-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Midwives are primary providers of care for childbearing women globally and there is a need to establish whether there are differences in effectiveness between midwife continuity of care models and other models of care. This is an update of a review published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of midwife continuity of care models with other models of care for childbearing women and their infants.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 August 2022), as well as the reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished trials in which pregnant women are randomly allocated to midwife continuity of care models or other models of care during pregnancy and birth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion criteria, scientific integrity, and risk of bias, and carried out data extraction and entry. Primary outcomes were spontaneous vaginal birth, caesarean section, regional anaesthesia, intact perineum, fetal loss after 24 weeks gestation, preterm birth, and neonatal death. We used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies involving 18,533 randomised women. We assessed all studies as being at low risk of scientific integrity/trustworthiness concerns. Studies were conducted in Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the included studies did not include women at high risk of complications. There are three ongoing studies targeting disadvantaged women. Primary outcomes Based on control group risks observed in the studies, midwife continuity of care models, as compared to other models of care, likely increase spontaneous vaginal birth from 66% to 70% (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.07; 15 studies, 17,864 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), likelyreduce caesarean sections from 16% to 15% (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; 16 studies, 18,037 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and likely result in little to no difference in intact perineum (29% in other care models and 31% in midwife continuity of care models, average RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.12; 12 studies, 14,268 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may belittle or no difference in preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (6% under both care models, average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16; 10 studies, 13,850 participants; low-certainty evidence). We arevery uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models on regional analgesia (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.92; 15 studies, 17,754 participants, very low-certainty evidence), fetal loss at or after 24 weeks gestation (average RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13; 12 studies, 16,122 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and neonatal death (average RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.71; 10 studies, 14,718 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likely reduce instrumental vaginal birth (forceps/vacuum) from 14% to 13% (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; 14 studies, 17,769 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduceepisiotomy 23% to 19% (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91; 15 studies, 17,839 participants; low-certainty evidence). When compared to other models of care, midwife continuity of care models likelyresult in little to no difference inpostpartum haemorrhage (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 11 studies, 14,407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and admission to special care nursery/neonatal intensive care unit (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03; 13 studies, 16,260 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in induction of labour (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00; 14 studies, 17,666 participants; low-certainty evidence), breastfeeding initiation (average RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; 8 studies, 8575 participants; low-certainty evidence), and birth weight less than 2500 g (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.08; 9 studies, 12,420 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of midwife continuity of care models compared to other models of care onthird or fourth-degree tear (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.49; 7 studies, 9437 participants; very low-certainty evidence), maternal readmission within 28 days (average RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.96; 1 study, 1195 participants; very low-certainty evidence), attendance at birth by a known midwife (average RR 9.13, 95% CI 5.87 to 14.21; 11 studies, 9273 participants; very low-certainty evidence), Apgar score less than or equal to seven at five minutes (average RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24; 13 studies, 12,806 participants; very low-certainty evidence) andfetal loss before 24 weeks gestation (average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; 12 studies, 15,913 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No maternal deaths were reported across three studies. Although the observed risk of adverse events was similar between midwifery continuity of care models and other models, our confidence in the findings was limited. Our confidence in the findings was lowered by possible risks of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision of some estimates. There were no available data for the outcomes: maternal health status, neonatal readmission within 28 days, infant health status, and birth weight of 4000 g or more. Maternal experiences and cost implications are described narratively. Women receiving care from midwife continuity of care models, as opposed to other care models, generally reported more positive experiences during pregnancy, labour, and postpartum. Cost savings were noted in the antenatal and intrapartum periods in midwife continuity of care models.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Women receiving midwife continuity of care models were less likely to experience a caesarean section and instrumental birth, and may be less likely to experience episiotomy. They were more likely to experience spontaneous vaginal birth and report a positive experience. The certainty of some findings varies due to possible risks of bias, inconsistencies, and imprecision of some estimates. Future research should focus on the impact on women with social risk factors, and those at higher risk of complications, and implementation and scaling up of midwife continuity of care models, with emphasis on low- and middle-income countries.
