-
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) May 2017Are boys who are born to mothers who use analgesics during pregnancy at increased risk of cryptorchidism compared to those born to mothers who do not take analgesia? (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY QUESTION
Are boys who are born to mothers who use analgesics during pregnancy at increased risk of cryptorchidism compared to those born to mothers who do not take analgesia?
SUMMARY ANSWER
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 10 published studies, we observed only weak evidence of an association between analgesia use during pregnancy and risk of cryptorchidism in the son.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
Concentrations of analgesia relevant to human exposure have been implicated as causing endocrine disturbances in the developing foetal testis. However, when viewed collectively there appears to be conflicting evidence regarding an association between maternal use of analgesics and development of cryptorchidism.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on analgesia use during pregnancy and risk of cryptorchidism was performed. The search terms used were (analges* OR paracetamol OR acetaminophen) AND (cryptorchidism OR cryptorchism OR undescended test* OR non-descended test* OR non descended test*) for the databases Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science. The search included all published articles up until 23 May 2016 and no limits were set in terms of language.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Abstracts were screened by one reviewer to remove irrelevant studies, with a 10% random sample of these verified by a second reviewer. The full text of all remaining papers was assessed by two reviewers. Abstracts included in the final analysis were studies which reported associations between the exposure (analgesia) and the outcome (cryptorchidism). Studies were only included if data were provided from which summary associations (odds ratios (ORs) or relative risks) and their 95% CIs could be calculated, or if summary associations were provided by the authors themselves. For each included study, two reviewers independently extracted study meta-data in line with PRISMA recommendations. We assessed study quality and potential for bias using the criteria outlined in the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, but did not determine a quality score. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality against these criteria.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
After screening 350 manuscripts, 10 were included in our review (5 case-control studies, 5 cohort studies). We observed weak evidence of an association between ever use of analgesia and risk of cryptorchidism (pooled crude OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.00-1.23), with case-control studies revealing a marginally stronger association (1.23, 95% CI: 0.85-1.78) than cohort studies (1.09, 95% CI: 0.97-1.22). We observed weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between increasing weeks of analgesia exposure and risk of cryptorchidism, as well as weak evidence of an effect of timing on analgesia exposure and risk of cryptorchidism. Assessment of study quality via the Newcastle-Ottawa criteria revealed little (if any) evidence of substantial bias that may have meaningfully affected a given study's results.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
While confounding does not appear to be important, misclassification of the exposure is possibly an important source of measurement error in this context. The systematic review is open to reporting bias. Owing to scant data, no meta-analyses for two key questions (relating to dose-response and timing of exposure) could be performed. Medications were grouped based on their common effect and this offers little insight into the relation between specific types of analgesia and cryptorchidism. Finally, there are limitations in assuming that analgesia use reported by mothers is synonymous with actual intrauterine exposure.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
The ubiquity of analgesia use during pregnancy makes this exposure particularly important from a population health perspective. About 9 of the 10 studies were conducted in Europe or USA, limiting generalizability of our observations. While the observations from our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that analgesia use during pregnancy is not strongly associated with cryptorchidism development in the son, they also highlight the need for further detailed assessments of this relationship.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
This study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (reference #: 14/052). The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42016041414.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics; Cryptorchidism; Female; Humans; Male; Pain Management; Pregnancy; Risk
PubMed: 28333256
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dex047 -
BMC Pediatrics Aug 2023Children in acute pain often receive inadequate pain relief, partly from difficulties administering injectable analgesics. A rapid-acting, intranasal (IN) analgesic may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Children in acute pain often receive inadequate pain relief, partly from difficulties administering injectable analgesics. A rapid-acting, intranasal (IN) analgesic may be an alternative to other parenteral routes of administration. Our review compares the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal analgesia to intravenous (IV) and intramuscular (IM) administration; and to compare different intranasal agents.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, Clinicaltrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com/mrcr, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, Apps.who.int/trialsearch. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. Studies in English from any year were included. Two authors independently assessed all studies. We included randomised trials (RCTs) of children 0-16, with moderate to severe pain; comparing intranasal analgesia to intravenous or intramuscular analgesia, or to other intranasal agents. We excluded studies of procedural sedation or analgesia. We extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias with the ROB 2.0-tool. We conducted meta-analysis and narrative review, evaluating the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes included pain reduction, adverse events, acceptability, rescue medication, ease of and time to administration.
RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs with a total of 1163 children aged 3 to 20, most below 10 years old, with a variety of conditions. Our review shows that: - There may be little or no difference in pain relief (single dose IN vs IV fentanyl MD 4 mm, 95% CI -8 to 16 at 30 min by 100 mm VAS; multiple doses IN vs IV fentanyl MD 0, 95%CI -0.35 to 0.35 at 15 min by Hannallah score; single dose IN vs IV ketorolac MD 0.8, 95% CI -0.4 to 1.9 by Faces Pain Scale-Revised), adverse events (single dose IN vs IV fentanyl RR 3.09, 95% CI 0.34 to 28.28; multiple doses IN vs IV fentanyl RR 1.50, 95%CI 0.29 to 7.81); single dose IN vs IV ketorolac RR 0.716, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.26), or acceptability (single dose IN vs IV ketorolac RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04) between intranasal and intravenous analgesia (low certainty evidence). - Intranasal diamorphine or fentanyl probably give similar pain relief to intramuscular morphine (narrative review), and are probably more acceptable (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.81) and tolerated better (RR 0.061, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.13 for uncooperative/negative reaction) (moderate certainty); adverse events may be similar (narrative review) (low certainty). - Intranasal ketamine gives similar pain relief to intranasal fentanyl (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.29 at 30 min), while having a higher risk of light sedation (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.35) and mild side effects (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.71) (high certainty). Need for rescue analgesia is probably similar (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17) (moderate certainty), and acceptability may be similar (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.48) (low certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests that intranasal analgesics are probably a good alternative to intramuscular analgesics in children with acute moderate to severe pain; and may be an alternative to intravenous administration. Intranasal ketamine gives similar pain relief to fentanyl, but causes more sedation, which should inform the choice of intranasal agent.
Topics: Child; Humans; Ketorolac; Ketamine; Pain; Analgesia; Fentanyl
PubMed: 37596559
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-023-04203-x -
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 -
Journal of Perinatology : Official... Feb 2024Opioids and benzodiazepines have historically been employed for pain relief; however, they are associated with detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental consequences.... (Review)
Review
Opioids and benzodiazepines have historically been employed for pain relief; however, they are associated with detrimental long-term neurodevelopmental consequences. Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective alpha-2-adrenoreceptor agonist, has piqued interest as a viable alternative for neonates, owing to its potential analgesic and neuroprotective attributes. We conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine utilization in neonates. We conducted a comprehensive search of Ovid, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL, spanning from January 2010 to September 2022. Our review encompassed six studies involving 252 neonates. Overall, dexmedetomidine may be effective in achieving sedation and analgesia. Furthermore, it may reduce the need for adjunctive sedation or analgesia, shorten the time to extubation, decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation, and accelerate the attainment of full enteral feeds. Notably, no significant adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were reported. Nevertheless, additional well-designed studies to establish both the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in neonatal care are needed.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Pain; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Pain Management; Analgesia
PubMed: 37845426
DOI: 10.1038/s41372-023-01802-5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Water immersion during labour and birth is increasingly popular and is becoming widely accepted across many countries, and particularly in midwifery-led care settings. However, there are concerns around neonatal water inhalation, increased requirement for admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), maternal and/or neonatal infection, and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS). This is an update of a review last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of water immersion during labour and/or birth (first, second and third stage of labour) on women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 July 2017), and reference lists of retrieved trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing water immersion with no immersion, or other non-pharmacological forms of pain management during labour and/or birth in healthy low-risk women at term gestation with a singleton fetus. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 15 trials conducted between 1990 and 2015 (3663 women): eight involved water immersion during the first stage of labour; two during the second stage only; four during the first and second stages of labour, and one comparing early versus late immersion during the first stage of labour. No trials evaluated different baths/pools, or third-stage labour management. All trials were undertaken in a hospital labour ward setting, with a varying degree of medical intervention considered as routine practice. No study was carried out in a midwifery-led care setting. Most trial authors did not specify the parity of women. Trials were subject to varying degrees of bias: the intervention could not be blinded and there was a lack of information about randomisation, and whether analyses were undertaken by intention-to-treat.Immersion in water versus no immersion (first stage of labour)There is probably little or no difference in spontaneous vaginal birth between immersion and no immersion (82% versus 83%; risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.04; 6 trials; 2559 women; moderate-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (14% versus 12%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05; 6 trials; 2559 women; low-quality evidence); and caesarean section (4% versus 5%; RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.79; 7 trials; 2652 women; low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of immersion on estimated blood loss (mean difference (MD) -14.33 mL, 95% CI -63.03 to 34.37; 2 trials; 153 women; very low-quality evidence) and third- or fourth-degree tears (3% versus 3%; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.18; 4 trials; 2341 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was a small reduction in the risk of using regional analgesia for women allocated to water immersion from 43% to 39% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; 5 trials; 2439 women; moderate-quality evidence). Perinatal deaths were not reported, and