-
Anaesthesia Jun 2024Intrathecal diamorphine is believed to provide postoperative analgesia but is associated with adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting. There is little evidence of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intrathecal diamorphine is believed to provide postoperative analgesia but is associated with adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting. There is little evidence of synthesis regarding intrathecal diamorphine in the contemporary literature. We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis to determine the magnitude of intrathecal diamorphine efficacy and safety.
METHODS
We systematically searched the literature for trials comparing intrathecal diamorphine with a control group in patients undergoing all types of surgery. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were intravenous morphine consumption and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 h following surgery, respectively.
RESULTS
Twelve trials were identified, which included data for 712 patients. Intrathecal doses of diamorphine ranged from 100 μg to 2500 μg. Intravenous morphine consumption at 24 h postoperatively was significantly reduced in the intrathecal diamorphine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -8 mg (-11 to -6), I = 93%, p < 0.001. There was a significant difference between three intrathecal diamorphine dosing subgroups but without correlation: mean differences (95%CI) -1 mg (-3-0), -26 mg (-40 to -11) and -6 mg (-15-4) in patients receiving doses of 0-200 μg, 201-400 μg and > 400 μg, respectively (p = 0.003). Intrathecal diamorphine increased postoperative nausea and vomiting with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 1.37 (1.19-1.58), I = 7%, p < 0.001. There were no differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting between the three intrathecal diamorphine dosing subgroups. There was no correlation observed with meta-regression of the primary efficacy and safety outcomes. The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low.
CONCLUSION
There is very low level of evidence that intrathecal diamorphine provides effective analgesia after surgery, while increasing postoperative nausea and vomiting with doses > 200 μg.
PubMed: 38922818
DOI: 10.1111/anae.16359 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2024This meta-analysis aims to examine how effective ketamine is in the management of acute and preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain by synthesizing the available...
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aims to examine how effective ketamine is in the management of acute and preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain by synthesizing the available research.
METHOD
A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library till May 2023. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) examining the influence of ketamine on post-thoracotomy pain in adults were included. The intervention group included ketamine plus morphine, while the control group included morphine only. The outcome measures were opioid intake and pain scores at rest and on moving/coughing. Evidence quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and GRADE assessment.
RESULTS
Nine articles comprising 556 patients were selected for meta-analysis. The intervention group had a significant decrease in pain at rest (Std. Mean Difference (SMD = -0.60 with 95% CI [-0.83, -0.37]) and on movement/cough (SMD = -0.73 [-1.27, -0.18]) in the first postoperative days. Also, the ketamine group had lower opioid consumption (mg) in comparison with controls (SMD = -2.75 [-4.14, -1.36], -value = 0.0001) in postoperative days 1-3. There was no data to assess the long-term effect of ketamine on chronic pain.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis shows that ketamine use can lower acute pain levels and morphine use after thoracotomy. In the future, larger RCTs using standardized methods and assessing both short-term and long-term analgesic effects of ketamine are necessary to deepen the understanding of the issue.
PubMed: 38919936
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1394219 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Jun 2024The administration of local anaesthesia in intraperitoneal space as part of the multi-modal analgesic regimen has shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain....
OBJECTIVE
The administration of local anaesthesia in intraperitoneal space as part of the multi-modal analgesic regimen has shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain. Recent studies demonstrated that intraperitoneal lidocaine may provide analgesic effects. Primary objective was to determine the impact of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative pain scores at rest.
DESIGN
We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
METHODS
Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception date until May 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing intraperitoneal lidocaine and placebo in adults undergoing surgery were included.
RESULTS
Our systematic review included 24 RCTs (n = 1,824). The intraperitoneal lidocaine group was significantly associated with lower postoperative pain scores at rest (MD: -0.87, 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.69) and at movement (MD: -0.50, 95% Cl: -0.93 to -0.08) among adult patients after surgery. Its administration also significantly decreased morphine consumption (MD: -6.42 mg, 95% Cl: -11.56 to -1.27), lowered the incidence of needing analgesia (OR: 0.22, 95% Cl: 0.14 to 0.35). Intraperitoneal lidocaine statistically reduced time to resume regular diet (MD: 0.16 days; 95% Cl: -0.31 to -0.01), and lowered postoperative incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.54, 95% Cl: 0.39 to 0.75).
CONCLUSIONS
In this review, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose of administering intraperitoneal lidocaine among adult patients undergoing surgery.
