-
Sleep Medicine Sep 2023Narcolepsy type 1 is a primary sleep disorder caused by deficient hypocretin transmission leading to excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. Opioids have been...
OBJECTIVE
Narcolepsy type 1 is a primary sleep disorder caused by deficient hypocretin transmission leading to excessive daytime sleepiness and cataplexy. Opioids have been suggested to increase the number of hypocretin-producing neurons. We aimed to assess opioid use and its self-reported effect on narcolepsy type 1 symptom severity through a literature review and questionnaire study.
METHODS
We systematically reviewed literature on opioid use in narcolepsy. We also recruited 100 people with narcolepsy type 1 who completed an online questionnaire on opioid use in the previous three years. The main questionnaire topics were the indication for use, and the possible effects on narcolepsy symptom severity. Structured follow-up interviews were conducted when opioid use was reported.
RESULTS
The systematic literature review mainly showed improvements in narcolepsy symptom severity. Recent opioid use was reported by 16/100 questionnaire respondents, who had used 20 opioids (codeine: 7/20, tramadol: 6/20, oxycodone: 6/20, fentanyl: 1/20). Narcolepsy symptom changes were reported in 11/20. Positive effects on disturbed nocturnal sleep (9/20), excessive daytime sleepiness (4/20), hypnagogic hallucinations (3/17), cataplexy (2/18), and sleep paralysis (1/13) were most pronounced for oxycodone (4/6) and codeine (4/7).
CONCLUSIONS
Opioids were relatively frequently used compared to a similarly young general Dutch sample. Oxycodone and, to a lesser extent, codeine were associated with self-reported narcolepsy symptom severity improvements. Positive changes in disturbed nocturnal sleep and daytime sleepiness were most frequently reported, while cataplexy effects were less pronounced. Randomised controlled trials are now needed to verify the potential of opioids as therapeutic agents for narcolepsy.
Topics: Humans; Cataplexy; Analgesics, Opioid; Orexins; Oxycodone; Narcolepsy; Disorders of Excessive Somnolence; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 37437491
DOI: 10.1016/j.sleep.2023.06.008 -
EFORT Open Reviews Jul 2022Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more... (Review)
Review
Does anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody treatment have the potential to replace nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in treating hip or knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.
PURPOSE
Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more effective and better tolerated than existing treatments is urgently needed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) monoclonal antibodies vs active comparator therapy, such as NSAIDs and oxycodone, in treating hip or knee OA.
METHODS
Databases were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before January 2022. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS
Six RCTs that included 4325 patients were identified. Almost all the RCTs indicated that moderate doses of anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment significantly improved efficacy outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, the WOMAC physical function score and the Patient's Global Assessment compared with those of the active comparator. At least half of the RCTs indicated that the incidence of severe adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) and total joint replacement were not significantly different between anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment and active comparator therapy, but the outcomes of some studies may have been limited by a short duration of follow-up. Most RCTs suggested that anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs. However, the majority of RCTs reported a higher incidence of abnormal peripheral sensation with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment. Furthermore, the higher incidence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment should also not be overlooked, and the identification of patient characteristics that increase the risk of RPOA is critical in further studies.
CONCLUSION
Based on the current research evidence, anti-NGF monoclonal antibodies are not yet a replacement for analgesic drugs such as NSAIDs but might be a new treatment option for hip or knee OA patients who are intolerant or unresponsive to nonopioid or opioid treatment. Notably, however, considering the inconsistency and inconclusive evidence on the safety outcomes of recent studies, more research is needed, and long-term follow-up is required.
PubMed: 35900204
DOI: 10.1530/EOR-21-0103 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events (AEs) of treatment for pain in cancer and palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This review is a partial update of a 2008 review, and critiques as previous update (2018) trials only for people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.