there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact on neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions (6% versus 8%; average RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.97; 2 trials; 1511 infants; I² = 36%; low-quality evidence), or on neonatal infection rates (1% versus 1%; RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.94; 5 trials; 1295 infants; very low-quality evidence).Immersion in water versus no immersion (second stage of labour)There were no clear differences between groups for spontaneous vaginal birth (97% versus 99%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 120 women; 1 trial; low-quality evidence); instrumental vaginal birth (2% versus 2%; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.62; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence); caesarean section (2% versus 1%; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02; 1 trial; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), and NICU admissions (11% versus 9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.59; 2 trials; 291 women; very low-quality evidence). Use of regional analgesia was not relevant to the second stage of labour. Third- or fourth-degree tears, and estimated blood loss were not reported in either trial. No trial reported neonatal infection but did report neonatal temperature less than 36.2°C at birth (9% versus 9%; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.20; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), greater than 37.5°C at birth (6% versus 15%; RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.73 to 9.35; 1 trial; 109 infants; very low-quality evidence), and fever reported in first week (5% versus 2%; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.82; 1 trial; 171 infants; very low-quality evidence), with no clear effect between groups being observed. One perinatal death occurred in the immersion group in one trial (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.20; 1 trial; 120 infants; very low-quality evidence). The infant was born to a mother with HIV and the cause of death was deemed to be intrauterine infection.There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the baby or woman from either the first or second stage of labour.Only one trial (200 women) compared early and late entry into the water and there were insufficient data to show any clear differences.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In healthy women at low risk of complications there is moderate to low-quality evidence that water immersion during the first stage of labour probably has little effect on mode of birth or perineal trauma, but may reduce the use of regional analgesia. The evidence for immersion during the second stage of labour is limited and does not show clear differences on maternal or neonatal outcomes intensive care. There is no evidence of increased adverse effects to the fetus/neonate or woman from labouring or giving birth in water. Available evidence is limited by clinical variability and heterogeneity across trials, and no trial has been conducted in a midwifery-led setting.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Immersion; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Infections; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Stage, First; Labor Stage, Second; Natural Childbirth; Perineum; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Water
PubMed: 29768662
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000111.pub4 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2021Epidural analgesia is associated with intrapartum hyperthermia, and chorioamnionitis is associated with neonatal brain injury. However, it is not known if epidural... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is associated with intrapartum hyperthermia, and chorioamnionitis is associated with neonatal brain injury. However, it is not known if epidural hyperthermia is associated with neonatal brain injury. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated three questions: (1) does epidural analgesia cause intrapartum hyperthermia, (2) is intrapartum hyperthermia associated with neonatal brain injury, and (3) is epidural-induced hyperthermia associated with neonatal brain injury?
METHODS
PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from inception to January 2020 using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms relating to epidural analgesia, hyperthermia, labour, and neonatal brain injury. Studies were reviewed independently for inclusion and quality by two authors (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach). Two meta-analyses were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed effect method to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Forty-one studies were included for Question 1 (646 296 participants), 36 for Question 2 (11 866 021 participants), and two studies for Question 3 (297 113 participants). When the mode of analgesia was randomised, epidural analgesia was associated with intrapartum hyperthermia (OR: 4.21; 95% CI: 3.48-5.09). There was an association between intrapartum hyperthermia and neonatal brain injury (OR: 2.79; 95% CI: 2.54-2.3.06). It was not possible to quantify the association between epidural-induced hyperthermia and neonatal brain injury.
CONCLUSIONS
Epidural analgesia is a cause of intrapartum hyperthermia, and intrapartum hyperthermia of any cause is associated with neonatal brain injury. Further work is required to establish if epidural-induced hyperthermia is a cause of neonatal brain injury.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Body Temperature Regulation; Brain Injuries; Female; Humans; Hyperthermia; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Newborn, Diseases; Pregnancy; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33218673
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.09.046 -
International Journal of Obstetric... Feb 2021Postpartum depression (PPD) is the most common complication after childbirth, affecting 10-15% of women. It is associated with serious long-term consequences for the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Postpartum depression (PPD) is the most common complication after childbirth, affecting 10-15% of women. It is associated with serious long-term consequences for the mother and family. Whether or not neuraxial labor analgesia mitigates the risk is uncertain and controversial. The purpose of this review was to summarize studies investigating the association between neuraxial labor analgesia and the incidence of PPD.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies reporting the incidence of PPD among parturients who received neuraxial analgesia compared with non-neuraxial or no analgesia. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPD between 5 and 12 weeks' postpartum. Depression was diagnosed using a cutoff score of ≥10 on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale, a validated screening tool. The risk of bias of each study was evaluated, and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals calculated from raw data or reported as adjusted odds ratios.
