Single-Shot Versus Continuous Interscalene Blockade in Primary Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.
meta_analysis · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42692245.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.jse.2026.08.026.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The optimal regional anesthesia strategy for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA/rTSA) remains a subject of debate. While single-shot interscalene blocks (SSIB) are often limited by short duration and potential rebound pain, continuous interscalene catheters (CIC) are associated with higher complication rates and procedural complexity. This meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness and safety of both techniques, specifically investigating the impact of the local anesthetic agent. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL through March 2026 for RCTs and observational studies. The primary outcome was pain intensity (VAS/NRS) at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, length of hospital stay (LOS), technical and block-related complications, and procedural costs. Seven studies involving 2,639 patients were included (1,182 SSIB, 1,457 CIC). No statistically significant global difference was found regarding 24-hour pain scores (MD -0.23; P = .70) or opioid consumption (P = .91). In subgroup analysis, CIC was associated with lower pain scores when standard local anesthetics were used (MD 1.18; P < .001), whereas SSIB with liposomal bupivacaine was associated with borderline lower pain scores (MD -1.02; P = .05); however, these differences lie at the lower margin of published thresholds for a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in acute postoperative pain. A post hoc analysis at 48 hours (three studies, 695 patients) showed no significant difference (MD -0.81; P = .20). SSIB was associated with a more than fourfold lower rate of technical and block-related complications (0.4% vs. 4.6%; RR 0.22; P = .005). No significant difference was observed in LOS (P = .45); material costs, compared descriptively, were higher for CIC ($357-$474) than for SSIB ($24-$190). At 24 hours, SSIB was associated with analgesia comparable to CIC, with the direction of effect depending on the local anesthetic agent used. SSIB was associated with significantly fewer technical and block-related complications and lower material costs. These findings suggest a favorable risk-benefit profile of SSIB for primary shoulder arthroplasty, although outcomes beyond 48 hours require further investigation. Level III, Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis, Treatment Study.