduced pain scores in the postanesthesia care unit (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.90 to -0.91; P < .001) and at 24 hours after surgery (WMD = -1.01; 95% CI, -1.64 to -0.38; P < .001). Moreover, Pecs block decreased postoperative opioid consumption in the postanesthesia care unit (WMD = -1.93; 95% CI, -3.51 to -0.34; P = .017) and at 24 hours (WMD = -11.88; 95% CI, -15.50 to -8.26; P < .001). Pecs block also reduced intraoperative opioid consumption (WMD = -85.52; 95% CI, -121.47 to -49.56; P < .001) and prolonged the time to first analgesic request (WMD = 296.69; 95% CI, 139.91-453.48; P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting and block-related complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding Pecs block to GA procedure results in lower pain scores, less opioid consumption and longer time to first analgesic request in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery compared to GA procedure alone.

OBJECTIVE: Due to conflicting results published in the literature regarding the analgesic superiority between the paravertebral block and the PECS block, the study objective is to determine which one should be the first line analgesic treatment after radical mastectomy.
METHODS: Systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
METHODS: Operating room, postoperative recovery area and ward, up to 24 postoperative hours.
METHODS: Patients scheduled for radical mastectomy under general anaesthesia.
METHODS: We searched five electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing any PECS block with a paravertebral block.
METHODS: The primary outcome was rest pain score (0-10) at 2 postoperative hours, analyzed according to the combination with axillary dissection or not, to account for heterogeneity. Secondary outcomes included rest pain scores, cumulative intravenous morphine equivalents consumption and rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 postoperative hours.
RESULTS: Eight trials including 388 patients were identified. Rest pain scores at 2 postoperative hours were decreased in the PECS block group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -0.4 (-0.7 to -0.1), I2 = 68%, p = 0.01, and a significant subgroup difference observed between radical mastectomy with (mean difference [95%CI]: 0.0 [-0.2 to 0.2], I2 = 0%, p = 1.00), or without axillary dissection (mean difference [95%CI]: -0.7 [-1.1 to -0.4], I2 = 40%, p < 0.001; p for subgroup difference < 0.001). All secondary pain-related outcomes were similar between groups. The overall quality of evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that a PECS block provides marginal postoperative analgesic benefit after radical mastectomy at 2 postoperative hours only, when compared with a paravertebral block, and not beyond. Clinical trial number: PROSPERO - registration number: CRD42019131555.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pectoral nerves (PECS) blocks provide effective postoperative analgesia when compared with no regional technique in patients undergoing breast surgery.
METHODS: Systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
METHODS: Operating room, postoperative recovery area and ward, up to 24 postoperative hours.
METHODS: Patients undergoing breast surgery under general anaesthesia with either PECS block or no regional technique.
METHODS: We searched five electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing PECS block with no block or sham injection.
METHODS: The primary outcome was rest pain scores (analogue scale, 0-10) at 2 h, analysed according to surgery (mastectomy vs other breast surgery) and regional technique (PECS 2 vs other blocks), among others. Secondary outcomes included morphine equivalent consumption, and rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 h.
RESULTS: Sixteen trials including 1026 patients were identified. Rest pain scores at 2 h were decreased in the PECS blocks group, with a mean (95%CI) difference of -1.5 (-2.0, -1.0); I2 = 93%; p < 0.001, with no differences between surgery (mastectomy, mean difference [95%CI]: -1.8 [-2.4, -1.2], I2 = 91%, p < 0.001; other breast surgery, mean difference [95%CI]: -1.1 [-2.1, -0.1], I2 = 94%, p = 0.03; p for subgroup difference = 0.25), and regional technique (PECS 2, mean differences [95%CI]: -1.6 [-2.3, -1.0], I2 = 94%, p < 0.001; other blocks, mean differences [95%CI]: -1.3 [-2.4, -0.1], I2 = 74%, p = 0.04; p for subgroup difference = 0.57). The rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting was reduced from 30.8% (95%CI: 25.7%, 36.3%) to 18.7% (95%CI, 14.4%, 23.5%; p = 0.01). Similarly, secondary outcomes were significantly improved in the PECS blocks group. The overall quality of evidence was moderate-to-high.
CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-to-high level evidence that PECS blocks provide postoperative analgesia after breast surgery when compared with no regional technique and reduce rate of PONV. This might provide the most benefit to those at high-risk of postoperative pain.

Serratus anterior plane and pectoral nerves blocks are recently described alternatives to established regional anaesthesia techniques in cardiac surgery, thoracic surgery and trauma. We performed a systematic review to establish the current state of evidence for the analgesic role of these fascial plane blocks in these clinical settings. We identified relevant studies by searching multiple databases and trial registries from inception to June 2019. Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis and studies were instead qualitatively summarised and stratified by type of surgery and comparator. We identified 51 studies: nine randomised control trials; 13 cohort studies; 19 case series; and 10 case reports. The majority of randomised controlled trials studied the serratus anterior plane block in thoracotomy or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, with only two investigating pectoral nerves blocks. The evidence in thoracic trauma comprised only case series and reports. Results indicate that single-injection serratus anterior plane and the pectoral nerves blocks reduce pain scores and opioid consumption compared with systemic analgesia alone in cardiothoracic surgery, cardiac-related interventional procedures and chest trauma for approximately 6-12 h. The duration of action appears longer than intercostal nerve blocks but may be shorter than thoracic paravertebral blockade. Block duration may be prolonged by a continuous catheter technique with potentially similar results to thoracic epidural analgesia. There were no reported complications and the risk of haemodynamic instability appears to be low. The current evidence, though limited, supports the efficacy and safety of serratus anterior plane and the pectoral nerves blocks as analgesic options in cardiothoracic surgery.

Thoracic planar blocks represent a novel and rapidly expanding facet of regional anesthesia. These recently described techniques represent the potential for excellent analgesia, enhanced technical safety profiles, and reduced physiological side effects versus traditional techniques in thoracic anesthesia. Regional techniques, particularly those described in this review, have potential implications for mitigation of surgical pathophysiological neurohumoral changes. In the present investigation, we describe the history, common indications, technique, and limitations of pectoral nerves (PECS), serratus plane, erector spinae plane, and thoracic paravertebral plane blocks. In summary, these techniques provide excellent analgesia and merit consideration in thoracic surgery.

Sympathetic overactivity is associated with hyperhidrosis and cardiovascular diseases. Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy (ETS) is a treatment for hyperhidrosis. We aimed to compare the risk for cardiovascular events between individuals with and without hyperhidrosis and investigate the effects of ETS on cardiovascular outcomes. We conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study using data acquired from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Subjects newly diagnosed with hyperhidrosis in 2010 were identified and divided into two groups according to whether or not they underwent ETS. Propensity scores were calculated using a logistic regression model to match hyperhidrosis patients with control subjects. Combined cardiovascular events were defined as stroke and ischemic heart diseases. Subjects were followed up until the first cardiovascular event or 31 December 2017. The risk for cardiovascular events with hyperhidrosis and ETS was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. The risk for stroke was significantly higher in the hyperhidrosis group than in the control group (hazard ratio (HR), 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.08-1.51); nonetheless, no significant difference in the risk for ischemic heart diseases was observed between the hyperhidrosis group and the control group (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.99-1.31). Hyperhidrosis patients who did not undergo ETS were at significantly higher risk for cardiovascular events than the control group (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.45). However, no significant difference in the risk for cardiovascular events was observed between hyperhidrosis patients who underwent ETS and the control group. Hyperhidrosis increases the risk for cardiovascular events. ETS could reduce this risk and needs to be considered for high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases.