Perineural Versus Intravenous Dexamethasone as an Adjuvant for Peripheral Nerve Blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Dexamethasone is a useful adjuvant in regional anesthesia that is used to prolong the duration of analgesia for peripheral nerve blocks. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated conflicting results as to whether perineural versus intravenous (IV) administration is superior in this regard, and the perineural use of dexamethasone remains off-label. Therefore, we sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, we performed a random-effects meta-analysis of RCTs comparing perineural versus IV dexamethasone with duration of analgesia as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1076 subjects. Perineural dexamethasone prolonged the duration of analgesia by 3.77 hours (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.87-5.68 hours; P < 0.001) compared to IV dexamethasone, with high statistical heterogeneity. For secondary outcomes, perineural dexamethasone prolonged the duration of both motor (3.47 hours [95% CI, 1.49-5.45]; P < 0.001) and sensory (2.28 hours [95% CI, 0.38-4.17]; P = 0.019) block compared to IV administration. Furthermore, perineural dexamethasone patients consumed slightly less oral opioids at 24 hours than IV dexamethasone patients (7.1 mg of oral morphine equivalents [95% CI, 0.74-13.5 mg]; P = 0.029), and there were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes. Notably, no increase in adverse events was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Perineural dexamethasone prolongs the duration of analgesia across the RCTs included in our meta-analysis. The magnitude of effect of 3.77 hours raises the question as to whether perineural dexamethasone should be administered routinely over its IV counterpart-or reserved for selected patients where such prolongation would be clinically important.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".