-
Surgical Endoscopy Mar 2024The transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) is effective for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. However, evidence regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) is effective for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. However, evidence regarding the optimal delivery method, either laparoscopic (L-TAPB) or ultrasound-guided (U-TAPB) is lacking. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of these delivery methods.
METHODS
We carried out a literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases to include randomized studies comparing patients receiving either L-TAPB or U-TAPB during minimally invasive colorectal surgery. The primary endpoint was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoB-2 tool. Effect size was estimated for each study with 95% confidence interval and overall effect measure was estimated with a random effect model.
RESULTS
The literature search revealed 294 articles, of which four randomized trials were eligible. A total of 359 patients were included, 176 received a L-TAPB and 183 received a U-TAPB. We established the non-inferiority of L-TAPB, as the absolute difference of - 2.6 morphine-mg (95%CI - 8.3 to 3.0) was below the pooled non-inferiority threshold of 8.1 morphine-mg (low certainty level). No difference in opioid consumption was noted at 2, 6, 12, and 48 h (low to very low certainty level). Postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting were similar between groups at different timepoints (low to very low certainty level). No TAPB-related complications were recorded. Finally, the length of hospital stay was similar between groups.
CONCLUSION
For postoperative multimodal analgesia both L-TAPB and U-TAPB may result in little to no difference in outcome in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Registration Prospero CRD42023421141.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Colorectal Surgery; Abdominal Muscles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Laparoscopy; Pain, Postoperative; Morphine; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Benzamidines
PubMed: 38253697
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10658-x -
Journal of Sport and Health Science Jul 2024Acute improvement in range of motion (ROM) is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling, which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Foam rolling and stretching do not provide superior acute flexibility and stiffness improvements compared to any other warm-up intervention: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Acute improvement in range of motion (ROM) is a widely reported effect of stretching and foam rolling, which is commonly explained by changes in pain threshold and/or musculotendinous stiffness. Interestingly, these effects were also reported in response to various other active and passive interventions that induce responses such as enhanced muscle temperature. Therefore, we hypothesized that acute ROM enhancements could be induced by a wide variety of interventions other than stretching or foam rolling that promote an increase in muscle temperature.
METHODS
After a systematic search in PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus databases, 38 studies comparing the effects of stretching and foam rolling with several other interventions on ROM and passive properties were included. These studies had 1134 participants in total, and the data analysis resulted in 140 effect sizes (ESs). ES calculations were performed using robust variance estimation model with R-package.
RESULTS
Study quality of the included studies was classified as fair (PEDro score = 4.58) with low to moderate certainty of evidence. Results showed no significant differences in ROM (ES = 0.01, p = 0.88), stiffness (ES = 0.09, p = 0.67), or passive peak torque (ES = -0.30, p = 0.14) between stretching or foam rolling and the other identified activities. Funnel plots revealed no publication bias.
CONCLUSION
Based on current literature, our results challenge the established view on stretching and foam rolling as a recommended component of warm-up programs. The lack of significant difference between interventions suggests there is no need to emphasize stretching or foam rolling to induce acute ROM, passive peak torque increases, or stiffness reductions.
Topics: Muscle Stretching Exercises; Humans; Range of Motion, Articular; Warm-Up Exercise; Torque; Muscle, Skeletal
PubMed: 38244921
DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2024.01.006 -
Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and... Jan 2024Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) are regional anesthesia techniques that have shown favorable results in pain management... (Review)
Review
Analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae versus serratus anterior plane block in thoracic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) are regional anesthesia techniques that have shown favorable results in pain management following thoracic surgeries; however, their relative superiority is unclear. This review (PROSPERO: CRD42023443018) aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of ESPB and SAPB in patients undergoing thoracic surgeries through the pooled analysis of co-primary outcomes: postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h and pain scores (static) at 24 h.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to May 2023, comparing ESPB and SAPB in thoracic surgeries. Statistical pooling was done using Review Manager 5.4.1. Bias assessment employed the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias 2.0 tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the guidelines from the GRADE working group.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs (485 patients) were included in the study. Postoperative pain scores (static) at 24 h (mean difference (MD) = - 0.31 [- 0.57, 0.05], p = 0.02) and postoperative oral-morphine-equivalent (mg) consumption in 24 h (MD = - 19.73 [- 25.65, - 13.80], p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the ESBP group. However, the MDs did not exceed the set threshold for clinical importance. No significant differences were observed in the opioid-related adverse effects and block-related complications.
