-
Anaesthesia Mar 2022Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular due to faster recovery times and reduced postoperative pain compared with thoracotomy. However,...
Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular due to faster recovery times and reduced postoperative pain compared with thoracotomy. However, analgesic regimens for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery vary significantly. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. A systematic review was undertaken using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language, between January 2010 and January 2021 assessing the effect of analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. We retrieved 1070 studies of which 69 randomised controlled trials and two reviews met inclusion criteria. We recommend the administration of basic analgesia including paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or cyclo-oxygenase-2-specific inhibitors pre-operatively or intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra-operative intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion may be used, specifically when basic analgesia and regional analgesic techniques could not be given. In addition, a paravertebral block or erector spinae plane block is recommended as a first-choice option. A serratus anterior plane block could also be administered as a second-choice option. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted
PubMed: 34739134
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15609 -
Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain... Aug 2021The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is... (Review)
Review
The aim of this review was to update the recommendations for optimal pain management after open and laparoscopic or robotic prostatectomy. Optimal pain management is known to influence postoperative recovery, but patients undergoing open radical prostatectomy typically experience moderate dynamic pain in the immediate postoperative day. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery may be associated with decreased pain levels as opposed to open surgery. We performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) with PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English language, from January 2015 until March 2020, assessing postoperative pain, using analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions, were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases. Of the 1797 studies identified, 35 RCTs and 3 meta-analyses met our inclusion criteria. NSAIDs and COX-2 selective inhibitors proved to lower postoperative pain scores. Continuous intravenous lidocaine reduced postoperative pain scores during open surgery. Local wound infiltration showed positive results in open surgery. Bilateral transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block was performed at the end of surgery and lowered pain scores in robot-assisted procedures, but results were conflicting for open procedures. Basic analgesia for prostatic surgery should include paracetamol and NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors. TAP block should be recommended as the first-choice regional analgesic technique for laparoscopic/robotic radical prostatectomy. Intravenous lidocaine should be considered for open surgeries.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 34197976
DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2021.100922 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Endometriosis is associated with pain and infertility. Surgical interventions aim to remove visible areas of endometriosis and restore the anatomy.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of pain and infertility associated with endometriosis.
SEARCH METHODS
This review has drawn on the search strategy developed by the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group including searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, reference lists for relevant trials, and trial registries from inception to April 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic surgery with any other laparoscopic or robotic intervention, holistic or medical treatment, or diagnostic laparoscopy only.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed selection of studies, assessment of trial quality and extraction of relevant data with disagreements resolved by a third review author. We collected data for the core outcome set for endometriosis. Primary outcomes included overall pain and live birth. We evaluated the quality of evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs. The studies randomised 1563 women with endometriosis. Four RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic excision with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with laparoscopic ablation or excision and uterine suspension. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection with diagnostic laparoscopy only. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation with diagnostic laparoscopy and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Two RCTs compared laparoscopic ablation with laparoscopic excision. One RCT compared laparoscopic ablation or excision with helium thermal coagulator with laparoscopic ablation or excision with electrodiathermy. One RCT compared conservative laparoscopic surgery with laparoscopic colorectal resection of deep endometriosis infiltrating the rectum. Common limitations in the primary studies included lack of clearly described blinding, failure to fully describe methods of randomisation and allocation concealment, and poor reporting of outcome data. Laparoscopic treatment versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain scores compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only at six months (mean difference (MD) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31 to 1.49; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence) and at 12 months (MD 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.19; 1 RCT, 16 participants; very low quality evidence), where a positive value means pain relief (the higher the score, the more pain relief) and a negative value reflects pain increase (the lower the score, the worse the increase in pain). No studies looked at live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment