-
Pain Apr 2024Procedural anxiety and pain negatively affect surgical outcomes and the patient experience during awake, invasive procedures (AIPs). This systematic review aims to...
Procedural anxiety and pain negatively affect surgical outcomes and the patient experience during awake, invasive procedures (AIPs). This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of using virtual reality (VR) to enhance the intraprocedural patient experience during AIPs. PRISMA, Cochrane, and SWiM Reporting Items guidelines were followed. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and medRxiv databases were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of immersive VR headsets to enhance the patient experience in adults undergoing AIPs. Sixteen studies were included. The VR and control groups comprised 685 and 677 patients, respectively. Patients underwent endoscopic procedures in 9 studies ("endoscopic") and interventions that involved a skin incision in 7 studies ("incision"). Eleven (of 13) studies demonstrated a favourable effect on procedural anxiety with VR use compared with standard intraprocedural care (85% [95% CI: 46%-100%], P = 0.011). Ten (of 13) studies demonstrated a favourable effect on pain with VR use (77% [95% CI: 38%-100%], P = 0.046). Seven (of 9) studies demonstrated a favourable VR effect on patient satisfaction (78% (95% CI: 44%-100%), P = 0.070). The effect of VR on physiological markers of anxiety and pain and requirements for additional pro re nata (PRN) analgesia and sedation were not clear. No significant differences in patient experience were identified between the "incision" and "endoscopic" subgroups. This review demonstrates that VR can feasibly be used to enhance the patient experience during AIPs by attenuating subjective perceptions of procedural anxiety and pain. However, further RCTs are required to elucidate the effect of VR on more objective measures of the patient experience.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Wakefulness; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Virtual Reality; Pain; Patient Outcome Assessment
PubMed: 37870233
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003086 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2023Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common intervention for people with end-stage symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, resulting in significant improvements in pain, function and quality of life within three to six months. It is, however, acutely associated with pain, local oedema and blood loss. Post-operative management may include cryotherapy. This is the application of low temperatures to the skin surrounding the surgical site, through ice or cooled water, often delivered using specialised devices. This is an update of a review published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effect of cryotherapy in the acute phase after TKR (within 48 hours after surgery) on blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, range of motion, knee function, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers, as well as reference lists, related links and conference proceedings on 27 May 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials comparing cryotherapy with or without other treatments (such as compression, regional nerve block or continuous passive motion) to no treatment, or the other treatment alone, following TKR for osteoarthritis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We discussed any disagreements and consulted another review author to resolve them, if required. Major outcomes were blood loss, pain, transfusion rate, knee range of motion, knee function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. Minor outcomes were analgesia use, knee swelling, length of stay, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 trials (20 randomised trials and two controlled clinical trials), with 1839 total participants. The mean ages reflected the TKR population, ranging from 64 to 74 years. Cryotherapy with compression was compared to no treatment in four studies, and to compression alone in nine studies. Cryotherapy without compression was compared to no treatment in eight studies. One study compared cryotherapy without compression to control with compression alone. We combined all control interventions in the primary analysis. Certainty of evidence was low for blood loss (downgraded for bias and inconsistency), pain (downgraded twice for bias) and range of motion (downgraded for bias and indirectness). It was very low for transfusion rate (downgraded for bias, inconsistency and imprecision), function (downgraded twice for bias and once for inconsistency), total adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision) and withdrawals from adverse events (downgraded for bias, indirectness and imprecision). The nature of cryotherapy made blinding difficult and most studies had a high risk of performance and detection bias. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials (956 participants) shows that cryotherapy may reduce blood loss at one to 13 days after surgery. Blood loss was 825 mL with no cryotherapy and 561 mL with cryotherapy: mean difference (MD) 264 mL less (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 mL less to 516 mL less). Low-certainty evidence from six trials (530 participants) shows that cryotherapy may slightly improve pain at 48 hours on a 0- to 10-point visual analogue scale (lower scores indicate less pain). Pain was 4.8 points with no cryotherapy and 3.16 points with cryotherapy: MD 1.6 points lower (95% CI 2.3 lower to 1.0 lower). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate at zero to 13 days after surgery. The transfusion rate was 37% with no cryotherapy and 79% with cryotherapy (risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 109.63; 2 trials, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence from three trials (174 participants) indicates cryotherapy may improve range of motion at discharge: it was 62.9 degrees with no cryotherapy and 71.2 degrees with cryotherapy: MD 8.3 degrees greater (95% CI 3.6 degrees more to 13.1 degrees more). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves function two weeks after surgery. Function was 75.4 points on the 0- to 100-point Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scale (lower score indicates worse function) in the control group and 88.6 points with cryotherapy (MD 13.2 points better, 95% CI 0.5 worse to 27.1 improved; 4 trials, 296 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces total adverse events: the risk ratio was 1.30 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.20; 16 trials, 1199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events included discomfort, local skin reactions, superficial infections, cold-induced injuries and thrombolytic events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy reduces withdrawals from adverse events (RR 2.71, 95% CI 0.42 to 17.38; 19 trials, 1347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No significant benefit was found for secondary outcomes of analgesia use, length of stay, activity level or quality of life. Evidence from seven studies (403 participants) showed improved mid-patella swelling between two and six days after surgery (MD 7.32 mm less, 95% CI 11.79 to 2.84 lower), though not at six weeks and three months after surgery. The included studies did not assess participant-reported global assessment of success.