-
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma,... May 2024Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a sophisticated procedure with a comparatively high failure rate. Especially, ETI in confined spaces may result in higher difficulty, longer times, and a higher failure rate. This study analyses if Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) intubation (time-to) success are influenced by noise, light, and restricted space in comparison to ground intubation. Available literature reporting these parameters was very limited, thus the reported differences between ETI in helicopter vs. ground by confronting parameters such as time to secure airway, first pass success rate and Cormack-Lehane Score were analysed.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid on October 15th, 2022. The database search provided 2322 studies and 6 studies met inclusion and quality criteria. The research was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361793).
RESULTS
A total of six studies were selected and analysed as part of the systematic review and meta-analysis. The first pass success rate of ETI was more likely to fail in the helicopter setting as compared to the ground (82,4% vs. 87,3%), but the final success rate was similar between the two settings (96,8% vs. 97,8%). The success rate of intubation in literature was reported higher in physician-staffed HEMS than in paramedic-staffed HEMS. The impact of aircraft type and location inside the vehicle on intubation success rates was inconclusive across studies. The meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results for the mean duration of intubation, with one study reporting shorter intubation times in helicopters (13,0s vs.15,5s), another reporting no significant differences (16,5s vs. 16,8s), and a third reporting longer intubation times in helicopters (16,1s vs. 15,0s).
CONCLUSION
Further research is needed to assess the impact of environmental factors on the quality of ETI on HEMS. While the success rate of endotracheal intubation in helicopters vs. on the ground is not significantly different, the duration and time to secure the airway, and Cormack-Lehane Score may be influenced by environmental factors. However, the limited number of studies reporting on these factors highlights the need for further research in this area.
Topics: Intubation, Intratracheal; Humans; Air Ambulances; Emergency Medical Services
PubMed: 38730289
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-024-01213-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Waiting lists for kidney transplantation continue to grow. Live kidney donation significantly reduces waiting times and improves long-term outcomes for recipients. Major disincentives to potential kidney donors are the pain and morbidity associated with surgery. This is an update of a review published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of open donor nephrectomy (ODN), laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN), hand-assisted LDN (HALDN) and robotic donor nephrectomy (RDN) as appropriate surgical techniques for live kidney donors.
SEARCH METHODS
We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 31 March 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LDN with ODN, HALDN, or RDN were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility, assessed study quality, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information where necessary. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen studies randomising 1280 live kidney donors to ODN, LDN, HALDN, or RDN were included. All studies were assessed as having a low or unclear risk of bias for selection bias. Five studies had a high risk of bias for blinding. Seven studies randomised 815 live kidney donors to LDN or ODN. LDN was associated with reduced analgesia use (high certainty evidence) and shorter hospital stay, a longer procedure and longer warm ischaemia time (moderate certainty evidence). There were no overall differences in blood loss, perioperative complications, or need for operations (low or very low certainty evidence). Three studies randomised 270 live kidney donors to LDN or HALDN. There were no differences between HALDN and LDN for analgesia requirement, hospital stay (high certainty evidence), duration of procedure (moderate certainty evidence), blood loss, perioperative complications, or reoperations (low certainty evidence). The evidence for warm ischaemia time was very uncertain due to high heterogeneity. One study randomised 50 live kidney donors to retroperitoneal ODN or HALDN and reported less pain and analgesia requirements with ODN. It found decreased blood loss and duration of the procedure with HALDN. No differences were found in perioperative complications, reoperations, hospital stay, or primary warm ischaemia time. One study randomised 45 live kidney donors to LDN or RDN and reported a longer warm ischaemia time with RDN but no differences in analgesia requirement, duration of procedure, blood loss, perioperative complications, reoperations, or hospital stay. One study randomised 100 live kidney donors to two variations of LDN and reported no differences in hospital stay, duration of procedure, conversion rates, primary warm ischaemia times, or complications (not meta-analysed). The conversion rates to ODN were 6/587 (1.02%) in LDN, 1/160 (0.63%) in HALDN, and 0/15 in RDN. Graft outcomes were rarely or selectively reported across the studies. There were no differences between LDN and ODN for early graft loss, delayed graft function, acute rejection, ureteric complications, kidney function or one-year graft loss. In a meta-regression analysis between LDN and ODN, moderate certainty evidence on procedure duration changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly reduction = 7.12 min, 95% CI 2.56 to 11.67; P = 0.0022). Differences in very low certainty evidence on perioperative complications also changed significantly in favour of LDN over time (yearly change in LnRR = 0.107, 95% CI 0.022 to 0.192; P = 0.014). Various different combinations of techniques were used in each study, resulting in heterogeneity among the results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
LDN is associated with less pain compared to ODN and has comparable pain to HALDN and RDN. HALDN is comparable to LDN in all outcomes except warm ischaemia time, which may be associated with a reduction. One study reported kidneys obtained during RDN had greater warm ischaemia times. Complications and occurrences of perioperative events needing further intervention were equivalent between all methods.