on quality of life compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only: EuroQol-5D index summary at six months (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.18; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence), 12-item Short Form (SF-12) mental health component (MD 2.30, 95% CI -4.50 to 9.10; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence) and SF-12 physical health component (MD 2.70, 95% CI -2.90 to 8.30; 1 RCT, 39 participants; low quality evidence). Laparoscopic treatment probably improves viable intrauterine pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (odds ratio (OR) 1.89, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.86; 3 RCTs, 528 participants; I = 0%; moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only on ectopic pregnancy (MD 1.18, 95% CI 0.10 to 13.48; 1 RCT, 100 participants; low quality evidence) and miscarriage (MD 0.94, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.54; 2 RCTs, 112 participants; low quality evidence). There was limited reporting of adverse events. No conversions to laparotomy were reported in both groups (1 RCT, 341 participants). Laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection versus diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic ablation and uterine nerve transection on adverse events (more specifically vascular injury) compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32; 1 RCT, 141 participants; low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage. Laparoscopic ablation versus laparoscopic excision There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference in overall pain, measured at 12 months, for laparoscopic ablation compared with laparoscopic excision (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 103 participants; very low quality evidence). No studies looked at overall pain scores at six months, live birth, quality of life, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events. Helium thermal coagulator versus electrodiathermy We are uncertain whether helium thermal coagulator compared to electrodiathermy improves quality of life using the 30-item Endometriosis Health Profile (EHP-30) at nine months, when considering the components: pain (MD 6.68, 95% CI -3.07 to 16.43; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), control and powerlessness (MD 4.79, 95% CI -6.92 to 16.50; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence), emotional well-being (MD 6.17, 95% CI -3.95 to 16.29; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence) and social support (MD 5.62, 95% CI -6.21 to 17.45; 1 RCT, 119 participants; very low quality evidence). Adverse events were not estimable. No studies looked at overall pain scores (at six and 12 months), live birth, viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound, ectopic pregnancy and miscarriage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only, it is uncertain whether laparoscopic surgery reduces overall pain associated with minimal to severe endometriosis. No data were reported on live birth. There is moderate quality evidence that laparoscopic surgery increases viable intrauterine pregnancy rates confirmed by ultrasound compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. No studies were found that looked at live birth for any of the comparisons. Further research is needed considering the management of different subtypes of endometriosis and comparing laparoscopic interventions with lifestyle and medical interventions. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding safety.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal; Denervation; Electrocoagulation; Endometriosis; Female; Goserelin; Helium; Humans; Infertility, Female; Laparoscopy; Pelvic Pain; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterus
PubMed: 33095458
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011031.pub3 -
International Journal of Dermatology Nov 2022Primary palmar hyperhidrosis (PH) can have a significantly negative impact on an individual's quality of life. Currently, there appears to be no review of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Primary palmar hyperhidrosis (PH) can have a significantly negative impact on an individual's quality of life. Currently, there appears to be no review of the effectiveness of the different interventions for its management.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed using PRISMA guidelines, the Cochrane Database, and MEDLINE (OVID) to identify relevant studies published from 1997 to 2017.
RESULTS
Of the 574 references yielded, six met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed for this review. Two studies evaluated the use of oral oxybutynin as an anticholinergic treatment for PH; this demonstrated high efficacy with over 80% of patients reporting symptom improvement; dry mouth was the most common adverse effect reported. One study looking at the use of iontophoresis reported 81% improvement in patients' symptoms. One randomized, double-blind, trial looked at the use of botulinum toxin A injections for the treatment of PH; it reported 90% of patients experienced an improvement in PH. The remaining two studies evaluated the use of endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy (ETS) in PH, and both reported over 95% patient symptom improvement.
CONCLUSION
There are few good quality studies evaluating the treatment of primary PH. Based on the little available evidence, the interventions reviewed significantly improve the symptoms of PH. Anticholinergic medications are considered effective and safe. Both iontophoresis and botulinum toxin provided patients with symptom relief when administered regularly. ETS was reported as successful in the reduction of PH, however, it carries significant adverse effects such as compensatory sweating and the potential of complications associated with surgery.
Topics: Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Cholinergic Antagonists; Humans; Hyperhidrosis; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sympathectomy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34653261
DOI: 10.1111/ijd.15937 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Jun 2022Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This review aimed to determine whether ESPB could improve analgesic efficacy in lumbar spine surgery.