PubMed: 38913879
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnae052 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... Jun 2024Protocols surrounding opioid reduction have become commonplace in plastic surgery to improve peri-operative outcomes. Within such protocols, opioid requirement is a... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Protocols surrounding opioid reduction have become commonplace in plastic surgery to improve peri-operative outcomes. Within such protocols, opioid requirement is a frequently analyzed outcome. Though often examined, there is no literature standard conversion for morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at present, leading to questionable external validity. We hypothesized significant heterogeneity in MME reporting would exist within plastic surgery literature.
METHODS
Following the PRISMA guidelines, the authors conducted a systematic review of 16 journals. Clinical studies focused on opioid reduction within plastic surgery were identified. Primary outcomes included reporting of morphine equivalents (ME) delivery (IV/oral), operative ME, inpatient ME, outpatient ME, timeline, and method of calculation.
RESULTS
Among the 101 studies analyzed, 73% reported opioid requirements in the form of ME. Among those that used ME, 3% reported IV ME, 41% reported oral, 32% reported both, and 25% gave no indication of either. Operative ME were reported in 19% of studies. Furthermore, 54% of studies reported inpatient ME whereas 32% of studies reported outpatient ME. Only 19% reported the number of days opioids were consumed postoperatively. Moreover, 27% of the studies reported the actual method of ME conversion, with 17 unique methods described. Only 8 studies (8%) reported using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for ME conversion.
CONCLUSION
There is significant variability among the reported ME conversion methodology within plastic surgery literature. Highlighting these discrepancies is an essential step in creating and implementing a single, standard method to mitigate opioid morbidity in plastic surgery and to optimize enhanced recovery protocols.
PubMed: 38909598
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.06.001 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2024: Our understanding of dexmedetomidine, as an adjuvant to nerve blocks in cancer surgery, is characterized by a current lack of compelling evidence, and it remains... (Review)
Review
: Our understanding of dexmedetomidine, as an adjuvant to nerve blocks in cancer surgery, is characterized by a current lack of compelling evidence, and it remains unknown whether the potential benefits of use outweigh the risks. The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit and safety profiles of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to nerve blocks in cancer surgery. : Systematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, Springer, medRxiv, and Scopus up to 17 May 2024. Risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes were quantified. : Twenty studies were identified. In breast cancer surgery, the use of dexmedetomidine reduced 24 h total morphine consumption (SMD = -1.99 [95% CI -3.01 to -0.98], = 0.0001, I2 = 91%, random effects) and prolonged the requirement for morphine rescue analgesia (SMD = 2.98 [95% CI 0.01 to 5.95], = 0.05, I2 = 98%, random effects). In abdominal cancer surgery, the dexmedetomidine group had lower total sufentanil consumption (SMD = -1.34 [95% CI -2.29 to -0.40], = 0.005, I2 = 84%, random effects). Dexmedetomidine reduced the VAS score and decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). No studies using dexmedetomidine reported serious adverse events. : Using dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to nerve blocks in cancer surgery could lower the VAS pain score and prolong the regional anesthesia duration, which would lead to a decrease in total opioid consumption and possibly contribute to fewer PONV events. Furthermore, the reports of no serious adverse events indicate its good safety profile.
PubMed: 38892876
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113166 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... May 2024To assess the analgesic effect of erector spinae plane block in adults undergoing median sternotomy cardiac surgery. (Review)
Review
The Analgesic Effect of Ultrasound-guided Erector Spinae Plane Block in Median Sternotomy Cardiac Surgery in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic effect of erector spinae plane block in adults undergoing median sternotomy cardiac surgery.
DESIGN AND SETTING
The Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed databases from inception to January 2024 were searched. The study has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023470375).
PARTICIPANTS
Eight randomized controlled trials involving 543 patients, comparing with no block or sham block, were included, whether it was a single injection or continuous.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
The primary outcomes were pain scores and opioid consumption. Erector spinae plane block reduced pain scores immediately after extubation (mean difference [MD], -1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.67 to -0.71; p for heterogeneity = 0.10), at 6 hours after extubation (MD, -1.96; 95% CI, -2.85 to -1.08; p for heterogeneity < 0.0001), and at 12 hours after extubation (MD, -0.98; 95% CI, -1.55 to -0.40; p for heterogeneity < 0.00001). The decrease in pain scores reached the minimal clinically important difference within 6 hours. Opioid consumption 24 hours after surgery decreased by 35.72 mg of oral morphine equivalents (95% CI, -50.88 to -20.57; p for heterogeneity < 0.0001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of results. The quality of primary outcomes was rated as very low to moderate.
CONCLUSIONS
Erector spinae plane block decreased pain scores within 12 hours after extubation, reached the minimal clinically important difference within 6 hours, and decreased opioid consumption 24 hours after surgery, based on data of very low to moderate quality. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate these findings.
PubMed: 38890084
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2024.05.019 -
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Jun 2024To explore opioid prescribing patterns for cancer pain in Latin America (LA).
