-
European Journal of Vascular and... Aug 2021Controlling pain after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is of critical importance to patients and clinicians. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Controlling pain after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is of critical importance to patients and clinicians. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of perineural catheters (PNCs) on post-operative pain, post-operative morphine requirement, in-hospital mortality, long term phantom limb pain, and chronic stump pain.
METHODS
A systematic review using PubMed, EMBASE via OVID and the Cochrane library from database inception (1946) to 20 October 2020 was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies involving patients undergoing MLLA which reported on post-operative morphine requirement, pain scores, in-hospital mortality, phantom limb pain (PLP), and chronic stump pain were included. Studies comparing PNC use with epidural or wound site local anaesthetic infusions were excluded. Outcome data were extracted from individual studies and meta-analysis was performed using a random effects (Mantel-Haenszel) model for dichotomous data using an odds ratio (OR) summary statistic with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and with an inverse variance random effects model for continuous data using a standardised mean difference (SMD) summary statistic with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses were performed for post-operative pain scores and post-operative morphine requirement. Study quality was assessed using the Downs and Black score, and outcomes were assessed using the GRADE tool.
RESULTS
Ten studies reporting on 731 patients were included, with 350 patients receiving a PNC and 381 receiving standard care. PNC use is associated with a reduction in post-operative pain (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.58 - -0.01, p = .040, I = 54%, GRADE quality of evidence: low) and post-operative morphine requirements (SMD -0.63, 95% CI -1.03 - -0.23, p = .002, I = 75%, GRADE quality of evidence: moderate), although the effect of PNC on reduced post-operative morphine requirements is lost on sensitivity analysis of randomised trials only (p = .40). No demonstrable effect was found on in-hospital mortality, PLP, or chronic stump pain (GRADE quality of evidence: low).
CONCLUSION
PNC use in amputees is associated with a significant reduction in post-operative pain scores and post-operative morphine requirements, although this latter finding is lost on sensitivity analysis of randomised trials only.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Amputation Stumps; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Catheters; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Lower Extremity; Morphine; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Peripheral Nerves; Phantom Limb
PubMed: 34088614
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2021.03.008 -
Pain Jul 2021Residual limb pain (RLP) is associated with (partial) extremity amputations and is defined as pain felt in the remaining part of the amputated limb. A common cause of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Residual limb pain (RLP) is associated with (partial) extremity amputations and is defined as pain felt in the remaining part of the amputated limb. A common cause of RLP is neuroma formation after nerve transections. Neuromas can be very painful and severely debilitating pathologies, preventing prosthetic use, reducing quality of life, and requiring medication. Residual limb pain and symptomatic neuromas are often not properly recognized by physicians explaining the varying prevalence in the literature. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide a comprehensive overview of published literature on the prevalence of RLP and symptomatic neuroma after lower extremity amputation. Studies reporting the prevalence of RLP and symptomatic neuroma pain in patients who have had a lower extremity amputation published between 2000 and 2020 were identified in PubMed and Embase. Random-effects meta-analyses of proportions were performed to quantify the prevalence of RLP and symptomatic neuroma. Subgroups were identified and analysed. For RLP, the pooled prevalence was 59% (95% CI: 51-67). For symptomatic neuromas, the pooled prevalence was 15% (95% CI: 7-28). Residual limb pain subgroup analysis showed statistically significant higher prevalence in patients aged >50 years, follow-up >2 years, and in studies using a self-administered questionnaire for data collection. The prevalence of RLP and symptomatic neuroma in patients who have had a lower extremity amputation is 59% and 15%, respectively. Knowledge of their high prevalence may result in better awareness among physicians, in turn providing timely and adequate management.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Amputation Stumps; Humans; Lower Extremity; Neuroma; Pain; Prevalence; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33470746
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002202 -
PloS One 2020Phantom limb pain (PLP)-pain felt in the amputated limb-is often accompanied by significant suffering. Estimates of the burden of PLP have provided conflicting data. To... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Phantom limb pain (PLP)-pain felt in the amputated limb-is often accompanied by significant suffering. Estimates of the burden of PLP have provided conflicting data. To obtain a robust estimate of the burden of PLP, we gathered and critically appraised the literature on the prevalence and risk factors associated with PLP in people with limb amputations.