OBJECTIVES
To assess for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care the effectiveness and safety of mu-opioid antagonists (MOAs) versus different doses of MOAs, alternative pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions, placebo, or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (December 2021), clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We sought contact with MOA manufacturers for further data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of MOAs for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation response, effect on analgesia, and AEs. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created summary of findings tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 10 studies (two new trials) randomising in-total 1343 adults with cancer irrespective of stage, or at palliative care stage of any disease. The MOAs were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared MOAs with placebo, MOAs at different doses, or in combination with other drugs. Two trials of naldemedine and three of naloxone with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. Four trials on methylnaltrexone were in palliative care where most participants had advanced cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; most commonly, blinding of the outcome assessor was not reported. Oral naldemedine versus placebo Risk (i.e. chance) of spontaneous laxations in the medium term (over two weeks) for naldemedine was over threefold greater risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.52, 2 trials, 418 participants, I² = 0%. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate-certainty evidence). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change was not reported. Very low-certainty evidence showed naldemedine had little to no effect on opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 13.15: low-certainty evidence). Over double the risk of AEs (non-serious) reported with naldemedine (moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose oral naldemedine versus higher dose Risk of spontaneous laxations was lower for the lower dose (medium term, 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, 1 trial, 111 participants (low-certainty evidence)). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on opioid withdrawal symptoms (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.25), and occurrences of serious AEs (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.17). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on non-serious AEs. Oral naloxone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations and AEs not reported. Little to no difference in pain intensity (very low-certainty evidence). Full data not given. The trial reported that no serious AEs occurred. Oral naloxone + oxycodone versus oxycodone Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours and in the medium term not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed naloxone with oxycodone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06), 3 trials, 362 participants, I² = 55%: very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in risk of AEs (low-certainty evidence). Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours with methylnaltrexone was fourfold greater than placebo (RR 2.97, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.13. 2 trials, 287 participants, I² = 31%. NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; low-certainty evidence). Risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium term was over tenfold greater with methylnaltrexone (RR 8.15, 95% CI 4.76 to 13.95, 2 trials, 305 participants, I² = 47%. NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence showed methylnaltrexone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms, and did not increase risk of a serious AE (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93. I² = 0%; 2 trials, 364 participants). The risk of AEs was higher for methylnaltrexone (low-certainty evidence). Lower-dose subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus higher dose There was little to no difference in risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium-term (1 mg versus 5 mg or greater: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.39; 1 trial, 26 participants very low-certainty evidence), or in patient assessment of improvement in bowel status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35, 1 trial, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medium-term assessment of spontaneous laxations and serious AEs not reported. There was little to no difference in symptoms of opioid withdrawal (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.34, 1 trial, 102 participants) or occurrence of AEs (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update's findings for naldemedine and naloxone with oxycodone have been strengthened with two new trials, but conclusions have not changed. Moderate-certainty evidence for oral naldemedine on risk of spontaneous laxations and non-serious AEs suggests in people with cancer that naldemedine may improve bowel function over two weeks and increase the risk of AEs. There was low-certainty evidence on serious AEs. Moderate-certainty evidence for methylnaltrexone on spontaneous laxations over two weeks suggests subcutaneous methylnaltrexone may improve bowel function in people receiving palliative care, but certainty of evidence for AEs was low. More trials are needed, more evaluation of AEs, outcomes patients rate as important, and in children.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Humans; Naloxone; Naltrexone; Narcotic Antagonists; Neoplasms; Opioid-Induced Constipation; Oxycodone; Palliative Care; Quaternary Ammonium Compounds; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome
PubMed: 36106667
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006332.pub4 -
BMC Urology Mar 2023Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common postoperative bladder pain syndrome. Many drugs and interventions for managing CRBD have been studied, but their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) is a common postoperative bladder pain syndrome. Many drugs and interventions for managing CRBD have been studied, but their comparative effectiveness remains controversial. We made a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of interventions included Ketorolac, Lidocaine, Chlorpheniramine, Gabapentin, Magnesium, Nefopam, Oxycodone, Parecoxib, Solifenacin, Tolterodine, Bupivancaine, Dexmedetomidine, Hyoscine N-butyl bromide, Ketamine, Penile nerve block on urological postoperative CRBD.
