-
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery.
METHODS
We searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the intravenous and epidural modes of patient-controlled anesthesia in intra-abdominal surgery in adults. Data analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was measured using I statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad/Oxford quality scoring system.
RESULTS
Seven studies reporting 529 patients were included into the meta-analysis. For pain at rest, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was -0.00 [-0.79, 0.78], -value 0.99, while for pain on coughing, it was 0.43 [-0.02, 0.88], -value 0.06, indicating that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was superior. For the sedation score, the mean difference with 95% CI was 0.26 [-0.37, 0.89], -value 0.42, slightly favoring PCEA. For the length of hospital stay, the mean difference with 95% CI was 1.13 [0.29, 1.98], -value 0.009, favoring PCEA. For postoperative complications, the risk ratio with 95% CI was 0.8 [0.62, 1.03], -value 0.08, slightly favoring patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA). A significant effect was observed for hypotension, favoring PCIVA.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with patient-controlled epidural analgesia was associated with fewer episodes of hypotension. PCEA, on other hand, was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. Pain control and other side effects did not differ significantly. Only three studies out of seven had an acceptable methodological quality. Thus, these conclusions should be taken with caution.
PubMed: 35566705
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092579 -
JBI Evidence Synthesis Jan 2022The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia on neonatal patient outcomes. More specifically,...
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and effectiveness of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia on neonatal patient outcomes. More specifically, the objective was to determine the effect of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia on neonatal pain scores, analgesic use, and incidence of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, as well as any opioid-associated adverse events.
INTRODUCTION
Despite recent innovations in neonatology leading to significant improvements in short- and long-term outcomes for newborns requiring intensive care, optimal management of pain and distress remains a challenge for the multidisciplinary treatment team. The inability of neonates to communicate pain easily, inconsistent practice among health professionals, insufficient analgesic prescriptions, and delays in medical reviews all impact effective pain management. Exploring the effect of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia may identify a modality that negates these concerns and improves the pharmacological management of pain in newborns.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
This review considered experimental and observational studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia that included babies born at 23 weeks' gestation to four weeks post-term. The interventions considered for inclusion were any type of analgesia delivered by an infusion pump that allowed bolus dosing or a continuous analgesic infusion with bolus dosing as required. Studies using algorithms and protocols to guide timing and dosage were eligible for inclusion. Comparators included the standard management of pain for neonates in the newborn intensive care unit. A modification to the a priori protocol was made to include all neonates nursed outside of a neonatal intensive care unit to ensure all studies that examined the use of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia in the neonatal population were included in the review.
METHODS
An extensive search of six major databases was conducted (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science). Studies published from 1997 to 2020 in English were considered for inclusion in this review. Databases searched for unpublished studies included MedNar and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in this review: two randomized controlled trials, six quasi-experimental studies, one case-control study, and five case series. There was considerable heterogeneity in the interventions and study outcome measures within the studies, resulting in an inability to statistically pool results. The small sample sizes and inability to distinguish data specific to neonates in six of the studies resulted in low quality of evidence for the safety and effectiveness of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia in neonates. However, studies reporting neonatal data demonstrated low pain scores and a trend in reduced opioid consumption when parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia was used.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia in the neonatal population has shown some effect in reducing the amount of opioid analgesia required without compromising pain relief or increasing the risk of adverse events. Due to the paucity of evidence available, certainty of the results is compromised; therefore, larger trials exploring the use of parent- or nurse-controlled analgesia in neonates and the development of nurse-led models for analgesia delivery are needed.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42018114382.
Topics: Analgesia; Case-Control Studies; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor Pain; Pain Management; Parents; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34387281
DOI: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00385 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36269595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012157.pub2 -
Medicine Jan 2022Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an effective method of postoperative pain, there have been many studies performed that have compared the efficacy of hydromorphone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an effective method of postoperative pain, there have been many studies performed that have compared the efficacy of hydromorphone with continuous sufentanil. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and sufentanil.
METHODS
Seven databases were searched for controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and sufentanil. After selecting the studies, extracting the data, and assessing study quality, the meta-analysis was performed on several of the studies with RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies comprised of 812 patients were found. The pain intensity of the hydromorphone group was significantly lower than that of the sufentanil group at 12 hours. With no statistical difference at 24 to 48 hours (MD12 = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.13, -1.97], P <.05). The sedation intensity of the hydromorphone group at 12, 24, and 48 hours were lower than those of the sufentanil group, with no statistical difference (MD12 = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.12], P > .05; MD24 = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.03], P > .05; MD48 = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.11)], P > .05). The PCA requests in the hydromorphone group were less than that in the sufentanil group, and there was no significant difference (RR = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.93,1.53], P > .05). The incidence of adverse events in the hydromorphone group was less than that in the sufentanil group, and there was a statistical difference: (RR = 0.61, 95% CI [0.47,0.79], P < .05).
