-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain during dental treatment, which is a common fear of patients, can be controlled successfully by local anaesthetic. Several different local anaesthetic formulations and techniques are available to dentists.
OBJECTIVES
Our primary objectives were to compare the success of anaesthesia, the speed of onset and duration of anaesthesia, and systemic and local adverse effects amongst different local anaesthetic formulations for dental anaesthesia. We define success of anaesthesia as absence of pain during a dental procedure, or a negative response to electric pulp testing or other simulated scenario tests. We define dental anaesthesia as anaesthesia given at the time of any dental intervention.Our secondary objective was to report on patients' experience of the procedures carried out.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (OVID SP), Embase, CINAHL PLUS, WEB OF SCIENCE, and other resources up to 31 January 2018. Other resources included trial registries, handsearched journals, conference proceedings, bibliographies/reference lists, and unpublished research.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing different formulations of local anaesthetic used for clinical procedures or simulated scenarios. Studies could apply a parallel or cross-over design.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological approaches for data collection and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 123 studies (19,223 participants) in the review. We pooled data from 68 studies (6615 participants) for meta-analysis, yielding 23 comparisons of local anaesthetic and 57 outcomes with 14 different formulations. Only 10 outcomes from eight comparisons involved clinical testing.We assessed the included studies as having low risk of bias in most domains. Seventy-three studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias. Fifteen studies had at least one domain with high risk of bias due to inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, masking of local anaesthetic cartridges for administrators or outcome assessors, or participant dropout or exclusion.We reported results for the eight most important comparisons.Success of anaesthesiaWhen the success of anaesthesia in posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring root canal treatment is tested, 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, may be superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (31% with 2% lidocaine vs 49% with 4% articaine; risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.32; 4 parallel studies; 203 participants; low-quality evidence).When the success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures and surgical procedures/periodontal treatment, respectively, was tested, 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin (66% with 3% prilocaine vs 76% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; 2 parallel studies; 907 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 4% prilocaine plain (71% with 4% prilocaine vs 83% with 2% lidocaine; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; 2 parallel studies; 228 participants; low-quality evidence) were inferior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine.Comparative effects of 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine on success of anaesthesia for teeth/dental tissues requiring surgical procedures are uncertain (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02; 3 parallel studies; 930 participants; very low-quality evidence).Comparative effects of 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.83; 2 cross-over studies; 37 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.07 to 5.12; 2 cross-over studies; 31 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction are uncertain.Comparative effects of 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and both 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (OR 3.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 23.82; 1 parallel and 1 cross-over study; 110 participants; low-quality evidence) and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.25 to 5.45; 2 parallel studies; 68 participants; low-quality evidence) on success of anaesthesia for teeth requiring extraction and teeth with irreversible pulpitis requiring endodontic access and instrumentation, respectively, are uncertain.For remaining outcomes, assessing success of dental local anaesthesia via meta-analyses was not possible.Onset and duration of anaesthesiaFor comparisons assessing onset and duration, no clinical studies met our outcome definitions.Adverse effects (continuous pain measured on 170-mm Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (VAS))Differences in post-injection pain between 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine are small, as measured on a VAS (mean difference (MD) 4.74 mm, 95% CI -1.98 to 11.46 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 314 interventions; moderate-quality evidence). Lidocaine probably resulted in slightly less post-injection pain than articaine (MD 6.41 mm, 95% CI 1.01 to 11.80 mm; 3 cross-over studies; 309 interventions; moderate-quality evidence) on the same VAS.For remaining comparisons assessing local and systemic adverse effects, meta-analyses were not possible. Other adverse effects were rare and minor.Patients' experiencePatients' experience of procedures was not assessed owing to lack of data.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For success (absence of pain), low-quality evidence suggests that 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine for root treating of posterior teeth with irreversible pulpitis, and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 4% prilocaine plain when surgical procedures/periodontal treatment was provided. Moderate-quality evidence shows that 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine was superior to 3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin when surgical procedures were performed.Adverse events were rare. Moderate-quality evidence shows no difference in pain on injection when 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine were compared, although lidocaine resulted in slightly less pain following injection.Many outcomes tested our primary objectives in simulated scenarios, although clinical alternatives may not be possible.Further studies are needed to increase the strength of the evidence. These studies should be clearly reported, have low risk of bias with adequate sample size, and provide data in a format that will allow meta-analysis. Once assessed, results of the 34 'Studies awaiting classification (full text unavailable)' may alter the conclusions of the review.
