-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Newborn infants have the ability to experience pain. Hospitalised infants are exposed to numerous painful procedures. Healthy newborns are exposed to pain if the birth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Newborn infants have the ability to experience pain. Hospitalised infants are exposed to numerous painful procedures. Healthy newborns are exposed to pain if the birth process consists of assisted vaginal birth by vacuum extraction or by forceps and during blood sampling for newborn screening tests.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and safety of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of procedural/postoperative pain or pain associated with clinical conditions in neonates. To review the effects of various doses and routes of administration (enteral, intravenous or rectal) of paracetamol for the prevention or treatment of pain in neonates.
SEARCH METHODS
We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 9 May 2016), Embase (1980 to 9 May 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 9 May 2016). We searched clinical trials' databases, Google Scholar, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of paracetamol for the prevention/treatment of pain in neonates (≤ 28 days of age).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from the articles using pre-designed forms. We used this form to decide trial inclusion/exclusion, to extract data from eligible trials and to request additional published information from authors of the original reports. We entered and cross-checked data using RevMan 5 software. When noted, we resolved differences by mutual discussion and consensus. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials with low risk of bias, which assessed paracetamol for the treatment of pain in 728 infants. Painful procedures studied included heel lance, assisted vaginal birth, eye examination for retinopathy of prematurity assessment and postoperative care. Results of individual studies could not be combined in meta-analyses as the painful conditions, the use of paracetamol and comparison interventions and the outcome measures differed. Paracetamol compared with water, cherry elixir or EMLA cream (eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine) did not significantly reduce pain following heel lance. The Premature Infant Pain Profile score (PIPP) within three minutes following lancing was higher in the paracetamol group than in the oral glucose group (mean difference (MD) 2.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 3.70; one study, 38 infants). Paracetamol did not reduce "modified facies scores" after assisted vaginal birth (one study, 119 infants). In another study (n = 123), the Échelle de Douleur et d'Inconfort du Nouveau-Né score at two hours of age was significantly higher in the group that received paracetamol suppositories than in the placebo suppositories group (MD 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). In that study, when infants were subjected to a heel lance at two to three days of age, Bernese Pain Scale for Neonates scores were higher in the paracetamol group than in the placebo group, and infants spent a longer time crying (MD 19 seconds, 95% CI 14 to 24). For eye examinations, no significant reduction in PIPP scores in the first or last 45 seconds of eye examination was reported, nor at five minutes after the eye examination. In one study (n = 81), the PIPP score was significantly higher in the paracetamol group than in the 24% sucrose group (MD 3.90, 95% CI 2.92 to 4.88). In one study (n = 114) the PIPP score during eye examination was significantly lower in the paracetamol group than in the water group (MD -2.70, 95% CI -3.55 to 1.85). For postoperative care following major surgery, the total amount of morphine (µg/kg) administered over 48 hours was significantly less among infants assigned to the paracetamol group than to the morphine group (MD -157 µg/kg, 95% CI -27 to -288). No adverse events were noted in any study. The quality of evidence according to GRADE was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The paucity and low quality of existing data do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the role of paracetamol in reducing the effects of painful procedures in neonates. Paracetamol given after assisted vaginal birth may increase the response to later painful exposures. Paracetamol may reduce the total need for morphine following major surgery, and for this aspect of paracetamol use, further research is needed.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Delivery, Obstetric; Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Punctures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retinopathy of Prematurity
PubMed: 27716943
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011219.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2016Pre-cancerous lesions of cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) are usually treated with excisional or ablative procedures. In the UK, the National Health... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pre-cancerous lesions of cervix (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN)) are usually treated with excisional or ablative procedures. In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) cervical screening guidelines suggest that over 80% of treatments should be performed in an outpatient setting (colposcopy clinics). Furthermore, these guidelines suggest that analgesia should always be given prior to laser or excisional treatments. Currently various pain relief strategies are employed that may reduce pain during these procedures.