Topics: Infant; Pregnancy; Infant, Newborn; Female; Humans; Midwifery; Cesarean Section; Perinatal Death; Birth Weight; Premature Birth; Continuity of Patient Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38597126
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004667.pub6 -
Journal of Pain Research 2024The analgesic effectiveness of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone is not clearly defined. The administration of systemic medication like dexamethasone,... (Review)
Review
Effectiveness of Single Intravenous Dexamethasone in Prolongation of Spinal Anesthesia for Postoperative Analgesia in Elective Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
The analgesic effectiveness of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone is not clearly defined. The administration of systemic medication like dexamethasone, opioids, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs has a positive effect on the prolongation of postoperative analgesia after cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. A single-dose administration of dexamethasone with moderate to high dose reduces postoperative pain, reduces opioid consumption, and prolongs spinal anesthesia after cesarean delivery.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effectiveness of single intravenous dexamethasone in prolongation of spinal anesthesia for postoperative analgesia in elective cesarean section.
METHODS
We conducted a search on PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, Hinari, and review articles on the effectiveness of intravenous dexamethasone for extending spinal anesthesia during elective cesarean sections, until June 2023. The searches were conducted by using keyword (IV dexamethasone OR/AND analgesia OR postoperative pain AND cesarean section OR child birth AND prolongation of spinal anesthesia). The articles included describe the analgesic efficacy of dexamethasone for prolongation of spinal anesthesia during cesarean section.
RESULTS
A total of 25,384 papers were found using different searching methodologies from different electronic databases. The EndNote reference manager was used to remove duplicates, and 438 articles were selected for screening. Of those, 57 were included for critical evaluation, and 49 were removed with justification. The effectiveness of IV dexamethasone on the prolongation of spinal anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in women undergoing cesarean delivery is the subject of eight RCT studies on 628 parturients that are presented in the chosen journal articles from various countries.
CONCLUSION
Intravenous dexamethasone administration immediately after clamping of the umbilical cord prolongs the duration of spinal block in patients undergoing cesarean sections and has a significant impact on reduction of postoperative pain severity, opioid consumption, and other pain requirements. When high-dose dexamethasone is administered intravenously, it can overcome complications that may arise after severe pain and increase patient satisfaction by extending the duration of postoperative analgesia and sensory block.
PubMed: 38596353
DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S451595 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain Jul 2024The quality of postoperative analgesia in total knee arthroplasty is crucial for patient recovery, rehabilitation, and hospital stay duration. In line with the above, а... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
OBJECTIVES
The quality of postoperative analgesia in total knee arthroplasty is crucial for patient recovery, rehabilitation, and hospital stay duration. In line with the above, а single-shot adductor canal block has been considered as an improved method over continuous femoral nerve block. However, continuous adductor canal block and single-shot femoral nerve block have been not adequately addressed in the discussion. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of various types of adductor and femoral nerve blocks on clinically relevant outcomes in patients following total knee arthroplasty.
METHODS
A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted following "PRISMA-NMA" and Cochrane Handbook guidelines. The eligibility criteria included randomized trials and, where these were lacking for a comparison, nonrandomized studies involving adults undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty, comparing single-shot adductor canal block, continuous adductor canal block, single-shot femoral nerve block, and continuous femoral nerve block.
RESULTS
A total of 36 studies involving 3308 patients were included. Single-shot adductor canal block showed higher pain scores and opioid consumption but better functional recovery at 24 h compared with continuous femoral nerve block. However, this trend vanishes by the 48 h assessment postsurgery. Continuous adductor canal block required higher opioid consumption but better functional recovery and shorter hospital stay compared with continuous femoral nerve block. Single-shot adductor canal block showed higher pain scores but comparable opioid consumption and functional recovery to continuous adductor canal block.