METHODS
Articles published between 1980 and July 2019 were identified through a systematic search of the following electronic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Africa-Wide Information, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Academic Search Premier. Grey literature was searched on databases for preprints. Two reviewers independently conducted the screening of articles, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The meta-analyses were conducted using the random effects model. A statistically significant level for the analyses was set at p<0.05.
RESULTS
The pooling of all studies demonstrated a prevalence estimate of 64% [95% CI: 60.01-68.05] with high heterogeneity [I2 = 95.95% (95% CI: 95.10-96.60)]. The prevalence of PLP was significantly lower in developing countries compared to developed countries [53.98% vs 66.55%; p = 0.03]. Persistent pre-operative pain, proximal site of amputation, stump pain, lower limb amputation and phantom sensations were identified as risk factors for PLP.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis estimates that six of every 10 people with an amputation report PLP-a high and important prevalence of PLP. Healthcare professionals ought to be aware of the high rates of PLP and implement strategies to reduce PLP by addressing known risk factors, specifically those identified by the current study.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Clinical Decision-Making; Humans; Phantom Limb; Prevalence; Risk Factors
PubMed: 33052924
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240431 -
EFORT Open Reviews Sep 2019The majority of included studies (8 out of 11, = 54) supported the concept of considering amputation for selected, unresponsive cases of complex regional pain syndrome... (Review)
Review
The majority of included studies (8 out of 11, = 54) supported the concept of considering amputation for selected, unresponsive cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) as a justifiable alternative to an unsuccessful multimodality nonoperative option.Of patients who underwent amputation, 66% experienced improvement in quality of life (QOL) and 37% were able to use a prosthesis, 16% had an obvious decline in QOL and for 12% of patients, no clear details were given, although it was suggested by authors that these patients also encountered deterioration after amputation.Complications of phantom limb pain, recurrence of CRPS and stump pain were predominant risks and were noticed in 65%, 45% and 30% of cases after amputation, respectively and two-thirds of patients were satisfied.Amputation can be considered by clinicians and patients as an option to improve QOL and to relieve agonizing, excruciating pain of severe, resistant CRPS at a specialized centre after multidisclipinary involvement but it must be acknowledged that evidence is limited, and the there are risks of aggravating or recurrence of CRPS, phantom pain and unpredictable consequences of rehabilitation.Amputation, if considered for resistant CRPS, should be carried out at specialist centres and after MDT involvement before and after surgery. It should only be considered if requested by patients with poor quality of life who have failed to improve after multiple treatment modalities.Further high quality and comprehensive research is needed to understand the severe form of CRPS which behaves differently form less severe stages. Cite this article: 2019;4:533-540. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190008.
PubMed: 31598331
DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2019Dressings are part of the routine postoperative management of people after transtibial amputation. Two types of dressings are commonly used; soft dressings (e.g. elastic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dressings are part of the routine postoperative management of people after transtibial amputation. Two types of dressings are commonly used; soft dressings (e.g. elastic bandages, crepe bandages) and rigid dressings (e.g. non-removable rigid dressings, removable rigid dressings, immediate postoperative protheses). Soft dressings are the conventional dressing choice as they are cheap and easy to apply, while rigid dressings are costly, more time consuming to apply and require skilled personnel to apply the dressings. However, rigid dressings have been suggested to result in faster wound healing due to the hard exterior providing a greater degree of compression to the stump.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of rigid dressings versus soft dressings for treating transtibial amputations.