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The certainty of evidence was low for blood loss, pain and range of motion, and very low for transfusion rate, function, total adverse events and withdrawals from adverse events. We are uncertain whether cryotherapy improves transfusion rate, function, total adverse events or withdrawals from adverse events. We downgraded evidence for bias, indirectness, imprecision and inconsistency. Hence, the potential benefits of cryotherapy on blood loss, pain and range of motion may be too small to justify its use. More well-designed randomised controlled trials focusing especially on clinically meaningful outcomes, such as blood transfusion, and patient-reported outcomes, such as knee function, quality of life, activity level and participant-reported global assessment of success, are required.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Aged; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Quality of Life; Cryotherapy; Knee Joint; Pain
PubMed: 37706609
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007911.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023This systematic review explored the efficacy of different analgesic modalities and the impact on perioperative outcome in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored the efficacy of different analgesic modalities and the impact on perioperative outcome in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library Database using the PRISMA framework. The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1) and postoperative day two (POD2). The secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS) and specific procedure-related complications.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and ten retrospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EA), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), continuous wound infiltration (CWI), continuous bilateral thoracic paravertebral infusion (CTPVI), intrathecal morphine (ITM), and sublingual sufentanil. The pain scores on POD1 ( < 0.001) and POD2 ( = 0.05) were higher in the PCA group compared with the EA group. Pain scores were comparable between EA and CWI plus PCA or CTPVI on POD1 and POD2. Pain scores were comparable between EA and ITM on POD1. The procedure-related complications and length of hospital stay were not significantly different according to the type of analgesia.
CONCLUSIONS
EA provided lower pain scores compared with PCA on the first postoperative day after pancreatoduodenectomy; the length of hospital stay and procedure-related complications were similar between EA and PCA. CWI and CTPVI provided similar pain relief to EA.
PubMed: 37510799
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144682 -
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Dec 2023Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCA for the management of adults with acute traumatic pain in the ED. The hypothesis was that PCA can effectively treat acute trauma pain in adults in the ED, with minimal adverse outcomes and better patient satisfaction compared with non-PCA modalities.
METHODS
MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from inception date to December 13, 2022. Randomized controlled trials involving adults presenting to the ED with acute traumatic pain who received intravenous (IV) analgesia via PCA compared with other modalities were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to assess the quality of included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 1,368 publications were screened, with 3 studies involving 382 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. All three studies compared PCA IV morphine with clinician-titrated IV morphine boluses. For the primary outcome of pain relief, the pooled estimate was in favor of PCA with a standard mean difference of -0.36 (95% confidence interval, -0.87 to 0.16). There were mixed results concerning patient satisfaction. Adverse event rates were low overall. The evidence from all three studies was graded as low-quality because of a high risk of bias from lack of blinding.
CONCLUSION
This study did not demonstrate a significant improvement in pain relief or patient satisfaction using PCA for trauma in the ED. Clinicians wishing to use PCA to treat acute trauma pain in adult patients in the ED are advised to consider the available resources in their own practice settings and to implement protocols for monitoring and responding to potential adverse events.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic Review/Meta-Analyses; Level III.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Pain Management; Acute Pain; Emergency Service, Hospital; Morphine
PubMed: 37335181
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004004 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Aug 2023To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this setting.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase and The Cochrane Library from inception until September 21st 2022. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included when they reported on clinical outcomes of gynecologic procedures under procedural sedation and analgesia in which propofol was used as an anesthetic. Studies were excluded when sedation without propofol was used, when they only mentioned the use of procedural sedation and analgesia but did not describe any clinical outcome parameters or when < 10 patients were included. The primary outcome parameter was completeness of procedure. Secondary outcome parameters were type of gynecologic procedure, intraoperative complication rate, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, duration of hospital admission, patient's discomfort and ease of procedure as judged by the surgeon. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for bias assessment. A narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies was provided. Numbers and percentages were presented, as well as means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile range where applicable.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included. A total of 914 patients underwent gynecologic surgical procedures with procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol. Gynecological procedures varied from hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The percentage of complete procedures was 89.8%-100%. Complications occurred in 0-6.5% of patients. Other outcomes were measured in various ways, but overall patient satisfaction was high and postoperative pain was low.
