-
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness... May 2024In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods.
In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.
Topics: Humans; Hydromorphone; Fentanyl; Analgesics, Opioid; Acute Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Vomiting; Nausea; Administration, Intravenous; Respiratory Insufficiency; Pain Management; Quinuclidines; Spiro Compounds; Thiophenes
PubMed: 38497192
DOI: 10.57264/cer-2023-0041 -
International Journal of Emergency... Mar 2024The ideal pain control approach is typically viewed as titration of analgesia for pain reduction and periodic pain evaluation. However, this method takes time and is not... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The ideal pain control approach is typically viewed as titration of analgesia for pain reduction and periodic pain evaluation. However, this method takes time and is not always possible in the crowded Emergency Department. Therefore, an alternative way to improve pain care in the Emergency Department is needed to avoid this unpleasant sensation in the patients. The best solution to tackle this situation is using Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA), in the form of a PCA pump.
STUDY OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis was designated to evaluate the efficacy of PCA morphine in treating acute pain at Emergency Department.
METHODS
We searched databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Google Scholar up to February 2022 and identified randomized controlled trials with English language only that compare PCA morphine to IV morphine in treating patients presenting with acute pain at Emergency Department.
RESULTS
Eight trials were included in our review, comprising 1490 participants. We compared PCA morphine vs. IV morphine. There were no differences in the pain score between PCA and IV morphine (standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.20, p = 0.25). Further subgroup analyses (origin of the pain, time of assessment and the durations) showed no difference except for the dosages as the PCA morphine reduced the pain compared to IV morphine in low and high dosages but only two studies were involved. However, the analysis showed PCA morphine increased patient satisfaction and reduced the number of patients who required additional analgesia compared to IV morphine (MD 0.12, P < 0.001), (MD 0.47, P < 0.001) respectively. Data obtained in this review pertaining to adverse effects such as nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and drowsiness is limited since not all the trials reported the events.
CONCLUSIONS
PCA morphine do appear to have a beneficial effect on the outcome of patient satisfaction and the number of patients who required additional analgesia. However, further studies targeting a larger sample size is required to increase the certainty of the evidence.
PubMed: 38454338
DOI: 10.1186/s12245-024-00615-3 -
Drugs Mar 2024To evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of opioids for people with acute musculoskeletal pain against placebo.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised, placebo-controlled trials of opioid analgesics for acute musculoskeletal pain in any setting. The primary outcomes were pain and disability at the immediate timepoint (< 24 h).
DATA SOURCES
Multiple databases were searched from their inception to February 22nd, 2023.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Continuous outcomes were converted to a 0-100 scale. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk differences. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence was assessed.
RESULTS
We located 17 trials (1 intravenous and 16 oral route of administration). For adults, high certainty evidence from 11 comparisons shows that oral opioids provide small benefits relative to placebo in the immediate term for pain (mean difference [MD] - 8.8 95% confidence interval [CI] - 12.0 to - 5.6). For disability, the difference is uncertain (MD - 6.2, 95% CI - 17.8 to 5.4). Opioid groups were at higher risk of adverse events (MD 14.3%, 95% CI 8.3-20.4%, very low certainty). There was moderate certainty evidence of a large effect of IV morphine on sciatica pain (MD -42.5, 95% CI - 49.9 to - 35.1, n = 197, 1 study). In paediatric populations, moderate certainty evidence from 3 trials shows that oral opioids probably do not provide benefit beyond that of placebo for pain (MD 6.1, 95% CI - 1.7 to 12.8) and there was no evidence for disability. There was low certainty evidence that there may be no difference in adverse events (MD 10.4%, 95% CI - 0.6 to 21.4%).
DISCUSSION
Intravenous morphine likely offers benefits, but oral opioids may not provide clinically meaningful benefits.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021249346.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Musculoskeletal Pain; Acute Pain; Morphine
PubMed: 38451443
DOI: 10.1007/s40265-024-01999-5 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Mar 2024Traditional multimodal analgesic strategies have several contraindications in cardiac surgery patients, forcing clinicians to use alternative options. Superficial...
PURPOSE
Traditional multimodal analgesic strategies have several contraindications in cardiac surgery patients, forcing clinicians to use alternative options. Superficial parasternal intercostal plane blocks, anesthetizing the anterior cutaneous branches of the thoracic intercostal nerves, are being explored as a straightforward method to treat pain after sternotomy. We sought to evaluate the literature on the effects of superficial parasternal blocks on pain control after cardiac surgery.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases for RCTs evaluating superficial parasternal intercostal plane blocks in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery via midline sternotomy published from inception to 11 March 2022. The prespecified primary outcome was opioid consumption at 12 hr. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessments, development, and evaluations. Outcomes were analyzed with a random-effects model. All subgroups were prespecified.
