-
The Pan African Medical Journal 2024During the 1970s, scientists first used botulinum toxin to treat strabismus. While testing on monkeys, they noticed that the toxin could also reduce wrinkles in the... (Review)
Review
During the 1970s, scientists first used botulinum toxin to treat strabismus. While testing on monkeys, they noticed that the toxin could also reduce wrinkles in the glabella area. This led to its widespread use in both medical and cosmetic fields. The objective of the study was to evaluate the potential use of Botox in managing post-operative contracture after below-knee amputation. We conducted a systematic review In Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar using the MESH terms Botox, botulinum toxin, post-operative contracture, amputation, and below knee amputation. Our goal was to evaluate the potential use of Botox to manage post-operative contracture in patients who have undergone below-knee amputation. Our findings show evidence in the literature that Botox can effectively manage stump hyperhidrosis, phantom pain, and jumping stump, but no clinical trial has been found that discusses the use of Botox for post-operative contracture. Botox has been used in different ways to manage spasticity. Further studies and clinical trials are needed to support the use of Botox to manage this complication.
Topics: Humans; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Amputation, Surgical; Contracture; Amputation Stumps; Muscle Spasticity; Joint Dislocations; Neuromuscular Agents
PubMed: 38558551
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2024.47.26.42249 -
European Urology Open Science Jun 2022The primary lesion in penile cancer is managed by surgery or radiation. Surgical options include penile-sparing surgery, amputative surgery, laser excision, and Moh's... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
The primary lesion in penile cancer is managed by surgery or radiation. Surgical options include penile-sparing surgery, amputative surgery, laser excision, and Moh's micrographic surgery. Radiation is applied as external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachytherapy. The treatment aims to completely remove the primary lesion and preserve a sufficient functional penile stump.
OBJECTIVE
To assess whether the 5-yr recurrence-free rate and other outcomes, such as sexual function, quality of life, urination, and penile preserving length, vary between various treatment options.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
The EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane HTA, DARE, HEED), Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for publications from 1990 through May 2021. Randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCSs), and case series (CSs) were included.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
The systematic review included 88 studies, involving 9578 men from 16 NRCSs and 72 CSs. The cumulative mean 5-yr recurrence-free rates were 82.0% for penile-sparing surgery, 83.9% for amputative surgery, 78.6% for brachytherapy, 55.2% for EBRT, 69.4% for lasers, and 88.2% for Moh's micrographic surgery, as reported from CSs, and 76.7% for penile-sparing surgery and 93.3% for amputative surgery, as reported from NRCSs. Penile surgery affects sexual function, but amputative surgery causes more appearance concerns. After brachytherapy, 25% of patients reported sexual dysfunction. Both penile-sparing surgery and amputative surgery affect all aspects of psychosocial well-being.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the poor quality of evidence, data suggest that penile-sparing surgery is not inferior to amputative surgery in terms of recurrence rates in selected patients. Based on the available information, however, broadly applicable recommendations cannot be made; appropriate patient selection accounts for the relative success of all the available methods.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed the evidence of various techniques to treat penile tumor and assessed their effectiveness in oncologic control and their functional outcomes. Penile-sparing as well as amputative surgery is an effective treatment option, but amputative surgery has a negative impact on sexual function. Penile-sparing surgery and radiotherapy are associated with a higher risk of local recurrence, but preserve sexual function and quality of life better. Laser and Moh's micrographic surgery could be used for smaller lesions.