METHODS
We performed a network meta-analysis via Aggregate Data Drug Inormation System software included 18 studies with 1816 patients and assessed the risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration tool. The incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 0, 1, and 6 h after surgery and the incidence severe CRBD at 1 h after surgery were compared.
RESULT
The number of best rank is 0.48(Nefopam) and 0.22(Nefopam) in the incidence of moderate to severe CRBD at 1 h and incidence severe CRBD at 1 h. More than half of studies at unclear or high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Nefopam reduced the incidence of CRBD and prevented severe events, but limited by the small number of studies for each intervention and heterogeneous patients.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Nefopam; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Catheters; Cystitis, Interstitial
PubMed: 36869313
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-023-01195-9 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There are ongoing concerns regarding pharmaceutical opioid-related harms, including overdose and dependence, with an associated increase in treatment demand. People dependent on pharmaceutical opioids appear to differ in important ways from people who use heroin, yet most opioid agonist treatment research has been conducted in people who use heroin. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of maintenance opioid agonist pharmacotherapy for the treatment of pharmaceutical opioid dependence.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases, and two trial registers. We checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs with adults and adolescents examining maintenance opioid agonist treatments that made the following two comparisons. 1. Full opioid agonists (methadone, morphine, oxycodone, levo-alpha-acetylmethadol (LAAM), or codeine) versus different full opioid agonists or partial opioid agonists (buprenorphine) for maintenance treatment. 2. Full or partial opioid agonist maintenance versus non-opioid agonist treatments (detoxification, opioid antagonist, or psychological treatment without opioid agonist treatment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified eight RCTs that met inclusion criteria (709 participants). We found four studies that compared methadone and buprenorphine maintenance treatment, and four studies that compared buprenorphine maintenance to either buprenorphine taper (in addition to psychological treatment) or a non-opioid maintenance treatment comparison. We found low-certainty evidence from three studies of a difference between methadone and buprenorphine in favour of methadone on self-reported opioid use at end of treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.86; 165 participants), and low-certainty evidence from four studies finding a difference in favour of methadone for retention in treatment (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43; 379 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from three studies showing no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on substance use measured with urine drug screens at end of treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17; 206 participants), and moderate-certainty evidence from one study of no difference in days of self-reported opioid use (mean difference 1.41 days, 95% CI 3.37 lower to 0.55 days higher; 129 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference between methadone and buprenorphine on adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.93; 206 participants). We found low-certainty evidence from four studies favouring maintenance buprenorphine treatment over non-opioid treatments in terms of fewer opioid positive urine drug tests at end of treatment (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84; 270 participants), and very low-certainty evidence from four studies finding no difference on self-reported opioid use in the past 30 days at end of treatment (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01; 276 participants). There was low-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in the number of days of unsanctioned opioid use (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.09; 205 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from four studies favouring buprenorphine maintenance over non-opioid treatments on retention in treatment (RR 3.02, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.27; 333 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence from three studies of no difference in adverse effects between buprenorphine maintenance and non-opioid treatments (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.48; 252 participants). The main weaknesses in the quality of the data was the use of open-label study designs, and difference in follow-up rates between treatment arms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low- to moderate-certainty evidence supporting the use of maintenance agonist pharmacotherapy for pharmaceutical opioid dependence. Methadone or buprenorphine did not differ on some outcomes, although on the outcomes of retention and self-reported substance use some results favoured methadone. Maintenance treatment with buprenorphine appears more effective than non-opioid treatments. Due to the overall very low- to moderate-certainty evidence and small sample sizes, there is the possibility that the further research may change these findings.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Heroin; Humans; Methadone; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 36063082
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011117.pub3 -
The Journal of Arthroplasty Feb 2024Pain is challenging after recovery from total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures, and patients often receive prescription opioids....