CONCLUSION
The use of PSA with propofol is promising for a wide range of gynecologic procedures, including hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The use of PSA with propofol seems to be effective and safe and leads to high degree of patient satisfaction. More research is needed in order to determine for which types of procedures PSA can be used.
Topics: Humans; Female; Propofol; Uterine Prolapse; Analgesia; Pain, Postoperative; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37327552
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.035 -
Pain and Therapy Aug 2023Renal colic is one of the most common urological emergencies, and is usually caused by ureteral colic spasms. Pain management in renal colic remains the central focus of...
INTRODUCTION
Renal colic is one of the most common urological emergencies, and is usually caused by ureteral colic spasms. Pain management in renal colic remains the central focus of emergency treatment. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to identify the efficacy and safety of ketamine versus opioids in the treatment of patients with renal colic.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that referred to the use of ketamine and opioids for patients with renal colic. The methodology was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to analyze the data. The results were pooled using a fixed-effects model or random-effects model. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported pain scores 5, 15, 30, and 60 min after drug administration. The secondary outcome measure was side effects.
RESULTS
The data analysis revealed that ketamine was similar to opioids in pain intensity at the time of 5 min post-dose (MD = - 0.40, 95% CI - 1.82 to 1.01, P = 0.57), 15 min post-dose (MD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.52, P = 0.67), 30 min post-dose (MD = 0.38, 95% CI - 0.25 to 1.01, P = 0.24). Also, the pain score of ketamine was better than that of opioids at 60 min after administration (MD = - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.22 to - 0.02, P = 0.02). As for safety, the ketamine group was linked to a significant decrease in the incidence of hypotensive (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.65, P = 0.02). The two groups did not statistically differ in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with opioids, ketamine showed a longer duration of analgesia in renal colic, with satisfactory safety.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022355246.
PubMed: 37284927
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-023-00530-0 -
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Sep 2023Duloxetine has been used as an adjunct in multimodal analgesia for acute postoperative pain in clinical studies. This meta-analysis aims to conclude whether oral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Duloxetine has been used as an adjunct in multimodal analgesia for acute postoperative pain in clinical studies. This meta-analysis aims to conclude whether oral duloxetine, when given perioperatively, is any better than a placebo in managing postoperative pain. Effects of duloxetine on postoperative pain scores, time to first rescue analgesia, postoperative rescue analgesia consumption, side effects attributable to duloxetine, and patient satisfaction profile were assessed.
METHOD
MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scholar Google, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched with keywords including "Duloxetine" AND "postoperative pain", "Duloxetine" AND "acute pain" and with "Duloxetine" till October 2022. This meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials in which perioperative duloxetine 60 mg per oral was administered not more than 7 days before surgery and for at least 24 after surgery but not more than 14 days after surgery. All RCTs in which the comparator is placebo and outcomes related to analgesic efficacy like pain scores, opioid consumption, and side effects of duloxetine until 48 h postoperatively were included. Data were extracted from the studies and a risk of bias summary was formed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Effect sizes were given as standardized mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) by the Mantel-Haenszel test for the categorical outcome. Confirmation of publication bias was done by Egger's regression test (p < 0.05). If publication bias or heterogeneity was detected, the trim-and-fill method was used to calculate the adjusted effect size. Sensitivity analysis was done by leaving one out method after excluding the study with a high risk of bias. Subgroup analysis was done based on the type of surgery and gender. The study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42019139559.
FINDINGS
29 studies with 2043 patients met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed for this meta-analysis. Postoperative pain scores at 24 h [Std. Mean Difference (95% CI); -0.69 (-1.07, -0.32)] and at 48 h [-1.13 (-1.68, -0.58)] are significantly less with duloxetine (p-value < 0.05). Time to first rescue analgesia was significantly more in patients where duloxetine was administered [1.27 (1.10, 1.45); p-value > 0.05]. Opioid consumption up to 24 h [-1.82 (-2.46, -1.18)] and 48 h [-2.48 (-3.46, -1.50)] was significantly less (p-value < 0.05) in patients who received duloxetine. Complications and recovery profiles were similar in patients receiving either duloxetine or a placebo.