RESULTS
Eleven observational studies involving 5717 patients were included. Three studies had a critical risk, three a serious risk, and five a moderate risk of bias. Two studies reported significantly lower odds for PPD associated with neuraxial analgesia compared with non-neuraxial or no analgesia, whereas the odds ratios in the remaining nine studies were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review did not find compelling evidence for an association between PPD and labor analgesia. Studies were heterogenous in nature and had a high risk of bias. Further research controlling for confounding factors is recommended to determine if a relationship exists.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesics; Depression, Postpartum; Female; Humans; Pain Management; Parturition; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33221120
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2020.10.004 -
International Urogynecology Journal Sep 2022We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of local preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain control in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of local preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain control in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched systematically to identify eligible studies published through September 25, 2019. Only randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews addressing local preemptive analgesia compared to placebo at vaginal hysterectomy were considered. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results were compared, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria for full-text review. Four RCTs, including a total of 197 patients, and two SRs were included in the review.
RESULTS
Preemptive local analgesia reduced postoperative pain scores up to 6 h and postoperative opioid requirements in the first 24 h after surgery.
CONCLUSION
Preemptive local analgesia at vaginal hysterectomy results in less postoperative pain and less postoperative opioid consumption.
Topics: Female; Humans; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34870713
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04999-1 -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica May 2021Hip fracture is a common, painful injury with increasing global incidence. Patients require optimal acute pain management. Systematic reviews have investigated the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hip fracture is a common, painful injury with increasing global incidence. Patients require optimal acute pain management. Systematic reviews have investigated the postoperative use of epidural analgesia and found that it may have advantages over systemic analgesia. It is of interest to determine whether pre-operative use of epidural analgesia is also advantageous. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses on the effect of epidural analgesia on pre-operative pain management in hip fracture patients.
METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials comparing pre-operatively initiated epidural analgesia with any other method of analgesia, in adults aged ≥55 years scheduled for hip fracture surgery. The main outcome was pre-operative pain at rest. Electronic searches of four medical databases were performed. Two authors independently screened for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
Three articles were included, with 179 randomized patients. All studies compared epidural analgesia with systemic analgesia, one additionally with 3-in-1-block. Meta-analyses of pre-operative pain measurements resulted in a mean difference of -5.85 95% CI [-14.90; 3.19] on a 0-100 Visual Analogue Scale with a p-value of 0.17 and a very low certainty of evidence according to the GRADE rating.
CONCLUSIONS
We did not find a difference in pre-operative pain at rest between epidural analgesia and any other method of pre-operatively initiated analgesia. The studies were few, of low quality and the difference between the two interventions remains unknown.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Hip Fractures; Humans; Middle Aged; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 33296497
DOI: 10.1111/aas.13760 -
PloS One 2023Ropivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic that is used to treat postoperative pain. Adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine in regional anesthesia may prolong the duration... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to ropivacaine or ropivacaine alone on duration of postoperative analgesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Ropivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic that is used to treat postoperative pain. Adjuvant use of dexmedetomidine in regional anesthesia may prolong the duration of analgesia. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the duration and effect of ropivacaine alone vs. ropivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine for postoperative analgesia.
METHODS
The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ropivacaine alone or ropivacaine in combination with dexmedetomidine for regional anesthesia. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia, defined as the time from onset of the block to the time of the first analgesic request or initial pain report. Secondary outcomes were duration of sensory block, duration of motor block, consumption of sufentanil for analgesia, length of hospital stay, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies with 1148 patients were included. Overall quality of the RCTs, as assessed by the Jadad scale, was high. The meta-analysis demonstrated that ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia from local anesthetics compared to ropivacaine alone (WMD: 4.14h; 95%CI: 3.29~5.0h; P<0.00001; I2 = 99%). There was evidence of high heterogeneity between studies. The duration of sensory and motor block was significantly increased, and consumption of sufentanil for analgesia and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were significantly reduced in patients who received ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine compared to ropivacaine alone. There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to ropivacaine alone, ropivacaine combined with dexmedetomidine significantly prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia and sensory and motor block, and reduced consumption of sufentanil for analgesia and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, across an array of surgeries.
Topics: Humans; Ropivacaine; Dexmedetomidine; Sufentanil; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthetics, Local; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesia
PubMed: 37819905
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287296