CONCLUSION
Our statistically significant results imply that ESPB has superior analgesic efficacy compared to SAPB; however, this difference is clinically unimportant. The safety profile of the two blocks is comparable; hence, current evidence cannot define the relative superiority of one block over the other. Our findings warrant further research with standardized methodologies and a longer duration of analgesic efficacy assessment to yield robust evidence for better clinical applications.
PubMed: 38217050
DOI: 10.1186/s44158-023-00138-y -
World Neurosurgery Mar 2024Spasticity is a form of muscle hypertonia secondary to various diseases, including traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis.... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Spasticity is a form of muscle hypertonia secondary to various diseases, including traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and multiple sclerosis. Medical treatments are available; however, these often result in insufficient clinical response. This review evaluates the role of epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the treatment of spasticity and associated functional outcomes.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Embase, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE databases. We included studies that used epidural SCS to treat spasticity. Studies investigating functional electric stimulation, transcutaneous SCS, and animal models of spasticity were excluded. We also excluded studies that used SCS to treat other symptoms such as pain.
RESULTS
Thirty-four studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled rate of subjective improvement in spasticity was 78% (95% confidence interval, 64%-91%; I = 77%), 40% (95% confidence interval, 7%-73%; I = 88%) for increased H-reflex threshold or decreased Hoffman reflex/muscle response wave ratio, and 73% (65%-80%; I = 50%) for improved ambulation. Patients with spinal causes had better outcomes compared with patients with cerebral causes. Up to 10% of patients experienced complications including infections and hardware malfunction.
CONCLUSIONS
Our review of the literature suggests that SCS may be a safe and useful tool for the management of spasticity; however, there is significant heterogeneity among studies. The quality of studies is also low. Further studies are needed to fully evaluate the usefulness of this technology, including various stimulation paradigms across different causes of spasticity.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Spinal Cord Stimulation; Spinal Cord Injuries; Pain; Muscle Spasticity; Walking; Reflex, Abnormal; Spinal Cord
PubMed: 38181878
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.12.158 -
The Journal of Pain Jun 2024The evidence that athletes respond to and report indices of experimental pain differently to non-athlete populations was analysed. Databases screened were SPORTDiscus,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The evidence that athletes respond to and report indices of experimental pain differently to non-athlete populations was analysed. Databases screened were SPORTDiscus, PubMED, PsycArticles, the Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL. Studies that compared experimentally induced pain responses (threshold, tolerance, intensity, unpleasantness, bothersomeness, and effect on performance) in athletes and controls were included. Meta-analyses were performed where appropriate and effects were described as standardised mean differences, pooled using random effects models. Thirty-six studies (2,492 participants) met the inclusion criteria comprising 19 pain tolerance, 17 pain threshold, 21 pain intensity, 5 pain unpleasantness, 2 performance in pain and 1 bothersomeness study. Athletes demonstrated greater pain tolerance (g = .88 [95% confidence interval [CI] .65, .13]) and reported less pain intensity (g = -.80, [95% CI -1.13, -.47]) compared to controls; they also had higher pain threshold but with smaller effects (g = .41, [95% CI .08, .75]). Differences for unpleasantness did not reach statistical significance but the effects were large (g = -1.23 [95% CI -2.29, .18]). Two studies reported that performance in pain was better in contact athletes than non-athletes, and one concluded that athletes find pain less bothersome than controls. There were considerable inconsistencies in the methods employed that were reflected in the meta-analyses' findings. Sub-group analyses of tolerance and intensity were conducted between endurance, contact, and other athlete groups, but were not significant. The data suggest that athletic participation is associated with altered pain responses, but mechanisms remain unclear and more transparent methods are recommended.This study was registered on the PROSPERO site in January 2019 (ref ID: CRD42019119611). PERSPECTIVE: This review examined differences in pain outcomes (threshold, tolerance, intensity, unpleasantness, bothersomeness) and the effect of pain on performance, in athletes versus controls. Meta-analyses revealed athletes had higher threshold and tolerance and found pain less intense than controls; there was some evidence of differences in bothersomeness and performance.
