-
Journal of Clinical Nursing Dec 2022Games are increasingly being used as a means of alleviating pain and anxiety in paediatric patients, in the view that this form of distraction is effective, non-invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Games are increasingly being used as a means of alleviating pain and anxiety in paediatric patients, in the view that this form of distraction is effective, non-invasive and non-pharmacological.
AIMS
To determine whether a game-based intervention (via gamification or virtual reality) during the induction of anaesthesia reduces preoperative pain and anxiety in paediatric patients.
METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and using RevMan software. The review was based on a search of the EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, SciELO and Scopus databases, conducted in July 2021. No restriction was placed on the year of publication.
RESULTS
26 studies were found, with a total study population of 2525 children. Regarding pain reduction, no significant differences were reported. For anxiety during anaesthesia induction, however, a mean difference of -10.62 (95% CI -13.85, -7.39) on the Modified Yale Preoperative Anxiety Scale, in favour of game-based intervention, was recorded.
CONCLUSIONS
Game-based interventions alleviate preoperative anxiety during the induction of anaesthesia in children. This innovative and pleasurable approach can be helpful in the care of paediatric surgical patients.
RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE
In children, preoperative management is a challenging task for healthcare professionals, and game-based strategies could enhance results, improving patients' emotional health and boosting post-surgery recovery. Distractive games-based procedures should be considered for incorporation in the pre-surgery clinical workflow in order to optimise healthcare.
Topics: Humans; Child; Anxiety; Anesthesia, General; Anxiety Disorders; Emotions; Pain
PubMed: 35075716
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16227 -
Current Clinical Pharmacology 2019Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Fentanyl, Remifentanil, Sufentanil and Alfentanil in Combination with Propofol for General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination, the present meta-analysis was carried out.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for appropriate studies using a suitable search strategy. Randomized clinical trials comparing the combination of remifentanil/sufentanil/alfentanil with propofol with fentanyl and propofol, were included. The outcome measures were as follows: total propofol dose to achieve the desired general anesthesia; time of onset and duration of general anesthesia; depth of general anesthesia; and recovery time (time for eye-opening and time taken for extubation). Risk of bias was assessed and Forest plots were generated for eligible outcomes. The weighted mean difference [95% confidence intervals] was used as the effect estimate.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 were included in the metaanalysis. Statistically significant differences were observed for remifentanil in comparison to fentanyl when combined with propofol: Propofol dose (in mg) -76.18 [-94.72, -57.64]; time of onset of anesthesia (min) -0.44 [-0.74, -0.15]; time taken for eye-opening (min) -3.95 [-4.8, -3.1]; and time for extubation (min) -3.53 [-4.37, -2.7]. No significant differences were observed for either sufentanil or alfentanil about the dose of propofol required and due to scanty data, pooling of the data could not be attempted for other outcome measures for either sufentanil or alfentanil.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, we found that remifentanil has a statistically significant anesthetic profile than fentanyl when combined with propofol. Scanty evidence for both alfentanil and sufentanil precludes any such confirmation.
Topics: Alfentanil; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Fentanyl; Humans; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Sufentanil
PubMed: 30868958
DOI: 10.2174/1567201816666190313160438 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2014Pulmonary aspiration of gastric content is a serious anaesthetic complication that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Aspiration risk assessment is usually... (Review)
Review
Pulmonary aspiration of gastric content is a serious anaesthetic complication that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Aspiration risk assessment is usually based on fasting times. However, fasting guidelines do not apply to urgent or emergent situations and to patients with certain co-morbidities. Gastric content and volume assessment is a new point-of-care ultrasound application that can help determine aspiration risk. This systematic review summarizes the current literature on bedside ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume relevant to anaesthesia practice. Seventeen articles were identified using predetermined criteria. Studies were classified into those describing the sonographic characteristics of different types of gastric content (empty, clear fluid, solid), and those describing methods for quantitative assessment of gastric volume. A possible algorithm for the clinical application of this new tool is proposed, and areas that require further research are highlighted.
Topics: Algorithms; Anesthesia; Gastrointestinal Contents; Humans; Pneumonia, Aspiration; Point-of-Care Systems; Preoperative Care; Risk Assessment; Stomach; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 24893784
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeu151 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Sep 2019Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes.
METHODS
The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations.
RESULTS
The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87.
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty.
TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER
PROSPERO CRD42018099935.
Topics: Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Spinal; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31351590
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.05.042 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2022We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient-and public-informed outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set, and outcomes defined as important by patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives.