Topics: Anesthesia, Dental; Anesthetics, Local; Dental Care; Humans; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29990391
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006487.pub2 -
CJEM Jun 2023The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this study was to synthesize indication-based evidence for NO for distress and pain in children.
STUDY DESIGN
We included trials of NO in participants 0-21 years, reporting distress or pain for emergency department procedures. The primary outcome was procedural distress. Where meta-analysis was not possible, we used Tricco et al.'s classification of "neutral" (p ≥ 0.05), "favorable," or "unfavorable" (p < 0.05, supporting NO or comparator, respectively). We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system to evaluate risk of bias and quality of evidence, respectively.
RESULTS
We included 30 trials. For pain using the Visual Analog Scale (0-100 mm) during IV insertion, 70% NO (delta:-16.5; 95%CI:-28.6 to -4.4; p = 0.008; three trials; I = 0%) and 50% NO plus eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) (delta:-1.2; 95%CI:-2.1 to -0.3; p = 0.007; two trials; I = 43%) were superior to EMLA. 50% NO was not superior to EMLA (delta:-0.4; 95%CI:-1.2 to 0.3; p = 0.26; two trials; I = 15%). For distress and pain during laceration repair, NO was "favorable" versus each of SC lidocaine, oxygen, and oral midazolam but "neutral" versus IV ketamine (five trials). For distress and pain during fracture reduction (three trials), NO was "neutral" versus each of IM meperidine plus promethazine, regional anesthesia, and IV ketamine plus midazolam. For distress and pain during lumbar puncture (one trial), NO was "favorable" versus oxygen. For distress and pain during urethral catheterization (one trial), NO was "neutral" versus oral midazolam. For pain during intramuscular injection (one trial), NO plus EMLA was "favorable" versus NO and EMLA alone. Common adverse effects of NO included nausea (4.4%), agitation (3.7%), and vomiting (3.6%) AEs were less frequent with NO alone (278/1147 (24.2%)) versus NO plus midazolam (48/52 (92.3%)) and NO plus fentanyl (123/201 (61.2%)).
CONCLUSIONS
There is sufficient evidence to recommend NO plus topical anesthetic for IV insertion and laceration repair. Adverse effects are greater when combined with other sedating agents.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Nitrous Oxide; Midazolam; Ketamine; Lacerations; Pain; Anesthetics, Local; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Oxygen
PubMed: 37171705
DOI: 10.1007/s43678-023-00507-0 -
European Journal of Clinical... Jun 2022Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common complication of intraoperative urinary catheterization. Various studies have evaluated the efficacy of different interventions in postoperative CRBD. The present review was performed to assess the efficacy of these interventions.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of different drugs for the prevention of postoperative CRBD. This review evaluated the incidence and severity of CRBD after different interventions at 0, 1, 2, and 6 h postoperatively.
RESULTS
Forty-five studies including 31 different drugs were analyzed. Eleven drugs were investigated in more than two RCTs, of which dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and pudendal nerve block (PNB) generally showed significantly higher efficacy than controls postoperatively. Solifenacin only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 0 h, and intravenous lidocaine only showed significant efficacy compared with the control at 6 h. There were insufficient trials to draw conclusions regarding atropine, butylscopolamine, chlorpheniramine, clonidine, darifenacin, diphenhydramine, glycopyrrolate, intravesical bupivacaine, ketamine-haloperidol, pethidine-haloperidol, ketorolac, lidocaine-prilocaine cream, magnesium, hyoscine n-butyl bromide, oxycodone, paracetamol, parecoxib, trospium, resiniferatoxin, or amikacin. However, all but pethidine-haloperidol and chlorpheniramine showed some efficacy at various time points compared with controls.