Topics: Humans; Athletes; Pain Threshold; Pain
PubMed: 38154623
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.12.007 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2023Pain can have a serious impact on a patient's physical, mental, and social health, often causing their quality of life to decline. Various nicotine dosage forms, such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain can have a serious impact on a patient's physical, mental, and social health, often causing their quality of life to decline. Various nicotine dosage forms, such as nicotine patches and nasal spray, have been developed and used as analgesics in clinical settings. However, there is controversy over the anti-nociceptive effects of nicotine among different clinical trials. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to quantify the analgesic effect of nicotine patches, nicotine nasal spray, and tobacco smoking on pain in humans.
METHODS
Relevant articles published in English prior to July 2023 were identified using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase online databases in accordance with PRISMA (2020) guidelines. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the included studies using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). RStudio was used for data synthesis, heterogeneity assessment, sensitivity analysis, publication bias assessment, trim-and-fill analyses, and generating forest plots.
RESULTS
Sixteen eligible articles, including k = 5 studies of pain tolerance ( = 210), k = 5 studies of pain threshold ( = 210), and k = 12 studies of pain scores (N = 1249), were included for meta-analysis. Meta-analytic integration for pain threshold (Hedges' g = 0.28, 95% CI = 0-0.55, Z = 1.99, = 0.05) and pain tolerance (Hedges' g = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.05-0.59, Z = 2.30, = 0.02) revealed that nicotine administered via tobacco smoke generated acute analgesic effects to thermal stimuli. Meta-analytic integration for pain scores revealed that nicotine had a weak anti-nociceptive effect on postoperative pain of -0.37 (95% CI = -0.77 to 0.03, Z = -1.80) but with no statistical significance ( = 0.07). In addition, a limited number of included studies revealed that long-term smoking produced hyperalgesia that may be characterized as small to medium in magnitude (Hedges' g = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.29-0.64, Z = 5.33, < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
These results help to clarify the mixed outcomes of trials and may ultimately inform the treatment of pain. We observed that acute nicotine administration prolonged the laboratory-induced pain threshold and tolerance time and may mildly relieve postoperative pain. In addition, long-term tobacco smoking may have a nociceptive effect on different types of chronic pain. More research is needed to determine the anti-nociceptive effects of nicotine in humans, and to understand the optimal timing, dose, and method of delivery of nicotine.
PubMed: 38139792
DOI: 10.3390/ph16121665 -
Journal of Neurotrauma Mar 2024The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to co-design a data resource to predict outcomes for people with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury... (Review)
Review
The Australian Traumatic Brain Injury Initiative (AUS-TBI) aims to co-design a data resource to predict outcomes for people with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) across Australia. Fundamental to this resource is the data dictionary, which is an ontology of data items. Here, we report the systematic review and consensus process for inclusion of biological markers in the data dictionary. Standardized database searches were implemented from inception through April 2022. English-language studies evaluating association between a fluid, tissue, or imaging marker and any clinical outcome in at least 10 patients with moderate-severe TBI were included. Records were screened using a prioritization algorithm and saturation threshold in Research Screener. Full-length records were then screened in Covidence. A pre-defined algorithm was used to assign a judgement of predictive value to each observed association, and high-value predictors were discussed in a consensus process. Searches retrieved 106,593 records; 1,417 full-length records were screened, resulting in 546 included records. Two hundred thirty-nine individual markers were extracted, evaluated against 101 outcomes. Forty-one markers were judged to be high-value predictors of 15 outcomes. Fluid markers retained following the consensus process included ubiquitin C-terminal hydrolase L1 (UCH-L1), S100, and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). Imaging markers included computed tomography (CT) scores (e.g., Marshall scores), pathological observations (e.g., hemorrhage, midline shift), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification (e.g., diffuse axonal injury). Clinical context and time of sampling of potential predictive indicators are important considerations for utility. This systematic review and consensus process has identified fluid and imaging biomarkers with high predictive value of clinical and long-term outcomes following moderate-severe TBI.
