-
BMC Anesthesiology Feb 2023Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been thought to be an effective adjuvant to local anesthetics (LAs) in erector spinae plane block (ESPB), however, this method of use is not... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The effect and safety of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics in erector spinae plane block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been thought to be an effective adjuvant to local anesthetics (LAs) in erector spinae plane block (ESPB), however, this method of use is not recorded in the drug instructions. Hence, our meta-analysis will evaluate its efficacy and safety for the first time.
METHODS
A systematic search of published articles was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 17, 2022, using specific keywords related to our aims. The time first to request rescue analgesia, number of patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) presses, rate of rescue analgesia use, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), arrhythmia, and hypotension were calculated by using random-effect models. This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022345488).
RESULTS
Numerous electronic databases were searched and finally 8 studies with a total of 570 patients, 303 in the DEX arm, 267 in the control arm were included. As an adjuvant to LAs, DEX significantly increased the time to first request of rescue analgesia (mean difference [MD] = 8.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.70-12.10, P < 0.00001), reduced the number of PCIA presses (MD = -4.12, 95% CI = -7.79 to -0.45, P = 0.03) and the rate of rescue analgesia (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.17-0.65, P = 0.002). Moreover, the combination reduced the risk of PONV (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.36-0.91, P = 0.02). In addition, there was no difference in the incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.37-2.74, P = 0.99) and arrhythmia (OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.19-3.07, P = 0.70).
CONCLUSION
DEX can reduce analgesic requirements after various surgical procedures when used as an adjuvant to LAs for ESPB. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of safety indicators (arrhythmia, hypotension).
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Dexmedetomidine; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Hypotension; Nerve Block
PubMed: 36849910
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-023-02019-x -
Medicine Feb 2023Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery usually suffer from moderate to severe acute pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been applied to relieve acute pain in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery usually suffer from moderate to severe acute pain. Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been applied to relieve acute pain in various surgeries and improve postoperative outcomes. This study aimed to further identify the efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. This study also evaluates the outcomes of the erector spinae plane block compared with other regional blocks.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Embase, and CINAHL databases to identify all randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of ESPB on postoperative pain after lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome is postoperative total opioid consumption in 24 hours. The secondary outcomes are postoperative pain scores, intraoperative opioid consumption, time to first rescue analgesia, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia, first time to ambulation after surgery, length of hospital stay, patients' satisfaction score, and postoperative side effects such as postoperative nausea and vomiting, itching.
RESULTS
A total of 19 randomized controlled trials are included in the final analysis. Compared with no/sham block, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block can decrease perioperative opioid consumption including intraoperative opioid consumption: standardized mean difference (SMD) = -3.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-3.99, -2.09), P < .01, and opioid consumption postoperatively: (SMD = -2.80, 95% CI [-3.61, -2.00], P < .01); reduce postoperative pain at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours both at rest and movement; meanwhile shorten time to hospital length of stay: (SMD = -1.01, 95% CI [-1.72, 0.30], P = .006), decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.35, 95% CI [0.27, 0.46], P < .00001), and improve patient satisfaction (SMD = -2.03, 95% CI [-0.96, 3.11], P = .0002). But ultrasound-guided ESPB doesn't shorten the time to ambulation after surgery (SMD = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.08], P = .09). Additionally, ESPB is not superior to other regional blocks (e.g., thoracolumbar interfascial plane/midtransverse process to pleura block).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrates that ultrasound-guided ESPB can provide effective postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and improve postoperative outcomes, and it deserves to be recommended as an analgesic adjunct in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgeries.
Topics: Humans; Acute Pain; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Nerve Block; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 36800574
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000032981 -
Journal of the American College of... Feb 2023Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) are techniques to manage pain and facilitate reduction of dislocated joints or fractures....
