-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Mar 2022Background and Objectives: Excisional hemorrhoidectomy is considered as a mainstay operation for high-grade hemorrhoids and complicated hemorrhoids. However,... (Review)
Review
Background and Objectives: Excisional hemorrhoidectomy is considered as a mainstay operation for high-grade hemorrhoids and complicated hemorrhoids. However, postoperative pain remains a challenging problem after hemorrhoidectomy. This systematic review aims to identify pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for reducing post-hemorrhoidectomy pain. Materials and Methods: The databases of Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were systematically searched for randomized controlled trails (published in English language with full-text from 1981 to 30 September 2021) to include comparative studies examining post-hemorrhoidectomy pain as their primary outcomes between an intervention and another intervention (or a sham or placebo). Results: Some 157 studies were included in this review with additional information from 15 meta-analyses. Fundamentally, strategies to reduce post-hemorrhoidectomy pain were categorized into four groups: anesthetic methods, surgical techniques, intraoperative adjuncts, and postoperative interventions. In brief, local anesthesia-alone or combined with intravenous sedation was the most effective anesthetic method for excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Regarding surgical techniques, closed (Ferguson) hemorrhoidectomy performed with a vascular sealing device or an ultrasonic scalpel was recommended. Lateral internal anal sphincterotomy may be performed as a surgical adjunct to reduce post-hemorrhoidectomy pain, although it increased risks of anal incontinence. Chemical sphincterotomy (botulinum toxin, topical calcium channel blockers, and topical glyceryl trinitrate) was also efficacious in reducing postoperative pain. So were other topical agents such as anesthetic cream, 10% metronidazole ointment, and 10% sucralfate ointment. Postoperative administration of oral metronidazole, flavonoids, and laxatives was associated with a significant reduction in post-hemorrhoidectomy pain. Conclusions: This systematic review comprehensively covers evidence-based strategies to reduce pain after excisional hemorrhoidectomy. Areas for future research on this topic are also addressed at the end of this article.
Topics: Hemorrhoidectomy; Hemorrhoids; Humans; Ointments; Pain, Postoperative; Vascular Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 35334594
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58030418 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Jan 2020To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS
We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee ( Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates.
RESULTS
Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019126656.
Topics: Critical Illness; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Patient Selection; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Risk Adjustment
PubMed: 31907166
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6744 -
MASCC/ISOO clinical practice guidelines for the management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy.Cancer May 2014Mucositis is a highly significant, and sometimes dose-limiting, toxicity of cancer therapy. The goal of this systematic review was to update the Multinational... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mucositis is a highly significant, and sometimes dose-limiting, toxicity of cancer therapy. The goal of this systematic review was to update the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and International Society of Oral Oncology (MASCC/ISOO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted to identify eligible published articles, based on predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Each article was independently reviewed by 2 reviewers. Studies were rated according to the presence of major and minor flaws as per previously published criteria. The body of evidence for each intervention, in each treatment setting, was assigned a level of evidence, based on previously published criteria. Guidelines were developed based on the level of evidence, with 3 possible guideline determinations: recommendation, suggestion, or no guideline possible.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 8279 papers, 1032 of which were retrieved for detailed evaluation based on titles and abstracts. Of these, 570 qualified for final inclusion in the systematic reviews. Sixteen new guidelines were developed for or against the use of various interventions in specific treatment settings. In total, the MASCC/ISOO Mucositis Guidelines now include 32 guidelines: 22 for oral mucositis and 10 for gastrointestinal mucositis. This article describes these updated guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS
The updated MASCC/ISOO Clinical Practice Guidelines for mucositis will help clinicians provide evidence-based management of mucositis secondary to cancer therapy.
Topics: Amifostine; Analgesics; Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Anti-Ulcer Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Cryotherapy; Cytokines; Esophagitis; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Low-Level Light Therapy; Mucositis; Neoplasms; Oral Hygiene; Phototherapy; Proctitis; Protective Agents; Radiation-Protective Agents; Radiotherapy; Stomatitis; Sucralfate
PubMed: 24615748
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28592 -
Intensive Care Medicine Nov 2020Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Motivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients.
METHODS
We searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Seventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis.
CONCLUSION
This updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.
Topics: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Critical Illness; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32833040
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-06209-w -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics May 2003Evidence for the effectiveness of antacids, histamine-2 receptor antagonists, bismuth salts, sucralfate and prokinetic therapy in non-ulcer dyspepsia is conflicting. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
BACKGROUND
Evidence for the effectiveness of antacids, histamine-2 receptor antagonists, bismuth salts, sucralfate and prokinetic therapy in non-ulcer dyspepsia is conflicting.
AIM
To conduct a systematic review evaluating these therapies in non-ulcer dyspepsia.
