-
The Clinical Journal of Pain Oct 2019To investigate the efficacy and safety of combination analgesic products containing low-dose codeine (up to 30 mg/dose) for pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of combination analgesic products containing low-dose codeine (up to 30 mg/dose) for pain.
METHODS
Electronic databases were used to identify eligible placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Data were pooled using a random-effects model with the strength of evidence assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The primary outcome was immediate pain relief (3 hours post administration) on a 0 to 100 pain scale.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs were eligible. There is low-quality evidence (4 RCTs, n=211 participants) that a single dose of a combination analgesic product (with an nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory) containing low-dose codeine (15 to 30 mg) provides small pain relief for acute dental pain (mean difference [MD], -12.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -18.5 to -6.9) and moderate-quality evidence (1 RCT, n=93) of small pain relief for post-episiotomy pain and orthopedic surgery pain (MD,, -10.0; 95% CI, -19.0 to -1.0 and MD, -11.0; 95% CI, -20.7 to -1.3), respectively. There is low-quality evidence (1 RCT, n=80) that a multiple-dose regimen provides small pain relief for acute pain following photorefractive keratectomy (MD, -16.0; 95% CI, -24.5 to -7.5) and moderate-quality evidence of moderate pain relief for certain chronic pain conditions: for hip osteoarthritis (MD, -19.0; 95% CI, -31.2 to -6.8) and for temporomandibular joint pain (MD, -26.0; 95% CI, -44.5 to -7.5). Two studies reported a higher incidence of drowsiness in the treatment group compared with the placebo group (relative risk, 8.50; 95% CI, 1.96, 36.8 and 19.3; 95% CI, 1.2-306.5, respectively).
DISCUSSION
There is low to moderate level evidence that combination analgesic products containing low-dose codeine provide small to moderate pain relief for acute and chronic pain conditions in the immediate short term with limited trial data on use beyond 24 hours. Further research examining regular use of these medicines is needed with more emphasis on measuring potential harmful effects.
Topics: Analgesics; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Codeine; Drug Combinations; Humans; Narcotics; Pain
PubMed: 31318725
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000746 -
Translational Vision Science &... May 2019To evaluate the efficacy of the functional, keratometric, and refractive postoperative parameters of intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation in keratoconus and its... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the efficacy of the functional, keratometric, and refractive postoperative parameters of intracorneal ring segment (ICRS) implantation in keratoconus and its association with collagen cross-linking (CXL), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), and intraocular lenses (IOLs).
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on case series published between 2007 and 2017.
RESULTS
We included 95 case series with a total of 4560 patients. We included 64 studies of the ICRS procedure, 20 studies of ICRS+CXL, 9 studies of ICRS+CXL+PRK, and 5 studies of ICRS+IOL. We demonstrated an overall improvement of all parameters in all procedures. Cylinder was decreased with an overall effect size (ES) of -1.15 (-1.36 to -0.95; I = 93.7%). Corrected distance visual acuity was improved with an overall ES of 0.89 (0.78 to 1.00; I = 81.9%). Maximal keratometry was decreased with an overall ES of 0.98 (0.85 to 1.11; I = 78.9%). ICRS+IOL is the best procedure to improve spherical equivalent and uncorrected distance visual acuity ( < 0.05) compared with other procedures. ICRSs versus ICRS+CXL are similar in all parameters except for corrected distance visual acuity. ICRS+CXL+PRK is better than ICRS alone in all parameters except for the correction of spherical equivalent.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the quality and strength of the data are questionable, ICRS implantation is an effective strategy to preserve visual function in keratoconic patients. Particularly, ICRS+CXL+PRK could be a low invasive procedure to propose to young keratoconic patients.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
To propose an overview of postoperative parameters on each ICRS procedure on keratoconus.
PubMed: 31211003
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.8.3.38 -
Journal of Refractive Surgery... Oct 2018To evaluate the outcomes of simultaneous and sequential corneal crosslinking (CXL) and excimer laser surface ablation protocols in keratoconus. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
PURPOSE
To evaluate the outcomes of simultaneous and sequential corneal crosslinking (CXL) and excimer laser surface ablation protocols in keratoconus.