OBJECTIVE
To explore opioid prescribing patterns for cancer pain in Latin America (LA).
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Relevant databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, LILACS and Scielo, were searched from inception to June 2023. Empirical studies of opioid prescription patterns in adult palliative care patients with cancer pain were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Descriptive statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS V.28 (IBM). Categorical variables were summarised using frequencies and percentages and continuous variables as means or medians.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies from six countries were included. Ten were observational, while seven were experimental, including five randomised controlled trials (RCT) and two non-RCT. Most were low or moderate methodological quality. Out of 7809 patients, morphine (54%) and tramadol (18%) were the most prescribed opioids. The median of morphine equivalent daily dose was 26 mg (IQR 26-41).
CONCLUSION
Latin America shows lower opioid consumption rates compared with high-income countries for control pain management (CPM). More rigorous research on CPM in LA is needed. Additionally, a comprehensive review of opioid prescription patterns, including non-cancer diagnoses, is necessary.
PubMed: 38876507
DOI: 10.1136/spcare-2024-004999 -
The Knee Jun 2024Adding corticosteroids to intraoperative periarticular injections (PAIs) have become a current trend in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Periarticular corticosteroid... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Adding corticosteroids to intraoperative periarticular injections (PAIs) have become a current trend in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Periarticular corticosteroid injections (PACSIs) intend to improve postoperative pain and function. However, preoperative corticosteroid injections for symptomatic arthritis increase the rates of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) when given months prior to TKA. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether the addition of corticosteroids to PAIs during TKA improves patient outcomes and whether such practice increases the risk of PJI?
METHODS
A systematic review of the current literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines screened 1025 abstracts. Thirteen studies meeting specific eligibility criteria were included for further analysis.
RESULTS
Among the studies comparing the PACSIs versus nonsteroidal PAIs, 36% showed a significant reduction in postoperative pain scores, 20% showed significant improvement in range of motion (ROM), and 16% showed a significant reduction in total morphine equivalence (TME). While 100% of the studies comparing PACSI to saline or no injections showed significant improvement in pain, ROM and TME. In total, there were 3 infections in 576 TKA cases receiving PACSIs and 2 infections in 534 cases not receiving a PACSI. However, studies were not powered specifically to assess for infection.
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of corticosteroids to intraoperative PAIs do not demonstrate a significant benefit in the majority of studies, and tend to not have an effect on PJI risk; however, studies were not specifically powered to assess PJI risk.
PubMed: 38876084
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2024.05.009 -
Prehospital Emergency Care Jun 2024Intranasal (IN) medications offer a safe non-invasive way to rapidly deliver drugs in situations where intravenous (IV) access and intramuscular (IM) administration is...
OBJECTIVES
Intranasal (IN) medications offer a safe non-invasive way to rapidly deliver drugs in situations where intravenous (IV) access and intramuscular (IM) administration is challenging or not feasible. In the prehospital setting, this can be an essential alternative in time critical situations including trauma management, seizures, and agitated patients. However, there is a paucity of evidence summarizing its efficacy in this environment. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence supporting the use of IN medicine (midazolam, ketamine, fentanyl, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone) in the prehospital setting alone.
METHODS
A systematic literature search (PROSPERO CRD42023440713) of PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Medline, "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials," Cochrane reviews and Embase was performed from inception to June 2023 to identify studies where IN medications were administered to patients in the prehospital setting. All randomized controlled trials, observational cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included. Papers not written in English, review articles, abstracts, and non-published data (including letters to the editor) were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was interpreted using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. No funding was received.
RESULTS
From 4818 studies, 39 were included (seven for midazolam, five for ketamine, twelve for fentanyl, one for diamorphine, two for glucagon, and twelve for naloxone). A total of 24,097 patients were treated with IN medications across all the studies. There were five moderate quality, four low quality, and thirty very low quality studies. The potential efficacy of IN fentanyl and ketamine was demonstrated consistently throughout the studies with less clear evidence for midazolam, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone. This review was severely limited by the study quality, with most studies demonstrating "high concerns" for bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Prehospital IN medication administration has wide-ranging potential, particularly for administering analgesia. There are likely to be certain populations, for example, pediatrics, that will benefit the most, although conclusions are limited by the quality of evidence currently available. We encourage additional research in this area, particularly with robust prospective double-blind RCTs.
PubMed: 38848591
DOI: 10.1080/10903127.2024.2357598 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Autonomic Nerve Block; Adult; Bias; Pelvic Neoplasms; Abdominal Neoplasms; Cancer Pain; Abdominal Pain; Pain Management; Nerve Block; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38842054
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015229.pub2