METHODS
Electronic searches were performed using the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, EMBASE, Cinahl and SIGLE until September 2002. Dyspepsia outcomes were dichotomized into cured/improved vs. same/worse.
RESULTS
Prokinetics [14 trials, 1053 patients; relative risk reduction (RRR), 48%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 27-63%] and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (11 trials, 2164 patients; RRR, 22%; 95% CI, 7-35%) were significantly more effective than placebo. Bismuth salts (RRR, 40%; 95% CI, - 3% to 65%) were superior to placebo, but this was of marginal statistical significance. Antacids and sucralfate were not statistically significantly superior to placebo. A funnel plot suggested that the prokinetic and histamine-2 receptor antagonist results could be due to publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analyses suggest that histamine-2 receptor antagonists and prokinetics are superior to placebo. These data are difficult to interpret, however, as funnel plot asymmetry suggests that the magnitude of the effect could be due to publication bias or other heterogeneity-related issues.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antacids; Bismuth; Cisapride; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyspepsia; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Transit; Histamine H2 Antagonists; Humans; Sucralfate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 12755835
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01575.x -
Diseases of the Colon and Rectum Oct 2012Chronic radiation proctopathy is associated with significant morbidity. The effectiveness of endoscopic and medical therapies has not been evaluated. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic radiation proctopathy is associated with significant morbidity. The effectiveness of endoscopic and medical therapies has not been evaluated.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of endoscopic and comparative medical therapies for chronic radiation proctopathy.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search Medline and PubMed was performed.
STUDY SELECTION
A comprehensive literature search was performed for studies of endoscopic and medical therapy for clinical and endoscopic improvement in chronic radiation proctopathy from January 1990 until December 2010. The quality of the overall evidence was rated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group.
SETTING
Patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings were assessed.
PATIENTS
Patients experiencing chronic radiation proctopathy were included.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients had undergone medical or endoscopic treatments for chronic radiation proctopathy.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcomes measured were the resolution or improvement in symptoms.
RESULTS
A total of 39 studies were found, of which 27 evaluated endoscopic therapy and 12 evaluated medical therapy chronic radiation proctopathy. Overall, there is low-level evidence for the effectiveness of endoscopic therapy with argon plasma coagulation in reducing short-term (≤6 weeks) symptoms of chronic radiation proctopathy and insufficient evidence for long-term improvement. There is moderate-level evidence for the use of sucralfate enemas and low-level evidence for use of short-chain fatty acid enemas and hyperbaric oxygen. There is insufficient evidence for other agents: topical formalin, 5-aminosalicylic acid compounds, sulfasalazine, vitamin A, and pentoxifylline.
LIMITATIONS
Individual authors were not contacted, and the search was limited to English language journals only.
CONCLUSION
Endoscopic treatment with argon plasma coagulation appears effective in the short-term outcome of chronic radiation proctopathy. There is a moderate level of evidence for the use of sucralfate enemas. Large, randomized, placebo-controlled studies evaluating endoscopic and medical therapies for chronic radiation proctopathy are needed.
Topics: Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Enema; Humans; Hyperbaric Oxygenation; Laser Therapy; Proctitis; Radiation Injuries
PubMed: 22965408
DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182587aef -
Dermatologic Therapy Apr 2022Sucralfate is an aluminum salt of sucrose octasulfate, generally considered safe in terms of adverse effects. Systemic sucralfate is FDA-approved for the treatment of... (Review)
Review
Sucralfate is an aluminum salt of sucrose octasulfate, generally considered safe in terms of adverse effects. Systemic sucralfate is FDA-approved for the treatment of duodenal ulcers. Since 1991, topical sucralfate has been used in various mucocutaneous conditions, but it is not approved by the FDA yet. In this systematic review, the online databases were searched with appropriate keywords, and the papers were screened by the authors. After screening steps, the relevant articles were selected according to the inclusions and exclusions criteria. Finally, the full texts of 18 articles were included for final evaluations. In conclusion, topical sucralfate has some clinical benefit in several mucocutaneous conditions, including mucocutaneous inflammatory conditions (e.g., post-radiotherapy reaction, diaper dermatitis, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, etc.), mucocutaneous infectious disorders (e.g., peristomal wound reaction/infection); ulcers; burns, and also pain relief.
