-
Neuromodulation : Journal of the... Jun 2023There is tentative evidence to support the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in fibromyalgia (FM), with large variability in the effect... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The Analgesic Effect of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression of Potential Influencers of Clinical Effect.
BACKGROUND
There is tentative evidence to support the analgesic effect of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in fibromyalgia (FM), with large variability in the effect size (ES) encountered in different clinical trials. Understanding the source of the variability and exploring how it relates to the clinical results could characterize effective neuromodulation protocols and ultimately guide care in FM pain. The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect of tDCS in FM pain as compared with sham tDCS. The secondary objective was to explore the relationship of methodology, population, and intervention factors and the analgesic effect of tDCS in FM.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
For the primary objective, a systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating tDCS as an intervention for FM pain were searched in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web Of Science. Studies were excluded if they used cross-over designs or if they did not use tDCS as an intervention for pain or did not measure clinical pain. Analysis for the main outcome was performed using a random-effects model. Risk of bias and evidence certainty were assessed for all studies using Cochrane Risk of Bias and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tools. For the secondary objective, a meta-regression was conducted to explore methodology, population, and intervention factors potentially related to the ES.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs were included. Six studies presented a high risk of bias. Significant reduction in pain scores were found for FM (standardized mean difference = 1.22, 95% CI = 0.80-1.65, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis considering tDCS as a neural target revealed no differences between common neural sites. Meta-regression revealed that the duration of the tDCS protocol in weeks was the only factor associated with the ES, in which protocols that lasted four weeks or longer reported larger ES than shorter protocols.
CONCLUSIONS
Results suggest an analgesic effect of tDCS in FM. tDCS protocols that last four weeks or more may be associated with larger ESs. Definite conclusions are inadequate given the large heterogeneity and limited quality of evidence of the included studies.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Fibromyalgia; Pain; Pain Management; Analgesics
PubMed: 36435660
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2022.10.044 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Published audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Published audits have demonstrated that corneal abrasions are a common presenting eye complaint. Eye patches are often recommended for treating corneal abrasions despite the lack of evidence for their use. This systematic review was conducted to determine the effects of the eye patch when used to treat corneal abrasions.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to assess the effects of patching for corneal abrasion on healing and pain relief.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2016, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2016), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenGrey) (January 1995 to May 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 9 May 2016. We also searched the reference lists of included studies, unpublished 'grey' literature and conference proceedings and contacted pharmaceutical companies for details of unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared patching the eye with no patching to treat simple corneal abrasions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Investigators were contacted for further information regarding the quality of trials. The primary outcome was healing at 24, 48 and 72 hours while secondary outcomes included measures of pain, quality of life and adverse effects. We graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 12 trials which randomised a total of 1080 participants in the review. Four trials were conducted in the United Kingdom, another four in the United States of America, two in Canada, one in Brazil and one in Switzerland. Seven trials were at high risk of bias in one or more domains and one trial was judged to be low risk of bias in all domains. The rest were a combination of low risk or unclear.People receiving a patch may be less likely to have a healed corneal abrasion after 24 hours compared to those not receiving a patch (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.00, 7 trials, 531 participants, low certainty evidence). Similar numbers of people in the patch and no-patch groups were healed by 48 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.02, 6 trials, 497 participants, moderate certainty evidence) and 72 hours (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.05, 4 trials, 430 participants, moderate certainty evidence). Participants receiving a patch took slightly longer to heal but the difference was small and probably unimportant (mean difference (MD) 0.14 days longer, 95% CI 0 to 0.27 days longer, 6 trials, 642 participants, moderate certainty evidence).Ten trials reported pain scores. Most studies reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). It was not possible to pool the data because it was skewed. In general, similar pain ratings were seen between patch and no-patch groups. Data from two trials reporting presence or absence of pain at 24 hours was inconclusive. There was a higher risk of reported pain in the patch group but wide confidence intervals compatible with higher or lower risk of pain (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.65, 2 trials, 193 participants, low certainty evidence). Five trials compared analgesic use between the patch and no-patch groups. Data from three of these trials could be combined and suggested similar analgesic use in the patch and no-patch groups but with some uncertainty (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.32, 