CONCLUSION
Compared with sufentanil, PCA with hydromorphone was more effective in relieving pain and PCA requests 12, 24, and 48 hours after operation, and significantly reduced the incidence of adverse events, but it did not have an advantage in sedation intensity.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Hydromorphone; Narcotics; Pain, Postoperative; Sufentanil
PubMed: 35060534
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028615 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Aug 2023To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this setting.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase and The Cochrane Library from inception until September 21st 2022. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included when they reported on clinical outcomes of gynecologic procedures under procedural sedation and analgesia in which propofol was used as an anesthetic. Studies were excluded when sedation without propofol was used, when they only mentioned the use of procedural sedation and analgesia but did not describe any clinical outcome parameters or when < 10 patients were included. The primary outcome parameter was completeness of procedure. Secondary outcome parameters were type of gynecologic procedure, intraoperative complication rate, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, duration of hospital admission, patient's discomfort and ease of procedure as judged by the surgeon. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for bias assessment. A narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies was provided. Numbers and percentages were presented, as well as means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile range where applicable.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included. A total of 914 patients underwent gynecologic surgical procedures with procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol. Gynecological procedures varied from hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The percentage of complete procedures was 89.8%-100%. Complications occurred in 0-6.5% of patients. Other outcomes were measured in various ways, but overall patient satisfaction was high and postoperative pain was low.
CONCLUSION
The use of PSA with propofol is promising for a wide range of gynecologic procedures, including hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The use of PSA with propofol seems to be effective and safe and leads to high degree of patient satisfaction. More research is needed in order to determine for which types of procedures PSA can be used.
Topics: Humans; Female; Propofol; Uterine Prolapse; Analgesia; Pain, Postoperative; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37327552
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.035 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2020Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA is superior to EA in decreasing the risk of intrapartum maternal fever during labor.
METHODS
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the risk of intrapartum maternal fever with RPCA compared with EA alone or EA in combination with spinal analgesia during labor were included.
RESULTS
A total of 825 studies were screened, and 6 RCTs including 3341 patients were identified. Compared with EA, RPCA was associated with a significantly lower incidence of intrapartum maternal fever (risk ratio [RR] 0.48, P = 0.02, I = 49%) during labor analgesia. After excluding 2 trials via the heterogeneity analysis, there was no difference in the incidence of intrapartum fever between patients receiving RPCA and those receiving EA. Satisfaction with pain relief during labor was lower in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (- 10.6 [13.87, - 7.44], P < 0.00001, I = 0%). The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly greater in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (risk ratio 2.86 [1.65, 4.96], P = 0.0002, I = 58%). The incidence of Apgar scores < 7 at 5 min in the RPCA group was equivalent to that in the EA group.
CONCLUSION
There is no solid evidence to illustrate that the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever is lower in patients receiving intravenous RPCA than in patients receiving EA.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Apgar Score; Female; Fever; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Remifentanil
PubMed: 32164593
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2800-y -
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery May 2023Cleft lip and/or palate repair techniques require continued reevaluation of best practice through high-quality evidence. The objective of this systematic review was to...
BACKGROUND
Cleft lip and/or palate repair techniques require continued reevaluation of best practice through high-quality evidence. The objective of this systematic review was to highlight the existing evidence for patient safety and quality improvement (QI) initiatives in cleft lip and palate surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review of published literature evaluating patient safety and QI in patients with cleft lip and/or palate was conducted from database inception to June 9, 2022, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Quality appraisal of included studies was conducted using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies, Cochrane, or a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 instruments, according to study type.
RESULTS
Sixty-one studies met inclusion criteria, with most published between 2010 and 2020 (63.9%). Randomized controlled trials represented the most common study design (37.7%). Half of all included studies were related to the topic of pain and analgesia, with many supporting the use of infraorbital nerve block using 0.25% bupivacaine. The second most common intervention examined was use of perioperative antibiotics in reducing fistula and infection (11.5%). Other studies examined optimal age and closure material for cleft lip repair, early recovery after surgery protocols, interventions to reduce blood loss, and safety of outpatient surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient safety and QI studies in cleft surgery were of moderate quality overall and covered a wide range of interventions. To further enhance PS in cleft repair, more high-quality research in the areas of perioperative pharmaceutical usage, appropriate wound closure materials, and optimal surgical timing are needed.