DISCUSSION
The shift from continuous femoral nerve block to single-shot adductor canal block as the preferred method for pain relief after total knee arthroplasty may be premature. While the latter improves mobility, it falls short in pain control and does not shorten hospital stays. Continuous adductor canal block shows promise but is currently underappreciated, and single-shot femoral nerve block is often overshadowed by other techniques in regional anesthesia. Further high-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Femoral Nerve; Nerve Block; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 38561898
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001214 -
Heliyon Mar 2024The reciprocal nexus between sleep and pain is well-documented, with the deleterious impact of operative trauma potentially playing a pivotal role in the dysregulation...
Impact of the addition of dexmedetomidine to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia on postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle and delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
The reciprocal nexus between sleep and pain is well-documented, with the deleterious impact of operative trauma potentially playing a pivotal role in the dysregulation of this interplay, which could significantly contribute to the manifestation of postoperative delirium (POD). Studies have investigated the effect of adding dexmedetomidine (DEX) to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) pumps on postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle and POD, but conclusions remained uncertain. The objective of this investigation is to perform a meta-analysis that thoroughly assesses the impact of integrating DEX into PCIA, focusing on analgesic effectiveness, sleep quality, and the incidence of delirium in postoperative patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform were searched, for publications in any language, from database inception to September 2023. Our analysis encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examine the therapeutic efficacy and risk profile of adding DEX to the PCIA on the postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle, by focusing on changes in postoperative analgesia (Visual analog scale (VAS) score), sleep efficiency, sleep structure, subjective sleep score (Assen insomnia scale and numerical rating scale) and adverse event rate.
RESULTS
34 RCTs (4324 patients) were analyzed. This study shows DEX improved analgesia and reduced VAS scores at 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Sleep efficiency was enhanced on the 1st and 2nd postoperative night. DEX improved sleep structure at the 1st postoperative night by reducing non-rapid eye movement stage 1 (N1) sleep and increasing non-rapid eye movement stage 2 (N2) and non-rapid eye movement stage 3 (N3) sleep. At the 2nd night, DEX reduced N1 sleep and increased N2 sleep, but not N3 sleep. Data from AIS and NRS showed improvement in subjective sleep scores on the 1st postoperative night and 2nd night. Additionally, DEX decreased the occurrence of POD on the 24 h and first-three days.
CONCLUSION
This study shows that the typical DEX doses added to PCIA with sufentanil were 2-5 μg/kg or approximately 200-250 μg, and the addition of DEX to PCIA can improve pain-sleep interaction cycle from multiple perspectives, and further decrease the occurrence of POD.
PubMed: 38524538
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27623 -
International Journal of Emergency... Mar 2024The ideal pain control approach is typically viewed as titration of analgesia for pain reduction and periodic pain evaluation. However, this method takes time and is not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The ideal pain control approach is typically viewed as titration of analgesia for pain reduction and periodic pain evaluation. However, this method takes time and is not always possible in the crowded Emergency Department. Therefore, an alternative way to improve pain care in the Emergency Department is needed to avoid this unpleasant sensation in the patients. The best solution to tackle this situation is using Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA), in the form of a PCA pump.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis was designated to evaluate the efficacy of PCA morphine in treating acute pain at Emergency Department.
METHODS
We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to February 2022 and identified randomized controlled trials with English language only that compare PCA morphine to IV morphine in treating patients presenting with acute pain at Emergency Department.
RESULTS
Eight trials were included in our review, comprising 1490 participants. We compared PCA morphine vs. IV morphine. There were no differences in the pain score between PCA and IV morphine (standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.20, p = 0.25). Further subgroup analyses (origin of the pain, time of assessment and the durations) showed no difference except for the dosages as the PCA morphine reduced the pain compared to IV morphine in low and high dosages but only two studies were involved. However, the analysis showed PCA morphine increased patient satisfaction and reduced the number of patients who required additional analgesia compared to IV morphine (MD 0.12, P < 0.001), (MD 0.47, P < 0.001) respectively. Data obtained in this review pertaining to adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and drowsiness is limited since not all the trials reported the events.
