-
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Jun 2022Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This review aimed to determine whether ESPB could improve analgesic efficacy in lumbar spine surgery.
DESIGN
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
SETTING
Perioperative setting.
PATIENTS
Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
We searched the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science etc. for published eligible controlled trials comparing ESPB with control (no block/sham block) in lumbar spine surgery.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies comprising 665 participants were included. Compared to the control, ESPB reduced the opioid (morphine milligram equivalents) consumption significantly 24 h after surgery [mean difference (MD) = -14.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), -21.03 to -8.07; P < 0.0001] and lowered the pain scores at various time points (at rest or during movement) for 48 h after surgery. ESPB increased the patient satisfaction score (0-10) (MD = 2.38; 95% CI, 2.10 to 2.66; P < 0.0001), decreased the postoperative nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR) = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.67; P = 0.001], and minimized the length of hospital stay (MD = -1.24 days; 95% CI, -2.31 to -0.18; P = 0.02). Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed additional reduction in opioid consumption by the block approach at the vertebral level of incision/operation than that at the fixed thoracic/lumbar level. However, considerable heterogeneity and low-grade quality of evidence were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
ESPB provided effective postoperative analgesia resulting in better patient satisfaction and recovery with decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lumbar surgery compared to the control. However, the low-grade quality of evidence compromised the findings, therefore further high-quality of evidence is required. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021233362.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Paraspinal Muscles; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35030493
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110647 -
JAMA Surgery Oct 2017There is increased interest in nonpharmacological treatments to reduce pain after total knee arthroplasty. Yet, little consensus supports the effectiveness of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
There is increased interest in nonpharmacological treatments to reduce pain after total knee arthroplasty. Yet, little consensus supports the effectiveness of these interventions.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze evidence of nonpharmacological interventions for postoperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty.
DATA SOURCES
Database searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science (ISI database), Physiotherapy Evidence (PEDRO) database, and ClinicalTrials.gov for the period between January 1946 and April 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials comparing nonpharmacological interventions with other interventions in combination with standard care were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted the data from selected articles using a standardized form and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects model was used for the analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Postoperative pain and consumption of opioids and analgesics.
RESULTS
Of 5509 studies, 39 randomized clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis (2391 patients). The most commonly performed interventions included continuous passive motion, preoperative exercise, cryotherapy, electrotherapy, and acupuncture. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that electrotherapy reduced the use of opioids (mean difference, -3.50; 95% CI, -5.90 to -1.10 morphine equivalents in milligrams per kilogram per 48 hours; P = .004; I2 = 17%) and that acupuncture delayed opioid use (mean difference, 46.17; 95% CI, 20.84 to 71.50 minutes to the first patient-controlled analgesia; P < .001; I2 = 19%). There was low-certainty evidence that acupuncture improved pain (mean difference, -1.14; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38 on a visual analog scale at 2 days; P = .003; I2 = 0%). Very low-certainty evidence showed that cryotherapy was associated with a reduction in opioid consumption (mean difference, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.01 morphine equivalents in milligrams per kilogram per 48 hours; P = .03; I2 = 86%) and in pain improvement (mean difference, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.02 on the visual analog scale; P < .05; I2 = 62%). Low-certainty or very low-certainty evidence showed that continuous passive motion and preoperative exercise had no pain improvement and reduction in opioid consumption: for continuous passive motion, the mean differences were -0.05 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.25) on the visual analog scale (P = .74; I2 = 52%) and 6.58 (95% CI, -6.33 to 19.49) opioid consumption at 1 and 2 weeks (P = .32, I2 = 87%), and for preoperative exercise, the mean difference was -0.14 (95% CI, -1.11 to 0.84) on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Scale (P = .78, I2 = 65%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis, electrotherapy and acupuncture after total knee arthroplasty were associated with reduced and delayed opioid consumption.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 28813550
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2872 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Feb 2021To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of S-ketamine for pain relief and analgesic consumption in surgical patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of S-ketamine for pain relief and analgesic consumption in surgical patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SETTING
Perioperative setting.