METHODS
RCTs comparing any of the core outcomes (mortality, time from injury to surgery, acute coronary syndrome, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, orthogeriatric input, being out of bed at day 1 postoperatively, and pain) or PPI-defined outcomes (return to preoperative residence, quality of life, and mobility status) between SA and GA were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (2000 to February 2022). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in the risk of delirium comparing SA vs GA (RR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29). Comparing SA vs GA, the RR for mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.22-1.44) in-hospital, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.52-2.23) at 30 days, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.55-2.12) at 90 days. Spinal anaesthesia reduced the risk of acute kidney injury compared with GA: RR=0.59 (95% CI, 0.39-0.89). There were no significant differences in the risk of other outcomes. Few studies reported PPI-defined outcomes, with most studies reporting on one to three core outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Except for acute kidney injury, there were no differences between SA and GA in hip fracture surgery when using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient and public involvement-defined outcomes. Most studies reported limited outcomes from the core outcome set, and few reported outcomes important to patients, which should be considered when designing future RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021275206.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Spinal; Consensus; Quality of Life; Postoperative Complications; Anesthesia, General; Hip Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Delirium; Acute Kidney Injury; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36270701
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.031 -
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Feb 2022Opioid-based treatment is used to manage stress responses during surgery and postoperative pain. However, opioids have both acute and long-term side effects, calling for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Total opioid-free general anaesthesia can improve postoperative outcomes after surgery, without evidence of adverse effects on patient safety and pain management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Opioid-based treatment is used to manage stress responses during surgery and postoperative pain. However, opioids have both acute and long-term side effects, calling for opioid-free anaesthetic strategies. This meta-analysis compares adverse events, postoperative recovery, discharge time from post-anaesthesia care unit, and postoperative pain, nausea, vomiting, and opioid consumption between strict opioid-free and opioid-based general anaesthesia.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane Library, selected reference lists, and Google Scholar. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 2000 and February 2021 with at least one opioid-free study arm, i.e. no opioids administered preoperatively, during anaesthesia induction, before skin closure, or before emergence from anaesthesia.
RESULTS
The study comprised 1934 patients from 26 RCTs. Common interventions included laparoscopic gynaecological surgery, upper gastrointestinal surgery, and breast surgery. There is firm evidence that opioid-free anaesthesia significantly reduced adverse postoperative events (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.46, I = 56%, p < 0.00001), mainly driven by decreased nausea (OR 0.27, (0.17 to 0.42), p < 0.00001) and vomiting (OR 0.22 (0.11 to 0.41), p < 0.00001). Postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the opioid-free group (-6.00 mg (-8.52 to -3.48), p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in length of post-anaesthesia care unit stay and overall postoperative pain between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Opioid-free anaesthesia can improve postoperative outcomes in several surgical settings without evidence of adverse effects on patient safety and pain management. There is a need for more evidence-based non-opioid anaesthetic protocols for different types of surgery as well as postoperative phases.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, General; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Safety
PubMed: 34724195
DOI: 10.1111/aas.13994 -
Local analgesia in paediatric dentistry: a systematic review of techniques and pharmacologic agents.European Archives of Paediatric... Oct 2017To evaluate the evidence supporting effects and adverse effects of local analgesia using different pharmacological agents and injection techniques during dental... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the evidence supporting effects and adverse effects of local analgesia using different pharmacological agents and injection techniques during dental treatment in children and adolescents aged 3-19 years.
METHODS
A systematic literature search of databases including PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus was conducted in November 2016. The PRISMA-statement was followed. Two review authors independently assessed the selected randomised control trials for risk of bias and quality.
RESULTS
725 scientific papers were identified. 89 papers were identified to be read in full text of which 80 were excluded. Finally, 9 papers were evaluated for quality and risk of bias. Many of the included papers had methodological shortcomings affecting the possibility to draw conclusions. Information about ethical clearance and consent were missing in some of the included papers. No alarming adverse effects were identified. One study was assessed as having low risk of bias. This reported inferior alveolar nerve block to be more effective than buccal infiltration for dental treatment of mandibular molars, while no differences were found regarding pharmacological agents.