CONCLUSION
This review suggests that dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, tolterodine, tramadol, ketamine, nefopam, oxybutynin, pregabalin, and PNB are effective in preventing postoperative CRBD. Considering the efficacy and adverse effects of all drugs, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin were ranked best.
Topics: Chlorpheniramine; Dexmedetomidine; Gabapentin; Haloperidol; Humans; Ketamine; Lidocaine; Meperidine; Nefopam; Pain, Postoperative; Pregabalin; Tolterodine Tartrate; Tramadol; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Catheters
PubMed: 35218404
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-021-03251-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Lumbar puncture (LP) is a common invasive procedure, most frequently performed to diagnose infection. Physicians perform LP in newborn infants with the help of an assistant using a strict aseptic technique; it is important to monitor the infant during all the steps of the procedure. Without adequate analgesia, LP can cause considerable pain and discomfort. As newborns have increased sensitivity to pain, it is crucial to adequately manage the procedural pain of LP in this population.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms, including pain, discomfort, and success rate, of any pharmacological intervention during lumbar puncture in newborn infants, compared to placebo, no intervention, non-pharmacological interventions, or other pharmacological interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and three trial registries in December 2022. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and related systematic reviews for studies not identified by the database searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing drugs used for pain management, sedation, or both, during LP. We considered the following drugs suitable for inclusion. • Topical anesthetics (e.g. eutectic mixture of local anesthetics [EMLA], lidocaine) • Opioids (e.g. morphine, fentanyl) • Alpha-2 agonists (e.g. clonidine, dexmedetomidine) • N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists (e.g. ketamine) • Other analgesics (e.g. paracetamol) • Sedatives (e.g. benzodiazepines such as midazolam) DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used the fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Our main outcomes were successful LP on first attempt, total number of LP attempts, episodes of bradycardia, pain assessed with validated scales, episodes of desaturation, number of episodes of apnea, and number of infants with one or more episodes of apnea. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies (two RCTs and one quasi-RCT) that enrolled 206 newborns. One study included only term infants. All studies assessed topical treatment versus placebo or no intervention. The topical anesthetics were lidocaine 4%, lidocaine 1%, and EMLA. We identified no completed studies on opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, alpha-2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, other analgesics, sedatives, or head-to-head comparisons (drug A versus drug B). Based on very low-certainty evidence from one quasi-RCT of 100 LPs in 76 infants, we are unsure if topical anesthetics (lidocaine), compared to no anesthesia, has an effect on the following outcomes. • Successful LP on first attempt (first-attempts success in 48% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 42% of LPs in the control group) • Number of attempts per LP (mean 1.9 attempts, [standard error of the mean 0.2] in the lidocaine group, and mean 2.1 attempts [standard error of the mean 2.1] in the control group) • Episodes of bradycardia (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 4% of LPs in the control group) • Episodes of desaturation (0% of LPs in the lidocaine group and 8% of LPs in the control group) • Occurrence of apnea (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.14 to 77.79; risk difference [RD] 0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.08). Topical anesthetics compared to placebo may reduce pain assessed with the Neonatal Facial Coding System (NFCS) score (SMD -1.00 standard deviation (SD), 95% CI -1.47 to -0.53; I² = 98%; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies in this comparison reported total number of episodes of apnea. We identified three ongoing studies, which will assess the effects of EMLA, lidocaine, and fentanyl. Three studies are awaiting classification.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of topical anesthetics (lidocaine) compared to no anesthesia on successful lumbar puncture on first attempt, the number of attempts per lumbar puncture, episodes of bradycardia, episodes of desaturation, and occurrence of apnea. Compared to placebo, topical anesthetics (lidocaine or EMLA) may reduce pain assessed with the NFCS score. One ongoing study will assess the effects of systemic treatment.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Apnea; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Pain; Spinal Puncture