PATIENTS
A total of 905 adult patients undergoing surgery using general anesthesia: 504 patients in the S-ketamine group and 401 patients in the placebo group.
INTERVENTION
Intravenous S-ketamine as an adjuvant to general anesthesia compared with placebo.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcomes were resting and movement pain scores (VAS/NRS 0-10) and morphine consumption within 4, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes included postoperative complications such as nausea, vomiting, and psychotomimetic adverse events. We used the guidelines of the Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate the level of certainty for the main results.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 12 studies were included. The types of surgery included abdominal surgery, thoracotomy, gynecologic surgery, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair, cardiac surgery, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, lumbar spinal fusion surgery, radical prostatectomy, and hemorrhoidectomy. There were significant improvements in resting pain scores at 4, 12 and 24 h with S-ketamine versus placebo [4 h: standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.11; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.53, -0.68, p < 0.00001; GRADE = moderate; 12 h: SMD -0.88; 95%CI: -1.42, -0.34, p = 0.001; GRADE = moderate; 24 h: SMD -0.39; 95%CI: -0.73, -0.06, p = 0.02; GRADE = moderate]. The incidence of pain scores at 48 h showed no statistical difference between the two groups (SMD -0.27; 95%CI: -1.12, 0.58, p = 0.53, GRADE = moderate). The movement pain scores were not significantly different between the two groups at each time point (4 h: SMD -0.34; 95%CI: -0.73, 0.05, p = 0.09, GRADE = moderate; 12 h: SMD -0.42; 95%CI: -1.46, 0.63, p = 0.44, GRADE = low; 24 h: SMD -0.58; 95%CI: -1.25, 0.09, p = 0.09, GRADE = moderate; 48 h: SMD -0.49; 95%CI: -1.11, 0.14, p = 0.13, GRADE = low). At 4 and 12 h after surgery, the consumption of morphine was significantly reduced in the S-ketamine group (4 h: SMD -0.98; 95%CI: -1.37, -0.06, p < 0.00001, GRADE = moderate; 12 h: SMD -1.36; 95%CI: -2.26, -0.46, p = 0.003, GRADE = low). There were no significant differences in morphine use at 24 and 48 h between the two groups (24 h: SMD -0.70; 95%CI: -1.42, 0.02, p = 0.06, GRADE = low; 48 h: SMD -0.79; 95%CI: -2.26, 1.03, p = 0.39, GRADE = low). The risk for nausea [relative risk (RR) = 1.04; 95%CI: 0.83, 1.30, p = 0.73], vomiting (RR = 1.07; 95%CI: 0.84, 1.38, p = 0.57), and psychotomimetic adverse events (RR = 1.57; 95%CI: 0.82, 2.99, p = 0.17) showed no significant increase in the S-ketamine group.
CONCLUSIONS
Intravenous S-ketamine as an adjunct to general anesthesia is effective for assisting analgesia and decreases the intensity of pain and opioid requirements in a short period of time after surgery, but it may increase the psychotomimetic adverse event rate. Overall, the level of certainty is moderate to low.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Ketamine; Male; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 33007645
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110071 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Inadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Inadequate pain management after surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications and may predispose for chronic postsurgical pain. Perioperative ketamine may enhance conventional analgesics in the acute postoperative setting.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous ketamine in adult patients when used for the treatment or prevention of acute pain following general anaesthesia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase to July 2018 and three trials registers (metaRegister of controlled trials, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised, double-blind, controlled trials of adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and being treated with perioperative intravenous ketamine. Studies compared ketamine with placebo, or compared ketamine plus a basic analgesic, such as morphine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), with a basic analgesic alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality and potential bias, and performed analyses. Primary outcomes were opioid consumption and pain intensity at rest and during movement at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were time to first analgesic request, assessment of postoperative hyperalgesia, central nervous system (CNS) adverse effects, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 130 studies with 8341 participants. Ketamine was given to 4588 participants and 3753 participants served as controls. Types of surgery included ear, nose or throat surgery, wisdom tooth extraction, thoracotomy, lumbar fusion surgery, microdiscectomy, hip joint replacement surgery, knee joint replacement surgery, anterior cruciate ligament repair, knee arthroscopy, mastectomy, haemorrhoidectomy, abdominal surgery, radical prostatectomy, thyroid surgery, elective caesarean section, and laparoscopic surgery. Racemic ketamine bolus doses were predominantly 0.25 mg to 1 mg, and infusions 2 to 5 µg/kg/minute; 10 studies used only S-ketamine and one only R-ketamine. Risk of bias was generally low or uncertain, except for study size; most had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, resulting in high heterogeneity, as expected, for most analyses. We did not stratify the main analysis by type of surgery or any other factor, such as dose or timing of ketamine administration, and used a non-stratified analysis.Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced postoperative opioid consumption over 24 hours by 8 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI 6 to 9; 19% from 42 mg consumed by participants given placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 65 studies, 4004 participants). Over 48 hours, opioid consumption was 13 mg lower (95% CI 10 to 15; 19% from 67 mg with placebo, moderate-quality evidence; 37 studies, 2449 participants).Perioperative intravenous ketamine reduced pain at rest at 24 hours by 5/100 mm on a visual analogue scale (95% CI 4 to 7; 19% lower from 26/100 mm with placebo, high-quality evidence; 82 studies, 5004 participants), and at 48 hours by 5/100 mm (95% CI 3 to 7; 22% lower from 23/100 mm, high-quality evidence; 49 studies, 2962 participants). Pain during movement was reduced at 24 hours (6/100 mm, 14% lower from 42/100 mm, moderate-quality evidence; 29 studies, 1806 participants), and 48 hours (6/100 mm, 16% lower from 37 mm, low-quality evidence; 23 studies, 1353 participants).Results for primary outcomes were consistent when analysed by pain at rest or on movement, operation type, and timing of administration, or sensitivity to study size and pain intensity. No analysis by dose was possible. There was no difference when nitrous oxide was used. We downgraded the quality of the evidence once if numbers of participants were large but small-study effects were present, or twice if numbers were small and small-study effects likely but testing not possible.Ketamine increased the time for the first postoperative analgesic request by 54 minutes (95% CI 37 to 71 minutes), from a mean of 39 minutes with placebo (moderate-quality evidence; 31 studies, 1678 participants). Ketamine reduced the area of postoperative hyperalgesia by 7 cm² (95% CI -11.9 to -2.2), compared with placebo (very low-quality evidence; 7 studies 333 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence because of small-study effects or because the number of participants was below 400.CNS adverse events occurred in 52 studies, while 53 studies reported of absence of CNS adverse events. Overall, 187/3614 (5%) participants receiving ketamine and 122/2924 (4%) receiving control treatment experienced an adverse event (RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.4; high-quality evidence; 105 studies, 6538 participants). Ketamine reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting from 27% with placebo to 23% with ketamine (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96; the number needed to treat to prevent one episode of postoperative nausea and vomiting with perioperative intravenous ketamine administration was 24 (95% CI 16 to 54; high-quality evidence; 95 studies, 5965 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative analgesic consumption and pain intensity. Results were consistent in different operation types or timing of ketamine administration, with larger and smaller studies, and by higher and lower pain intensity. CNS adverse events were little different with ketamine or control. Perioperative intravenous ketamine probably reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting by a small extent, of arguable clinical relevance.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Central Nervous System Diseases; Humans; Hyperalgesia; Injections, Intravenous; Ketamine; Morphine; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30570761
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012033.pub4 -
Journal of Dental Research Apr 2023This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study compares the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments to develop guidelines for the management of acute pain after tooth extraction. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and US Clinical Trials registry on November 21, 2020. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of participants undergoing dental extractions comparing 10 interventions, including acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and combinations to placebo. After duplicate screening and data abstraction, we conducted a frequentist network meta-analysis for each outcome at 6 h (i.e., pain relief, total pain relief [TOTPAR], summed pain intensity difference [SPID], global efficacy rating, rescue analgesia, and adverse effects). We assessed the risk of bias using a modified Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We implemented the analyses in RStudio version 3.5.3 and classified interventions from most to least beneficial or harmful. We included 82 RCTs. Fifty-six RCTs enrolling 9,095 participants found moderate- and high-certainty evidence that ibuprofen 200 to 400 mg plus acetaminophen 500 to 1,000 mg (mean difference compared to placebo [MDp], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.31), acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg (MDp, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85-1.54), ibuprofen 400 mg (MDp, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.17-1.45), and naproxen 400-440 mg (MDp, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.07-1.80) were most effective for pain relief on a 0 to 4 scale. Oxycodone 5 mg, codeine 60 mg, and tramadol 37.5 mg plus acetaminophen 325 mg were no better than placebo. The results for TOTPAR, SPID, global efficacy rating, and rescue analgesia were similar. Based on low- and very low-certainty evidence, most interventions were classified as no more harmful than placebo for most adverse effects. Based on moderate- and high-certainty evidence, NSAIDs with or without acetaminophen result in better pain-related outcomes than opioids with or without acetaminophen (except acetaminophen 650 mg plus oxycodone 10 mg) or placebo.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Acetaminophen; Ibuprofen; Oxycodone; Network Meta-Analysis; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid; Tooth Extraction; Acute Pain