Topics: Burns; Humans; Sucralfate; Ulcer
PubMed: 35080090
DOI: 10.1111/dth.15334 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Phosphate binders are used to reduce positive phosphate balance and to lower serum phosphate levels for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with the aim to prevent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Phosphate binders are used to reduce positive phosphate balance and to lower serum phosphate levels for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with the aim to prevent progression of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). This is an update of a review first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to assess the benefits and harms of phosphate binders for people with CKD with particular reference to relevant biochemical end-points, musculoskeletal and cardiovascular morbidity, hospitalisation, and death.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 12 July 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of adults with CKD of any GFR category comparing a phosphate binder to another phosphate binder, placebo or usual care to lower serum phosphate. Outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, adverse events, vascular calcification and bone fracture, and surrogates for such outcomes including serum phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and FGF23.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We applied the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool and used the GRADE process to assess evidence certainty. We estimated treatment effects using random-effects meta-analysis. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes together with 95% confidence intervals (CI) or mean differences (MD) or standardised MD (SMD) for continuous outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 104 studies involving 13,744 adults. Sixty-nine new studies were added to this 2018 update.Most placebo or usual care controlled studies were among participants with CKD G2 to G5 not requiring dialysis (15/25 studies involving 1467 participants) while most head to head studies involved participants with CKD G5D treated with dialysis (74/81 studies involving 10,364 participants). Overall, seven studies compared sevelamer with placebo or usual care (667 participants), seven compared lanthanum to placebo or usual care (515 participants), three compared iron to placebo or usual care (422 participants), and four compared calcium to placebo or usual care (278 participants). Thirty studies compared sevelamer to calcium (5424 participants), and fourteen studies compared lanthanum to calcium (1690 participants). No study compared iron-based binders to calcium. The remaining studies evaluated comparisons between sevelamer (hydrochloride or carbonate), sevelamer plus calcium, lanthanum, iron (ferric citrate, sucroferric oxyhydroxide, stabilised polynuclear iron(III)-oxyhydroxide), calcium (acetate, ketoglutarate, carbonate), bixalomer, colestilan, magnesium (carbonate), magnesium plus calcium, aluminium hydroxide, sucralfate, the inhibitor of phosphate absorption nicotinamide, placebo, or usual care without binder. In 82 studies, treatment was evaluated among adults with CKD G5D treated with haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, while in 22 studies, treatment was evaluated among participants with CKD G2 to G5. The duration of study follow-up ranged from 8 weeks to 36 months (median 3.7 months). The sample size ranged from 8 to 2103 participants (median 69). The mean age ranged between 42.6 and 68.9 years.Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were low risk in 25 and 15 studies, respectively. Twenty-seven studies reported low risk methods for blinding of participants, investigators, and outcome assessors. Thirty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias and 69 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias.In CKD G2 to G5, compared with placebo or usual care, sevelamer, lanthanum, iron and calcium-based phosphate binders had uncertain or inestimable effects on death (all causes), cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture, or coronary artery calcification. Sevelamer may lead to constipation (RR 6.92, CI 2.24 to 21.4; low certainty) and lanthanum (RR 2.98, CI 1.21 to 7.30, moderate certainty) and iron-based binders (RR 2.66, CI 1.15 to 6.12, moderate certainty) probably increased constipation compared with placebo or usual care. Lanthanum may result in vomiting (RR 3.72, CI 1.36 to 10.18, low certainty). Iron-based binders probably result in diarrhoea (RR 2.81, CI 1.18 to 6.68, high certainty), while the risks of other adverse events for all binders were uncertain.In CKD G5D sevelamer may lead to lower death (all causes) (RR 0.53, CI 0.30 to 0.91, low certainty) and induce less hypercalcaemia (RR 0.30, CI 0.20 to 0.43, low certainty) when compared with calcium-based binders, and has uncertain or inestimable effects on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture, or coronary artery calcification. The finding of lower death with sevelamer compared with calcium was present when the analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias (RR 0.50, CI 0.32 to 0.77). In absolute terms, sevelamer may lower risk of death (all causes) from 210 per 1000 to 105 per 1000 over a follow-up of up to 36 months, compared to calcium-based binders. Compared with calcium-based binders, lanthanum had uncertain effects with respect to all-cause or cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture, or coronary artery calcification and probably had reduced risks of treatment-related hypercalcaemia (RR 0.16, CI 0.06 to 0.43, low certainty). There were no head-to-head studies of iron-based binders compared with calcium. The paucity of placebo-controlled studies in CKD G5D has led to uncertainty about the effects of phosphate binders on patient-important outcomes compared with placebo.It is uncertain whether the effects of binders on clinically-relevant outcomes were different for patients who were and were not treated with dialysis in subgroup analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In studies of adults with CKD G5D treated with dialysis, sevelamer may lower death (all causes) compared to calcium-based binders and incur less treatment-related hypercalcaemia, while we found no clinically important benefits of any phosphate binder on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fracture or coronary artery calcification. The effects of binders on patient-important outcomes compared to placebo are uncertain. In patients with CKD G2 to G5, the effects of sevelamer, lanthanum, and iron-based phosphate binders on cardiovascular, vascular calcification, and bone outcomes compared to placebo or usual care, are also uncertain and they may incur constipation, while iron-based binders may lead to diarrhoea.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Calcium; Calcium Compounds; Cause of Death; Chelating Agents; Chronic Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease-Mineral and Bone Disorder; Disease Progression; Fibroblast Growth Factor-23; Humans; Hypercalcemia; Iron Compounds; Lanthanum; Middle Aged; Parathyroid Hormone; Phosphorus; Polyamines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Sevelamer
PubMed: 30132304
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006023.pub3 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jan 2023To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of different analgesic interventions in the treatment of pain after open hemorrhoidectomy by systematic review and network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of different analgesic interventions in the treatment of pain after open hemorrhoidectomy by systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and VIP were searched from the date of database construction to June 28, 2022.