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether the administration of pain relief (analgesia) reduces pain during colposcopy treatment and in the postoperative period.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March week 3, 2016) and Embase (1980 to week 12, 2016) for studies of any design relating to analgesia for colposcopic management. We also searched registers of clinical trials, abstracts of scientific meetings, reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared all types of pain relief before, during or after outpatient treatment to the cervix, in women with CIN undergoing loop excision, laser ablation, laser excision or cryosurgery in an outpatient colposcopy clinic setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and double checked it for accuracy. Where possible, we expressed results as mean pain score and standard error of the mean with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and synthesised data in a meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs (1720 women) of varying methodological quality in the review. These trials compared a variety of interventions aimed at reducing pain in women who underwent treatment for CIN, including cervical injection with lignocaine alone, lignocaine with adrenaline, buffered lignocaine with adrenaline, prilocaine with felypressin, oral analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), inhalation analgesia (gas mixture of isoflurane and desflurane), lignocaine spray, cocaine spray, local application of benzocaine gel, lignocaine-prilocaine cream (EMLA cream) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS).Most comparisons were restricted to single trial analyses and were under-powered to detect differences in pain scores between treatments that may or may not have been present. There was no difference in pain relief between women who received local anaesthetic infiltration (lignocaine 2%; administered as a paracervical or direct cervical injection) and a saline placebo (mean difference (MD) -13.74; 95% CI -34.32 to 6.83; 2 trials; 130 women; low quality evidence). However, when local anaesthetic was combined with a vasoconstrictor agent (one trial used lignocaine plus adrenaline while the second trial used prilocaine plus felypressin), there was less pain (on visual analogue scale (VAS)) compared with no treatment (MD -23.73; 95% CI -37.53 to -9.93; 2 trials; 95 women; low quality evidence). Comparing two preparations of local anaesthetic combined with vasoconstrictor, prilocaine plus felypressin did not differ from lignocaine plus adrenaline for its effect on pain control (MD -0.05; 95% CI -0.26 to 0.16; 1 trial; 200 women). Although the mean (± standard deviation (SD)) observed blood loss score was less with lignocaine plus adrenaline (1.33 ± 1.05) compared with prilocaine plus felypressin (1.74 ± 0.98), the difference was not clinically as the overall scores in both groups were low (MD 0.41; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.69; 1 trial; 200 women). Inhalation of gas mixture (isoflurane and desflurane) in addition to standard cervical injection with prilocaine plus felypressin resulted in less pain during the LLETZ (loop excision of the transformation zone) procedure (MD -7.20; 95% CI -12.45 to -1.95; 1 trial; 389 women). Lignocaine plus ornipressin resulted in less measured blood loss (MD -8.75 ml; 95% CI -10.43 to -7.07; 1 trial; 100 women) and a shorter duration of treatment (MD -7.72 minutes; 95% CI -8.49 to -6.95; 1 trial; 100 women) than cervical infiltration with lignocaine alone. Buffered solution (sodium bicarbonate buffer mixed with lignocaine plus adrenaline) was not superior to non-buffered solution of lignocaine plus adrenaline in relieving pain during the procedure (MD -8.00; 95% CI -17.57 to 1.57; 1 trial; 52 women).One meta-analysis found no difference in pain using VAS between women who received oral analgesic and women who received placebo (MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; 2 trials; 129 women; low quality evidence).Cocaine spray was associated with less pain (MD -28.00; 95% CI -37.86 to -18.14; 1 trial; 50 women) and blood loss (MD 0.04; 95% CI 0 to 0.70; 1 trial; 50 women) than placebo.None of the trials reported serious adverse events and majority of trials were at moderate or high risk of bias (13 trials).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on two small trials, there was no difference in pain relief in women receiving oral analgesics compared with placebo or no treatment (MD -3.51; 95% CI -10.03 to 3.01; 129 women). We consider this evidence to be of a low to moderate quality. In routine clinical practice, intracervical injection of local anaesthetic with a vasoconstrictor (lignocaine plus adrenaline or prilocaine plus felypressin) appears to be the optimum analgesia for treatment. However, further high quality, adequately powered trials should be undertaken in order to provide the data necessary to estimate the efficacy of oral analgesics, the optimal route of administration and dose of local anaesthetics.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Analgesics; Colposcopy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
PubMed: 27428114
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006120.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fear of pain during insertion of intrauterine contraception (IUC) is a barrier to use of this method. IUC includes copper-containing intrauterine devices and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems. Interventions for pain control during IUC insertion include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), local cervical anesthetics, and cervical ripening agents such as misoprostol.