SEARCH METHODS
In December 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid AMED and PEDro to identify relevant trials. To identify further published, unpublished and ongoing studies, we also searched clinical trial registries, the grey literature, the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews identified in prior searches. We used the Cited Reference Search facility on ThomsonReuters Web of Science and contacted relevant individuals and organisations. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that enrolled people with transtibial amputations. There were no restrictions on the age of participants and reasons for amputation. Trials that compared the effectiveness of rigid dressings with soft dressings were the main focus of this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text publications for eligible studies. Two review authors also independently extracted data on study characteristics and outcomes, and performed risk of bias and GRADE assessments.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs and quasi-RCTs involving 436 participants (441 limbs). All studies recruited participants from acute and/or rehabilitation hospitals from seven different countries (the USA, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, Canada, France and the UK). In all but one study, it was clearly stated that amputations were secondary to vascular conditions.Primary outcomes Wound healing We are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to wound healing compared with soft dressings (MD -25.60 days; 95% CI -49.08 to -2.12; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of wounds healed compared with soft dressings (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.76; one study, 51 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision.Adverse events It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of skin-related adverse events compared with soft dressings (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.32; I = 0%; six studies, 336 participants (340 limbs)); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision.It is not clear whether rigid dressings increase the proportion of non skin-related adverse events compared with soft dressings (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.99; I = 0%; six studies, 342 participants (346 limbs)); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. In addition, we are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to no pain compared with soft dressings (MD -0.35 weeks; 95% CI -2.11 to 1.41; one study of 23 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision.Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the time to walking compared with soft dressings (MD -3 days; 95% CI -9.96 to 3.96; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and twice for very serious imprecision. We are also uncertain whether rigid dressings decrease the length of hospital stay compared with soft dressings (MD -30.10 days; 95% CI -49.82 to -10.38; one study, 56 participants); very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once for serious imprecision. It is also not clear whether rigid dressings decrease the time to readiness for prosthetic prescription and swelling compared with soft dressings, as results are based on very low-certainty evidence, downgraded twice for very high risk of bias and once/twice for serious/very serious imprecision. None of the studies reported outcomes on patient comfort, quality of life and cost.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain of the benefits and harms of rigid dressings compared with soft dressings for people undergoing transtibial amputation due to limited and very low-certainty evidence. It is not clear if rigid dressings are superior to soft dressings for improving outcomes related to wound healing, adverse events, prosthetic prescription, walking function, length of hospital stay and swelling. Clinicians should exercise clinical judgement as to which type of dressing they use, and consider the pros and cons of each for patients (e.g. patients with high risk of falling may benefit from the protection offered by a rigid dressing, and patients with poor skin integrity may have less risk of skin breakdown from a soft dressing).
Topics: Aged; Amputation, Surgical; Bandages; Compression Bandages; Female; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Postoperative Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selection Bias; Tibia; Time Factors; Walking; Wound Healing
PubMed: 31204792
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012427.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.
METHODS
Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.
Topics: Chronic Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30941745
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011890.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and...
BACKGROUND
Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain.
OBJECTIVES
To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty.
METHODS
Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Pain; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 30776855
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011890.pub2 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Jan 2018Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases....
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases. Literature on management of acute post-amputation pain is scarce. We performed a systematic review on this topic to evaluate the efficacy and safety of analgesic interventions for acute pain following major limb amputation.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the following key words: [(amputation) AND (pain OR analgesi* OR pain relief)] AND (acute OR postoperative). Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies investigating treatment of acute pain following major amputations for any indication (peripheral vascular disease, malignant disease, trauma) were included. The review was performed according to the standards described in the PRISMA statement. The Cochrane quality assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the RCTs.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies with total of 949 patients were included. The studies were generally small and heterogeneous on outcomes, study designs and quality. There were 16 studies on epidural or continuous perineural analgesia (CPI). Based on five RCTs (n=268) and two observational studies (n=49), epidural analgesia decreased the intensity of acute stump pain as compared to systemic analgesics, during the first 24 h after the operation. Based on one study epidural analgesia caused more adverse effects like sedation, nausea and motor block than continuous perineural local anesthetic infusion. Based on one RCT (n=21) and eight observational studies (n=501) CPI seemed to decrease opioid consumption as compared to systemic analgesics only, on the first three postoperative days, and was well tolerated. Only three trials investigated systemic analgesics (oral memantine, oral gabapentine, iv ketamine). Ketamine did not decrease acute pain or opioid consumption after amputation as compared to other systemic analgesics. Gabapentin did not decrease acute pain when combined to epidural analgesia as compared to epidural analgesia and opioid treatment, and caused adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
The main finding of this systematic review is that evidence regarding pain management after major limb amputation is very limited. Epidural analgesia may be effective, but firm evidence is lacking. Epidural causes more adverse effects than CPI. The results on efficacy of CPI are indecisive. The data on adjuvant medications combined to epidural analgesia or CPI is limited. Studies on efficacy and adverse effects of systemic analgesics for amputation pain, especially concentrating on elderly patients, are needed.
