-
World Neurosurgery Feb 2019Cervical dystonia is a disabling medical condition that drastically decreases quality of life. Surgical treatment consists of peripheral nerve denervation procedures... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cervical dystonia is a disabling medical condition that drastically decreases quality of life. Surgical treatment consists of peripheral nerve denervation procedures with or without myectomies or deep brain stimulation (DBS). The current objective was to compare the efficacy of peripheral denervation versus DBS in improving the severity of cervical dystonia through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science electronic databases was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Preoperative and postoperative Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) total scores were used to generate standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), which were combined in a random-effects model. Both mean percentage and absolute reduction in TWSTRS scores were calculated. Absolute reduction was used for forest plots.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 870 patients with 180 (21%) undergoing DBS and 690 (79%) undergoing peripheral denervation procedures. The mean follow-up time was 31.5 months (range, 12-38 months). In assessing the efficacy of each intervention, forest plots revealed significant absolute reduction in total postoperative TWSTRS scores for both peripheral denervation (standardized mean difference 1.54; 95% CI 1.42-1.66) and DBS (standardized mean difference 2.07; 95% CI 1.43-2.71). On subgroup analysis, DBS therapy was significantly associated with improvement in postoperative TWSTRS severity (standardized mean difference 2.08; 95% CI 1.66-2.50) and disability (standardized mean difference 2.12; 95% CI 1.57-2.68) but not pain (standardized mean difference 1.18; 95% CI 0.80-1.55).
CONCLUSIONS
Both peripheral denervation and DBS are associated with a significant reduction in absolute TWSTRS total score, with no significant difference in the magnitude of reduction observed between the 2 treatments. Further comparative data are needed to better evaluate the long-term results of both interventions.
Topics: Deep Brain Stimulation; Denervation; Humans; Torticollis
PubMed: 30419402
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.178 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2015Radiofrequency (RF) denervation, an invasive treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP), is used most often for pain suspected to arise from facet joints, sacroiliac... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Radiofrequency (RF) denervation, an invasive treatment for chronic low back pain (CLBP), is used most often for pain suspected to arise from facet joints, sacroiliac (SI) joints or discs. Many (uncontrolled) studies have shown substantial variation in its use between countries and continued uncertainty regarding its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of RF denervation procedures for the treatment of patients with CLBP. The current review is an update of the review conducted in 2003.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, three other databases, two clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies from inception to May 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We updated this search in June 2015, but we have not yet incorporated these results.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs of RF denervation for patients with CLBP who had a positive response to a diagnostic block or discography. We applied no language or date restrictions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected RCTs, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (RoB) and clinical relevance using standardised forms. We performed meta-analyses with clinically homogeneous studies and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
In total, we included 23 RCTs (N = 1309), 13 of which (56%) had low RoB. We included both men and women with a mean age of 50.6 years. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence as very low to moderate. Twelve studies examined suspected facet joint pain, five studies disc pain, two studies SI joint pain, two studies radicular CLBP, one study suspected radiating low back pain and one study CLBP with or without suspected radiation. Overall, moderate evidence suggests that facet joint RF denervation has a greater effect on pain compared with placebo over the short term (mean difference (MD) -1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.28 to -0.67). Low-quality evidence indicates that facet joint RF denervation is more effective than placebo for function over the short term (MD -5.53, 95% CI -8.66 to -2.40) and over the long term (MD -3.70, 95% CI -6.94 to -0.47). Evidence of very low to low quality shows that facet joint RF denervation is more effective for pain than steroid injections over the short (MD -2.23, 95% CI -2.38 to -2.08), intermediate (MD -2.13, 95% CI -3.45 to -0.81), and long term (MD -2.65, 95% CI -3.43 to -1.88). RF denervation used for disc pain produces conflicting results, with no effects for RF denervation compared with placebo over the short and intermediate term, and small effects for RF denervation over the long term for pain relief (MD -1.63, 95% CI -2.58 to -0.68) and improved function (MD -6.75, 95% CI -13.42 to -0.09). Lack of evidence of short-term effectiveness undermines the clinical plausibility of intermediate-term or long-term effectiveness. When RF denervation is used for SI joint pain, low-quality evidence reveals no differences from placebo in effects on pain (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.45 to 1.21) and function (MD -14.06, 95% CI -30.42 to 2.30) over the short term, and one study shows a small effect on both pain and function over the intermediate term. RF denervation is an invasive procedure that can cause a variety of complications. The quality and size of original studies were inadequate to permit assessment of how often complications occur.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The review authors found no high-quality evidence suggesting that RF denervation provides pain relief for patients with CLBP. Similarly, we identified no convincing evidence to show that this treatment improves function. Overall, the current evidence for RF denervation for CLBP is very low to moderate in quality; high-quality evidence is lacking. High-quality RCTs with larger patient samples are needed, as are data on long-term effects.
