Background and objectives: Perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion has been proposed as an opioid-sparing analgesic adjunct in spine surgery, but previous meta-analyses pooled heterogeneous procedures and may have obscured procedure-specific treatment effects. We evaluated the analgesic and opioid-sparing effects of perioperative intravenous lidocaine in adult spine surgery and whether efficacy differs by procedure type. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception through June 2026 for randomized controlled trials comparing perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion with placebo or standard care in adults undergoing spine surgery. The primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were opioid consumption, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Random-effects meta-analyses, a post hoc subgroup analysis by procedure type, and meta-regression were performed. Results: 10 randomized trials were included. Intravenous lidocaine reduced postoperative pain at 24 hours (9 trials, 655 patients; mean difference (MD), −0.83; 95% CI −1.36 to −0.30; p=0.002; I²=89%, 95% CI 81% to 93%; prediction interval, −2.69 to 1.02; moderate certainty) and opioid consumption (9 trials; MD, −11.64 mg intravenous morphine equivalents; 95% CI −16.14 to −7.14; p<0.001). In a post hoc exploratory analysis, the analgesic effect differed by procedure type (test for subgroup differences, p=0.005): the reduction was clinically meaningful after instrumented fusion or complex spine surgery (MD, −1.23; 95% CI −1.81 to −0.64), exceeding the minimal clinically important difference of 1.0 point, but minimal after decompression (MD, −0.20; 95% CI −0.61 to 0.21). Baseline pain severity explained approximately 53% of between-study heterogeneity, whereas lidocaine infusion rate did not modify the treatment effect (p=0.97). No significant effects were observed for PONV or LOS. Conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that perioperative intravenous lidocaine reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption after adult spine surgery. Its analgesic benefit appeared procedure-specific, with the greatest benefit after instrumented fusion and complex procedures; this difference emerged from a post hoc, exploratory analysis and should be regarded as hypothesis-generating.

Programmed Intermittent Epidural Bolus (PIEB) and Continuous Epidural Infusion (CEI) are widely used strategies for maintaining postoperative analgesia, typically combined with Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia (PCEA). Although PIEB is theorized to enhance epidural drug distribution and analgesic effectiveness through intermittent high-pressure boluses, evidence supporting its superiority over CEI in the postoperative setting remains inconsistent. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing PIEB and CEI, both with PCEA, in adult postoperative patients (PROSPERO CRD420251046001). PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched until May 1, 2025. pain at 24 hours. pain at other intervals, anesthetic consumption, and adverse events. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model; Risk of Bias (RoB-2) and small-study effects were assessed. Ten RCTs comprising 692 patients were included. No significant difference was found in 24-hour pain scores at rest (MD = -0.45; 95% CI -0.99 to 0.10) or movement (MD = -0.88; 95% CI -2.07 to 0.32). PIEB showed mildly lower pain at other time points and reduced total epidural volume (MD = -7.31 mL; 95% CI -13.7 to -0.92 mL). However, PIEB was associated with higher hypotension risk (RR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.78). No differences were found in opioid consumption, PCEA demands, or other adverse events. PIEB offers no significant analgesic advantage and increases hypotension risk compared to CEI in postoperative settings, when both are combined with PCEA. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies and substantial heterogeneity. PROSPERO REGISTRY: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251046001.

Closed-loop vasopressor systems integrate real-time blood pressure monitoring with automated decision logic to support hemodynamic stability in perioperative and critical care environments. These technologies sit at the intersection of biomedical sensing, signal processing, and clinician-supervised automation: the quality, latency, and failure behavior of the monitoring input can directly shape controller performance, safety margins, and clinical usability. In this comprehensive review, we synthesize the major closed-loop vasopressor architectures reported in the literature, examine how sensor modality and signal integrity influence algorithm behavior, and summarize recurrent reliability vulnerabilities spanning sensors, control logic, and device integration. We organize the field through an end-to-end information pipeline—monitoring input, signal conditioning and quality assessment, decision and control strategy, actuation via infusion technology, and supervisory safety layers—highlighting common performance metrics used to benchmark control quality. We then discuss clinical validation patterns across settings, emphasizing practical considerations for deployment and the evidence gaps that remain most relevant to high-risk populations. Finally, we propose reporting and validation priorities for future studies, with a focus on sensor robustness, transparency of algorithm design, integration safeguards, and standardized documentation of failures and overrides.

Objective: Neonatal circumcision is often performed without adequate analgesia despite significant harm related to acute pain. We compared local anesthetic techniques using network meta-analysis based on intraoperative physiological responses. Study design: Frequentist network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing nerve blocks (dorsal penile nerve block, DPNB; ring block, RB), topical anesthetics (eutectic mixture of local anesthetics, EMLA; topical lidocaine, TL), combination techniques, and control. Outcomes: intraoperative heart rate, oxygen saturation, their variation, respiratory rate, and hematoma. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed. Results: Eighteen trials (1 035 neonates) were included. Nerve blocks reduced pain-related responses versus control and TL. DPNB outperformed EMLA, with increased hematoma risk. Meta-regression suggests smaller effect size in recent studies. Conclusions: Evidence supports local anesthetic techniques for neonatal circumcision, with nerve blocks providing greater benefit than topical anesthetics. However, given the small sample sizes and low certainty of evidence, higher-quality trials are needed.