RESULTS
We reviewed 1,275 citations. Eleven RCTs, comprising 756 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Only one study reported the prespecified primary outcome, precluding the possibility of meta-analysis. This study reported a reduction in opioid consumption (-11.2 mg iv morphine equivalents; 95% confidence interval [CI], -8.2 to -14.1) There was a reduction in opioid consumption at 24 hr (-7.2 mg iv morphine equivalents; 95% CI, -5.6 to -8.7; five trials; 436 participants; moderate certainty evidence). All five studies measuring complications reported that none were detected, which included a sample of 196 blocks.
CONCLUSION
The literature suggests a potential benefit of using superficial parasternal blocks to improve acute postoperative pain control after cardiac surgery via midline sternotomy. Future studies specifying dosing regimens and adjuncts are required.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42022306914); first submitted 22 March 2022.
PubMed: 38443735
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-024-02726-0 -
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2024Rectus sheath block (RSB) is an effective postoperative pain control technique in abdominal surgical procedures. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and...
Investigation into the clinical performance of rectus sheath block in reducing postoperative pain following surgical intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Rectus sheath block (RSB) is an effective postoperative pain control technique in abdominal surgical procedures. This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and outcome data of patients undergoing RSB compared to the standard of care in both laparoscopic and open surgical procedures.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022372596). The search was restricted to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RSB effectiveness on postoperative pain to any standard general anaesthesia technique (control). We systematically explored PubMed, Medline, Central, Scopus and Web of Science for RCTs from inception to September 2023. The primary outcome was the evaluation of pain scores at rest 0-2, 10-12 and 12-24 h postoperatively. The secondary outcome was the analysis of postoperative intravenous (IV) morphine equivalent consumption at 24-h. A risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (ROB 2.0, Cochrane, Copenhagen, Denmark) assessment and Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE, Cochrane, Copenhagen, Denmark) analysis was conducted to evaluate the quality of the RCTs.
RESULTS
Twenty RCTs involving 708 participants who received RSB intervention and 713 who received alternative analgesic care were included. RSB pain scores were significantly lower than control at 0-2 h ( < 0.001) and 10-12 h ( < 0.001) postoperatively. No significant effect was observed at 24 h ( = 0.11). RSB performance compared to control in 24-h IV morphine equivalency in milligrams was significantly lower ( < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
RSB implementation was associated with reduced postoperative pain scores and decreased opioid consumption in IV morphine equivalency up to 24 h following surgical intervention.
PubMed: 38435659
DOI: 10.4103/ija.ija_1099_23 -
Plastic Surgery (Oakville, Ont.) Feb 2024In the course of developing a standardized pathway for alveolar cleft repair, we conducted a systematic review comparing minimally invasive trephine with conventional...
In the course of developing a standardized pathway for alveolar cleft repair, we conducted a systematic review comparing minimally invasive trephine with conventional open technique for iliac crest bone graft harvest in a pediatric population. A systematic review was conducted of studies comparing open with minimally invasive trephine techniques in pediatric populations undergoing alveolar cleft repair. Exclusion criteria included reviews, case series, editorials, abstracts, and those with adult-only populations. Data were compiled with outcome variables selected . Of 422 manuscripts screened, five met criteria. These comprised 257 patients (116 open, 141 trephine). Average age was 11 years. Patients undergoing trephine harvest had reduced length of stay (1.0-5.0 days trephine vs 1.25-5.4 days open), time to unassisted ambulation (16-46 hours vs 20-67 hours open), and less postoperative narcotic use (0.31 mg/kg vs 1.64 mg/kg IV morphine). Volume of cancellous bone was reported as 2.53 mL for open versus 1.22 mL for trephine in one study, and trephine graft was supplemented with demineralized bone in 54% of cases in another study. The use of anesthetic adjuncts was inconsistent but had a significant effect on postoperative pain and ambulation. Compared to open techniques, the minimally invasive trephine bone graft harvest is associated with a shorter time to discharge, slightly lower infection rates, and reduced opioid use. The possible benefits of trephine harvest must however be balanced against the risk of insufficient graft harvest. Finally, the choice of perioperative analgesic adjuncts significantly impacts patient outcomes regardless of the technique employed.
PubMed: 38433788
DOI: 10.1177/22925503221088840 -
Annals of Emergency Medicine Jun 2024We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy of peripheral nerve block types for preoperative pain management of hip... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy of peripheral nerve block types for preoperative pain management of hip fractures.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane, Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar for randomized clinical trials. We included participants aged more than 16 years with hip fractures who received peripheral nerve blocks or analgesics for preoperative pain management. The primary outcomes were defined as absolute pain score 2 hours after block placement, preoperative consumption of morphine equivalents, and length of hospital stay. We used a random-effects network meta-analysis conceptualized in the Bayesian framework. Confidence of evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA).