PubMed: 36631957
DOI: 10.1177/00220345221139230 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017This is an updated review originally published in 2004 and first updated in 2007. This version includes substantial changes to bring it in line with current... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated review originally published in 2004 and first updated in 2007. This version includes substantial changes to bring it in line with current methodological requirements. Methadone is a synthetic opioid that presents some challenges in dose titration and is recognised to cause potentially fatal arrhythmias in some patients. It does have a place in therapy for people who cannot tolerate other opioids but should be initiated only by experienced practitioners. This review is one of a suite of reviews on opioids for cancer pain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of methadone as an analgesic in adults and children with cancer pain.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and clinicaltrials.gov, to May 2016, without language restriction. We also checked reference lists in relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised controlled trials comparing methadone (any formulation and by any route) with active or placebo comparators in people with cancer pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
All authors agreed on studies for inclusion. We retrieved full texts whenever there was any uncertainty about eligibility. One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis. We extracted information on the effect of methadone on pain intensity or pain relief, the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain'. We looked for data on withdrawal and adverse events. We looked specifically for information about adverse events relating to appetite, thirst, and somnolence. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We revisited decisions made in the earlier version of this review and excluded five studies that were previously included. We identified one new study for this update. This review includes six studies with 388 participants. We did not identify any studies in children.The included studies differed so much in their methods and comparisons that no synthesis of results was feasible. Only one study (103 participants) specifically reported the number of participants with a given level of pain relief, in this case a reduction of at least 20% - similar in both the methadone and morphine groups. Using an outcome of 'no worse than mild pain', methadone was similar to morphine in effectiveness, and most participants who could tolerate methadone achieved 'no worse than mild pain'. Adverse event withdrawals with methadone were uncommon (12/202) and similar in other groups. Deaths were uncommon except in one study where the majority of participants died, irrespective of treatment group. For specific adverse events, somnolence was more common with methadone than with morphine, while dry mouth was more common with morphine than with methadone. None of the studies reported effects on appetite.We judged the quality of evidence to be low, downgraded due to risk of bias and sparse data. For specific adverse events, we considered the quality of evidence to be very low, downgraded due to risk of bias, sparse data, and indirectness, as surrogates for appetite, thirst and somnolence were used.There were no data on the use of methadone in children.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on low-quality evidence, methadone is a drug that has similar analgesic benefits to morphine and has a role in the management of cancer pain in adults. Other opioids such as morphine and fentanyl are easier to manage but may be more expensive than methadone in many economies.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Methadone; Middle Aged; Morphine; Neoplasms; Pain; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28177515
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003971.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Cancer Pain; Constipation; Humans; Morphine; Nausea; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain; Quality of Life; Reproducibility of Results; Sleepiness; Vomiting
PubMed: 35679121
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003870.pub7 -
Current Reviews in Clinical and... 2021Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A major health concern in the developing countries is opioid addiction, which has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A major health concern in the developing countries is opioid addiction, which has controversial cardiovascular side effects. We aimed to investigate whether Myocardial Infarction (MI) and its risk factors are associated with morphine dependency in the Iranian population.