PubMed: 35540709
DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2022.04.002 -
Cureus Mar 2024Lower limb amputation is a common orthopedic surgery in the United States and can be performed either above or below the knee. Prosthetics are typically externally... (Review)
Review
Lower limb amputation is a common orthopedic surgery in the United States and can be performed either above or below the knee. Prosthetics are typically externally fitted to the patient's residual stump; however, osseointegrated implants offer a potential alternative to this process. Transcutaneous limb osseointegration involves the intramedullary anchoring of an implant that can later attach to a prosthetic via a stoma in the residual limb. There are proposed benefits to this, including decreased skin and soft tissue complications as well as an increased sense of stability. As this is a relatively new procedure, the complications and efficacy are not well supported by the literature at this time. The primary aim of this analysis was to synthesize the currently available data on transfemoral and transtibial osseointegration in order to improve our understanding of the potential complications of the procedure. A literature search was performed in the following databases: Biomedical Reference Collection, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE. Articles were screened by three independent reviewers for studies written or available in English, study design, and study outcomes, including complications. No filter was applied for publication date, publication national origin, or sample size. A total of 20 articles were selected for the final qualitative analysis. This review demonstrates an overall low or non-inferior rate of both minor and severe complications in transtibial and transfemoral osseointegration. This procedure should be considered as an option during preoperative planning in the context of above-the-knee and below-the-knee amputations. However, continued studies with larger sample sizes and extended postoperative follow-up are necessary for a greater strength of recommendation.
PubMed: 38681289
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.57045 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Jan 2018Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases....
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases. Literature on management of acute post-amputation pain is scarce. We performed a systematic review on this topic to evaluate the efficacy and safety of analgesic interventions for acute pain following major limb amputation.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the following key words: [(amputation) AND (pain OR analgesi* OR pain relief)] AND (acute OR postoperative). Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies investigating treatment of acute pain following major amputations for any indication (peripheral vascular disease, malignant disease, trauma) were included. The review was performed according to the standards described in the PRISMA statement. The Cochrane quality assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the RCTs.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies with total of 949 patients were included. The studies were generally small and heterogeneous on outcomes, study designs and quality. There were 16 studies on epidural or continuous perineural analgesia (CPI). Based on five RCTs (n=268) and two observational studies (n=49), epidural analgesia decreased the intensity of acute stump pain as compared to systemic analgesics, during the first 24 h after the operation. Based on one study epidural analgesia caused more adverse effects like sedation, nausea and motor block than continuous perineural local anesthetic infusion. Based on one RCT (n=21) and eight observational studies (n=501) CPI seemed to decrease opioid consumption as compared to systemic analgesics only, on the first three postoperative days, and was well tolerated. Only three trials investigated systemic analgesics (oral memantine, oral gabapentine, iv ketamine). Ketamine did not decrease acute pain or opioid consumption after amputation as compared to other systemic analgesics. Gabapentin did not decrease acute pain when combined to epidural analgesia as compared to epidural analgesia and opioid treatment, and caused adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The main finding of this systematic review is that evidence regarding pain management after major limb amputation is very limited. Epidural analgesia may be effective, but firm evidence is lacking. Epidural causes more adverse effects than CPI. The results on efficacy of CPI are indecisive. The data on adjuvant medications combined to epidural analgesia or CPI is limited. Studies on efficacy and adverse effects of systemic analgesics for amputation pain, especially concentrating on elderly patients, are needed.