PubMed: 37767875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015594.pub2 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Jan 2021Male circumcision (MC) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on neonates. In the last decades, there have been consistent advances in the understanding... (Review)
Review
Male circumcision (MC) is one of the most common surgical procedures performed on neonates. In the last decades, there have been consistent advances in the understanding of pain mechanisms in newborns, and analgesia has become a fundamental part of neonatal care. MC is still often performed with inappropriate analgesic methods, and there is still great variability among the various centers about surgical and anesthethic techniques to do it. The purpose of this review is to summarize the findings in the literature about pain management and analgesia during newborn MC. We performed a systematic review of neonatal MC studies published in the last 20 years. The most effective technique appeared to be the combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of analgesia.Conclusion: Combining local anesthesia with non-pharmacological analgesic strategies appears to be effective preventing procedural pain during MC. However, a standardized protocol for analgesia during MC is yet to be determined. Sensorial saturation appeared to help when used in conjunction with the local anesthesia techniques. What is Known: • Male circumcision is a painful procedure and it is frequently performed with inappropriate analgesic methods. • A gold standard practice in analgesia during male circumcision is still lacking and there is a great variability in the modus operandi between centers. What is New: • The combination of RB + EMLA + sucrose appears to be an analgesic strategy superior to other approaches. • We advocate for the integration of sensorial saturation during male circumcision in order to improve the efficacy of current analgesic practices.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Circumcision, Male; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Male; Pain; Prilocaine
PubMed: 32748017
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-020-03758-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. Interventions for pain control during IUC insertion include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local cervical anesthetics, and cervical ripening agents such as misoprostol.
OBJECTIVES
To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for reducing IUC insertion-related pain
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for trials in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The most recent search was 22 June 2015. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that evaluated an intervention for preventing IUC insertion-related pain. The comparison could have been a placebo, no intervention, or another active intervention. The primary outcomes were self-reported pain at tenaculum placement, during IUC insertion, and after IUC insertion (up to six hours).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data from eligible trials. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. In meta-analysis of trials with different measurement scales, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 33 trials with 5710 participants total; 29 were published from 2010 to 2015. Studies examined lidocaine, misoprostol, NSAIDs, and other interventions. Here we synthesize results from trials with sufficient outcome data and moderate- or high-quality evidence.For lidocaine, meta-analysis showed topical 2% gel had no effect on pain at tenaculum placement (two trials) or on pain during IUC insertion (three trials). Other formulations were effective compared with placebo in individual trials. Mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower with lidocaine and prilocaine cream (MD -1.96, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.92). Among nulliparous women, topical 4% formulation showed lower scores for IUC-insertion pain assessed within 10 minutes (MD -15.90, 95% CI -22.77 to -9.03) and at 30 minutes later (MD -11.10, 95% CI -19.05 to -3.15). Among parous women, IUC-insertion pain was lower with 10% spray (median 1.00 versus 3.00). Compared with no intervention, pain at tenaculum placement was lower with 1% paracervical block (median 12 versus 28).For misoprostol, meta-analysis showed a higher mean score for IUC insertion compared with placebo (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.46; four studies). In meta-analysis, cramping was more likely with misoprostol (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.76; four studies). A trial with nulliparous women found a higher score for IUC-insertion pain with misoprostol (median 46 versus 34). Pain before leaving the clinic was higher for misoprostol in two trials with nulliparous women (MD 7.60, 95% CI 6.48 to 8.72; medians 35.5 versus 20.5). In one trial with nulliparous women, moderate or severe pain at IUC insertion was less likely with misoprostol (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55). In the same trial, the misoprostol group was more likely to rate the experience favorably. Within two trials of misoprostol plus diclofenac, shivering, headache, or abdominal pain were more likely with misoprostol. Participants had no vaginal