-
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Nov 2023To evaluate all available evidence thus far on opioid based versus opioid-free anesthesia and its effect on acute and chronic postoperative pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
To evaluate all available evidence thus far on opioid based versus opioid-free anesthesia and its effect on acute and chronic postoperative pain.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
SETTING
Operating room, postoperative recovery room and ward.
PATIENTS
Patients undergoing general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
After consulting MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane database, studies which compared opioid free anesthesia (OFA) with opioid based anesthesia (OBA) were included (last search April 15th 2022).
MEASUREMENTS
Primary outcomes were acute and chronic pain scores in NRS or VAS. Secondary outcomes were quality of recovery and postoperative opioid consumption. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool and a random effects model for the meta-analysis was conducted.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 1245 citations, of which 38 studies met our inclusion criteria. There is moderate quality evidence showing no clinically relevant difference of Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores or opioid consumption in the postoperative period (pooled mean difference of 0.39 points with a CI of 0.19-0.59 and 4.02 MME with a CI of 1.73-6.30). We found only one small-sized study reporting no effect of opioid-free anesthesia on chronic pain. The quality of recovery was superior in patients with opioid-free anesthesia (mean difference of 8.26 points), however, this pooled analysis was comprised of only two studies. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurred less in opioid-free anesthesia, but bradycardia was more frequent.
CONCLUSIONS
We concluded that we cannot recommend one strategy over the other. Future studies could focus on quality of recovery as outcome measure and adequately powered studies on the effects of opioid-free anesthesia on chronic pain are eagerly awaited.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, General; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 37515877
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111215 -
Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular... May 2022Early mobilization of patients in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a practice that has a positive... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Early mobilization of patients in the postoperative period of cardiac surgery who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a practice that has a positive impact.
METHODS
This is a systematic review of studies published until September 2020 in the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (or MEDLINE®), Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (or PEDro), Scientific Electronic Library Online (or SciELO), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (or LILACS) databases. Randomized clinical trials describing mobilization protocols performed early in ICU patients after cardiac surgery were included.
RESULTS
According to the eligibility criteria, only 14 of the 1,128 articles found were included in the analysis. Early mobilization protocols were initiated in the immediate postoperative period or first postoperative day. The resources and technics used were progressive mobilization, cycle ergometer, early bed activities, walking protocols, resistance exercise, and virtual reality. Intensity of the mobilization activities was determined using the Borg scale and heart rate.
CONCLUSION
Early mobilization protocols are generalist (not individual), and low-intensity exercises are used, through progressive mobilization, with two daily physical therapy sessions, during 10 to 30 minutes.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Early Ambulation; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Postoperative Period; Prescriptions
PubMed: 35244377
DOI: 10.21470/1678-9741-2021-0140 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Jun 2022Postoperative delirium is a frequent occurrence in the elderly surgical population. As a comprehensive list of predictive factors remains unknown, an opioid-sparing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Postoperative delirium is a frequent occurrence in the elderly surgical population. As a comprehensive list of predictive factors remains unknown, an opioid-sparing approach incorporating regional anesthesia techniques has been suggested to decrease its incidence. Due to the lack of conclusive evidence on the topic, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the potential impact of regional anesthesia and analgesia on postoperative delirium.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched for randomized trials comparing regional anesthesia or analgesia to systemic treatments in patients having any type of surgery. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We pooled the results separately for each of these two applications by random effects modelling. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence and strength of conclusions.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eighteen trials (3361 subjects) were included. Using regional techniques for surgical anesthesia failed to reduce the risk of postoperative delirium, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.21 (95% CI: 0.79 to 1.85); P=0.3800. In contrast, regional analgesia reduced the relative risk of perioperative delirium by a RR of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.42 to 0.68; P<0.0001), when compared to systemic analgesia. Post-hoc subgroup analysis for hip fracture surgery yielded similar findings.
CONCLUSIONS
These results show that postoperative delirium may be decreased when regional techniques are used in the postoperative period as an analgesic strategy. Intraoperative regional anesthesia alone may not decrease postoperative delirium since there are other factors that may influence this outcome.
Topics: Aged; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthesia, Local; Delirium; Hip Fractures; Humans
PubMed: 35164487
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.22.16076-1 -
PloS One 2020Systematic review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Preoperative neuromuscular function is predictive for knee function and return to sports (RTS) after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). The aim of this review was to examine the potential benefits of prehabilitation on pre-/postoperative objective, self-reported and RTS-specific outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted within three databases. From the 1.071 studies screened, two randomized control trials (RCTs), two control trials (CTs) and two cohort studies (CS) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality rating adopted the PEDro- (RCT, CT) or Newcastle-Ottawa-Scale (CS).