Topics: Acute Pain; Amputation, Surgical; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 29794290
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2017-0170 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2019Dressings are part of the routine postoperative management of people after transtibial amputation. Two types of dressings are commonly used; soft dressings (e.g. elastic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dressings are part of the routine postoperative management of people after transtibial amputation. Two types of dressings are commonly used; soft dressings (e.g. elastic bandages, crepe bandages) and rigid dressings (e.g. non-removable rigid dressings, removable rigid dressings, immediate postoperative protheses). Soft dressings are the conventional dressing choice as they are cheap and easy to apply, while rigid dressings are costly, more time consuming to apply and require skilled personnel to apply the dressings. However, rigid dressings have been suggested to result in faster wound healing due to the hard exterior providing a greater degree of compression to the stump.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of rigid dressings versus soft dressings for treating transtibial amputations.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid AMED and PEDro to identify relevant trials. To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing studies, we also searched clinical trial registries, the grey literature, the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified in prior searches. We used the Cited Reference Search facility on ThomsonReuters Web of Science and contacted relevant individuals and organisations. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that enrolled people with transtibial amputations. There were no restrictions on the age of participants and reasons for amputation. Trials that compared the effectiveness of rigid dressings with soft dressings were the main focus of this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text publications for eligible studies. Two review authors also independently extracted data on study characteristics and outcomes, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving 436 participants (441 limbs). All studies recruited participants from acute and/or rehabilitation hospitals from seven different countries (the USA, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada, France and the UK). In all but one study, it was clearly stated that amputations were secondary to vascular conditions.Primary outcomes Wound healing We are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to wound healing compared with soft dressings (MD -25.60 days; 95% CI -49.08 to -2.12; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of wounds healed compared with soft dressings (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.76; one study, 51 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision.Adverse events It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of skin-related adverse events compared with soft dressings (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.32; I = 0%; six studies, 336 participants (340 limbs)); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision.It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of non skin-related adverse events compared with soft dressings (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.99; I = 0%; six studies, 342 participants (346 limbs)); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. In addition, we are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to no pain compared with soft dressings (MD -0.35 weeks; 95% CI -2.11 to 1.41; one study of 23 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision.Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to walking compared with soft dressings (MD -3 days; 95% CI -9.96 to 3.96; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. We are also uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the length of hospital stay compared with soft dressings (MD -30.10 days; 95% CI -49.82 to -10.38; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. It is also not clear whether rigid dressings decrease the time to readiness for prosthetic prescription and swelling compared with soft dressings, as results are based on very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once/twice for serious/very serious imprecision. None of the studies reported outcomes on patient comfort, quality of life and cost.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain of the benefits and harms of rigid dressings compared with soft dressings for people undergoing transtibial amputation due to limited and very low-certainty evidence. It is not clear if rigid dressings are superior to soft dressings for improving outcomes related to wound healing, adverse events, prosthetic prescription, walking function, length of hospital stay and swelling. Clinicians should exercise clinical judgement as to which type of dressing they use, and consider the pros and cons of each for patients (e.g. patients with high risk of falling may benefit from the protection offered by a rigid dressing, and patients with poor skin integrity may have less risk of skin breakdown from a soft dressing).
Topics: Aged; Amputation, Surgical; Bandages; Compression Bandages; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selection Bias; Tibia; Time Factors; Walking; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31204792
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012427.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and...
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.
METHODS
Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 30776855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011890.pub2 -
Technology and Innovation Sep 2016Patients with lower extremity amputation (LEA) experience 65% more dermatologic issues than non-amputees, and skin problems are experienced by ≈75% of LEA patients who...
Patients with lower extremity amputation (LEA) experience 65% more dermatologic issues than non-amputees, and skin problems are experienced by ≈75% of LEA patients who use prostheses. Continuously referring LEA patients to a dermatologist for every stump related skin condition may be impractical. Thus, physical rehabilitation professionals should be prepared to recognize and manage common non-emergent skin conditions in this population. The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity, quality, and strength of available evidence supporting treatment methods for prosthesis-related residual limb (RL) ulcers. Systematic literature review with evidence grading and synthesis of empirical evidence statements (EES) was employed. Three EESs were formulated describing ulcer etiology, conditions in which prosthetic continuance is practical, circumstances likely requiring prosthetic discontinuance, and the consideration of additional medical or surgical interventions. Continued prosthetic use is a viable option to manage minor or early-stage ulcerated residual limbs in compliant patients lacking multiple comorbidities. Prosthetic discontinuance is also a viable method of residual limb ulcer healing and may be favored in the presence of severe acute ulcerations, chronic heavy smoking, intractable pain, rapid volume and weight change, history of chronic ulceration, systemic infections, or advanced dysvascular etiology. Surgery or other interventions may also be necessary in such cases to achieve restored prosthetic ambulation. A short bout of prosthetic discontinuance with a staged re-introduction plan is another viable option that may be warranted in patients with ulceration due to poor RL volume management. High-quality prospective research with larger samples is needed to determine the most appropriate course of treatment when a person with LEA develops an RL ulcer that is associated with prosthetic use.
PubMed: 28066521
DOI: 10.21300/18.2-3.2016.115