BACKGROUND
Pain is challenging after recovery from total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures, and patients often receive prescription opioids. However, opioid consumption by patients remains unclear, and unused opioids may lead to risks including misuse and diversion. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare prescription size versus patient-reported consumption of opioids after discharge following TKA and THA.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were systematically searched for publications published between 2015 and 2022 on patient-reported consumption of opioids after TKA and THA. The primary outcome was opioid use in oxycodone 5-mg equivalents. Team members independently reviewed studies for screening, inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias.
RESULTS
Among the 17 included studies (15 TKA and 11 THA), discharge opioid prescribing exceeded consumption for both TKA (88.4 versus 65.0 pills at 6 weeks) and THA (64.0 versus 29.8 pills at 12 weeks). For both TKA and THA, the range of opioids prescribed varied significantly, by 1.6-fold for TKA and 2.8-fold for THA. Most studies reported pain outcomes (89%) and the use of nonopioid medications (72%). Of the 4 studies offering prescribing recommendations, the amounts ranged from 50 to 104 pills for TKA and 30 to 45 pills for THA.
CONCLUSIONS
Opioid prescribing exceeds the amount consumed following TKA and THA. These findings serve as a call to action to tailor prescribing guidelines to how much patients actually consume while emphasizing the use of nonopioid medications to better optimize recovery from surgery.
PubMed: 38336301
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.01.063 -
Arquivos de Neuro-psiquiatria 2020Central neuropathic pain (CNP) is often refractory to available therapeutic strategies and there are few evidence-based treatment options. Many patients with neuropathic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Central neuropathic pain (CNP) is often refractory to available therapeutic strategies and there are few evidence-based treatment options. Many patients with neuropathic pain are not diagnosed or treated properly. Thus, consensus-based recommendations, adapted to the available drugs in the country, are necessary to guide clinical decisions.
OBJECTIVE
To develop recommendations for the treatment of CNP in Brazil.
METHODS
Systematic review, meta-analysis, and specialists opinions considering efficacy, adverse events profile, cost, and drug availability in public health.
RESULTS
Forty-four studies on CNP treatment were found, 20 were included in the qualitative analysis, and 15 in the quantitative analysis. Medications were classified as first-, second-, and third-line treatment based on systematic review, meta-analysis, and expert opinion. As first-line treatment, gabapentin, duloxetine, and tricyclic antidepressants were included. As second-line, venlafaxine, pregabalin for CND secondary to spinal cord injury, lamotrigine for CNP after stroke, and, in association with first-line drugs, weak opioids, in particular tramadol. For refractory patients, strong opioids (methadone and oxycodone), cannabidiol/delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, were classified as third-line of treatment, in combination with first or second-line drugs and, for central nervous system (CNS) in multiple sclerosis, dronabinol.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies that address the treatment of CNS are scarce and heterogeneous, and a significant part of the recommendations is based on experts opinions. The CNP approach must be individualized, taking into account the availability of medication, the profile of adverse effects, including addiction risk, and patients' comorbidities.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Brazil; Consensus; Humans; Neuralgia; Neurology
PubMed: 33331468
DOI: 10.1590/0004-282X20200166 -
European Review For Medical and... Jul 2021This study's main objective is to carry out a systematic review of the onset of psychotic symptoms after opioid withdrawal. The opiate dependence correlated to...
OBJECTIVE
This study's main objective is to carry out a systematic review of the onset of psychotic symptoms after opioid withdrawal. The opiate dependence correlated to psychiatric symptoms has been well described.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Following the PRISMA methodology. The consecutive search strategy was applied: (morphine OR buprenorphine OR oxycodone OR tramadol OR fentanyl OR remifentanil OR opioids OR heroin OR methadone) AND (Psychosis OR psychotic symptoms OR schizophrenia).