BACKGROUND
Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) and peripheral nerve blocks (NBs) are techniques to manage pain and facilitate reduction of dislocated joints or fractures. However, it is unclear if either approach provides any distinct advantage in the emergency department (ED). The aim of this systematic review is to compare these 2 techniques on pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and length of stay (LOS) in the ED.
METHODS
We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and references were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PSA with NBs for orthopedic reductions in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included pain scores, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and LOS in the ED. A total of 2 reviewers independently screened abstracts and extracted data into a standardized form. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate study quality. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty and strength of the evidence. Data on pain scores were pooled using a random-effects model and are reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
A total of 6 RCTs (n = 256) were included in a qualitative review, and 4 RCTs (n = 101) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the PSA and NB groups ( = 0.47; SMD, 0.45; 95% CI, -0.78 to 1.69; I = 0.94). There were less adverse events in the NB group (0%-3.3%) compared with the PSA group (0%-20%; n = 256). LOS times were consistently shorter in the NB group (n = 215). Patient satisfaction was comparable in both groups (n = 196).
CONCLUSION
Based on the available evidence, NBs performed by emergency physicians are as effective as PSA in managing pain during orthopedic reductions in the ED. NBs are associated with fewer adverse events and shorter LOS in the ED. The quality of evidence is low.
PubMed: 36704208
DOI: 10.1002/emp2.12886 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2022To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for postoperative patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). Two investigators independently...
To investigate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine (DEX) for postoperative patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). Two investigators independently searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and CBM for randomized controlled trials of DEX for PCIA. Thirty-seven studies with a total of 5,409 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with analgesics alone, DEX for PCIA reduced pain score at 24 h [mean difference (MD) = -0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.85, -0.54; < 0.00001, = 90%] and 48 h postoperatively (MD = -0.43; 95% CI: -0.52, -0.34; < 0.00001, = 96%). Moreover, DEX reduced analgesics consumption during the first 24 h [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.34, -0.16; < 0.00001, = 91%] and the number of resuscitation analgesics administered [odds ratio (OR) = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.66; < 0.00001, = 72%]. Furthermore, DEX improved patient satisfaction (OR = 3.55; 95% CI: 2.36, 5.35; < 0.00001, = 60%), and reduced incidence of side effects, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (OR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.57; < 0.00001, = 59%) and pruritus after surgery (OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.68; = 0.0001, = 0%). Besides, DEX attenuates inflammatory cytokine levels, such as IL-6 (MD = -5.73; 95% CI: -8.34, -3.12; < 0.00001, = 91%) and TNF-α (MD = -0.63; 95% CI: -0.76, -0.50; < 0.00001, = 89%). Finally, DEX increased the risk of bradycardia (OR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.12, 2.45; = 0.01, = 15%), but the complication of hypotension did not differ between the two groups (OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.84, 2.04; = 0.25, = 0%). DEX is used for postoperative PCIA analgesia, which can significantly improve the analgesic effect, effectively control postoperative inflammatory response, reduce the dosage and adverse reactions of analgesics, and improve postoperative patient satisfaction. Of course, the impact of the immunosuppressive effect of DEX on the prognosis of patients needs further study. CRD42022340933, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.
PubMed: 36578546
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1028704 -
PloS One 2022Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (rPCA) and epidural analgesia (EA) has been used for pain relief in labor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rPCA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (rPCA) and epidural analgesia (EA) has been used for pain relief in labor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rPCA versus EA in labor, to provide evidence support for clinical analgesia and pain care.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang and Weipu databases for RCTs comparing rPCA and EA in labor until February 15, 2022. Two researchers independently screened literature and extracted data. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 10 RCTs involving 3086 parturients were enrolled, 1549 parturients received rPCA and 1537 received EA. Meta-analysis indicated that the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever within 1 hour of labor analgesia (OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.30~0.62), after 1 hour of labor analgesia (OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.20~0.90) in the rPCA was significantly less than that of EA (all P<0.05). The incidence of respiratory depression (OR = 3.56, 95%CI: 2.45~5.16, P<0.001) in the rPCA was significantly higher than that of EA. There were no significant differences in the incidence of Apgar scores<7 at 5 minutes (OR = 1.18, 95%CI: 0.71~1.96, P = 0.53), the patients' satisfaction of pain relief during labor analgesia (SMD = 0.03, 95%CI: -0.40~0.46, P = 0.90) between rPCA and EA (all P>0.05).