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Methodological quality of the included studies was moderate (PEDro score: 6.5 ± 1.7; range 4 to 9). Two studies reported higher increases of the maximal quadriceps torque from baseline to pre-reconstruction: one study in the limb symmetry index (LSI), and one in both legs of the prehabilitation group compared to the controls. At 12-weeks post-reconstruction, one study (from two) indicated that the prehabilitation group had a lesser post-operative decline in the single-leg-hop for distance LSI (clinically meaningful). Similar findings were found in terms of quadriceps strength LSI (one study). At both pre-reconstruction (three studies) and two-year post-surgery (two studies), the prehabilitation groups reached significantly higher self-reported knee function (clinically meaningful) than the controls. RTS tended to be faster (one study). At two years post-surgery, RTS rates (one study) were higher in the prehabilitation groups. The results provide evidence for the relevance of prehabilitation prior to ACL-reconstruction to improve neuromuscular and self-reported knee function as well as RTS. More high quality confirmatory RCTs are warranted.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017065491.
Topics: Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Clinical Trials as Topic; Female; Humans; Male; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Period; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Recovery of Function; Return to Sport
PubMed: 33112865
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240192 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2021Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved...
BACKGROUND
Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved outcomes including early ambulation and early discharge.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after complex spine surgery.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
A systematic review using the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from January 2008 to April 2020 assessing postoperative pain after complex spine surgery using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.
RESULTS
Out of 111 eligible studies identified, 31 randomised controlled trials and four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous ketamine infusion and regional analgesia techniques including epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Limited evidence was found for local wound infiltration, intrathecal and epidural opioids, erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for complex spine surgery should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. Other recommendations are intra-operative ketamine and epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Although there is procedure-specific evidence in favour of intra-operative methadone, it is not recommended as it was compared with shorter-acting opioids and due to its limited safety profile. Furthermore, the methadone studies did not use non-opioid analgesics, which should be the primary analgesics to ultimately reduce overall opioid requirements, including methadone. Further qualitative randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these recommended analgesics on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34397527
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001448 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2022Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal treatment (RoCT), or endodontic treatment, is a common procedure in dentistry. The main indications for RoCT are irreversible pulpitis and necrosis of the dental pulp caused by carious processes, coronal crack or fracture, or dental trauma. Successful RoCT is characterised by an absence of symptoms (i.e. pain) and clinical signs (i.e. swelling and sinus tract) in teeth without radiographic evidence of periodontal involvement (i.e. normal periodontal ligament). The success of RoCT depends on a number of variables related to the preoperative condition of the tooth, as well as the endodontic procedures. RoCT can be carried out with a single-visit approach, which involves root canal system obturation (filling and sealing) directly after instrumentation and irrigation, or with a multiple-visits approach, in which the treatment is completed in two or more sessions and obturation is performed in the last session. This review updates the previous versions published in 2007 and 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of completion of root canal treatment (RoCT) in a single visit compared to RoCT over two or more visits, with or without medication, in people aged over 10 years.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 25 April 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials in people needing RoCT comparing completion of RoCT in a single visit compared to RoCT over two or more visits. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. tooth extraction and 2. radiological failure after at least one year (i.e. periapical radiolucency). Our secondary outcomes were 3. postoperative and postobturation pain; 4. swelling or flare-up; 5. analgesic use and 6. presence of sinus track or fistula after at least one month. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. We excluded five studies that were included in the previous version of the review because they did not meet the current standard of care (i.e. rubber dam isolation and irrigation with sodium hypochlorite).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 47 studies with 5805 participants and 5693 teeth analysed. We judged 10 studies at low risk of bias, 17 at high risk of bias and 20 at unclear risk of bias. Only two studies reported data on tooth extraction. We found no evidence of a difference between treatment in one visit or treatment over multiple visits, but we had very low certainty about the findings (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 2.50; I = 0%; 2 studies, 402 teeth). We found no evidence of a difference between single-visit and multiple-visit treatment in terms of radiological failure (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; I = 0%; 13 studies, 1505 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence). We found evidence of a higher proportion of participants reporting pain within one week in single-visit groups compared to multiple visit groups (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.09; I = 18%; 5 studies, 638 teeth; moderate-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants reporting pain until 72 hours postobturation (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; I = 70%; 12 studies, 1329 teeth; low-certainty evidence), pain intensity until 72 hours postobturation (mean difference (MD) 0.26, 95% CI -4.76 to 5.29; I = 98%; 12 studies, 1258 teeth; low-certainty evidence) or pain at one week postobturation (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.67; I = 61%; 9 studies, 1139 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in swelling or flare-up incidence (RR 0.56 95% CI 0.16 to 1.92; I = 0%; 6 studies; 605 teeth; very low-certainty evidence), analgesic use (RR 1.25 95% CI 0.75 to 2.09; I = 36%; 6 studies, 540 teeth; very low-certainty evidence) or sinus tract or fistula presence (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.28; I = 0%; 5 studies, 650 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis found no differences between single-visit and multiple-visit RoCT for considered outcomes other than proportion of participants reporting post-treatment pain within one week, which was higher in the single-visit groups for vital teeth (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; I = 0%; 2 studies, 316 teeth), and when instrumentation was mechanical (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.92; I = 56%; 2 studies, 278 teeth).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
As in the previous two versions of the review, there is currently no evidence to suggest that one treatment regimen (single-visit or multiple-visit RoCT) is more effective than the other. Neither regimen can prevent pain and other complications in the 12-month postoperative period. There was moderate-certainty evidence of higher proportion of participants reporting pain within one week in single-visit groups compared to multiple-visit groups. In contrast to the results of the last version of the review, there was no difference in analgesic use.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Dentition, Permanent; Root Canal Therapy; Tooth Extraction; Analgesics; Pain
PubMed: 36512807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005296.pub4 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Jun 2022FAI (femoroacetabular impingement syndrome) is a common cause of hip pain, resulting in a decreased life quality. This study aims to compare the postoperative clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
FAI (femoroacetabular impingement syndrome) is a common cause of hip pain, resulting in a decreased life quality. This study aims to compare the postoperative clinical outcome between arthroscopic surgery (AT) and conservative treatment (CT).