OBJECTIVES
To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for reducing IUC insertion-related pain
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for trials in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. The most recent search was 22 June 2015. We examined reference lists of pertinent articles. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other published or unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs that evaluated an intervention for preventing IUC insertion-related pain. The comparison could have been a placebo, no intervention, or another active intervention. The primary outcomes were self-reported pain at tenaculum placement, during IUC insertion, and after IUC insertion (up to six hours).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted data from eligible trials. For dichotomous variables, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. In meta-analysis of trials with different measurement scales, we used the standardized mean difference (SMD).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 33 trials with 5710 participants total; 29 were published from 2010 to 2015. Studies examined lidocaine, misoprostol, NSAIDs, and other interventions. Here we synthesize results from trials with sufficient outcome data and moderate- or high-quality evidence.For lidocaine, meta-analysis showed topical 2% gel had no effect on pain at tenaculum placement (two trials) or on pain during IUC insertion (three trials). Other formulations were effective compared with placebo in individual trials. Mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower with lidocaine and prilocaine cream (MD -1.96, 95% CI -3.00 to -0.92). Among nulliparous women, topical 4% formulation showed lower scores for IUC-insertion pain assessed within 10 minutes (MD -15.90, 95% CI -22.77 to -9.03) and at 30 minutes later (MD -11.10, 95% CI -19.05 to -3.15). Among parous women, IUC-insertion pain was lower with 10% spray (median 1.00 versus 3.00). Compared with no intervention, pain at tenaculum placement was lower with 1% paracervical block (median 12 versus 28).For misoprostol, meta-analysis showed a higher mean score for IUC insertion compared with placebo (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.46; four studies). In meta-analysis, cramping was more likely with misoprostol (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.76; four studies). A trial with nulliparous women found a higher score for IUC-insertion pain with misoprostol (median 46 versus 34). Pain before leaving the clinic was higher for misoprostol in two trials with nulliparous women (MD 7.60, 95% CI 6.48 to 8.72; medians 35.5 versus 20.5). In one trial with nulliparous women, moderate or severe pain at IUC insertion was less likely with misoprostol (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.55). In the same trial, the misoprostol group was more likely to rate the experience favorably. Within two trials of misoprostol plus diclofenac, shivering, headache, or abdominal pain were more likely with misoprostol. Participants had no vaginal delivery. One trial showed the misoprostol group less likely to choose or recommend the treatment.Among multiparous women, mean score for IUC-insertion pain was lower for tramadol 50 mg versus naproxen 550 mg (MD -0.63, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.32) and for naproxen versus placebo (MD -1.94, 95% CI -2.35 to -1.53). The naproxen group was less likely than the placebo group to report the insertion experience as unpleasant and not want the medication in the future. An older trial showed repeated doses of naproxen 300 mg led to lower pain scores at one hour (MD -1.04, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.41) and two hours (MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.32) after insertion. Most women were nulliparous and also had lidocaine paracervical block.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nearly all trials used modern IUC. Most effectiveness evidence was of moderate quality, having come from single trials. Lidocaine 2% gel, misoprostol, and most NSAIDs did not help reduce pain. Some lidocaine formulations, tramadol, and naproxen had some effect on reducing IUC insertion-related pain in specific groups. The ineffective interventions do not need further research.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Female; Humans; Ibuprofen; Intrauterine Devices; Lidocaine; Misoprostol; Naproxen; Oxytocics; Pain; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26222246
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007373.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2015The authors have requested this review to be withdrawn. The reason is the intervention, lidocaine‐prilocaine cream for analgesia during neonatal circumcision, is... (Review)
Review
The authors have requested this review to be withdrawn. The reason is the intervention, lidocaine‐prilocaine cream for analgesia during neonatal circumcision, is covered in the Cochrane Review of "Pain relief for neonatal circumcision" (Brady‐Fryer 2004). The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Circumcision, Male; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Male; Ointments; Prilocaine
PubMed: 25840001
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000496.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Whilst carrying out dental procedures under general anaesthesia (GA), practitioners routinely give local anaesthetics (LA) intraoperatively to children. Local... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Whilst carrying out dental procedures under general anaesthesia (GA), practitioners routinely give local anaesthetics (LA) intraoperatively to children. Local anaesthetics are used to help manage postoperative pain and reduce bleeding and the physiological response to procedures. Studies of effectiveness of intraoperative LA to date have reported contradictory results.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of intraoperative local anaesthesia for reducing postoperative pain following general anaesthesia for dental treatment in children and young people aged 17 years or younger.