Topics: Nephrectomy; Humans; Living Donors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Laparoscopy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Kidney Transplantation; Length of Stay; Pain, Postoperative; Operative Time; Tissue and Organ Harvesting; Warm Ischemia
PubMed: 38721875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006124.pub3 -
Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine May 2024Transition-related surgery is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, but the perioperative analgesic management of transgender patients is nuanced and potentially... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Transition-related surgery is an effective treatment for gender dysphoria, but the perioperative analgesic management of transgender patients is nuanced and potentially complicated by higher rates of mood and substance use disorders. Regional anesthetic techniques are known to reduce pain severity and opioid requirements; however, little is known regarding the relative analgesic effectiveness of regional anesthesia for transgender patients undergoing transition-related surgery.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of the literature to evaluate original reports characterizing the analgesic effectiveness of regional anesthetic techniques for patients undergoing chest and/or genital transition-related surgery. Our primary outcomes were pain severity and opioid requirements on the first postoperative day.
RESULTS
Of the 1863 records identified, 10 met criteria for inclusion and narrative synthesis. These included two randomized controlled trials, three cohort studies, and five case reports/series, comprising 293 patients. Four reports described 243 patients undergoing chest surgery, of whom 86% were transgender men undergoing mastectomy with pectoralis nerve blocks or local anesthetic instillation devices. The remaining six reports comprised 50 patients undergoing genital surgery, of whom 56% were transgender women undergoing vaginoplasty with erector spinae plane blocks or epidural anesthesia. Three studies directly compared regional techniques to parenteral analgesia alone. Two of these studies reported lower pain scores and opioid requirements on the first postoperative day with nerve blocks compared with none while the third study reported no difference between groups. Complications related to regional anesthetic techniques were rare among patients undergoing transition-related surgery.
DISCUSSION
Despite the ever-growing demand for transition-related surgery, the relative analgesic effectiveness of regional anesthesia for transgender patients undergoing transition-related surgery is very understudied and insufficient to guide clinical practice. Our systematic review of the literature serves to underscore regional anesthesia for transition-related surgery as a priority area for future research.
PubMed: 38719225
DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2024-105479 -
European Archives of... Jul 2024To assess the effectiveness of bilateral superficial cervical plexus block (BSCPB) in treating post-thyroidectomy pain.
PURPOSE
To assess the effectiveness of bilateral superficial cervical plexus block (BSCPB) in treating post-thyroidectomy pain.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, LILACS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were extensively searched. The search period extended from 1968 until December 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing BSCPB to placebo, no block in patients with thyroidectomy for benign or malignant thyroid disease were included. Outcomes were pain in the first 24 h after surgery. Analgesic rescue, period before the first rescue dosage, and 24-h opioid usage were secondary outcomes. The RoB 2 instrument was used to evaluate the risk of bias.
RESULTS
34 of 354 studies were eligible. There were 2,519 patients. BSCPB reduced the intensity of pain postoperatively [SMD: - 1.17 (95% CI: - 1.54 to - 0.81)] and in the first 24 h [- 0.62 (95%: 0.91 to 0.33)]. A considerable delay for the first opioid dose, rescue analgesics, and postoperative opioid usage was also found.
CONCLUSION
BSCPB's 24-h analgesic efficacy minimizes the requirement for rescue analgesia, postoperative opioid intake, and rescue analgesia start time. The choice of anesthetic and different application methods might affect its effectiveness.