PubMed: 38115587
DOI: 10.1089/neu.2023.0464 -
American Journal of Physical Medicine &... May 2024The aim of the study is to investigate whether transcranial direct current stimulation is superior to control groups or other interventions for pain relief and improving... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study is to investigate whether transcranial direct current stimulation is superior to control groups or other interventions for pain relief and improving functionality in knee osteoarthritis patients.
METHODS
PubMed, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, the Cochrane Library, ProQuest, and Scopus databases were searched from inception to July 2022 to identify randomized clinical trials. The main outcomes were subjective perception of pain intensity measured either with the visual analog scale or with the numeric rating scale; and the functionality, assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. As secondary outcomes, pressure pain threshold, conditioned pain modulation, and its safety were evaluated.
RESULTS
We identified 10 randomized clinical trials (634 participants). The results showed an important effect favoring transcranial direct current stimulation for pain relief (mean difference = -1.1 cm, 95% confident interval = -2.1 to -0.2) and for improving functionality (standardized mean difference = -0.6, 95% confident interval = -1.02 to -0.26). There was also a significant improvement in pressure pain threshold (mean difference = 0.9 Kgf/cm 2 , 95% confident interval = 0.1 to 1.6). The certainty of evidence according to Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation was generally moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that transcranial direct current stimulation is a safe treatment for reducing pain intensity, improving functionality, and the pressure pain thresholds in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation; Pain Measurement; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Management; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 38112570
DOI: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000002386 -
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal... 2024Central sensitization cannot be demonstrated directly in humans. Therefore, studies used different proxy markers (signs, symptoms and tools) to identify factors assumed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Central sensitization cannot be demonstrated directly in humans. Therefore, studies used different proxy markers (signs, symptoms and tools) to identify factors assumed to relate to central sensitization in humans, that is, Human Assumed Central Sensitization (HACS). The aims of this systematic review were to identify non-invasive objective markers of HACS and the instruments to assess these markers in patients with fibromyalgia (FM).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted with the following inclusion criteria: (1) adults, (2) diagnosed with FM, and (3) markers and instruments for HACS had to be non-invasive. Data were subsequently extracted, and studies were assessed for risk of bias using the quality assessment tools developed by the National Institute of Health.
RESULTS
78 studies (n= 5234 participants) were included and the findings were categorized in markers identified to assess peripheral and central manifestations of HACS. The identified markers for peripheral manifestations of HACS, with at least moderate evidence, were pain after-sensation decline rates, mechanical pain thresholds, pressure pain threshold, sound 'pressure' pain threshold, cutaneous silent period, slowly repeated evoked pain sensitization and nociceptive flexion reflex threshold. The identified markers for central manifestations of HACS were efficacy of conditioned pain modulation with pressure pain conditioning and brain perfusion analysis. Instruments to assess these markers are: pin-prick stimulators, cuff-algometry, repetitive pressure stimulation using a pressure algometer, sound, electrodes and neuroimaging techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provides an overview of non-invasive markers and instruments for the assessment of HACS in patients with FM. Implementing these findings into clinical settings may help to identify HACS in patients with FM.
Topics: Fibromyalgia; Humans; Central Nervous System Sensitization; Pain Threshold; Biomarkers; Pain Measurement
PubMed: 38073369
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-220430 -
Psychiatry Research Jan 2024It has been hypothesized that individuals less sensitive to pain could be at higher risk of suicide. However, data on pain sensitivity in suicide attempters (SA)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
It has been hypothesized that individuals less sensitive to pain could be at higher risk of suicide. However, data on pain sensitivity in suicide attempters (SA) obtained using experimental procedures are heterogeneous. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate and compare pain tolerance and threshold in SA (patients with lifetime history of suicide attempt), non-attempters (psychiatric controls, PC), and healthy controls (HC). A random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the standardized mean differences using data from 16 studies that compared physical pain tolerance and threshold in SA and PC or HC. Pain tolerance and threshold were not significantly different in SA and PC. However, pain tolerance, but not threshold, was higher in SA than HC. Our findings do not support the hypothesis of an altered pain perception related as a trait for suicidal vulnerability, but rather suggest altered pain perception related to psychiatric vulnerability.
Topics: Humans; Suicide, Attempted; Suicidal Ideation; Pain Threshold; Pain; Pain Perception
PubMed: 38071878
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115618