CONCLUSIONS
PCA morphine do appear to have a beneficial effect on the outcome of patient satisfaction and the number of patients who required additional analgesia. However, further studies targeting a larger sample size is required to increase the certainty of the evidence.
PubMed: 38454338
DOI: 10.1186/s12245-024-00615-3 -
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and... Apr 2024To perform a systematic review of clinical studies evaluating the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review of clinical studies evaluating the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify comparative studies of patients undergoing the PENG block before hip arthroscopy. The search phrase used was . Patients were evaluated based on analgesic consumption, time to discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and pain scores (Numeric Rating Scale and visual analog scale). The Modified Coleman Methodology Score was used to evaluate study methodology quality.
RESULTS
Five studies (2 Level I, 3 Level III) met inclusion criteria. The 5 studies included the following comparison groups: 0.9% normal saline injection, general anesthesia alone, and general anesthesia with intraoperative pericapsular bupivacaine injection. The 2 randomized controlled trials included in this review reported no significant difference between groups regarding opioid consumption. One of these did not find any statistically significant differences in their secondary outcomes either, including patient satisfaction with analgesia, opioid-related adverse events, or persistent opioid use at 1 week. However, the other 3 studies found significantly lower opioid consumption in patients receiving the PENG block versus the control group intraoperatively, in the PACU, and/or postoperatively. Four studies reported significantly lower pain levels in the PENG block group compared with the control groups, measured differently in each study: 24 hours postoperatively, initial pain score in the PACU, mean score in the PACU, and highest score in the PACU. None of the studies found significantly worse outcomes in the PENG block group compared to the comparison group.
CONCLUSIONS
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials shows that patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who receive a PENG block do not consume fewer opioids for postoperative pain control than patients who do not receive the block.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.
PubMed: 38379602
DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100894 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Abortions prior to 14 weeks are among the most common outpatient surgical procedures performed on people capable of becoming pregnant. Various methods have been used to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Abortions prior to 14 weeks are among the most common outpatient surgical procedures performed on people capable of becoming pregnant. Various methods have been used to control pain; however, many people still experience pain with the procedure.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of local anaesthesia given for pain control during surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (Ovid EBM Reviews), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, POPLINE, and Google Scholar to December 2022 for randomized controlled trials of pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using suction aspiration. We searched the reference lists of related reviews and articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected effectiveness and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials that studied local anaesthesia with common local anaesthetics and administration routes given for pain control in surgical abortion at less than 14 weeks' gestation using uterine aspiration. Outcomes included intraoperative pain, patient satisfaction, and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. We computed mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous variables reporting a mean. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies with 1992 participants met the inclusion criteria. Due to heterogeneity of interventions, we could not pool more than two studies for any outcome. We used 13 mm improvement on a visual/verbal analogue scale to indicate a clinically meaningful difference in pain with surgical abortion (pain with dilation, aspiration, or during procedure). Based on type of pain control, we divided studies into three groups. Paracervical block (PCB) effectiveness trials A 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB reduced pain with dilation (MD -37.00, 95% CI -45.64 to -28.36), and aspiration (MD -26.00, 95% CI -33.48 to -18.52) compared to a sham PCB (1 RCT, 120 participants; high-certainty evidence). A PCB with 14 mL of 1% chloroprocaine resulted in a slight reduction in pain with aspiration compared to a PCB with normal saline injected at two or four sites (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.45 to -0.55; 1 RCT, 79 participants; high-certainty evidence). PCB comparative effectiveness trials An ultracaine PCB probably results in little to no clinically meaningful difference in pain during procedure compared to topical cervical lidocaine spray (median 1 point higher, interquartile range (IQR) 0 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A 1000 mg dose of intravenous paracetamol probably does not decrease pain as much as ultracaine PCB during procedure (median 2 points higher, IQR 1 to 3; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 46 