Topics: Catheter Ablation; Chronic Pain; Denervation; Female; Humans; Low Back Pain; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26495910
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008572.pub2 -
Biomedicines Apr 2023While denervation can occur with aging, peripheral nerve injuries are debilitating and often leads to a loss of function and neuropathic pain. Although injured... (Review)
Review
While denervation can occur with aging, peripheral nerve injuries are debilitating and often leads to a loss of function and neuropathic pain. Although injured peripheral nerves can regenerate and reinnervate their targets, this process is slow and directionless. There is some evidence supporting the use of neuromodulation to enhance the regeneration of peripheral nerves. This systematic review reported on the underlying mechanisms that allow neuromodulation to aid peripheral nerve regeneration and highlighted important in vivo studies that demonstrate its efficacy. Studies were identified from PubMed (inception through September 2022) and the results were synthesized qualitatively. Included studies were required to contain content related to peripheral nerve regeneration and some form of neuromodulation. Studies reporting in vivo highlights were subject to a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The results of 52 studies indicate that neuromodulation enhances natural peripheral nerve regeneration processes, but still requires other interventions (e.g., conduits) to control the direction of reinnervation. Additional human studies are warranted to verify the applicability of animal studies and to determine how neuromodulation can be optimized for the greatest functional restoration.
PubMed: 37189763
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11041145 -
PharmacoEconomics Apr 2022Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a severe neuromuscular disease that is inherited in an autosomal recessive manner with an estimated incidence of 1 in 10,000 live...
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a severe neuromuscular disease that is inherited in an autosomal recessive manner with an estimated incidence of 1 in 10,000 live births. The traditional classification of SMA includes five types (Types 0-4 SMA) based on patient age at disease onset and the highest motor milestone achieved. Spinal muscular atrophy leads to progressive muscle denervation, skeletal muscle atrophy and loss of motor function and ambulation, though phenotypes vary along a disease continuum. Regardless of disease severity, or access to treatment, a multidisciplinary approach to care is required to ease the burden of disease. To date, limited global data exist regarding the cost and resource use associated with SMA management.
OBJECTIVE
We planned to perform a systematic literature review to identify studies on cost and healthcare resource use associated with SMA.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted in 2019 using several electronic databases in addition to supplementary sources and updated in 2021 in order to capture recently published studies. Electronic searches performed in Embase, MEDLINE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews and EconLit via the Ovid platform were supplemented by searches of the grey literature (reference lists, conference proceedings, global Health Technology Assessment body websites and other relevant sources). Study eligibility criteria were based on the population, interventions, comparators and outcomes (PICO) framework. Quality assessment of full-text publications was evaluated with reference to a published checklist. To accommodate heterogeneity across studies including countries, currencies, populations, time units and methods of reporting used, costs were reported in Euros in 2019.
RESULTS
A total of 51 publications, comprising 49 unique studies of patients with SMA that met all eligibility criteria were included in the final selection. The publications comprised data from 14 countries and seven additional studies that reported multi-national data. Because of the heterogeneity between the different types of SMA, data were frequently reported separately for individuals with Type 1 or early-onset SMA and for Types 2, 3, and 4 SMA or later-onset SMA. Generally, direct medical costs and resource use were reported to be highest for patients with Type 1 SMA, decreasing incrementally for patients with Type 2 and Type 3 disease. Where cost categories were similar, direct costs were much lower in Europe than in the USA. Indirect costs were primarily associated with informal care, which was a substantial burden on patients and families in terms of both cost and time. Cost drivers were generally found to be dependent on SMA type.