CONCLUSIONS
At present, there is insufficient evidence in support of any pharmacologic agent or injection technique as being superior compared to others. There is a need for more rigorous studies which also handle the ethical issues of including children in potentially painful studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Child; Child, Preschool; Dental Care for Children; Ethics, Dental; Humans; Pain Management
PubMed: 28913645
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-017-0302-z -
International Journal of Molecular... Feb 2023The use of neuraxial procedures, such as spinal and epidural anaesthesia, has been linked to some possible complications. In addition, spinal cord injuries due to... (Review)
Review
The use of neuraxial procedures, such as spinal and epidural anaesthesia, has been linked to some possible complications. In addition, spinal cord injuries due to anaesthetic practice (Anaes-SCI) are rare events but remain a significant concern for many patients undergoing surgery. This systematic review aimed to identify high-risk patients summarise the causes, consequences, and management/recommendations of SCI due to neuraxial techniques in anaesthesia. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted in accordance with Cochrane recommendations, and inclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant studies. From the 384 studies initially screened, 31 were critically appraised, and the data were extracted and analysed. The results of this review suggest that the main risk factors reported were extremes of age, obesity, and diabetes. Anaes-SCI was reported as a consequence of hematoma, trauma, abscess, ischemia, and infarction, among others. As a result, mainly motor deficits, sensory loss, and pain were reported. Many authors reported delayed treatments to resolve Anaes-SCI. Despite the potential complications, neuraxial techniques are still one of the best options for opioid-sparing pain prevention and management, reducing patients' morbidity, improving outcomes, reducing the length of hospital stay, and pain chronification, with a consequent economic benefit. The main findings of this review highlight the importance of careful patient management and close monitoring during neuraxial anaesthesia procedures to minimise the risk of spinal cord injury and complications.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthesia, Epidural; Spinal Cord Injuries; Pain
PubMed: 36902095
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24054665 -
Australian Dental Journal Mar 2022Anxiety is an adaptive emotional response to potentially threatening or dangerous situations; moderated by the sympathetic nervous system. Dental anxiety is common and... (Review)
Review
Anxiety is an adaptive emotional response to potentially threatening or dangerous situations; moderated by the sympathetic nervous system. Dental anxiety is common and presents before, during or after dental treatment. The physiological response includes an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and cardiac output. Consequently, extensive distress leads to avoidance of dental treatment and multiple failed appointments, impacting both oral and general health. Dental anxiety can generate a variety of negative consequences for both the dentist and the patient. Evidence-based strategies are essential for mitigating and relieving anxiety in the dental clinic. Psychotherapeutic behavioural strategies can modify the patient's experience through a minimally invasive approach with nil or negligible side effects, depending on patient characteristics, anxiety level and clinical situations. These therapies involve muscle relaxation, guided imagery, physiological monitoring, utilizing biofeedback, hypnosis, acupuncture, distraction and desensitization. Pharmacological intervention utilizes either relative analgesia (nitrous oxide), conscious intravenous sedation or oral sedation, which can have undesirable side effects, risks and contraindications. These modalities increase the cost and availability of dental treatment.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Dental Anxiety; Dental Clinics; Conscious Sedation; Anesthesia; Anesthesia, Dental
PubMed: 35735746
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12926 -
Anaesthesia Jun 2019Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Intra-operative remifentanil is associated with increased postoperative analgesic requirements and opioid consumption. Dexmedetomidine has characteristics suggesting it may substitute for intra-operative remifentanil during general anaesthesia, but existing literature has reported conflicting results. We undertook this meta-analysis to investigate whether general anaesthesia including dexmedetomidine would result in less postoperative pain than general anaesthesia including remifentanil. The MEDLINE and PubMed electronic databases were searched up to October 2018. Only randomised trials including patients receiving general anaesthesia and comparing dexmedetomidine with remifentanil administration were included. Meta-analyses were performed mostly employing a random effects model. The primary outcome was pain score at rest (visual analogue scale, 0-10) at two postoperative hours. The secondary outcomes included: pain score at rest at 24 postoperative hours; opioid consumption at 2 and 24 postoperative hours; and rates of hypotension, bradycardia, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Twenty-one randomised trials, including 1309 patients, were identified. Pain scores at rest at two postoperative hours were lower in the dexmedetomidine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -0.7 (-1.2 to -0.2), I = 85%, p = 0.004, and a moderate quality of evidence. Secondary pain outcomes were also significantly better in the dexmedetomidine group. Rates of hypotension, shivering and postoperative nausea and vomiting were at least twice as frequent in patients who received remifentanil. Time to analgesia request was longer, and use of postoperative morphine and rescue analgesia were less, with dexmedetomidine, whereas episodes of bradycardia were similar between groups. There is moderate evidence that intra-operative dexmedetomidine during general anaesthesia improves pain outcomes during the first 24 postoperative hours, when compared with remifentanil, with fewer side effects.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, General; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Pain, Postoperative; Remifentanil
PubMed: 30950522
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14657