CONCLUSION
rPCA can be an optional alternative to EA with similar pain relief and less risk of intrapartum maternal fever. However, rPCA was associated with increased risk of respiratory depression. Future studies with rigorous design and larger sample size are needed to provide more reliable evidences for clinical rPCA and EA use.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Remifentanil; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Labor Pain; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled
PubMed: 36534641
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275716 -
Pain Physician Nov 2022Single-injection regional analgesia techniques can provide effective analgesia for abdominal hysterectomy. However, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Single-injection regional analgesia techniques can provide effective analgesia for abdominal hysterectomy. However, few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have directly compared these techniques for total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH), and the best strategy remains unknown.
OBJECTIVES
In this network meta-analysis, we compared the analgesic efficacy of single-injection regional analgesia techniques in patients who underwent TAH.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases for relevant trials from inception until April 2022. RCTs that examined single-injection regional analgesia techniques for TAH were included. Random-effects network meta-analyses were performed using the frequentist approach. The primary outcome was 24-hour cumulative morphine equivalent consumption. The secondary outcomes were pain scores, time to first request for rescue analgesia, and rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).
RESULTS
In total, 36 RCTs were included. Network meta-analyses indicated that the erector spinae plane block provided superior analgesia in terms of reduced morphine consumption, low PONV incidence, and longer time to first analgesia request. Moreover, compared with control (i.e., sham or placebo), the quadratus lumborum block provided superior analgesia in terms of time to first analgesia request and resting pain scores.
LIMITATIONS
(1) Few studies have examined single-injection regional analgesia techniques other than the transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and wound infiltration, leading to a few indirect effect estimates. (2) Heterogeneity existed due to analgesic type/dose, plane block timing, and injection site. (3) Objective outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, were lacking; most studies only included the patient-reported subjective pain score.
CONCLUSION
Single-injection blocks are effective analgesic techniques for TAH. Among them, the erector spinae plane block and quadratus lumborum block seem to have superior effects. Further studies should evaluate techniques other than TAPB and wound infiltration to draw definitive conclusions.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pain, Postoperative; Network Meta-Analysis; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Analgesia; Hysterectomy; Abdominal Muscles
PubMed: 36375182
DOI: No ID Found -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Jan 2023This study analysed whether local anaesthetic wound catheter infiltration (LA-WCI) as an adjunct to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) provides superior... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This study analysed whether local anaesthetic wound catheter infiltration (LA-WCI) as an adjunct to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) provides superior outcomes compared to IV-PCA alone following liver resection.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing LA-WCI with IV-PCA(LA-WCI group) versus IV-PCA alone (IV-PCA group). PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant articles.
RESULTS
Six RCTs with a total of 440 patients were included. Opioid use in the initial 48 h was less in the LA-WCI group [MD -21.27 mg (-39.39,-3.15), p = 0.02]. Pain scores were lower in the LA-WCI group at rest at POD0 (post-operative day 0)6-8 h (p = 0.0009), POD1AM(p = 0.01), POD1PM(p = 0.02) and POD2 (p = 0.0006), and exertion at POD0 0-2 h (p = 0.05), POD1AM(p = 0.03), POD1PM(p = 0.03), POD2 (p = 0.03) and POD3 (p = 0.01). LA-WCI group had reduced length of hospital stay [MD -1.32 days (-2.23,-0.40),p = 0.005], time to ambulation [MD -5.94 h (-8.47,-3.42),p = 0.00001] and incidence of nausea and vomiting (PONV) [OR 0.17 (0.07,0.43),p = 0.0002]. No differences were observed in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay or incidence of surgical site infections.