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term robust studies are required to fully elucidate the economic burden of SMA. Considering that motor function can vary broadly, especially in Type 2 SMA, it would be beneficial to understand how costs and resource use are affected by different degrees of ambulation. Reporting data in terms of achieved motor function could also mitigate the challenges of comparing global data studies of small populations. Global, regional, and/or local data collection platforms and disease registry networks could play an important role in helping to address current data gaps.
Topics: Costs and Cost Analysis; Europe; Humans; Muscular Atrophy, Spinal; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 34761360
DOI: 10.1007/s40273-021-01105-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2005, Issue 4 (and last updated in the Cochrane Database of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2005, Issue 4 (and last updated in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013 issue 8), on local anaesthetic blockade (LASB) of the sympathetic chain to treat people with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy of LASB for the treatment of pain in CRPS and to evaluate the incidence of adverse effects of the procedure.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), LILACS (Birme), conference abstracts of the World Congresses of the International Association for the Study of Pain, and various clinical trial registers up to September 2015. We also searched bibliographies from retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of sympathetic blockade with local anaesthetics in children or adults with CRPS compared to placebo, no treatment, or alternative treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The outcomes of interest were reduction in pain intensity, the proportion who achieved moderate or substantial pain relief, the duration of pain relief, and the presence of adverse effects in each treatment arm. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
We included an additional four studies (N = 154) in this update. For this update, we excluded studies that did not follow up patients for more than 48 hours. As a result, we excluded four studies from the previous review in this update. Overall we included 12 studies (N = 461), all of which we judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to very low, downgraded due to limitations, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness, or a combination of these.Two small studies compared LASB to placebo/sham (N = 32). They did not demonstrate significant short-term benefit for LASB for pain intensity (moderate quality evidence).One small study (N = 36) at high risk of bias compared thoracic sympathetic block with corticosteroid and local anaesthetic versus injection of the same agents into the subcutaneous space, reporting statistically significant and clinically important differences in pain intensity at one-year follow-up but not at short term follow-up (very low quality evidence).Of two studies that investigated LASB as an addition to rehabilitation treatment, the only study that reported pain outcomes demonstrated no additional benefit from LASB (very low quality evidence).Eight small randomised studies compared sympathetic blockade to various other active interventions. Most studies found no difference in pain outcomes between sympathetic block versus other active treatments (low to very low quality evidence).One small study compared ultrasound-guided LASB with non-guided LASB and found no clinically important difference in pain outcomes (very low quality evidence).Six studies reported adverse events, all with minor effects reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update's results are similar to the previous versions of this systematic review, and the main conclusions are unchanged. There remains a scarcity of published evidence and a lack of high quality evidence to support or refute the use of local anaesthetic sympathetic blockade for CRPS. From the existing evidence, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions regarding the efficacy or safety of this intervention, but the limited data available do not suggest that LASB is effective for reducing pain in CRPS.
Topics: Adult; Anesthetics, Local; Autonomic Nerve Block; Causalgia; Child; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
PubMed: 27467116
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004598.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016The majority of people with hip fracture are treated surgically, requiring anaesthesia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The majority of people with hip fracture are treated surgically, requiring anaesthesia.
OBJECTIVES
The main focus of this review is the comparison of regional versus general anaesthesia for hip (proximal femoral) fracture repair in adults. We did not consider supplementary regional blocks in this review as they have been studied in another review.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 2003 to March 2014) and EMBASE (Ovid SP, 2003 to March 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials comparing different methods of anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. The primary focus of this review was the comparison of regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia. The use of nerve blocks preoperatively or in conjunction with general anaesthesia is evaluated in another review. The main outcomes were mortality, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute confusional state, deep vein thrombosis and return of patient to their own home.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We analysed data with fixed-effect (I(2) < 25%) or random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence according to the criteria developed by the GRADE working group.