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 02 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 02 January 2014) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 02 January 2014). We searched for ongoing trials in the US National Institutes of Health Register, the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) Clinical Trials Portal. We did not place any restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials in which local anaesthetic was given intraoperatively under general anaesthesia for dental treatment of children and young people aged 17 years or younger.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify omissions in trial reports. In the 'Summary of findings' tables, we elected to report the outcomes pain, distress, postoperative bleeding, and physiological parameters related to the general anaesthetic, as we considered these to be the outcomes of greatest importance to readers of the review.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 trials in this review, with 1152 randomised participants. The studies were published between 1990 and 2009 and were conducted in the United Kingdom, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. The age of participants ranged from 2 to 40 years. Three studies were at an overall high risk of bias, seven studies were at an unclear risk of bias, and we judged four studies to be at low risk of bias. The clinical heterogeneity of the included studies precluded pooling of studies in terms of method of administration of LA (e.g., intraligamental injection, infiltration injection, or topical delivery) and variation in the use of supplementary analgesics and follow-up time.Of the seven studies where administration of LA was by infiltration injection, six studies (very low-quality body of evidence, 542 participants analysed, 1 study had overall high risk of bias, 4 studies had overall unclear risk of bias, 1 study had overall low risk of bias) measured postoperative pain. The results were equivocal. There was a decrease in bleeding and increase in soft tissue damage in the LA groups, but we did not judge this to be clinically significant.In the 2 studies where administration of LA was by intraligamental injection, there was no difference in mean pain scores, and they did not report any soft tissue damage (very low-quality body of evidence, 115 participants analysed, 1 study had overall high risk of bias, 1 study had overall unclear risk of bias).One 3-armed study (very low-quality body of evidence, 54 participants analysed, overall high risk of bias) compared the effects of intraligamental and infiltration LA injection with no treatment. There was no evidence of a mean difference in pain, distress, or postoperative anxiety among the three groups.Four studies (very low-quality body of evidence, 343 participants analysed, 2 studies had overall low risk of bias, 2 studies had overall unclear risk of bias) evaluated the effects of topical LA compared with no treatment or placebo. One study (overall unclear risk of bias) with a no-treatment comparator reported lower mean pain in the LA group; all other studies reported no difference in mean pain scores. Two studies reported on bleeding (overall unclear risk of bias): One study reported a clinically insignificant increase in bleeding with no treatment; the other reported no difference.None of the studies reported on participant or child satisfaction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this review, it was difficult to reach firm conclusions as to the benefit of using local anaesthetic for dental treatment under general anaesthesia. The information reported in the included studies was comprehensive and applicable to the review question, but ultimately it was not sufficient to address the objective of the review. We were unable to pool the included studies in a meta-analysis because of substantial variation in outcome measures, interventions, and treatment types. The use of supplementary analgesia further obscured the effect of local anaesthetics.Based on the literature review and the results of this review, we recommend further randomised controlled trials that minimise bias through adequate allocation concealment and blinding of participants and assessors, and assess the effect of intraoperative local anaesthetic on the volume and type of anaesthetic used and on the cardiovascular system in participants receiving supplementary analgesics as well. Researchers should give consideration to the impact of any changes on the health and well-being of the participant and report baseline measures of pain or distress, or both, and preoperative anxiety.
Topics: Adolescent; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Bupivacaine; Child; Dental Care; Epinephrine; Felypressin; Humans; Intraoperative Care; Lidocaine; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25532729
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009742.pub2 -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Sep 2015Cannulation of children is often required for administration of intravenous fluids and medications, but can cause pain and anxiety. Amethocaine and a eutectic mixture of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Does topical Amethocaine cream increase first-time successful cannulation in children compared with a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) cream? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Cannulation of children is often required for administration of intravenous fluids and medications, but can cause pain and anxiety. Amethocaine and a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) cream are two of the most commonly used local anaesthetic creams.
OBJECTIVE
To examine the evidence for the superiority of Amethocaine cream compared with EMLA cream in facilitating successful first-time cannulation in children.
METHOD
A systematic search was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2014. Studies examining cannulation, undertaken with children and providing data about first-time cannulation success rates were considered for inclusion. Three randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Data extraction was undertaken independently by the two authors using predefined data fields.
RESULTS
Pooled analysis was based on a random effects model. Low statistical heterogeneity was observed. Amethocaine cream increased the likelihood of successful first-time cannulation (RR 1.046, CI 0.975 to 1.122), although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.211).