DESIGN
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
SETTING
Perioperative setting.
PATIENTS
Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
We searched the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science etc. for published eligible controlled trials comparing ESPB with control (no block/sham block) in lumbar spine surgery.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies comprising 665 participants were included. Compared to the control, ESPB reduced the opioid (morphine milligram equivalents) consumption significantly 24 h after surgery [mean difference (MD) = -14.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), -21.03 to -8.07; P < 0.0001] and lowered the pain scores at various time points (at rest or during movement) for 48 h after surgery. ESPB increased the patient satisfaction score (0-10) (MD = 2.38; 95% CI, 2.10 to 2.66; P < 0.0001), decreased the postoperative nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR) = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.67; P = 0.001], and minimized the length of hospital stay (MD = -1.24 days; 95% CI, -2.31 to -0.18; P = 0.02). Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed additional reduction in opioid consumption by the block approach at the vertebral level of incision/operation than that at the fixed thoracic/lumbar level. However, considerable heterogeneity and low-grade quality of evidence were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
ESPB provided effective postoperative analgesia resulting in better patient satisfaction and recovery with decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lumbar surgery compared to the control. However, the low-grade quality of evidence compromised the findings, therefore further high-quality of evidence is required. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021233362.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Paraspinal Muscles; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35030493
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110647 -
Journal of Applied Physiology... Jul 2021Muscle atrophy and decline in muscle strength appear very rapidly with prolonged disuse or mechanical unloading after acute hospitalization or experimental bed rest. The...
Muscle atrophy and decline in muscle strength appear very rapidly with prolonged disuse or mechanical unloading after acute hospitalization or experimental bed rest. The current study analyzed data from short-, medium-, and long-term bed rest (5-120 days) in a pooled sample of 318 healthy adults and modeled the mathematical relationship between muscle strength decline and atrophy. The results show a logarithmic disuse-induced loss of strength and muscle atrophy of the weight-bearing knee extensor muscles. The greatest rate of muscle strength decline and atrophy occurred in the earliest stages of bed rest, plateauing later, and likely contributed to the rapid neuromuscular loss of function in the early period. In addition, during the first 2 wk of bed rest, muscle strength decline is much faster than muscle atrophy: on , the ratio of muscle atrophy to strength decline as a function of bed rest duration is 4.2, falls to 2.4 on , and stabilizes to a value of 1.9 after ∼35 days of bed rest. Positive regression revealed that ∼79% of the muscle strength loss may be explained by muscle atrophy, while the remaining is most likely due to alterations in single fiber mechanical properties, excitation-contraction coupling, fiber architecture, tendon stiffness, muscle denervation, neuromuscular junction damage, and supraspinal changes. Future studies should focus on neural factors as well as muscular factors independent of atrophy (single fiber excitability and mechanical properties, architectural factors) and on the role of extracellular matrix changes. Bed rest results in nonuniform loss of isometric muscle strength and atrophy over time, where the magnitude of change was greater for muscle strength than for atrophy. Future research should focus on the loss of muscle function and the underlying mechanisms, which will aid in the development of countermeasures to mitigate or prevent the decline in neuromuscular efficiency. Our study contributes to the characterization of muscle loss and weakness processes reflected by a logarithmic decline in muscle strength induced by chronic bed rest. Acute short-term hospitalization (≤5 days) associated with periods of disuse/immobilization/prolonged time in the supine position in the hospital bed is sufficient to significantly decrease muscle mass and size and induce functional changes related to weakness in maximal muscle strength. By bringing together integrated evaluation of muscle structure and function, this work identifies that 79% of the loss in muscle strength can be explained by muscle atrophy, leaving 21% of the functional loss unexplained. The outcomes of this study should be considered in the development of daily countermeasures for preserving neuromuscular integrity as well as preconditioning interventions to be implemented before clinical bed rest or chronic gravitational unloading (e.g., spaceflights).