METHODS
A literature review was conducted using MEDLINE. The studies were divided into three groups: the sequential group included studies with CXL followed by excimer laser surface ablation later, the simultaneous group included simultaneous excimer laser surface ablation and CXL, and the no CXL group included excimer laser surface ablation only with no CXL. The data on change in logMAR uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), spectacle corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), change in spherical equivalent (SE) and refractive astigmatism, change in maximum keratometry (Kmax), complications, and safety and efficacy indices were presented for the latest follow-up visits in all groups.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies (3 = sequential; 11 = simultaneous, 7 = no CXL) were included. UDVA improved in all groups. CDVA improved more in the sequential group. SE change was greatest in the no CXL group and the refractive astigmatism reduced comparably in the sequential and no CXL groups but less in the simultaneous group. Kmax reduced in all groups. Only the sequential group showed no progression. Corneal haze was reported in 100%, 54.5%, and 57.1% studies, respectively. Safety and efficacy indices were 1.96 and 1.58, 1.41 ± 0.32 and 0.91 ± 0.41, and 1 and 0.82, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The sequential group showed greater improvement in CDVA, SE, and refractive astigmatism. Corneal haze was frequently reported in all protocols. Safety and efficacy indices were highest when CXL was performed before excimer laser and least when excimer laser was performed alone without CXL. [J Refract Surg. 2018;34(10):690-696.].
Topics: Collagen; Corneal Pachymetry; Corneal Stroma; Cross-Linking Reagents; Humans; Keratoconus; Lasers, Excimer; Photochemotherapy; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Photosensitizing Agents; Refraction, Ocular; Riboflavin; Ultraviolet Rays; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 30296330
DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20180824-01 -
Pain Physician Jul 2017Refractive surgery is a common procedure, but may be associated with severe post-operative pain. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Refractive surgery is a common procedure, but may be associated with severe post-operative pain.
OBJECTIVES
To describe studies addressing the use of opioids for control of pain after ocular surgery, with an emphasis on refractive surgery.
STUDY DESIGN
This is a narrative review of relevant articles on the physiology of corneal pain and the use of opioids for its treatment after surgery.
SETTING
Single tertiary center.
METHODS
A PubMed search was conducted for studies published from January 1985 to May 2015 on the physiopathology of corneal pain and opioid treatment of post-refractive surgical pain. Reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized clinical trials were included. Inclusion criteria focused on photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK).
RESULTS
Authors found 109 articles through the search strategies. A total of 75 articles were included based on the inclusion criteria.
DISCUSSION
Pain after ocular surgery is likely to be a multifactorial phenomenon. A combination of topical and systemic analgesics is used to treat post-operative pain after refractive surgery. Pain may be severe during the first 72 to 96 hours, depending on the surgical procedure. No studies were found that directly analyze the benefits of opioids after PRK, although they are routinely prescribed in some centers.
LIMITATIONS
This is a narrative review in contrast to a systematic review and did not include studies indexed in databases other than PubMed.
CONCLUSIONS
Although opioids are used for the short-term treatment of post-operative pain in refractive surgery, their benefits and risks should be properly evaluated in randomized clinical trials before their use can be safely advised.
KEY WORDS
Photorefractive keratectomy, in situ keratomileusis, pain, analgesia, opioid, codeine, review.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Ophthalmologic Surgical Procedures; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 28727706
DOI: No ID Found -
American Journal of Ophthalmology Jun 2017To compare the postoperative efficacy, predictability, safety, and visual quality of all major forms of laser corneal refractive surgeries for correcting myopia. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To compare the postoperative efficacy, predictability, safety, and visual quality of all major forms of laser corneal refractive surgeries for correcting myopia.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the US trial registry was conducted up to November 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting in accordance with the eligibility criteria were included in this review. We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Forty-eight RCTs were identified. For efficacy (uncorrected visual acuity [UCVA]), there were no statistically significant differences between any pair of treatments analyzed. The SUCRA (surface under the cumulative ranking curve) ranking (from best to worst) was femtosecond-based laser in situ keratomileusis (FS-LASIK), LASIK, small-incision lenticule extraction, femtosecond lenticule extraction (FLEx), photorefractive keratectomy (PRK), laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK), epipolis (Epi)-LASIK, transepithelial PRK (T-PRK). For predictability (refractive spherical equivalent [SE]), a statistically significant difference was found when FS-LASIK was compared with LASIK (odds ratio [OR] 2.29, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.20-4.14), PRK (OR 2.16, 95% CrI 1.15-4.03), LASEK (OR 2.09, 95% CrI 1.08-4.55), and Epi-LASIK (OR 2.74, 95% CrI 1.11-6.20). The SUCRA ranking (from best to worst) was FS-LASIK, T-PRK, LASEK, PRK, LASIK, Epi-LASIK. There were no statistically significant differences in the safety (best spectacle-corrected visual acuity) comparisons. For both postoperative higher-order aberrations (HOAs) and contrast sensitivity (CS), there were no statistically significant differences between any pair of treatments analyzed. The SUCRA ranking results show that some corneal surface ablation techniques (PRK and LASEK) rank highest.
CONCLUSIONS
This network meta-analysis shows that there were no statistically significant differences in either visual outcomes (efficacy and safety) or visual quality (HOAs and CS). FS-LASIK behaved better in predictability than any other type of surgeries.