CONCLUSIONS
Amethocaine cream does not appear to significantly facilitate successful first-time cannulation. Lack of precision and design weaknesses of the included studies hinder the formation of a strong recommendation for either cream.
IMPLICATIONS
Based on the evidence reviewed here and considering analgesic properties and cost-savings associated with both creams, a weak recommendation can be issued in favour of Amethocaine cream for cannulation in children based on high-quality evidence but where the treatment choice will depend on other factors including cost and provider preference.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Anesthetics, Local; Catheterization; Child; Humans; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Prilocaine; Tetracaine
PubMed: 25351196
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2014-204066 -
International Journal of Urology :... Jan 2015To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined intrarectal local analgesia and periprostatic nerve block versus periprostatic nerve block alone for pain control during... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Addition of intrarectal local analgesia to periprostatic nerve block improves pain control for transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined intrarectal local analgesia and periprostatic nerve block versus periprostatic nerve block alone for pain control during transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library trials. Studies comparing the two techniques were identified and pooled for cumulative analysis. The outcome measurements included visual pain scales of three consecutive procedures of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, as well as short-term postoperative complication rates.
RESULTS
There were 18 studies that were finally eligible for the quantitative analysis involving 2076 participants. Combined modalities significantly reduced the pain associated with probe manipulation (weighted mean difference -2.06, 95% confidence interval -2.77 to -1.35, P < 0.001), anesthesia infiltration (weighted mean difference -1.45, 95% confidence interval -2.20 to -0.70, P < 0.001) and needle biopsy (weighted mean difference -0.55, 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.34, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses assessing different local analgesics showed that local anesthetics are generally more effective than myorelaxant and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Lidocaine-prilocaine cream proved the most effective in pain control regardless of the origin of pain. No significant difference of short-term postoperative complications (fever, dysuria, acute urinary retention, hematuria, hematospermia and rectal bleeding) was found between the two techniques. The only side-effect associated with local analgesics was headache reported in studies using glyceryl trinitrate ointment.
CONCLUSIONS
Combined modalities show better analgesic efficacy than periprostatic nerve block alone for transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy without increased morbidities. Among the various local analgesics, lidocaine-prilocaine cream seems to offer the best overall efficacy.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthetics, Local; Biopsy, Needle; Humans; Male; Nerve Block; Pain; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Prostate; Rectum; Ultrasonography, Interventional
PubMed: 25141759
DOI: 10.1111/iju.12595 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2014An update of this review was initiated by Janice A Lander and Barbara Brady‐Fryer in 2011, who proposed changing the title to "Three topical anaesthetics for reduction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
An update of this review was initiated by Janice A Lander and Barbara Brady‐Fryer in 2011, who proposed changing the title to "Three topical anaesthetics for reduction of children's pain associated with venipuncture and intravenous cannulation". At 23 May 2013, The Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review Group (PaPaS) withdrew this review as the authors were no longer available to complete the update. Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Bachelor of Science in Nursing Program, Grant MacEwan University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Health and Community Studies, Edmonton, Canada The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
Topics: Adolescent; Anesthetics, Local; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Infant; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Pain; Prilocaine; Punctures; Tetracaine
PubMed: 24627224
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004236.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2012Administration of oral sucrose or glucose with and without non-nutritive sucking is frequently used as a non-pharmacological intervention for needle-related procedural... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Administration of oral sucrose or glucose with and without non-nutritive sucking is frequently used as a non-pharmacological intervention for needle-related procedural pain relief in infants.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of sweet-tasting solutions for needle-related procedural pain in infants one month to one year of age compared with no treatment, placebo, other sweet-tasting solutions, or pharmacological or other non-pharmacological pain-relieving methods.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012); MEDLINE via Ovid (1966 to 2012); CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 2012). The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was also searched for any ongoing trials. Clinical trial registries, conference proceedings and references for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were also searched. An updated search was run to capture any new publications before finalising the review in April 2012 and no new included studies were identified. Two review authors (MK & JF) independently abstracted data and assessed quality using a standard form. Authors have been contacted for missing data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised-controlled trials using a sweet-tasting solution to treat pain in healthy term infants (gestational age 37 weeks and over), between one month and 12 months of age who required needle-related procedures. These procedures included but were not limited to: subcutaneous or intramuscular injections, venepuncture, and heel lance. Studies in which the painful procedure was circumcision, lumbar puncture or supra-pubic bladder aspiration were not included as they are more severe and painful than needle-related procedures. Control conditions included no treatment or placebo (water) or any other identical intervention (same appearance and consistency) without active ingredient, another sweet-tasting solution, a pharmacological pain-relieving method (e.g. paracetamol, topical anaesthetic cream), non-pharmacological pain-relieving method (e.g. distraction method, non-nutritive sucking).