MAIN RESULTS
In total, we included 31 studies (with 3231 participants) in our review. Of those 31 studies, 28 (2976 participants) provided data for the meta-analyses. For the 28 studies, 24 were used for the comparison of neuraxial block versus general anaesthesia. Based on 11 studies that included 2152 participants, we did not find a difference between the two anaesthetic techniques for mortality at one month: risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.06; I(2) = 24% (fixed-effect model). Based on six studies that included 761 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of pneumonia: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.31; I(2) = 0%. Based on four studies that included 559 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of myocardial infarction: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.22 to 3.65; I(2) = 0%. Based on six studies that included 729 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of cerebrovascular accident: RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.46 to 4.83; I(2) = 0%. Based on six studies that included 624 participants, we did not find a difference in the risk of acute confusional state: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.40; I(2) = 49%. Based on laboratory tests, the risk of deep vein thrombosis was decreased when no specific precautions or just early mobilization was used: RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.78; I(2) = 0%; (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 3, 95% CI 2 to 7, based on a basal risk of 76%) but not when low molecular weight heparin was administered: RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.84; I(2) for heterogeneity between the two subgroups = 58%. For neuraxial blocks compared to general anaesthesia, we rated the quality of evidence as very low for mortality (at 0 to 30 days), pneumonia, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, acute confusional state, decreased rate of deep venous thrombosis in the absence of potent thromboprophylaxis, and return of patient to their own home. The number of studies comparing other anaesthetic techniques was limited.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We did not find a difference between the two techniques, except for deep venous thrombosis in the absence of potent thromboprophylaxis. The studies included a wide variety of clinical practices. The number of participants included in the review is insufficient to eliminate a difference between the two techniques in the majority of outcomes studied. Therefore, large randomized trials reflecting actual clinical practice are required before drawing final conclusions.
Topics: Aged; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthesia, General; Female; Hip Fractures; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Nerve Block; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26899415
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000521.pub3 -
Heliyon Jan 2022A systematic analysis of clinical trials was performed in order to assess the effectiveness and risks of bilateral renal denervation (RDN) in patients with chronic heart...
INTRODUCTION
A systematic analysis of clinical trials was performed in order to assess the effectiveness and risks of bilateral renal denervation (RDN) in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted of all clinical trials exploring the effectiveness of RDN in patients with HF who had reduced (<50%) EF. Primary outcomes were NYHA class, 6-min walk test, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and other cardiac parameters including left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left atrium diameter (LAD). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and creatinine.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included in this analysis. From baseline to 6 months after RDN, the pooled mean NYHA class was decreased (mean difference [MD], -0.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.6 to -0.2; P = 0.018), the mean 6-min walk test was increased (MD, 79.5 m; 95% CI, 26.9 to 132.1; P = 0.003), and the average NT-proBNP level was decreased (MD, -520.6 pg/mL; 95% CI, -1128.4 to 87.2; P = 0.093). Bilateral RDN increased the LVEF (MD, 5.7%; 95% CI, 1.6 to 9.6; P = 0.004), decreased the LVESD (MD, -0.4 cm; 95% CI, -0.5 to -0.2; P < 0.001), decreased the LVEDD (MD, -0.5 cm; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.3; P < 0.001), and decreased the LAD (MD, -0.4 cm; 95% CI, -0.8 to 0; P = 0.045). In addition, RDN significantly decreased systolic BP (MD, -9.4 mmHg; 95% CI, -16.3 to -2.4; P = 0.008) and diastolic BP (MD, -4.9 mmHg; 95% CI, -9.5 to -0.4; P = 0.033), and decreased HR (MD, -4.5 bpm; 95% CI, -8.2to -0.9; P = 0.015). RDN did not significantly change GFR (MD, 7.9; 95% CI, -5.0 to 20.8; P = 0.230), or serum creatinine levels (MD, -7.2; 95% CI, -23.7 to 9.4; P = 0.397).
CONCLUSION
Bilateral RDN appears safe and well-tolerated in patients with HF. RDN improved the signs and symptoms of HF and slightly decreased systolic and diastolic BP without affecting renal function in the clinical trials performed to date.