256 participants, low certainty evidence). Frequently reported symptoms included photophobia, lacrimation, foreign body sensation and blurred vision but there was little evidence to suggest any difference in these symptoms in people with or without a patch.Activities of daily living (ADL) were assessed in one study involving children. There was little difference in ADL with the exception of walking which was reported to be more difficult with a patch on: VAS 1.7 cm (SD 2.1) versus 0.3 cm (SD 0.7).Complication rates were low across studies and there is uncertainty about the relative effects of patching or not patching with respect to these (RR 3.24, 95% CI 0.87 to 12.05, 8 trials, 660 participants, low certainty evidence). Three trials reporting rates of compliance to treatment found that 22% of participants did not have their eye patches during follow-up. No-patch groups generally received more adjuvant treatment with antibiotics or cycloplegics, or both, than the patch group. There were limited data on the effect of patching on abrasions greater than 10mm(2) in size.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Trials included in this review suggest that treating simple corneal abrasions with a patch may not improve healing or reduce pain. It must be noted that, in these trials, participants who did not receive a patch were more likely to receive additional treatment, for example with antibiotics. Overall we judged the certainty of evidence to be moderate to low. Further research should focus on designing and implementing better quality trials and examining the effectiveness of patching for large abrasions.
Topics: Analgesics; Corneal Injuries; Eye Foreign Bodies; Humans; Occlusive Dressings; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Wound Healing
PubMed: 27457359
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004764.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neonates might be exposed to numerous painful procedures due to diagnostic reasons, therapeutic interventions, or surgical procedures. Options for pain management include opioids, non-pharmacological interventions, and other drugs. Morphine, fentanyl, and remifentanil are the opioids most often used in neonates. However, negative impact of opioids on the structure and function of the developing brain has been reported.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of opioids in term or preterm neonates exposed to procedural pain, compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics or sedatives, other opioids, or the same opioid administered by a different route.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials conducted in preterm and term infants of a postmenstrual age (PMA) up to 46 weeks and 0 days exposed to procedural pain where opioids were compared to 1) placebo or no drug; 2) non-pharmacological intervention; 3) other analgesics or sedatives; 4) other opioids; or 5) the same opioid administered by a different route.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were pain assessed with validated methods and any harms. We used a fixed-effect model with risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, and their confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 independent studies (enrolling 823 newborn infants): seven studies compared opioids to no treatment or placebo (the main comparison in this review), two studies to oral sweet solution or non-pharmacological intervention, and five studies (of which two were part of the same study) to other analgesics and sedatives. All studies were performed in a hospital setting. Opioids compared to placebo or no drug Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP)/PIPP-Revised (PIPP-R) scale during the procedure (MD -2.58, 95% CI -3.12 to -2.03; 199 participants, 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS) during the procedure (MD -1.97, 95% CI -2.46 to -1.48; 102 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence); and may result in little to no difference in pain score assessed with the Douleur Aiguë du Nouveau-né (DAN) scale one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.20, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.81; 42 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R scale up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD 0.14, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.45; 123 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) or one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.42 to 0.75; 54 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia (RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.69; 172 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea compared to placebo (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 9.16; 199 participants, 3 studies; low-certainty evidence): with one study reporting a concerning increase in severe apnea (RR 7.44, 95% CI 0.42 to 132.95; 31 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of hypotension (RR not estimable, risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06; 88 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Opioids compared to non-pharmacological intervention The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the Crying Requires oxygen Increased vital signs Expression Sleep (CRIES) scale during the procedure when compared to facilitated tucking (MD -4.62, 95% CI -6.38 to -2.86; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence) or sensorial stimulation (MD 0.32, 95% CI -1.13 to 1.77; 100 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. Opioids compared to other analgesics or sedatives The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain score assessed with the PIPP/PIPP-R during the procedure (MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.01; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence); up to 30 minutes after the procedure (MD -1.10, 95% CI -2.82 to 0.62; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence); and one to two hours after the procedure (MD -0.17, 95% CI -2.22 to 1.88; 12 participants, 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported any harms. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of apnea during (RR 3.27, 95% CI 0.85 to 12.58; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and after the procedure (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.11 to 64.96; 124 participants, 2 studies; very low-certainty evidence) and on hypotension (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.59; 204 participants, 3 studies; very low-certainty evidence). The other main outcomes were not reported. We identified no studies comparing different opioids (e.g. morphine versus fentanyl) or different routes for administration of the same opioid (e.g. morphine enterally versus morphine intravenously).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to placebo, opioids probably reduce pain score assessed with PIPP/PIPP-R scale during the procedure; may reduce NIPS during the procedure; and may result in little to no difference in DAN one to two hours after the procedure. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on pain assessed with other pain scores or at different time points. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on episodes of bradycardia, hypotension or severe apnea. Opioids may result in an increase in episodes of apnea. No studies reported parent satisfaction with care provided in the NICU. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on any outcome when compared to non-pharmacological interventions or to other analgesics. We identified no studies comparing opioids to other opioids or comparing different routes of administration of the same opioid.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Apnea; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Hypotension; Morphine; Pain; Pain, Procedural
PubMed: 37350685
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015056.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2015Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid drugs, including buprenorphine, are commonly used to treat neuropathic pain, and are considered effective by some professionals. Most reviews have examined all opioids together. This review sought evidence specifically for buprenorphine, at any dose, and by any route of administration. Other opioids are considered in separate reviews.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy of buprenorphine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 11 June 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing any oral dose or formulation of buprenorphine with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Searches identified 10 published studies, and one study with results in ClinicalTrials.gov. None of these 11 studies satisfied our inclusion criteria, and so we included no studies in the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that buprenorphine has any efficacy in any neuropathic pain condition.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Humans; Neuralgia
PubMed: 26421677
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011603.pub2 -
BMC Anesthesiology Nov 2015Increase in the diagnosis of prostate cancer has increased the incidence of radical prostatectomy. However, the literature assessing pain therapy for this procedure has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Increase in the diagnosis of prostate cancer has increased the incidence of radical prostatectomy. However, the literature assessing pain therapy for this procedure has not been systematically evaluated. Thus, optimal pain therapy for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy remains controversial.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies assessing the effects of analgesic and anesthetic interventions on pain after radical prostatectomy. All searches were conducted in October 2012 and updated in June 2015.
RESULTS
Most treatments studied improved pain relief and/or reduced opioid requirements. However, there were significant differences in the study designs and the variables evaluated, precluding quantitative analysis and consensus recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review reveals that there is a lack of evidence to develop an optimal pain management protocol in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Most studies assessed unimodal analgesic approaches rather than a multimodal technique. There is a need for more procedure-specific studies comparing pain and analgesic requirements for open and minimally invasive surgical procedures. Finally, while we wait for appropriate procedure specific evidence from publication of adequate studies assessing optimal pain management after radical prostatectomy, we propose a basic analgesic guideline.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics; Humans; Male; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms
PubMed: 26530113
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-015-0137-2 -
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Dec 2022Sciatica results from primary or secondary damage to the sciatic nerve in the lumbar or gluteal region. The first option for sciatica is analgesics, but their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sciatica results from primary or secondary damage to the sciatic nerve in the lumbar or gluteal region. The first option for sciatica is analgesics, but their therapeutic effect and safety in long-term use are questionable. On the other hand, acupuncture has recently been recognized as a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to conventional medicine, and studies on its effectiveness and safety have been actively conducted.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare acupuncture with analgesics in terms of effect, safety, and durability in the treatment of sciatica METHODS: This review was performed in accordance with Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2. Four databases were searched for this review: Wangfang, the Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal (KTKP), PubMed, and EBSCOhost. The primary outcome measures in the review were total effective rate (TER), visual analog scale (VAS) score and pain threshold, and the secondary ones were adverse effects (AEs) and relapse rates. Risk ratio (RR) for TER and mean difference (MD) for VAS score and pain threshold were used as statistics for the meta-analysis of effectiveness, along with associated 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. AEs and relapse rates were used for the safety and durability of the interventions. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used for the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review.