DISCUSSION
LA-WCI as an adjunct to opiate IV-PCA post-hepatectomy reduces opioid use, pain scores at multiple time points at rest and exertion, length of hospital stay, time to ambulation and PONV. However, LA-WCI use does not alter length of ICU stay or incidence of wound infection.
Topics: Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Catheters; Liver
PubMed: 36347769
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2022.10.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36269595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012157.pub2 -
Heliyon Oct 2022Sensory Substitution is a biofeedback intervention whereby at least sensory system is utilised to supplement environmental information which is traditionally gathered by...
INTRODUCTION
Sensory Substitution is a biofeedback intervention whereby at least sensory system is utilised to supplement environmental information which is traditionally gathered by another sense.
OBJECTIVE
To present an evidence-based overview of the feasibility and effectiveness of wearable Sensory Substitution devices on gait outcomes in orthopaedic patient populations.
METHODS
This Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis was reported according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of science and PEDro were searched for relevant published literature. Inclusion criteria limited the search strictly to patients diagnosed with an orthopaedic condition and who were randomly grouped to a Sensory Substitution intervention or conventional therapy/training or an equivalent placebo intervention.
RESULTS
Nine Randomised Controlled Trials and three Crossover Trials investigating the effectiveness of Sensory Substitution supplemented gait training were identified and included participants with a variety of orthopaedic conditions. Meta-Analyses revealed positive findings of feasibility as well as statistical and clinical effect of the interventions in improving measures of gait speed, weight-bearing control, measures of functionality and subjective self-reporting. Meta-Analyses also revealed the interventions effects were not significant in the management of pain and retention of gait speed. Negatively reinforced Sensory Substitution biofeedback was statistically and clinically effective, whilst positively reinforced biofeedback was not.
CONCLUSION
For orthopaedic patient populations to improve gait speed, weight-bearing control, functionality, pain and self-report measures, the authors recommend a Sensory Substitution supplemented gait training programme with negative biofeedback on performance. The intervention should be undertaken for 20 min per day, 3 days per week for 5 weeks. The intervention should coincide with structured analgesia administration to facilitate effective pain management. Limitations of the data included some low sample sizes and large age-ranges. No financial support was provided for this study.
PubMed: 36254278
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10986 -
CJEM Dec 2022Anterior shoulder dislocations are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). Analgesia for reduction is provided by intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) injection or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Intra-articular lidocaine versus intravenous sedation for closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
Anterior shoulder dislocations are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). Analgesia for reduction is provided by intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) injection or intravenous sedation (IV sedation). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare IAL versus IV sedation for closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation in the ED.
METHODS
Electronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (1946-September 2021) were completed and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IAL and IV sedation for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations among patients ≥ 15 years old in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included a successful reduction, adverse events, ED length of stay, pain scores, procedure time, ease of reduction, patient satisfaction, and cost. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed study quality and extracted data. Data were pooled using random-effects models and reported as mean differences and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
12 RCTs were included with a total of 630 patients (IAL = 327; IV sedation = 303). There was no difference in reduction success between IAL and IV sedation (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.86-1.01, I = 69%), significantly lower adverse events with IAL (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.07-0.33, I = 0%), shorter ED length of stay with IAL (mean difference - 1.48; 95% CI - 2.48 to - 0.47, I = 93%), no difference in pain scores post-analgesia and no difference in ease of reduction.
CONCLUSIONS
Intra-articular lidocaine may have similar effectiveness as IV sedation in the successful reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations in the ED with fewer adverse events, shorter ED length of stay, and no difference in pain scores or ease of reduction. Intra-articular lidocaine may be an effective alternative to IV sedation for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations, particularly when IV sedation is contraindicated or not feasible.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Lidocaine; Shoulder Dislocation; Anesthetics, Local; Pain; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 36181665
DOI: 10.1007/s43678-022-00368-z