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Assessment of trial quality, data extraction and synthesis of data were performed using standard methods of the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group. We report mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect models as appropriate for continuous outcome measures. We planned to report risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) for dichotomous outcomes. The Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic were used to assess between-study heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixty-five (65) studies were identified for possible inclusion in this review. Fourteen published RCTs with a total of 1551 participants met the inclusion criteria. Duration of cry was significantly reduced in infants who were administered a sweet-tasting solution [MD -13.47 (95% CI -16.80 to -10.15)], P < 0.00001 compared with water. However, there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies (I(2) = 94%) that we were unable to explain. Meta-analysis was not able to be undertaken for any of the other outcome measures, except for cry duration, because of differences in study design. However, most of the individual studies that measured pain found sucrose to significantly reduce pain compared with the control group. One study compared sucrose and Lidocaine-prilocaine cream and no significant difference was found between the two treatments for the outcomes pain and cry duration. Due to the differences between the studies, we were unable to identify the optimal concentration, volume or method of administration of sweet-tasting solutions in infants aged one to 12 months. Further large RCTs are needed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to confidently judge the effectiveness of sweet-tasting solutions in reducing needle-related pain in infants (one month to 12 months of age). The treatments do, however, appear promising. Data from a series of individual trials are promising, as are the results from a subset meta-analysis of studies measuring duration of crying. Further well controlled RCTs are warranted in this population to determine the optimal concentration, volume, method of administration, and possible adverse effects.
Topics: Crying; Dietary Sucrose; Glucose; Humans; Infant; Needles; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sweetening Agents
PubMed: 23235662
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008411.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012Venous leg ulcers affect up to 1% of people at some time in their lives and are often painful. The main treatments are compression bandages and dressings. Topical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Venous leg ulcers affect up to 1% of people at some time in their lives and are often painful. The main treatments are compression bandages and dressings. Topical treatments to reduce pain during and between dressing changes are sometimes used.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of topical agents or dressings for pain in venous leg ulcers.
SEARCH METHODS
For this third update the following databases were searched: Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 9 May 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 4); Ovid MEDLINE (2009 to April Week 4 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations May 08, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (2009 to 2012 Week 18); and EBSCO CINAHL (2009 to May 2 2012). No date or language restrictions were applied.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published or unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of topical agents or dressing for the treatment of pain in venous ulcers were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently performed trial selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
Six trials (343 participants) evaluated Eutectic Mixture of Local Anaesthetics (EMLA): lidocaine-prilocaine cream for the pain associated with ulcer debridement. The between-group difference in pain measured on a 100 mm scale was statistically significant in favour of EMLA (MD -20.65, 95% CI -12.19 to -29.11). No significant between-group differences in burning or itching were observed.Two trials (470 participants with venous leg ulcers) evaluated ibuprofen slow-release foam dressings for persistent venous leg ulcer pain. Compared with local best practice, significantly more participants in the ibuprofen dressing group achieved the outcome of >50% of the total maximum pain relief score between day 1 and day 5 than participants in the local best practice group (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.15). The number needed to treat was 6 (95% CI 4 to 12). In the second trial, compared with an identical non-ibuprofen foam dressing, there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of participants experiencing slight to complete pain relief on the first evening of treatment.Limited data were available to assess healing rates or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence to suggest that ibuprofen dressings may offer pain relief to people with painful venous leg ulcers. EMLA (5%) appears to provide effective pain relief during the debridement of venous leg ulcers. Further research should consider standardised pain assessment methods and assess both the effect on ulcer healing and the impact of long term use of these treatments.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Analgesics; Anesthetics, Local; Bandages; Debridement; Humans; Ibuprofen; Leg Ulcer; Lidocaine; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Ointments; Pain; Prilocaine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Varicose Ulcer
PubMed: 23152206
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001177.pub3