RESULTS
We included 63 randomized controlled studies (4,778 participants), of which only a few had a low risk of bias. The femoral nerve block, 3-in-1 block, fascia iliaca compartment block, and pericapsular nerve group block yielded significantly lowered pain scores at 2 hours after block placement compared with those with no block (standardized mean differences [SMD]: -1.1; 95% credible interval [CrI]: -1.7 to -0.48, [confidence of evidence: low]; SMD: -1.8; 95% CrI: -3.0 to -0.55, [low]; SMD: -1.4; 95% CrI: -2.0 to -0.72, [low]; SMD: -2.3; 95% CrI: -3.2 to -1.4, [moderate], respectively). The pericapsular nerve group block, 3-in-1 block, fascia iliaca compartment block, and femoral nerve block resulted in lower pain scores than the no-block group. Additionally, the pericapsular nerve group block yielded a lower pain score than femoral nerve block or fascia iliaca compartment block (SMD: -1.21; 95% CrI: -2.18 to -0.23, [very low]: SMD: -0.92; 95% CrI: -1.70 to -0.16, [low]). However, both the fascia iliaca compartment block and femoral nerve block did not show a reduction in morphine consumption compared with no block. To our knowledge, no studies have compared the pericapsular nerve group block with other methods regarding morphine consumption. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between peripheral nerve blocks and no block in terms of the length of hospital stay.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with no block, preoperative peripheral nerve blocks for hip fractures appear to reduce pain 2 hours after block placement. Comparing different blocks, pericapsular nerve group block might be superior to fascia iliaca compartment block and femoral nerve block for pain relief, though the confidence evidence was low in most comparisons because of the moderate to high risk of bias in many of the included studies and the high heterogeneity of treatment strategies across studies. Therefore, further high-quality research is needed.
Topics: Humans; Hip Fractures; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Preoperative Care; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Femoral Nerve; Length of Stay
PubMed: 38385910
DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.01.024 -
Cureus Jan 2024Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is occasionally an inevitable side effect of neuraxial anesthesia, which can happen after spinal anesthesia or if an accidental dural... (Review)
Review
Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is occasionally an inevitable side effect of neuraxial anesthesia, which can happen after spinal anesthesia or if an accidental dural puncture (ADP) happens during epidural anesthesia. The treatment and prevention options for PDPH differ widely from one institution to another. The management of PDPH is heterogeneous in many institutions because of the absence of clear guidelines and protocols for the management of PDPH. This study aimed to summarize all articles published during the past decade that discussed the treatment or prevention of PDPH. From 2013 to 2023, 345 publications were filtered for all treatment and prevention approaches used for PDPH patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines were followed for conducting this systematic review, and 38 articles were included for analysis and review. Existing data come from small randomized clinical trials and retrospective or prospective cohort studies. This review supports the effect of oral pregabalin and intravenous aminophylline in both treatment and prevention. Intravenous mannitol, intravenous hydrocortisone, triple prophylactic regimen, and neostigmine plus atropine combination showed effective and beneficial outcomes. On the other hand, neither neuraxial morphine nor epidural dexamethasone showed promising results. Consequently, the use of neuraxial morphine or epidural dexamethasone for the prevention of PDPH remains questionable. Regarding the posture of the patient and its consequences on the incidence of the headache, lateral decubitus is better than a sitting position, and a prone position is better than a supine position. Smaller non-cutting needles play a role in avoiding PDPH. Minimally invasive nerve blocks, including sphenopalatine ganglion or greater occipital nerves, are satisfyingly effective. Epidural blood patches remain the more invasive but the gold standard and ultimate solution in patients resisting medical therapy. This study highlights the need for larger research to define the best approach to prevent and treat PDPH.
PubMed: 38361721
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52330 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Chronic Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesia, Epidural; Nerve Block; Anesthetics; Benzamidines
PubMed: 38345071
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013763.pub3 -
Cureus Jan 2024Rib fractures, common among trauma victims, lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Managing the associated pain is challenging, with IV opioids and thoracic... (Review)
Review
Rib fractures, common among trauma victims, lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Managing the associated pain is challenging, with IV opioids and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) being utilized. While epidural analgesia is often preferred for fractured rib pain, existing data encompasses both lumbar and thoracic approaches. This review aimed to compare TEA and IV opioids for persistent rib fracture pain. A comprehensive search across five databases yielded 987 articles, of which seven met the eligibility criteria. Outcomes were categorized into primary (pain reduction) and secondary (mortality, hospital/ICU stays, analgesia-related complications) endpoints. Analyzed with Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4.1 (2020; The Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), the pooled data from two sources showed TEA significantly more effective in reducing pain than IV opioids (standardized mean difference SMD): 2.23; 95%CI: 1.65-2.82; p < 0.00001). Similarly, TEA was associated with shorter ICU stays (SMD: 0.73; 95%CI: 0.33-1.13; p = 0.0004), while hospitalization duration showed no substantial difference (SMD: 0.82; 95%CI: -0.34-1.98). Mortality rates also did not significantly differ between TEA and IV opioids (risk ratio (RR): 1.20; 95%CI: 0.36-4.01; p = 0.77). Subgroup analysis revealed fewer pneumonia cases with TEA (RR: 2.06; 95%CI: 1.07-3.96; P = 0.03), with no notable disparities in other complications. While TEA's superiority in pain relief for rib fractures suggests it is the preferred analgesic, the recommendation's strength is tempered by the low methodological quality of supporting articles.
PubMed: 38318591
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51740