Topics: Acute Pain; Amputation, Surgical; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 29794290
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2017-0170 -
Prosthetics and Orthotics International Aug 2018Shock-attenuating pylons are commonly fitted to prostheses in order to compensate for the anatomical and biomechanical shock-absorbing features of the lower limb removed...
BACKGROUND
Shock-attenuating pylons are commonly fitted to prostheses in order to compensate for the anatomical and biomechanical shock-absorbing features of the lower limb removed upon amputation. However, studies concerning their shock-attenuating capacity are highly variable and, to date, have not yet been reviewed, making them difficult to interpret and apply in clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesise and appraise the available literature examining the effectiveness of shock-attenuating pylons in attenuating shock upon limb loading compared to rigid pylons among lower limb amputees.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
A comprehensive search of seven databases was conducted using search terms concerning amputation level, shock-attenuating and rigid pylons as well as measures of shock attenuation. All studies yielded were screened against established inclusion and exclusion criteria before eligible articles were appraised using the Quality Assessment Standard for Crossover Studies adapted from the Cochrane handbook.
RESULTS
Nine articles were eligible for inclusion. While there was a trend among studies to indicate only a limited positive effect of shock-attenuating pylons in attenuating transient impact forces, limitations to the study designs, namely, in sampling, poor reporting of methodological details and heterogeneity of outcomes made conclusive interpretation of results difficult.
CONCLUSION
While the current body of literature does not reconcile with claims made by manufacturers of shock-attenuating pylons, it is insufficient to conclusively determine how effective shock-attenuating pylons are, in comparison with conventional rigid pylons, in attenuating transient impact forces among lower limb amputees. Higher quality research is required to better guide decisions regarding prescription of shock-attenuating componentry in clinical practice. Clinical relevance When delivered well, research can provide clinicians with objective and reliable data that can be applied in their practice to guide prescription of componentry. However, methodological limitations to research may compromise the reliability of findings, thereby producing potentially misleading outcomes. These limitations must be recognised and appreciated such that findings may be interpreted accurately and applied appropriately.
Topics: Amputation Stumps; Amputees; Artificial Limbs; Biomechanical Phenomena; Energy Transfer; Female; Gait; Humans; Male; Prosthesis Fitting; Quality of Life; Stress, Mechanical; Tibia
PubMed: 29779466
DOI: 10.1177/0309364618774062 -
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice Jan 2018The main aim of this study was to assess the cost of diabetic amputation (both direct and indirect) to the National Health Service from the point of amputation onwards. (Review)
Review
AIMS
The main aim of this study was to assess the cost of diabetic amputation (both direct and indirect) to the National Health Service from the point of amputation onwards.
METHODS
This systematic review involved searches of published literature between January 2007 and March 2017 mainly using the bibliographic databases, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE via Ovid®, MEDLINE via Ovid®, as well as grey literature, both in print and in electronic formats published through non-commercial publications, which reported the cost of amputation due to diabetic foot ulcers.
RESULTS
The studies included in this review varied considerably in estimating the cost including cost elements and how those costs were categorised. The cost estimates for inpatient care associated with amputation involving admissions or procedures on amputation stumps in people with diabetes was £43.8 million. The annual expenditure for post-amputation care involving prosthetic care, physiotherapy, transport and wheelchair use was £20.8 million.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a considerable public health and economic burden caused by diabetes-related amputations in England. More focussed research is needed with improved methods of estimating costs that would account for direct and indirect costs associated with diabetic amputation.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Diabetic Foot; Female; Humans; Male; Public Health; United Kingdom
PubMed: 29133201
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2017.10.030