RESULTS
12 case reports, 3 series of cases, 2 clinical studies, and 2 reviews were found. It seems that the time association is present in all of them; symptoms appear days after the interruption of the opioid. Most of the articles reported are case reports that describe symptoms that appear after the suspension of the opioid substance; in most cases, the reintroduction of the opioid had therapeutic effects and provoked a remission of these symptoms. These preliminary findings indicate that opiates could have an antipsychotic effect; however, the literature is scarce. It is critical to consider, if needed, in opioid-dependent patients who start with psychosis after the opioid withdrawal the possible replacement or reintroduction of opioids to prevent further deterioration in the patient's mental status.
CONCLUSIONS
This study encompasses a comprehensive description of the literature concerning the possible not well-studied outcome of opioid withdrawal. There are some reports of temporal association between withdrawal and psychotic symptoms that improved after the reintroduction of the opioid; it could be taken into consideration in the clinical practice.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Heroin; Humans; Methadone; Morphine; Oxycodone; Psychotic Disorders; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Tramadol
PubMed: 34286498
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202107_26248 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Jun 2024Strong opioids are the cornerstone in the treatment of cancer-related pain.
CONTEXT
Strong opioids are the cornerstone in the treatment of cancer-related pain.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to compare analgesic effectiveness of different strong opioids for the treatment of cancer-related pain.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched for RCTs that compared strong opioids for treatment of cancer-related pain against one another. A network meta-analysis was conducted and the related Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA)-based treatment ranks were calculated. Primary outcome was pain intensity (numerical rating scale (NRS)) and/or the percentage of patients with ≥50% pain reduction, after 1 and 2-4 weeks.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs (1813 patients) were included. Methadone showed, with a high certainty of evidence, increased ORs for treatment success at 1 week, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, and oxycodone, range 3.230-36.833. Methadone had the highest likelihood to be the treatment of preference (ToP) (SUCRA 0.9720). For fentanyl, ORs were lower, however significant and with high certainty. After 2-4 weeks, methadone again showed the highest likelihood for ToP, however, with moderate certainty and nonsignificant ORs. The combination of morphine/methadone, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, and oxycodone achieved a treatment effect of mean NRS difference after 2-4 weeks between -1.100 and -1.528 and had the highest likelihood for ToP.
CONCLUSION
The results suggest that methadone possibly deserves further promotion as first-line treatment for the treatment of cancer-related pain.
PubMed: 38838946
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.05.022 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Nov 2022Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), unlike laparotomy, is an invasive surgical procedure, and some patients report mild to moderate pain after surgery. Transversus... (Review)
Review
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), unlike laparotomy, is an invasive surgical procedure, and some patients report mild to moderate pain after surgery. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has been shown to be an appropriate method for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal surgery. However, there have been few studies on the efficacy of TAP block after LC surgery, with unclear information on the optimal dose, long-term effects, and clinical significance, and the analgesic efficacy of various procedures, hence the need for this review. Five electronic databases (PubMed, Academic Search Premier, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies published from inception to the present. Post-mean and standard deviation values for pain assessed were extracted, and mean changes per group were calculated. Clinical significance was determined using the distribution-based approach. Four different local anesthetics (Bupivacaine, Ropivacaine, Lidocaine, and Levobupivacaine) were used at varying concentrations from 0.2% to 0.375%. Ten different drug solutions (i.e., esmolol, Dexamethasone, Magnesium Sulfate, Ketorolac, Oxycodone, Epinephrine, Sufentanil, Tropisetron, normal saline, and Dexmedetomidine) were used as adjuvants. The optimal dose of local anesthetics for LC could be 20 mL with 0.4 mL/kg for port infiltration. Various TAP procedures such as ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (US-TAP) block and other strategies have been shown to be used for pain management in LC; however, TAP blockade procedures were reported to be the most effective method for analgesia compared with general anesthesia and port infiltration. Instead of 0.25% Bupivacaine, 1% Pethidine could be used for the TAP block procedures. Multimodal analgesia could be another strategy for pain management. Analgesia with TAP blockade decreases opioid consumption significantly and provides effective analgesia. Further studies should identify the long-term effects of different TAP block procedures.
PubMed: 36498471
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11236896