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Various local anaesthetics in PCB comparative effectiveness trials A 10 mL buffered 2% lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.80, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.71; 1 RCT, 167 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A buffered lidocaine PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to plain lidocaine PCB (MD -0.57, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, 291 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique effectiveness trials PCB: waiting versus no waiting Waiting three to five minutes between 1% lidocaine PCB injection and dilation probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to not waiting (MD -0.70, 95% CI -1.23 to -0.17; 2 RCTs, 357 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Topical cervical analgesia Topical 10 mL 2% lignocaine gel probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to KY Jelly (MD -0.87, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.14; 1 RCT, 131 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants who also received a PCB, 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain during the procedure compared to two pumps of normal saline spray (median -1 point, IQR -2 to -1; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 55 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Intravenous paracetamol 1000 mg compared to two pumps of cervical lidocaine spray probably does not results in a clinically meaningful difference in pain procedure (median 1 point, IQR -2 to 2; P < 0.001; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low-certainty evidence). Non-PCB local anaesthesia or PCB technique comparative effectiveness trials Depth of PCB The evidence suggests that a 3-cm deep PCB probably does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with aspiration compared to a 1.5-cm deep PCB (MD -1.00, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.91; 2 RCTs, 229 participants; low-certainty evidence). PCB: four sites versus two sites A two-site (4-8 o'clock) 20 mL 1% lidocaine PCB does not result in a clinically meaningful difference in pain with dilation compared to a four-site (2-4-8-10 o'clock) PCB (MD 8.60, 95% CI 0.69 to 16.51; 1 RCT, 163 participants; high-certainty evidence). Overall, participants reported moderately high satisfaction with pain control and studies reported few adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence from this updated review indicates that a 20 mL 1% plain lidocaine PCB decreases pain during an abortion procedure. Evidence supports forgoing buffering lidocaine and a wait time between PCB injection and cervical dilation. A 1.5-cm deep injection as opposed to a 3-cm deep injection is sufficient. A two-site PCB injection as opposed to a four-site injection has similar effectiveness. Topical cervical anaesthesia (10 mL 2% lignocaine gel or 20 mg topical cervical lidocaine spray) as compared to placebo did not decrease pain based on moderate-certainty evidence, but then when compared to PCB, pain control was similar. Due to this inconsistency in evidence regarding the effectiveness of topical anaesthesia, its routine use is presently not supported. This review did not include studies of pain management with conscious sedation but, based on the results of our prior Cochrane review and the 2022 WHO guidelines, we recommend that the option of combination of pain management using conscious sedation plus PCB and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be offered where conscious sedation is available as it further decreases pain.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Pain Management; Anesthetics, Local; Anesthesia, Local; Acetaminophen; Carticaine; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Saline Solution; Pain; Lidocaine
PubMed: 38348912
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006712.pub3 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Apr 2024Ketamine and esketamine has been suggested to have potential efficacy in preventing postpartum depression (PPD) recent years. The aim of this meta-analysis was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ketamine and esketamine has been suggested to have potential efficacy in preventing postpartum depression (PPD) recent years. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of ketamine and esketamine on PPD after cesarean delivery.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies investigating the efficacy of ketamine and esketamine in preventing PPD. The primary outcomes of this study were risk ratios (RRs) and EPDS scores (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale) in relation to PPD after ketamine and esketamine. The second outcomes were the postoperative adverse events.
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one retrospective study including 2916 patients were analyzed, including six on the use of ketamine and eight on the use of esketamine. The risk ratios and EPDS scores of PPD were significantly decreased in the ketamine/esketamine group compared to those in the control group in one week and four weeks postoperative periods. Subgroup analyses showed that high dosage, administrated in patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) method and only esketamine exhibited a significant reduction in the incidence and EPDS scores of PPD in one week and four week postoperative. However, the incidences of postoperative adverse events, such as dizziness, diplopia, hallucination, and headache were significantly higher in the ketamine/esketamine group than that in the control group.