delivery. One trial showed the misoprostol group less likely to choose or recommend the treatment.Among multiparous women, mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower for tramadol 50 mg versus naproxen 550 mg (MD -0.63, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.32) and for naproxen versus placebo (MD -1.94, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.53). The naproxen group was less likely than the placebo group to report the insertion experience as unpleasant and not want the medication in the future. An older trial showed repeated doses of naproxen 300 mg led to lower pain scores at one hour (MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.41) and two hours (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.32) after insertion. Most women were nulliparous and also had lidocaine paracervical block.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nearly all trials used modern IUC. Most effectiveness evidence was of moderate quality, having come from single trials. Lidocaine 2% gel, misoprostol, and most NSAIDs did not help reduce pain. Some lidocaine formulations, tramadol, and naproxen had some effect on reducing IUC insertion-related pain in specific groups. The ineffective interventions do not need further research.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Intrauterine Devices; Lidocaine; Misoprostol; Naproxen; Oxytocics; Pain; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26222246
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007373.pub3 -
Cureus Nov 2022Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure,... (Review)
Review
Efficacy of Emla (Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics) and Let (Lidocaine, Epinephrine, Tetracaine) for Topical Use in Wound Management for Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Lacerations are common injuries managed by emergency department practitioners and are mostly witnessed in children. These lacerations usually require wound closure, which may result in one of the most unpleasant and painful childhood experiences. The pain can be minimized through topical anesthesia, such as a combination of lidocaine, epinephrine, and tetracaine (LET) and a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA). The current study was carried out to demonstrate the efficacy of EMLA and LET in pediatric wound management. A thorough literature search was carried out without any time limitation on five electronic databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant studies from these databases and their references were scoured for additional studies. Study quality appraisal and data analysis were conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). The literature search yielded 1651 articles of which only eight were eligible for inclusion in the present study. A meta-analysis of results from 3 studies showed that LET had a significant pain reduction than the control interventions (SMD: -0.46; 95% CI: -0.69, -0.23: p<0.0001). However, the pooled effect size of data from 3 studies showed EMLA had an insignificant difference with the control interventions (SMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.82, -0.24: p = 0.13). Similarly, no significant difference in the number of adverse reactions was reported in either EMLA (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 0.67, 7.93; p = 0.18) or LET (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.15, 6.50; p = 0.99) Our study suggests that the topical application of EMLA and LET effectively offers pain-free wound management among pediatric patients. However, the interventions are subject to adverse reactions that should be considered when managing the wounds.
PubMed: 36523723
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31447 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Newborn infants have the ability to experience pain. Hospitalised infants are exposed to numerous painful procedures. Healthy newborns are exposed to pain if the birth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants have the ability to experience pain. Hospitalised infants are exposed to numerous painful procedures. Healthy newborns are exposed to pain if the birth process consists of assisted vaginal birth by vacuum extraction or by forceps and during blood sampling for newborn screening tests.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of procedural/postoperative pain or pain associated with clinical conditions in neonates. To review the effects of various doses and routes of administration (enteral, intravenous or rectal) of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of pain in neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 9 May 2016), Embase (1980 to 9 May 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 9 May 2016). We searched clinical trials' databases, Google Scholar, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of paracetamol for the prevention/treatment of pain in neonates (≤ 28 days of age).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the articles using pre-designed forms. We used this form to decide trial inclusion/exclusion, to extract data from eligible trials and to request additional published information from authors of the original reports. We entered and cross-checked data using RevMan 5 software. When noted, we resolved differences by mutual discussion and consensus. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with low risk of bias, which assessed paracetamol for the treatment of pain in 728 infants. Painful procedures studied included heel lance, assisted vaginal birth, eye examination for retinopathy of prematurity assessment and postoperative care. Results of individual studies could not be combined in meta-analyses as the painful conditions, the use of paracetamol and comparison interventions and the outcome measures differed. Paracetamol compared with water, cherry elixir or EMLA cream (eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine) did not significantly reduce pain following heel lance. The Premature Infant Pain Profile score (PIPP) within three minutes following lancing was higher in the paracetamol group than in the oral glucose group (mean difference (MD) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 3.70; one study, 38 infants). Paracetamol did not reduce "modified facies scores" after assisted vaginal birth (one study, 119 infants). In another study (n = 123), the Échelle de Douleur et d'Inconfort du Nouveau-Né score at two hours of age was significantly higher in the group that received paracetamol suppositories than in the placebo suppositories group (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). In that study, when infants were subjected to a heel lance at two to three days of age, Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates scores were higher in the paracetamol group than in the placebo group, and infants spent a longer time crying (MD 19 seconds, 95% CI 14 to 24). For eye examinations, no significant reduction in PIPP scores in the first or last 45 seconds of eye examination was reported, nor at five minutes after the eye examination. In one study (n = 81), the PIPP score was significantly higher in the paracetamol group than in the 24% sucrose group (MD 3.90, 95% CI 2.92 to 4.88). In one study (n = 114) the PIPP score during eye examination was significantly lower in the paracetamol group than in the water group (MD -2.70, 95% CI -3.55 to 1.85). For postoperative care following major surgery, the total amount of morphine (µg/kg) administered over 48 hours was significantly less among infants assigned to the paracetamol group than to the morphine group (MD -157 µg/kg, 95% CI -27 to -288). No adverse events were noted in any study. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The paucity and low quality of existing data do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the role of paracetamol in reducing the effects of painful procedures in neonates. Paracetamol given after assisted vaginal birth may increase the response to later painful exposures. Paracetamol may reduce the total need for morphine following major surgery, and for this aspect of paracetamol use, further research is needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Delivery, Obstetric; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Punctures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinopathy of Prematurity
PubMed: 27716943
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011219.pub3 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Sep 2020Ambulatory anorectal surgery requires an anesthetic of short duration but profound depth. Saddle block anesthesia (SBA) can provide dense sacral anesthesia with minimal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ambulatory anorectal surgery requires an anesthetic of short duration but profound depth. Saddle block anesthesia (SBA) can provide dense sacral anesthesia with minimal motor blockade, but the ideal local anesthetic agent remains undefined. This systematic review aims to identify the optimal SBA regimen for ambulatory anorectal surgery.
METHODS
We sought randomized trials examining SBA for ambulatory anorectal surgery and stratified patients into four subgroups according to local anesthetic type and dose: (1) longer acting, higher dose; (2) longer acting, lower dose; (3) shorter acting, higher dose; and (4) shorter acting, lower dose. Longer acting agents included bupivacaine and levobupivacaine; shorter acting agents included chloroprocaine, mepivacaine, and prilocaine. Lower dose was defined as ≤5 mg and ≤20 mg for longer and shorter acting local anesthetics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to discharge; secondary outcomes included times to sensory and motor block regression, urine voiding, and ambulation, as well as block success.
RESULTS
A total of 11 trials (1063 patients) were included. Overall study quality and reporting consistency was poor. Doses ranged from 1.5-7.5 mg to 3-30 mg of longer and shorter acting local anesthetics, respectively. Hyperbaric local anesthetics were used in eight trials (953 patients, 86%). The median time to discharge appeared similar across all subgroups with an overall time of 182 (IQR 102) min. The use of long-acting, lower dose regimens was associated with a faster median time to motor block regression. Block success approached 99% among all trials.