Topics: Cornea; Humans; Lasers, Excimer; Myopia; Network Meta-Analysis; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Postoperative Period; Refraction, Ocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28336402
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.03.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Near-sightedness, or myopia, is a condition in which light rays entering the eye along the visual axis focus in front of the retina, resulting in blurred vision. Myopia... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Near-sightedness, or myopia, is a condition in which light rays entering the eye along the visual axis focus in front of the retina, resulting in blurred vision. Myopia can be treated with spectacles, contact lenses, or refractive surgery. Options for refractive surgery include laser-assisted subepithelial keratectomy (LASEK) and laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis (LASIK). Both procedures utilize a laser to shape the corneal tissue (front of the eye) to correct refractive error, and both create flaps before laser treatment of corneal stromal tissue. Whereas the flap in LASEK is more superficial and epithelial, in LASIK it is thicker and also includes some anterior stromal tissue. LASEK is considered a surface ablation procedure, much like its predecessor, photorefractive keratectomy (PRK). LASEK was developed as an alternative to PRK to address the issue of pain associated with epithelial debridement used for PRK. Assessing the relative benefits and risks/side effects of LASEK and LASIK warrants a systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of LASEK versus LASIK for correcting myopia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2016, Issue 10); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 October 2016); Embase.com (1947 to 24 October 2016); PubMed (1948 to 24 October 2016); LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database; 1982 to 24 October 2016); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), last searched 20 June 2014; ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov); searched 24 October 2016; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en); searched 24 October 2016. We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the purposes of this review. Eligible RCTs were those in which myopic participants were assigned randomly to receive either LASEK or LASIK in one or both eyes. We also included paired-eye studies in which investigators randomly selected which of the participant's eyes would receive LASEK or LASIK and assigned the other eye to the other procedure. Participants were men or women between the ages of 18 and 60 years with myopia up to 12 diopters (D) and/or myopic astigmatism of severity up to 3 D, who did not have a history of prior refractive surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all reports and assessed the risk of bias in trials included in this review. We extracted data and summarized findings using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. In the absence of clinical and methodological heterogeneity across trials, we used a random-effects model to calculate summary effect estimates. We used a fixed-effect model when including fewer than three trials in a meta-analysis. When clinical, methodological, or statistical heterogeneity was observed across trials, we reported our findings in a narrative synthesis.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four eligible trials with 538 eyes of 392 participants for the review, but only three trials (154 participants) provided outcome data for analysis. We found no ongoing trials. Two of four trials were from China, one trial was from Turkey, and the location of one trial was not reported. The risk of bias for most domains was unclear due to poor reporting of trial methods; no trial had a protocol or trial registry record. Three trials enrolled participants with mild to moderate myopia (less than -6.50 D); one trial included only participants with severe myopia (more than -6.00 D).The evidence showed uncertainty in whether there is a difference between LASEK and LASIK in uncorrected visual acuity (UCVA) at 12 months, the primary outcome in our review. The RR and 95% confidence interval (CI) at 12 months after surgery was 0.96 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.13) for UCVA of 20/20 or better and 0.90 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.21) for UCVA of 20/40 or better based on data from one trial with 57 eyes (very low-certainty evidence). People receiving LASEK were less likely to achieve a refractive error within 0.5 diopters of the target at 12 months follow-up (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.99; 57 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). One trial reported mild corneal haze at six months in one eye in the LASEK group and none in the LASIK group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 0.57 to 7.82; 76 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials reported postoperative pain score or loss of visual acuity, spherical equivalent of the refractive error, or quality of life at 12 months.Refractive regression, an adverse event, was reported only in the LASEK group (8 of 37 eyes) compared with none of 39 eyes in the LASIK group in one trial (low-certainty evidence). Other adverse events, such as corneal flap striae and refractive over-correction, were reported only in the LASIK group (5 of 39 eyes) compared with none of 37 eyes in the LASEK group in one trial (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, from the available RCTs, there is uncertainty in how LASEK compares with LASIK in achieving better refractive and visual results in mildly to moderately myopic participants. Large, well-designed RCTs would be required to estimate the magnitude of any difference in efficacy or adverse effects between LASEK and LASIK for treating myopia or myopic astigmatism.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Keratectomy, Subepithelial, Laser-Assisted; Keratomileusis, Laser In Situ; Male; Middle Aged; Myopia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 28197998