CONCLUSION
Ketamine and esketamine appear to be effective in preventing PPD in the one week and four week postoperative periods after cesarean delivery with moderate certainty of evidence. But they can also lead to some short-term complications too. Future high-quality studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of ketamine and esketamine in different countries.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Ketamine; Depression, Postpartum; Cesarean Section; Headache; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38286233
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2024.01.202 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain May 2024Ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is an emerging regional anesthesia technique that may provide analgesia for patients undergoing total hip... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is an emerging regional anesthesia technique that may provide analgesia for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasties (THA). There are clinical studies comparing this fascial plane block to other established methods; however, evidence on the actual efficacy of this block for THA continues to evolve.
OBJECTIVE
Available clinical studies conducted over the past 4 years were reviewed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and effectiveness of PENG block in patients undergoing THAs.
METHODS
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients undergoing THA, where PENG block was compared to no block, placebo/sham block (injection with saline), or other analgesic techniques including suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (FIB), or periarticular infiltration (PAI) was performed. Our primary outcome was opioid consumption during the first 24 hours. Secondary outcomes were postoperative rest and dynamic pain scores at 6-12, 24 and 48 hours, block performance time, sensory-motor assessment, quadriceps weakness, the incidence of postoperative falls, first analgesic request, block and opioid-related complications, surgical complications, patient satisfaction scores, postanesthesia care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, and functional and quality of life outcomes.
RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs with a total of 705 patients. Data showed that PENG block decreased 24-hour oral morphine milligram equivalent consumption by a mean difference (MD) of 3.75 mg (95% CI: -5.96,-1.54; P =0.0009). No statistically significant differences in rest or dynamic pain were found, except for a modest MD reduction in dynamic pain score of 0.55 points (95% CI: -0.98, -0.12; P =0.01), measured 24 hours after surgery in favor of PENG block.
CONCLUSIONS
Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that PENG block provides better analgesia, measured as MME use, in the first 24 hours after THA, with no real impact on postoperative VAS scores. Despite statistical significance, the high heterogeneity across RCTs implies that PENG's benefits may not surpass the minimal clinically important difference threshold for us to recommend PENG as best practice in THA.
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Nerve Block; Analgesics
PubMed: 38268183
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000001196 -
Surgical Endoscopy Feb 2024Postoperative pain is a common issue following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to determine if active gas aspiration is more effective than... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative pain is a common issue following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This meta-analysis aimed to determine if active gas aspiration is more effective than passive gas aspiration in reducing postoperative pain and analgesic requirements.
METHODOLOGY
The study conducted a systematic search of various databases, including Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Ovid. It also searched trial registries and reference lists of included studies, with no date restrictions but limited to English language, up to December 21, 2022. The study included all randomized clinical trials that had documented elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy procedure and reported at least one relevant outcome. Articles that included subdiaphragmatic drain, intraperitoneal normal saline infusion, or pulmonary recruitment maneuver were excluded from the analysis. Two reviewers independently and in duplicate assessed the eligibility of studies and extracted data. The study reported findings according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The risk of bias of the included trials was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. The study used a random-effects model to pool data.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis included 5 randomized clinical trials with 367 participants and found that active gas aspiration resulted in significantly lower residual gas volume and total analgesia requirements compared to passive gas aspiration. Active gas aspiration also led to significantly lower shoulder pain scores at 24 h postoperatively. However, no significant differences were observed in hospital stay duration or abdominal pain scores.
CONCLUSION
The study found that active gas aspiration can be effective in reducing postoperative shoulder pain and analgesic requirements after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which has important implications for patient care and healthcare costs. Importantly, this intervention does not impose any additional time or financial burden. However, further research is needed to evaluate its impact on other laparoscopic procedures.
Topics: Humans; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Shoulder Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 38212468
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10651-4