PubMed: 35141435
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e08847 -
Pain Physician Sep 2023Extensive research into potential sources of thoracic pain with or without referred pain into the chest wall has demonstrated that thoracic facet joints can be a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Extensive research into potential sources of thoracic pain with or without referred pain into the chest wall has demonstrated that thoracic facet joints can be a potential source of pain confirmed by precise, diagnostic blocks.The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic thoracic facet joint intervention.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of medial branch blocks and the radiofrequency neurotomy in managing thoracic pain utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was performed. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases of RCTs and observational studies of medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic thoracic pain were identified from 1996 to December 2022 with inclusion of manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles and multiple databases. Methodologic quality and risk of bias assessment was also conducted. Evidence was synthesized utilizing principles of quality assessment and best evidence synthesis, with conventional and single meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure of success was 3 months of pain reduction for medial branch blocks and 6 months for radiofrequency thermoneurolysis for a single treatment. Short-term success was defined as up to 6 months and long-term was more than 6 months.
RESULTS
This literature search yielded 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 3 were RCTs and 8 were observational studies. Of the 3 RCTs, 2 of them assessed medial branch blocks and one trial assessed radiofrequency for thoracic pain. The evidence for managing thoracic pain with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 2 RCTs and 3 observational studies for medial branch blocks was Level II. For radiofrequency neurotomy, with the inclusion of one RCT of 20 patients in the treatment group and 5 observational studies, the evidence was Level III in managing thoracic pain.
LIMITATIONS
There was a paucity of literature with RCTs and real-world pragmatic controlled trials. Even observational studies had small sample sizes providing inadequate clinically applicable results. In addition, there was heterogeneity of the available studies in terms of their inclusion and exclusion criteria, defining their endpoints and the effectiveness of the procedures.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis show Level II evidence of medial branch blocks and Level III evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic thoracic pain.
KEY WORDS
Chronic spinal pain, thoracic facet or zygapophysial joint pain, facet joint nerve blocks, medial branch blocks, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, diagnostic accuracy, radiofrequency neurotomy.
Topics: Humans; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Chronic Pain; Denervation; Anesthesia, Local; Chest Pain; Zygapophyseal Joint; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37774177
DOI: No ID Found -
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Apr 2023Proximal femoral fractures are characterized as one of the most common and most painful injuries sustained by patients of all ages and are associated with high rates of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Proximal femoral fractures are characterized as one of the most common and most painful injuries sustained by patients of all ages and are associated with high rates of oligoanalgesia in the prehospital setting. Current treatments include oral and parenteral opiates and sedative agents, however regional anesthesia techniques for pain relief may provide superior analgesia with lower risk of side effects during patient transportation. The fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is an inexpensive treatment which is performed with minimal additional equipment, ultimately making it suitable in prehospital settings.
PROBLEM
In adult patients sustaining proximal femoral fractures in the prehospital setting, what is the effect of the FICB on non-verbal pain scores (NVPS), patient satisfaction, success rate, and adverse events compared to traditional analgesic techniques?
METHODS
A librarian-assisted literature search was conducted of the Cochrane Database, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science indexes. Additionally, reference lists for potential review articles from the , the , the , , and the were reviewed. Databases and journals were searched during the period from January 1, 1980 through July 1, 2022. Each study was scrutinized for quality and validity and was assigned a level of evidence as per Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines.
RESULTS
Five studies involving 340 patients were included (ie, two randomized control trials [RCTs], two observational studies, and one prospective observational study). Pain scores decreased after prehospital FICB across all included studies by a mean of 6.65 points (5.25 - 7.5) on the NVPS. Out of the total 257 FICBs conducted, there was a success rate of 230 (89.3%). Of these, only two serious adverse events were recorded, both of which related to local analgesia toxicity. Neither resulted in long-term sequelae and only one required treatment.
CONCLUSION
Use of FICBs results in a significant decrease in NVPS in the prehospital setting, and they are ultimately suitable as regional analgesic techniques for proximal femur fractures. It carries a low risk of adverse events and may be performed by health care practitioners of various backgrounds with suitable training. The results suggest that FICBs are more effective for pain management than parenteral or oral opiates and sedative agents alone and can be used as an appropriate adjunct to pain management.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nerve Block; Femoral Fractures; Proximal Femoral Fractures; Pain; Emergency Medical Services; Fascia; Opiate Alkaloids; Hip Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36912109
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X23000298 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a...
BACKGROUND
As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias. The included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events. The study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL. We are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). The included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta. The quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals). There is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Job Satisfaction; Nerve Block; Pain, Procedural; Patient Satisfaction; Placenta, Retained; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32529658
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013013.pub2