RESULTS
The synthesized TER of 28 RCTs involving 2707 participants was significantly higher in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (RR [95 % CI] = 1.20 [1.16, 1.24], P < 0.001). The synthesized VAS score of 7 RCTs involving 589 participants was significantly reduced in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (MD [95 % CI] = - 1.78 [- 2.44, - 1.12], P < 0.001). In 5 RCTs involving 311 participants, the synthesized pain threshold was significantly elevated in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (MD [95 % CI] = 0.93 [0.64, 1.22], P < 0.001). Additionally, adverse effects (AEs) and relapse rates of RCTs in the review were lower in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, acupuncture treatment was significantly effective and safe compared to analgesics in sciatica. In the future, studies with a rigorous study design are required to increase the validity of the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatment for sciatica.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Acupuncture Therapy; Analgesics; Complementary Therapies; Sciatica
PubMed: 35985442
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102872 -
Medicine Aug 2023Duloxetine, a serotonin-norepinephrine dual reuptake inhibitor, may improve analgesia after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, there is still no consensus on its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Duloxetine, a serotonin-norepinephrine dual reuptake inhibitor, may improve analgesia after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, there is still no consensus on its effectiveness and safety. We conducted the meta-analysis to investigate the analgesic effect and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of patients received total knee or hip arthroplasty.
METHODS
Pubmed, Cochrane Central Registry for Clinical Trials, Embase, OVID, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched using a predetermined search strategy from inception to September 21, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials of duloxetine in treatment of patients after total knee or hip arthroplasty were included. Data collection and extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were performed according to the Cochrane standards.
RESULTS
A total of 8 randomized controlled trials with 739 patients were included in the literature review of postoperative pain and adverse effects. The result of meta-analysis showed statistically significant lower opioid requirement with duloxetine (P < .05) for the different postoperative period. Duloxetine group had significant reductions in visual analog score for the 24-hour (walking: WMD = -0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.69 to -0.26, P = .007; resting: WMD = -1.06; 95%CI = -1.85 to -0.27, P = .008) and 1-week (walking: WMD = -0.96; 95%CI = -1.42 to -0.50, P < .001; resting: WMD = -0.69; 95%CI = -1.22 to -0.16, P = .01); knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score over 3-month (WMD = 2.94; 95%CI = -0.30 to 6.18, P = .008) and complication (odds ratio = 4.74; 95%CI = 0.23 to 96.56, P = .01) postoperative period compared with the control group. However, no difference on numeric rating scale (P > .05) for the different postoperative period; visual analog score (P > .05) for the 6-week or 3-month and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (P > .05) for the 6-week postoperative period. Furthermore, it did not increase the incidence of adverse effects (odds ratio = 0.87; 95%CI = 0.72 to 1.05, P = .15).
CONCLUSION
Duloxetine could decrease the opioids consumption and relieve early postoperative pain without increasing the risk of adverse medication effects in patients undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty. Considering the ongoing opioid epidemic, duloxetine could act as a good supplement in multimodal pain management protocol for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Pain Management; Knee Joint; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Analgesics, Opioid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37653762
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034895 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Nov 2023Proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) are frequently used in the emergency and general practice settings in several clinical presentations linked to acute upper gastro-intestinal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) are frequently used in the emergency and general practice settings in several clinical presentations linked to acute upper gastro-intestinal tract disorders as abdominal or chest pain without recommendations.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this scoping review was to assess pain reduction, diagnostic performance, and safety in the first 24 h-management in primary care or emergency medicine.