RESULTS
Among the 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 731 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. Most interventions are more effective than placebo in relieving postoperative pain. 24 h postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) (mean difference (MD) - 4.20, 95% CI - 5.35, - 3.05), diltiazem (MD - 1.97, 95% CI - 2.44, - 1.51), botulinum toxin (BT) (MD - 1.50, 95% CI - 2.25, - 0.75), sucralfate (MD - 1.01, 95% CI - 1.53, - 0.49), and electroacupuncture (EA) (MD - 0.45, 95% CI - 0.87, - 0.04). 48 h postoperative VAS: diltiazem (MD - 2.45, 95% CI - 2.74, - 2.15), BT (MD - 2.18, 95% CI - 2.52, - 1.84), and sucralfate (MD - 1.41, 95% CI - 1.85, - 0.97). 7 d postoperative VAS: diltiazem (MD - 2.49, 95% CI - 3.20, - 1.78) and sucralfate (MD - 1.42, 95% CI - 2.00, - 0.85). The first postoperative defecation VAS: EA (MD - 0.70, 95% CI - 0.95, - 0.46). There are few data on intervention safety, and additional high-quality RCTs are expected to study this topic in the future.
CONCLUSION
Diltiazem ointment may be the most effective medication for pain relief following open hemorrhoidectomy, and it can dramatically reduce pain within one week of surgery. The second and third recommended medications are BT and sucralfate ointment. GTN has a significant advantage in alleviating pain 24 h after open hemorrhoidectomy, but whether it causes headache is debatable; thus, it should be used with caution. EA's analgesic efficacy is still unknown. There was limited evidence on the safety of the intervention in this study, and it was simply presented statistically.
Topics: Humans; Hemorrhoidectomy; Diltiazem; Ointments; Sucralfate; Network Meta-Analysis; Analgesics; Nitroglycerin; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36609578
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-022-04294-5 -
International Wound Journal Feb 2023Pain and wound after haemorrhoidectomy constantly bothered the patient's convenience. Recurrently, topical sucralfate is used to treat excoriations and burns. It is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The efficacy of topical sucralfate in improving pain and wound healing after haemorrhoidectomy procedure: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression of randomised clinical trials.
Pain and wound after haemorrhoidectomy constantly bothered the patient's convenience. Recurrently, topical sucralfate is used to treat excoriations and burns. It is considered to enhance epidermal growth and tissue granulation, thus, alleviating patients' problems. This study evaluated topical sucralfate's feasibility, safety, and superiority after haemorrhoidectomy. We searched randomised controlled trial (RCT) studies in PubMed, Google Scholar, Europe PMC, and ClinicalTrials.gov until March 29th, 2022. We investigated the influence of topical sucralfate on pain score postoperatively (24 hours, 7 days, and 14 days), pethidine usage, diclofenac usage, and wound healing rate compared to placebo. This study was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. This study sorted the final six studies with 439 patients underwent haemorrhoidectomy. Topical sucralfate demonstrated significant outcomes on VAS 24 hours post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.00 (95% CI -1.70, -0.31), P = .005], VAS 7 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -2.29 (95% CI -3.34, -1.25), P < .0001], VAS 14 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.88 (95% CI -2.74, -1.01), P < .0001], pethidine usage within 24 hours post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -0.62 (95% CI -0.96, -0.27), P = .0004], diclofenac usage 7 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.76 (95% CI -2.61, -0.92), P < .0001], diclofenac usage 14 days post-operative [Std. Mean Difference -1.64 (95% CI -2.38, -0.91), P < .0001], and wound healing rate at 28-day post-operative [RR 1.45 (95% CI 1.25-1.68), P < .00001]. Topical sucralfate alleviated pain, improved wound healing, and minimised the usage of pethidine and diclofenac compared to placebo.
Topics: Humans; Diclofenac; Hemorrhoidectomy; Meperidine; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sucralfate; Wound Healing
PubMed: 35864080
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.13901