Topics: Humans; Cleft Lip; Cleft Palate; Patient Safety; Quality Improvement; Pain
PubMed: 36730883
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000009094 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong... 2023Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with clinical efficacy in chronic pain conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with clinical efficacy in chronic pain conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate the analgesic effect and safety of duloxetine in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic search was completed on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase from inception to December 2022 to find relevant articles. We used Cochrane methodology to evaluate the bias of included studies. Investigated outcomes included postoperative pain, opioid consumption, adverse events (AEs), range of motion (ROM), emotional and physical function, patient satisfaction, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), knee-specific outcomes, wound complications, skin temperature, inflammatory markers, length of stay, and incidence of manipulations. Nine articles involving 942 participants were included in our systematic review. Out of nine papers, eight were randomized clinical trials and one was a retrospective study. The results of these studies indicated the analgesic effect of duloxetine on postoperative pain, which was measured using numeric rating scale and visual analogue scale. Deluxetine was also effective in reducing the morphine requirement and wound complications and enhancing patient satisfaction after surgery. However, the results on ROM, PCA, and knee-specific outcomes were contraventional. Deluxetine was generally safe without serious AEs. The most common AEs included headache, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and constipation. Duloxetine may be an effective treatment option for postoperative pain following TKA, but further rigorously designed and well-controlled randomized trials are required.
Topics: Humans; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Retrospective Studies; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37279647
DOI: 10.1177/10225536231177482 -
Journal of Pediatric Nursing 2021Effective pain management is the key to improving not only patient outcomes but also patient satisfaction. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is a pain management method...
PROBLEM
Effective pain management is the key to improving not only patient outcomes but also patient satisfaction. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is a pain management method that allows the patient to self-administer their medication. Because of the great variety of physical and cognitive abilities in the pediatric population, involvement of a nurse or parent proxy is necessary.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the most effective approaches to PCA in pediatric settings.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Criteria for articles selection were as follows: (a) published in a peer-review journal, (b) between 2014 and 2019, (c) in English, (d) directly addressing the issues of safety and efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia by proxy in the pediatric patient population.
SAMPLE
Databases used in the search included CINAHL Plus with Full Text, DynaMed, MedLine with Full Text, and ScienceDirect. Combinations of the following keywords were used to search each database: "nurse controlled analgesia", "parent controlled analgesia", "patient controlled analgesia by proxy", "NCA", "P/NCA", "PCA by proxy", "pediatrics", "children", "pediatric patients". Database searches yielded 172 results. Articles that were duplicated, missing inclusion criteria or did not directly address the issues of safety and efficacy of PCA by proxy were removed. Eleven articles fit the selection criteria.
RESULTS
Eleven articles were included in the final report. The themes that emerged from the analysis included pain management of neonates and infants, children with developmental disabilities, children with cancer, as well as the sources and possible solutions to errors in medication preparation.
CONCLUSIONS
It was concluded that PCA by proxy remains a safe and efficient method of pain administration for the pediatric population, with the exception of children suffering from developmental and neurological disabilities.
IMPLICATIONS
PCA by proxy, although presenting challenges, remains a safe and efficient way of pain management across different pediatric populations, such as infants and neonates or children with cancer, both inpatient and outpatient, and new technologies could positively influence the safety of this method of pain management. Conversely, children with developmental and neurological disabilities do not benefit from this method of pain management and are more prone to experiencing adverse effects.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Parents; Patient Satisfaction; Pediatrics
PubMed: 34139608
DOI: 10.1016/j.pedn.2021.06.002 -
Cureus Nov 2023Opioid-related fatalities are a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain in children and adolescents. The... (Review)
Review
Opioid-related fatalities are a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain in children and adolescents. The management of pain throughout the laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in the pediatric population is a critical concern. This study aimed to evaluate trends in analgesic use and patient satisfaction following LA, with a focus on reducing the reliance on opioids for pain management. From 2003 to 2023, 18258 articles were filtered for all types of analgesic use with LA. The publications were screened using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and 19 studies were included for analysis and review. The study included peer-reviewed experimental and observational studies involving individuals under 18 years. Pain management strategies varied across studies, involving a combination of analgesics, nerve blocks, and wound infiltrations. Analgesics such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids were administered before and after surgery. Some studies implemented patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps. Other studies explored non-pharmacological interventions like magnetic acupuncture. The results showed a reduction in the need for postoperative analgesics in patients treated with LA, particularly when using non-opioid medications and novel analgesic techniques. Pediatric patients who received gabapentin reported lower opioid use, shorter hospital stays, and high satisfaction rates. However, the reliance on opioids remained significant in some cases, particularly among patients with peritonitis who required more morphine. Pain management in pediatric patients is multifaceted, involving preoperative and postoperative analgesics, nerve blocks, and PCA pumps. Efforts to improve pain management following pediatric LA while reducing opioid reliance are essential in the context of the ongoing opioid epidemic. The findings from this study highlight the potential benefits of non-opioid analgesics, nerve blocks, and alternative methods for managing postoperative pain in <18 appendectomy patients. Further research and standardization of pain management protocols are needed to ensure optimal patient outcomes and minimize the risk of opioid-related complications.
PubMed: 38156159
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49581