Topics: Humans; Thyroidectomy; Pain, Postoperative; Cervical Plexus Block; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 38709322
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-024-08626-9 -
The Journal of Hand Surgery Jun 2024Multiple interventions have been implemented to reduce opioid prescribing in upper extremity surgery. However, few studies have evaluated pain relief and patient...
PURPOSE
Multiple interventions have been implemented to reduce opioid prescribing in upper extremity surgery. However, few studies have evaluated pain relief and patient satisfaction as related to failure of these protocols. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of limited and nonopioid ("opioid-sparing") regimens for upper extremity surgery as it pertains to patient satisfaction, pain experienced, and need for additional refills/rescue analgesia.
METHODS
We aimed to systematically review randomized controlled trials of opioid-sparing approaches in upper extremity surgery. An initial search of studies evaluating opioid-sparing regimens after upper extremity surgery from the elbow distal yielded 1,320 studies, with nine meeting inclusion criteria. Patient demographics, surgery type, postoperative pain regimen, satisfaction measurements, and number of patients inadequately treated within each study were recorded. Outcomes were assessed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
Nine randomized controlled trials with 1,480 patients were included. Six of nine studies (67%) reported superiority or equivalence of pain relief with nonopioid or limited opioid regimens. However, across all studies, 4.2% to 25% of patients were not adequately treated by the opioid-sparing protocols. This includes four of seven studies (57%) assessing number of medication refills or rescue analgesia reporting increased pill consumption, refills, or rescue dosing with limited/nonopioid regimens. Five of six studies (83%) reporting satisfaction outcomes found no difference in satisfaction with pain control, medication strength, and overall surgical experience using opioid-sparing regimens.
CONCLUSIONS
Opioid-sparing regimens provide adequate pain relief for most upper extremity surgery patients. However, a meaningful number of patients on opioid-sparing regimens required greater medication refills and increased use of rescue analgesia. These patients also reported no difference in satisfaction compared with limited/nonopioid regimens.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Therapeutic II.
Topics: Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics, Opioid; Patient Satisfaction; Hand; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Pain Measurement; Pain Management
PubMed: 38703147
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2024.02.007 -
Pain Management Nursing : Official... May 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) in alleviating pain and improving the experience of burn patients...
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) in alleviating pain and improving the experience of burn patients during wound care and physical therapy.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database, and the Web of Science.
REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS
We searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from the earliest available date up to March 1, 2022. The primary outcome was worst pain intensity, while secondary outcomes encompassed pain unpleasantness intensity, time spent thinking about pain, and fun experience intensity. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.
RESULTS
This study included 21 trials. The combined data revealed that the VR group experienced a significant reduction in worst pain intensity, pain unpleasantness intensity, and time spent thinking about pain compared to the control group. Moreover, VR treatment was associated with a significant increase in the fun experience intensity.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING
Virtual reality has the potential value of auxiliary analgesia in burn care, and exploring a more perfect scheme of VR-assisted analgesia is worthwhile.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this meta-analysis indicate that VR can effectively reduce worst pain intensity, pain unpleasantness intensity, and time spent thinking about pain during wound care and physical therapy for burn patients. Additionally, it enhances fun experience intensity of the treatment period. Therefore, VR shows promise as a valuable complementary pain management intervention for burn patients.
PubMed: 38702259
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmn.2024.03.002 -
Medicine May 2024Despite laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed operation under ambulatory setting, significant postoperative pain is still a major concern. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
Ultrasound-guided subcostal approach of transversus abdominis plane block compared with wound infiltration for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Despite laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed operation under ambulatory setting, significant postoperative pain is still a major concern. The ultrasound-guided subcostal approach of transversus abdominis plane (sTAP) blocks and wound infiltration (WI) are both widely practiced techniques to reduce postoperative pain in patients undergoing LC. Although these methods have been shown to relieve postoperative pain effectively, the relative analgesic efficacy between ultrasound-guided sTAP blocks and WI is not well known.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ultrasound-guided sTAP block versus WI for postoperative pain control in adult patients undergone LC. The search was performed until May 2023. Primary outcome was defined as 24-hour cumulative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain scores and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).