METHOD
The six studies were selected from PubMed, Embase and OVID database. The data were extracted and analyzed by RevMan5.3. Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RevMan5.3 was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULT
Six observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials indicated five of six studies had a low risk of bias and one article had a high risk of bias. The differences were statistically significant between AT and CT for HOS (follow-up for 6 months), iHOT-33 (follow-up for 6 months) improvement, iHOT-33 (follow-up for 12 months) improvement, iHOT-33 (follow-up for 12 months), EQ-5D-5L index score (follow-up for 12 months) and AT showed higher benefits than CT. Meanwhile no statistically significant were found in iHOT-33 (follow-up for 6 months), EQ-5D-5L index score (follow-up for 6 months), EQ5D-VAS (follow-up for 6 months) and EQ5D-VAS (follow-up for 12 months).
CONCLUSION
AT and CT both can have clinical effects when facing FAI. In our meta-analysis, hip arthroscopy is statistically superior to conservative treatment in both long-term and short-term effects.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Arthroscopy; Conservative Treatment; Femoracetabular Impingement; Hip Joint; Humans; Postoperative Period; Quality of Life; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35659016
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03187-1 -
International Journal of Surgery... Sep 2022Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Validity of the laparoscopic approach in pancreatic head lesion remains debatable. This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and investigate the source of heterogeneity from surgeons' and patients' perspectives.
METHOD
We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published before February 1, 2021. Of 6578 articles, 81 were full-text reviewed. The primary outcome was mortality. Three independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Studies were evaluated for quality using ROB2.0 and ROBINS-I. According to different study designs, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the heterogeneity source. This meta-analyses was also conducted to explore the learning curve's heterogeneity. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021234579.
RESULTS
We analyzed 34 studies involving 46,729 patients (4705 LPD and 42,024 OPD). LPD was associated with lower (P = 0.025) in unmatched studies (P = 0.017). No differences in mortality existed in randomized controlled trials (P = 0.854) and matched studies (P = 0.726). Sensitivity analysis found no significant difference in mortality in elderly patients, patients with pancreatic cancer, and in high- and low-volume hospitals (all P > 0.05). In studies at the early period of LPD (<40 cases), higher mortality (P < 0.001) was found (all P < 0.05).LPD showed non-inferiority in length of stay, complications, and survival outcomes in all analyses.
CONCLUSION
In high-volume centers with adequate surgical experience, LPD in selected patients appears to be a valid alternative to LPD with comparable mortality, LOS, complications, and survival outcomes.
Topics: Aged; Hospitals, Low-Volume; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 35988720
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106799 -
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical... Sep 2022Functional capacity is an independent indicator of morbidity in colon and rectal cancer surgery. This systematic review describes the evaluated and synthesized effects... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Functional capacity is an independent indicator of morbidity in colon and rectal cancer surgery. This systematic review describes the evaluated and synthesized effects of exercise prehabilitation depending on the duration of interventions on functional and postoperative outcomes in colon and rectal cancer surgery.
METHODS
Three electronic databases (MEDLINE Pubmed, Web of Sciences, and Cochrane Registry) were systematically searched (January 2022) for controlled trials that investigated the effects of prehabilitation prior to colo-rectal cancer resection.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies were included in this systematic review and 14 in our meta-analyses assessing these outcomes: the 6 min walk distance (6MWD), postoperative overall complications, and length of stay (LOS). We observed a significant improvement in preoperative functional capacity as measured with 6MWD (mean difference: 30.8 m; 95% CI 13.3, 48.3; p = 0.0005) due to prehabilitation. No reductions in LOS (mean difference: - 0.27 days; 95% CI - 0.93, 0.40; p = 0.5) or postoperative overall complications (Odds ratio: 0.84; 95% CI 0.53, 1.31; p = 0.44) were observed. Prehabilitation lasting more than 3 weeks tended to lower overall complications (Odds ratio: 0.66; 95% CI 0.4, 1.1; p = 0.11). However, the prehabilitation time periods differed between colon and rectal carcinoma resections.
CONCLUSION
Prehabilitation while the patient is preparing to undergo surgery for colorectal carcinoma improves functional capacity; and might reduce postoperative overall complications, but does not shorten the LOS. The studies we reviewed differ in target variables, design, and the intervention's time period. Multicenter studies with sufficient statistical power and differentiating between colon and rectal carcinoma are needed to develop implementation strategies in the health care system.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42022310532.
Topics: Carcinoma; Colorectal Neoplasms; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Preoperative Care; Preoperative Exercise; Rectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 35695931
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-022-04088-w