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Scopus, SID, Element, and Magiran were searched to find published articles including the keywords morphine, coronary artery disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS
Twelve studies involving 25,800 people were included in this systematic review and metaanalysis. Morphine dependency was significantly associated with MI with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 2.28 (95%CI=1.26-4.11). It neither has significant associations with hypertension (AOR=0.952; 95%CI=0.696-1.301) nor diabetes (AOR=0.895; 95%CI=0.644-1.246). Morphine dependency also had no significant association with hyperlipidemia with a Crude Odds Ratio (COR) of 0.906 (95%CI=0.786-1.045).
CONCLUSION
Morphine dependency was significantly related to MI, but its risk factors were not significantly associated with morphine dependency. The increasing prevalence of opioid abuse in developing countries may be a reason for the growing incidence of MI in younger ages and individuals with no risk factors. Besides, physicians should consider the presence of impurities in morphine-based opioids and their possible effects on health.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Coronary Artery Disease; Humans; Iran; Myocardial Infarction; Opioid-Related Disorders
PubMed: 33511945
DOI: 10.2174/1574884716666210129100455 -
The Journal of Arthroplasty Oct 2022Periarticular injection (PAI) is administered intraoperatively to help reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption after primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Periarticular injection (PAI) is administered intraoperatively to help reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption after primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PAI in primary TJA to support the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies published prior to March 2020 on PAI in TJA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of PAI.
RESULTS
Three thousand six hundred and ninety nine publications were critically appraised to provide 60 studies regarded as the best available evidence for an analysis. The meta-analysis showed that intraoperative PAI reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Adding ketorolac or a corticosteroid to a long-acting local anesthetic (eg, ropivacaine or bupivacaine) provides an additional benefit. There is no difference between liposomal bupivacaine and other nonliposomal long-acting local anesthetics. Morphine does not provide any additive benefit in postoperative pain and opioid consumption and may increase postoperative nausea and vomiting. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the use of epinephrine and clonidine.
CONCLUSION
Strong evidence supports the use of a PAI with a long-acting local anesthetic to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Adding a corticosteroid and/or ketorolac to a long-acting local anesthetic further reduces postoperative pain and may reduce opioid consumption. Morphine has no additive effect and there is insufficient evidence on epinephrine and clonidine.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Bupivacaine; Clonidine; Epinephrine; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Ketorolac; Morphine; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Ropivacaine
PubMed: 36162925
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.03.045 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Dec 2023Despite the potential benefits of intrathecal morphine (ITM), the precise role and dosing of ITM in robotic assisted surgery (RAS) remains unclear. This systematic... (Review)
Review
Despite the potential benefits of intrathecal morphine (ITM), the precise role and dosing of ITM in robotic assisted surgery (RAS) remains unclear. This systematic review explores real-world evidence to evaluate the efficacy and outcomes of ITM in patients undergoing RAS. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted on four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and APA PsycInfo. Primary outcomes included pain scores at rest and on exertion at 24- and 48-h time intervals, and secondary outcomes aimed to explore the side effects of ITM. A meta-analysis was conducted to determine mean differences. A risk of bias assessment was conducted via the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A total of 9 RCTs involving 619 patients were included in this review, of which 298 patients were administered ITM. Significant pain score reductions were observed both at rest (MD = -27.15; 95% CI [-43.97, -10.33]; I = 95%; = 0.002) and on exertion (MD = -25.88; 95% CI [-37.03, -14.72]; I = 79%; = 0.0003) 24 h postoperatively in the ITM groups, accompanied by a notable decrease in postoperative IV morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h (MD = -20.13; 95% CI [-30.74, -9.52]; I = 77%; = 0.0002). ITM improved pain scores both at rest and on exertion at 24 and 48 h intervals, concurrently reducing the need for postoperative opioid consumption, but at the cost of an increased incidence of adverse events.
PubMed: 38202144
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13010137