INTERPRETATION
Based on GRADE findings, we conclude that there is low to moderate evidence to advocate the use of duloxetine for managing postoperative pain. Further trials are needed to replicate or refute these results based on robust methodology.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain Management; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37246352
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13253 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Aug 2023Pain is commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED) and pre-hospital setting and often requires opioid analgesia. We sought to synthesize the available...
BACKGROUND
Pain is commonly encountered in the Emergency Department (ED) and pre-hospital setting and often requires opioid analgesia. We sought to synthesize the available evidence on the effectiveness of sufentanil for acute pain relief for adult patients in the pre-hospital or ED setting.
METHODS
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 1, 2022. The grey literature was also searched. We included randomized controlled trials of adult patients with acute pain who were treated with sufentanil. Two reviewers independently completed screening, full text review, and data extraction. Primary outcome was reduction in pain. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, need for rescue analgesia, and patient and provider satisfaction. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Of 1120 unique citations, four studies (3 ED and 1 pre-hospital) met full inclusion criteria (n = 467 participants). The overall quality of the included studies was high. Intranasal (IN) sufentanil was superior to placebo for pain relief at 30 min (difference 20.8%, 95% CI 4.0-36.2%, p = 0.01). Both IN (two studies) and IV sufentanil (one study) were comparable to IV morphine. Mild adverse events were common and there was a higher propensity for minor sedation in patients receiving sufentanil. There were no serious adverse events requiring advanced interventions.
CONCLUSION
Sufentanil was comparable to IV morphine and was superior to placebo for rapid relief of acute pain in the ED setting. The safety profile of sufentanil is similar to IV morphine in this setting, with minimal concern for serious adverse events. The intranasal formulation may provide an alternative, rapid, non-parenteral route that could benefit our unique emergency department and pre-hospital patient population. Due to the overall small sample size of this review, larger studies are required to confirm safety.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Sufentanil; Acute Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Emergency Service, Hospital; Hospitals
PubMed: 37186978
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.04.020 -
Pain Aug 2023There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for the application of virtual reality (VR) in pain management, however, with varying effectiveness. Little is known about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for the application of virtual reality (VR) in pain management, however, with varying effectiveness. Little is known about patient-related and VR-related factors affecting efficacy of VR. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including 122 randomised controlled trials (9138 patients), reporting on subjectively reported pain scores comparing an immersive VR intervention to a non-VR control group. Virtual reality significantly reduced pain in the pooled analysis (standardized mean difference = -0.65, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.54, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences between type of pain, ie, VR effects were similar in acute, chronic, and procedural pain conditions. Univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of intervention, patient, and pain characteristics on VR. Virtual reality effectively reduced pain, especially in patients reporting moderate to severe pain and in younger subjects. Studies comparing VR with a control group receiving no distraction methods were associated with higher effect sizes. The effect of VR was not related to a specific frequency or duration of use. Type of software and interaction level were related to VR effects in the univariable, but not in the multivariable, meta-regression analysis. Heterogeneity was considerable for all meta-analyses, and risk of bias was moderate to high in most included studies. Studies on mechanisms behind VR analgesia in younger patients and patients reporting moderate to severe pain are recommended to confirm our hypotheses while taking into account risk of bias and the comparator. Optimal application of VR using treatment modules for long-term pain conditions are an important issue for future research.
Topics: Humans; Pain; Pain Management; Virtual Reality; Analgesia; Regression Analysis
PubMed: 36943251
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002883 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Jan 2024Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PNCD) is a frequent and preventable complication after surgery. The large high-quality evidence for the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Role of supplemental regional blocks on postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction after major non-cardiac surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE
Postoperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PNCD) is a frequent and preventable complication after surgery. The large high-quality evidence for the efficacy of supplemental regional analgesia blocks (RAB) for preventing PNCD is still elusive.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of RAB versus standard anesthesia care on the incidence of PNCD in adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Registers of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2017 until June 2022. The primary outcome was the incidence of PNCD within 1 month of surgery. A random-effects model with an inverse variance method was used to pool results, and OR and mean differences were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Various exploratory subgroup analyses were performed to explore the possibility of the association between the various patient, technique, and surgery-related factors. Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines were used to determine the certainty of evidence.
FINDINGS
Twenty-six RCTs comprizing 4414 patients were included. The RAB group was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of PNCD with an OR of 0.46 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.59; p<0.00001; I=28%) compared with the control group (moderate certainty). Subgroup analysis exhibited that the prophylactic efficacy of RAB persisted for both delirium and delayed neurocognitive recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence suggests that supplemental RAB are beneficial in preventing PNCD in patients after major non-cardiac surgery.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42022338820.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesia; Anesthesia, Conduction; Delirium; Postoperative Cognitive Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36535728
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2022-104095