METHODS
Search was realized by 2 independent reviewers in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Only original articles or systematic reviews in English were included. Studies about chronic and/or bleeding conditions, therapeutic cocktails and studies without pain evaluation were excluded. Two methodologies were used for bias estimation.
RESULTS
From 4442 titles, 79 full-text articles were assessed, and 9 were included. There is no strong evidence supporting the use of PPI as a first line analgesic or diagnostic test in acute syndromes linked to acute upper gastro-intestinal tract disorder. A small effect in pain reduction was retrieved in patients with low pain scores. A poor additional value in patients with gastric reflux, and a low specificity compared to other diagnostic tests were observed. A short-term PPI administration appears to be safe with low risk of serious allergic reactions, and poor adverse effects (moderate evidence).
CONCLUSION
Although PPIs may contribute to the multimodal analgesia in acute settings, with few and/or minor side effects, no recommendation can be drawn for their use as a primary analgesic. Data regarding the relevance of the PPI test are much less clear, no data regarding care pathways are available.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Acute Disease; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Pain; Analgesics
PubMed: 37742610
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115523 -
Anaesthesia May 2019Surgery is the primary therapeutic intervention for breast cancer and can result in significant postoperative pain. We searched the current literature and performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Surgery is the primary therapeutic intervention for breast cancer and can result in significant postoperative pain. We searched the current literature and performed a meta-analysis in order to compare the analgesic efficacy of the pectoral type-2 (Pecs II) block with systemic analgesia alone and with a thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery. Primary outcome was postoperative opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were pain scores at 0, 3, 6, 9 and 24 h after surgery, intra-operative opioid consumption, time to first analgesic request and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. We identified 13 randomised controlled trials that included 815 patients. The Pecs II block significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption (standardised difference in means: -13.64 mg oral morphine equivalents; 95%CI: -21.22 to -6.05; p < 0.01) and acute postoperative pain at all intervals in the first 24 h after surgery compared with systemic analgesia alone. Compared with the thoracic paravertebral block, the Pecs II block resulted in similar postoperative opioid consumption (standardised difference in means: -8.73 mg oral morphine equivalents; 95%CI: -18.16 to 0.69; p = 0.07) and postoperative pain scores after first measurement. In conclusion, the Pecs II block offers improved analgesic efficacy compared with systemic analgesia alone and comparable analgesic efficacy to a thoracic paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Breast Neoplasms; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Humans; Mastectomy; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Thoracic Nerves
PubMed: 30957884
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14607 -
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and... 2015Symphysis pubis diastasis (SPD) is an infrequent complication of labor that can impair womens' general health through failure of the passive stability of the pelvic... (Review)
Review
Symphysis pubis diastasis (SPD) is an infrequent complication of labor that can impair womens' general health through failure of the passive stability of the pelvic girdle. Although conservative approaches are often used to decrease symptoms and interpubic separation, notably few studies have analyzed the effect of these methods on managing the symptoms of women with SPD. The purpose of this study was to review the available literature on the conservative treatment of SPD during pregnancy and labor. A computer-based search using PubMed, PEDro, and CINAHL was performed up to November 2014. We selected all studies that considered women with SPD during pregnancy or labor and treated them with conservative methods and excluded those that included surgical intervention. Eighteen studies were selected, most of which were case reports. Although the overall results of conservative treatment were unclear because of the type and design of the obtained studies, most of the studies reported bed rest in the lateral decubitus position and a pelvic girdle as basic treatments. Additionally, the few clinical trials reported recommended additional physiotherapy, including strengthening and stabilizing exercises, to reduce SPD symptoms.
Topics: Analgesics; Bed Rest; Braces; Female; Humans; Patient Positioning; Physical Therapy Modalities; Pregnancy; Pubic Symphysis Diastasis
PubMed: 26560443
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.12.0302