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011080.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Myopia (near-sightedness or short-sightedness) is a condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than required. The most frequent complaint of people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Myopia (near-sightedness or short-sightedness) is a condition in which the refractive power of the eye is greater than required. The most frequent complaint of people with myopia is blurred distance vision, which can be eliminated by conventional optical aids such as spectacles or contact lenses, or by refractive surgery procedures such as photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK). PRK uses laser to remove the corneal stroma. Similar to PRK, LASEK first creates an epithelial flap and then replaces it after ablating the corneal stroma. The relative benefits and harms of LASEK and PRK, as shown in different trials, warrant a systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to compare LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia by evaluating their efficacy and safety in terms of postoperative uncorrected visual acuity, residual refractive error, and associated complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group Trials Register) (2015 Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to December 2015), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2015), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to December 2015), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 15 December 2015. We used the Science Citation Index and searched the reference lists of the included trials to identify relevant trials for this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included in this review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LASEK versus PRK for correction of myopia. Trial participants were 18 years of age or older and had no co-existing ocular or systemic diseases that might affect refractive status or wound healing.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened all reports and assessed the risk of bias of trials included in this review. We extracted data and summarized findings using risk ratios and mean differences. We used a random-effects model when we identified at least three trials, and we used a fixed-effect model when we found fewer than three trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 11 RCTs with a total of 428 participants 18 years of age or older with low to moderate myopia. These trials were conducted in the Czech Republic, Brazil, Italy, Iran, China, Korea, Mexico, Turkey, USA, and UK. Investigators of 10 out of 11 trials randomly assigned one eye of each participant to be treated with LASEK and the other with PRK, but did not perform paired-eye (matched) analysis. Because of differences in outcome measures and follow-up times among the included trials, few trials contributed data for many of the outcomes we analyzed for this review. Overall, we judged RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting; however, because of imprecision, inconsistency, and potential reporting bias, we graded the quality of the evidence from very low to moderate for outcomes assessed in this review.The proportion of eyes with uncorrected visual acuity of 20/20 or better at 12-month follow-up was comparable in LASEK and PRK groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.92 to 1.05). Although the 95% CI suggests little to no difference in effect between groups, we judged the quality of the evidence to be low because only one trial reported this outcome (102 eyes). At 12 months post treatment, data from two trials suggest no difference or a possibly small effect in favor of PRK over LASEK for the proportion of eyes achieving ± 0.50 D of target refraction (RR 0.93, 95% CI 00.84 to 1.03; 152 eyes; low-quality evidence). At 12 months post treatment, one trial reported that one of 51 eyes in the LASEK group lost one line or more best-spectacle corrected visual acuity compared with none of 51 eyes in the PRK group (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 71.96; very low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse outcomes at 12 months of follow-up or longer. At 12 months post treatment, three trials reported corneal haze score; however, data were insufficient and were inconsistent among the trials, precluding meta-analysis. One trial reported little or no difference in corneal haze scores between groups; another trial reported that corneal haze scores were lower in the LASEK group than in the PRK group; and one trial did not report analyzable data to estimate a treatment effect. At 24 months post treatment, one trial reported a lower, but clinically unimportant, difference in corneal haze score for LASEK compared with PRK (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.14; 184 eyes; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Uncertainty surrounds differences in efficacy, accuracy, safety, and adverse effects between LASEK and PRK for eyes with low to moderate myopia. Future trials comparing LASEK versus PRK should follow reporting standards and follow correct analysis. Trial investigators should expand enrollment criteria to include participants with high myopia and should evaluate visual acuity, refraction, epithelial healing time, pain scores, and adverse events.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Keratectomy, Subepithelial, Laser-Assisted; Myopia; Photorefractive Keratectomy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 26899152
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009799.pub2 -
The Journal of Emergency Medicine Nov 2015Despite the fact that topical anesthetics provide superb analgesia to the painful eye, they are not prescribed routinely to patients when they are discharged from the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the fact that topical anesthetics provide superb analgesia to the painful eye, they are not prescribed routinely to patients when they are discharged from the emergency department because of concerns for delayed healing and corneal erosion.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the evidence for the safety of topical proparacaine and tetracaine for pain relief in patients with corneal abrasions.
METHODS
This is a systematic review looking at the use of topical anesthetic agents in the treatment of corneal abrasions in the emergency department.
RESULTS
Our literature search produced two emergency department-based, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled studies on human patients with corneal abrasions. Additionally, we found four studies that investigated the application of topical anesthetics in patients who underwent photorefractive keratectomy. All six studies demonstrated that a short course of dilute topical anesthetic provided efficacious analgesia without adverse effects or delayed epithelial healing.
CONCLUSION
Limited available data suggests that the use of dilute topical ophthalmologic proparacaine or tetracaine for a short duration of time is effective, though their safety for outpatient use is inconclusive.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Corneal Injuries; Eye Pain; Humans; Propoxycaine; Tetracaine; Wound Healing
PubMed: 26281814
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.06.069