Topics: Adult; Bed Rest; Humans; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal; Muscular Atrophy; Neuromuscular Junction
PubMed: 33703945
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00363.2020 -
JAMA Network Open Nov 2021The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients undergoing surgery is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the analgesic benefits and safety of ICNB among adults undergoing thoracic surgery.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases using terms for ICNB and thoracic surgery (including thoracic surgery, thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, nerve block, intercostal nerves). The search and results were not limited by date, with the last search conducted on July 24, 2020.
STUDY SELECTION
Selected studies were experimental or observational and included adult patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery in which ICNB was administered with local anesthesia via single injection, continuous infusion, or a combination of both techniques in at least 1 group of patients. For comparison with ICNB, studies that examined systemic analgesia and different forms of regional analgesia (such as thoracic epidural analgesia [TEA], paravertebral block [PVB], and other techniques) were included. These criteria were applied independently by 2 authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A total of 694 records were selected for screening.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data including patient characteristics, type of surgery, intervention analgesia, comparison analgesia, and primary and secondary outcomes were extracted independently by 3 authors. Synthesis was performed using a fixed-effects model.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The coprimary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity (measured as the worst static or dynamic pain using a validated 10-point scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating severe pain) and opioid consumption (measured in morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]) at prespecified intervals (0-6 hours, 7-24 hours, 25-48 hours, 49-72 hours, and >72 hours). Clinically relevant analgesia was defined as a 1-point or greater difference in pain intensity score at any interval. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications and pulmonary function.
RESULTS
Of 694 records screened, 608 were excluded based on prespecified exclusion criteria. The remaining 86 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 20 of those articles were excluded. All of the 66 remaining studies (5184 patients; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [10.2] years; approximately 59% men and 41% women) were included in the qualitative analysis, and 59 studies (3325 patients) that provided data for at least 1 outcome were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Experimental studies had a high risk of bias in multiple domains, including allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. Marked differences (eg, crossover studies, timing of the intervention [intraoperative vs postoperative], blinding, and type of control group) were observed in the design and implementation of studies. The use of ICNB vs systemic analgesia was associated with lower static pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.40 points [95% CI, -1.46 to -1.33 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.27 points [95% CI, -1.40 to -1.13 points]) and lower dynamic pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.66 points [95% CI, -1.90 to -1.41 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.43 points [95% CI, -1.70 to -1.17 points]). Intercostal nerve block analgesia was noninferior to TEA (mean score difference in worst dynamic panic at 7-24 hours after surgery: 0.79 points; 95% CI, 0.28-1.29 points) and marginally inferior to PVB (mean score difference in worst dynamic pain at 7-24 hours after surgery: 1.29 points; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.41 points). The largest opioid-sparing effect of ICNB vs systemic analgesia occurred at 48 hours after surgery (mean difference, -10.97 MMEs; 95% CI, -12.92 to -9.02 MMEs). The use of ICNB was associated with higher MME values compared with TEA (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 48.31 MMEs; 95% CI, 36.11-60.52 MMEs) and PVB (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 3.87 MMEs; 95% CI, 2.59-5.15 MMEs).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this study, single-injection ICNB was associated with a reduction in pain during the first 24 hours after thoracic surgery and was clinically noninferior to TEA or PVB. Intercostal nerve block analgesia had opioid-sparing effects; however, TEA and PVB were associated with larger decreases in postoperative MMEs, suggesting that ICNB may be most beneficial for cases in which TEA and PVB are not indicated.
Topics: Acute Pain; Analgesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Epidural; Female; Humans; Intercostal Nerves; Male; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Thoracic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 34779845
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33394 -
The Journal of Hand Surgery Aug 2022The first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint is a frequent location of osteoarthritis in the hand. The denervation of the first CMC joint has gained traction as a viable...
PURPOSE
The first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint is a frequent location of osteoarthritis in the hand. The denervation of the first CMC joint has gained traction as a viable treatment for CMC arthritis. This study reviewed literature on CMC denervation for first CMC arthritis.
METHODS
A systematic review of papers and abstracts was conducted. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines were followed. Articles including the results of CMC denervation were included. We compiled data on patient demographics, preoperative testing, intraoperative technique, and postoperative outcomes. Anatomic literature was also reviewed to assess agreement on the innervation of the first CMC joint.