RESULTS
Finally, 6 RCTs were included, and data from 314 participants were retrieved. Postoperative 24-hour opioid consumption was significantly lower in ultrasound-guided sTAP group than in the WI group with a mean difference of -6.67 (95% confidence interval: -9.39 to - 3.95). The ultrasound-guided sTAP group also showed significantly lower pain scores. Incidence of PONV did not significantly differ between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that there is low to moderate evidence to advocate that ultrasound-guided sTAP block has better analgesic effects than WI in patients undergoing LC. Further trials are needed with robust methodology and clearly defined outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Nerve Block; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Abdominal Muscles; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 38701299
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038044 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2024Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are drugs currently used for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly being used in children and infants despite not being licenced for analgesia in this group.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the increasing use of dexmedetomidine, there is insufficient evidence supporting its routine use for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, data on dexmedetomidine safety are scarce, and there are no data available on its long-term effects. Future studies should address the efficacy, safety, and long-term effects of dexmedetomidine as a single drug therapy for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants.
Topics: Humans; Dexmedetomidine; Infant, Newborn; Respiration, Artificial; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic
PubMed: 38695625
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012361.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Sep 2024A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the analgesic efficacy of the following nerve block techniques: femoral nerve block (FNB), adductor canal block... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the analgesic efficacy of the following nerve block techniques: femoral nerve block (FNB), adductor canal block (ACB), infiltration between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee (iPACK), and genicular nerve block (GNB) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS
We searched the Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases until September 20, 2022. Patients who were treated by any of the above four nerve block techniques (alone or in combination) after TKA were included. Patients who underwent minimally invasive knee surgery were excluded. The indicators included pain scores during rest and mobilization, opioid consumption after surgery, postsurgical mobilization function (ROM [range of motion], TUG [Timed-Up-and-Go] test) at 24 h and 48 h, and length of hospital stay. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
RESULTS
Forty-two studies involving 2857 patients were eligible for this study. This NMA suggested that ACB + iPACK was the most efficacious option for improving ambulation ability and shortening the length of hospital stay. Furthermore, ACB + iPACK was the best regimen for resting-pain and movement-pain relief (78% and 87%, respectively) and for reducing opioid consumption (90%) at 48 h. However, FNB + iPACK was the most efficacious option for relief of resting pain (42%) and reducing opioid consumption (68%) at 24 h; GNB was the most efficacious option for movement pain relief at 24 h (94%).
CONCLUSION
Considering both pain control and knee functional recovery, ACB + iPACK may be the optimal analgesic regimen for patients after TKA. At the same time, it significantly reduces pain and opioid consumption at 48 h. However, ACB + iPACK is not the recommended technique for short-term (24 h) pain control.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO (CRD42022362322).
Topics: Humans; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Pain, Postoperative; Nerve Block; Bayes Theorem; Network Meta-Analysis; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain Measurement; Pain Management; Treatment Outcome; Femoral Nerve; Length of Stay; Range of Motion, Articular
PubMed: 38692069
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111490 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2024The goal of this review is to shed light on the management of orofacial discomfort after a cancer diagnosis in the head and neck region. A search was conducted on... (Review)
Review
The goal of this review is to shed light on the management of orofacial discomfort after a cancer diagnosis in the head and neck region. A search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies on postoperative pain control in oral cancer. The review included open-access research, investigations into pain management, randomized clinical trials, retrospective studies, case-control studies, prospective studies, English-written studies, and full-text publications. Exclusion criteria included animal studies; in vitro studies; off-topic studies; reviews, case reports, letters, or comments; and non-English language. Three reviewers independently accessed databases and assigned a quality rating to the chosen articles. The review explores postoperative pain management in oral cancer patients; highlighting persistent opioid use; the efficacy of adjuvant drugs, such as gabapentin; and a multimodal approach. It emphasizes the need for personalized pain management, recognizing individual pain perception and tailoring interventions. Integrating pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies is crucial for comprehensive pain management. The review also serves as a guide for future research, emphasizing the need for standardized methodologies and diverse participant populations.
PubMed: 38675500
DOI: 10.3390/ph17040542