CONCLUSIONS
There is presently insufficient qualitative and quantitative evidence to identify an optimal SBA regimen for ambulatory anorectal surgery. Nonetheless, we found that doses as low as 1.5 and 3 mg of longer and shorter acting hyperbaric local anesthetics, respectively, can achieve effective and reliable SBA with timely hospital discharge. Despite similar discharge times, longer acting, lower dose local anesthetics may produce faster motor block regression following SBA for ambulatory anorectal surgery.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Bupivacaine; Humans; Mepivacaine
PubMed: 32699103
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2020-101603 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Pre-cancerous lesions of cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) are usually treated with excisional or ablative procedures. In the UK, the National Health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pre-cancerous lesions of cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) are usually treated with excisional or ablative procedures. In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) cervical screening guidelines suggest that over 80% of treatments should be performed in an outpatient setting (colposcopy clinics). Furthermore, these guidelines suggest that analgesia should always be given prior to laser or excisional treatments. Currently various pain relief strategies are employed that may reduce pain during these procedures.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether the administration of pain relief (analgesia) reduces pain during colposcopy treatment and in the postoperative period.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March week 3, 2016) and Embase (1980 to week 12, 2016) for studies of any design relating to analgesia for colposcopic management. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared all types of pain relief before, during or after outpatient treatment to the cervix, in women with CIN undergoing loop excision, laser ablation, laser excision or cryosurgery in an outpatient colposcopy clinic setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and double checked it for accuracy. Where possible, we expressed results as mean pain score and standard error of the mean with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and synthesised data in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs (1720 women) of varying methodological quality in the review. These trials compared a variety of interventions aimed at reducing pain in women who underwent treatment for CIN, including cervical injection with lignocaine alone, lignocaine with adrenaline, buffered lignocaine with adrenaline, prilocaine with felypressin, oral analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), inhalation analgesia (gas mixture of isoflurane and desflurane), lignocaine spray, cocaine spray, local application of benzocaine gel, lignocaine-prilocaine cream (EMLA cream) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).Most comparisons were restricted to single trial analyses and were under-powered to detect differences in pain scores between treatments that may or may not have been present. There was no difference in pain relief between women who received local anaesthetic infiltration (lignocaine 2%; administered as a paracervical or direct cervical injection) and a saline placebo (mean difference (MD) -13.74; 95% CI -34.32 to 6.83; 2 trials; 130 women; low quality evidence). However, when local anaesthetic was combined with a vasoconstrictor agent (one trial used lignocaine plus adrenaline while the second trial used prilocaine plus felypressin), there was less pain (on visual analogue scale (VAS)) compared with no treatment (MD -23.73; 95% CI -37.53 to -9.93; 2 trials; 95 women; low quality evidence). Comparing two preparations of local anaesthetic combined with vasoconstrictor, prilocaine plus felypressin did not differ from lignocaine plus adrenaline for its effect on pain control (MD -0.05; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.16; 1 trial; 200 women). Although the mean (± standard deviation (SD)) observed blood loss score was less with lignocaine plus adrenaline (1.33 ± 1.05) compared with prilocaine plus felypressin (1.74 ± 0.98), the difference was not clinically as the overall scores in both groups were low (MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69; 1 trial; 200 women). Inhalation of gas mixture (isoflurane and desflurane) in addition to standard cervical injection with prilocaine plus felypressin resulted in less pain during the LLETZ (loop excision of the transformation zone) procedure (MD -7.20; 95% CI -12.45 to -1.95; 1 trial; 389 women). Lignocaine plus ornipressin resulted in less measured blood loss (MD -8.75 ml; 95% CI -10.43 to -7.07; 1 trial; 100 women) and a shorter duration of treatment (MD -7.72 minutes; 95% CI -8.49 to -6.95; 1 trial; 100 women) than cervical infiltration with lignocaine alone. Buffered solution (sodium bicarbonate buffer mixed with lignocaine plus adrenaline) was not superior to non-buffered solution of lignocaine plus adrenaline in relieving pain during the procedure (MD -8.00; 95% CI -17.57 to 1.57; 1 trial; 52 women).One meta-analysis found no difference in pain using VAS between women who received oral analgesic and women who received placebo (MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; 2 trials; 129 women; low quality evidence).Cocaine spray was associated with less pain (MD -28.00; 95% CI -37.86 to -18.14; 1 trial; 50 women) and blood loss (MD 0.04; 95% CI 0 to 0.70; 1 trial; 50 women) than placebo.None of the trials reported serious adverse events and majority of trials were at moderate or high risk of bias (13 trials).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on two small trials, there was no difference in pain relief in women receiving oral analgesics compared with placebo or no treatment (MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; 129 women). We consider this evidence to be of a low to moderate quality. In routine clinical practice, intracervical injection of local anaesthetic with a vasoconstrictor (lignocaine plus adrenaline or prilocaine plus felypressin) appears to be the optimum analgesia for treatment. However, further high quality, adequately powered trials should be undertaken in order to provide the data necessary to estimate the efficacy of oral analgesics, the optimal route of administration and dose of local anaesthetics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Colposcopy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 27428114
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006120.pub4