RESULTS
Six anatomic studies and 9 clinical studies were included in this systematic review. Pinch strength, grip strength, and Kapandji scores increased on average in patients. Pain relief was noted on average in patients in 5 studies that reported pain outcomes. In studies that reported postoperative complications, the most frequent complications were radial paresthesias, hypoesthesia dorsal and/or distal to the surgical site, and wound infection.
CONCLUSIONS
The innervation of the CMC joint is controversial. This is reflected in clinical practice, wherein varied surgical approaches are used. Carpometacarpal denervation shows promise as an option to treat patients with CMC arthritis without joint instability, but its results vary. Additional clinical studies with longer-term follow-up and control groups are necessary to better determine its longevity and efficacy.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic V.
Topics: Carpometacarpal Joints; Denervation; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Thumb
PubMed: 34509313
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2021.07.020 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2021Comparative efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) interventions for uncontrolled (UH) and resistant hypertension (RH) is unknown. We assessed the comparative... (Review)
Review
Comparative efficacy and safety of renal denervation (RDN) interventions for uncontrolled (UH) and resistant hypertension (RH) is unknown. We assessed the comparative efficacy and safety of existing RDN interventions for UH and RH. Six search engines were searched up to 1 May 2020. Primary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office systolic blood pressure (SBP). Secondary outcomes were mean 24-h ambulatory and office diastolic blood pressure (DBP), clinical outcomes, and serious adverse events. Frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses were used to evaluate effects of RDN interventions. Twenty randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ( = 2152) were included, 15 in RH ( = 1544) and five in UH ( = 608). Intervention arms included radiofrequency (RF) in main renal artery (MRA) ( = 10), RF in MRA and branches ( = 4), RF in MRA+ antihypertensive therapy (AHT) ( = 5), ultrasound (US) in MRA ( = 3), sham ( = 8), and AHT ( = 9). RF in MRA and branches ranked as the best treatment to reduce 24-h ambulatory, daytime, and nighttime SBP and DBP versus other interventions (p-scores: 0.83 to 0.97); significant blood pressure effects were found versus sham or AHT. RF in MRA+AHT was the best treatment to reduce office SBP and DBP (p-scores: 0.84 and 0.90, respectively). RF in MRA and branches was the most efficacious versus other interventions to reduce 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP in UH or RH.
PubMed: 33669195
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040782 -
In Vivo (Athens, Greece) 2023Awake surgery has become a valid alternative to general anesthesia in many surgery fields. This technique played a very important role during the COVID-19 period. The... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIM
Awake surgery has become a valid alternative to general anesthesia in many surgery fields. This technique played a very important role during the COVID-19 period. The growing use of this technique has many advantages. We performed a systematic review to study the potentialities of awake breast surgery.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library database and retrieved a total of 109 records. Forty-nine of them were excluded as unsuitable. Finally, we selected a total of 12 records concerning different types of studies for topic appropriateness. Three reviewers reviewed independently each record.
RESULTS
Five articles analyzing the sustainability of awake surgery during the COVID-19 period were selected. In addition, one article analyzing the impact on the immune system and six articles and eight case reports analyzing anesthetic techniques were also selected. The studies analyzing awake breast surgery during the COVID-19 period showed advantages in terms of sustainability and length of hospitalization. The study analyzing the immune response after awake breast surgery showed lesser lymphocyte response than the general anesthesia group. The studies analyzing anesthetic techniques in awake breast surgery showed that the nerve blocks allow good level of safety and postoperative pain control.
CONCLUSION
The awake breast surgery and fast track implementation shortened hospital stays and reduced costs, without influencing the surgical results. Furthermore, awake breast surgery reduced surgical stress compared to general anesthesia. Among the various anesthetic techniques, nerve blocks are the most advantageous in terms of safety and efficacy compared to epidural anesthesia.
Topics: Humans; Female; Wakefulness; Brain Neoplasms; COVID-19; Nerve Block; Breast Neoplasms
PubMed: 37369489
DOI: 10.21873/invivo.13225