-
Pain and Therapy Aug 2023Renal colic is one of the most common urological emergencies, and is usually caused by ureteral colic spasms. Pain management in renal colic remains the central focus of...
INTRODUCTION
Renal colic is one of the most common urological emergencies, and is usually caused by ureteral colic spasms. Pain management in renal colic remains the central focus of emergency treatment. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to identify the efficacy and safety of ketamine versus opioids in the treatment of patients with renal colic.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that referred to the use of ketamine and opioids for patients with renal colic. The methodology was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to analyze the data. The results were pooled using a fixed-effects model or random-effects model. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported pain scores 5, 15, 30, and 60 min after drug administration. The secondary outcome measure was side effects.
RESULTS
The data analysis revealed that ketamine was similar to opioids in pain intensity at the time of 5 min post-dose (MD = - 0.40, 95% CI - 1.82 to 1.01, P = 0.57), 15 min post-dose (MD = - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.82 to 0.52, P = 0.67), 30 min post-dose (MD = 0.38, 95% CI - 0.25 to 1.01, P = 0.24). Also, the pain score of ketamine was better than that of opioids at 60 min after administration (MD = - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.22 to - 0.02, P = 0.02). As for safety, the ketamine group was linked to a significant decrease in the incidence of hypotensive (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.65, P = 0.02). The two groups did not statistically differ in the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with opioids, ketamine showed a longer duration of analgesia in renal colic, with satisfactory safety.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42022355246.
PubMed: 37284927
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-023-00530-0 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong... 2023Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with clinical efficacy in chronic pain conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with clinical efficacy in chronic pain conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate the analgesic effect and safety of duloxetine in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic search was completed on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase from inception to December 2022 to find relevant articles. We used Cochrane methodology to evaluate the bias of included studies. Investigated outcomes included postoperative pain, opioid consumption, adverse events (AEs), range of motion (ROM), emotional and physical function, patient satisfaction, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), knee-specific outcomes, wound complications, skin temperature, inflammatory markers, length of stay, and incidence of manipulations. Nine articles involving 942 participants were included in our systematic review. Out of nine papers, eight were randomized clinical trials and one was a retrospective study. The results of these studies indicated the analgesic effect of duloxetine on postoperative pain, which was measured using numeric rating scale and visual analogue scale. Deluxetine was also effective in reducing the morphine requirement and wound complications and enhancing patient satisfaction after surgery. However, the results on ROM, PCA, and knee-specific outcomes were contraventional. Deluxetine was generally safe without serious AEs. The most common AEs included headache, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and constipation. Duloxetine may be an effective treatment option for postoperative pain following TKA, but further rigorously designed and well-controlled randomized trials are required.
Topics: Humans; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Retrospective Studies; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37279647
DOI: 10.1177/10225536231177482 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Epidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is often used for pain relief during labour and childbirth, and involves administration of local anaesthetics (LA) into the epidural space resulting in sensory blockade of the abdomen, pelvis, and perineum. Epidural opioids are often co-administered to improve analgesia. Administration of epidural medications can be accomplished by basal infusion (BI) or automated mandatory bolus (AMB). With BI, medications are administered continuously, while AMB involves injecting medications at set time intervals. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) on top of AMB or BI enables patients to initiate additional boluses of epidural medications. The superior method of delivering epidural medications would result in lower incidence of pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention (breakthrough pain). Also, it should be associated with lower incidence of epidural-related adverse effects including caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery (use of forceps or vacuum devices), prolonged duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, clear evidence of the superiority of one technique over the other is lacking. Also, differences in the initiation of epidural analgesia such as combined spinal-epidural (CSE) (medications given into the intrathecal space in addition to the epidural space) compared to epidural only, and medications used (types and doses of LA or opioids) may not have been accounted for in previous reviews. Our prior systematic review suggested that AMB reduces the incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI with no significant difference in the incidence of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and LA consumption. However, several studies comparing AMB and BI have been performed since then, and inclusion of their data may improve the precision of our effect estimates.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of AMB versus BI for maintaining labour epidural analgesia in women at term.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, Wiley Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, (National Library of Medicine), Embase(Elseiver), Web of Science (Clarivate), the WHO-ICTRP (World Health Organization) and ClinicalTrials.gov (National Library of Medicine) on 31 December 2022. Additionally, we screened the reference lists of relevant trials and reviews for eligible citations, and we contacted authors of included studies to identify unpublished research and ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled studies that compared bolus dosing AMB with continuous BI during epidural analgesia. We excluded studies of women in preterm labour, with multiple pregnancies, with fetal malposition, intrathecal catheters, those that did not use automated delivery of medications, and those where AMB and BI were combined.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodology for systematic review and meta-analysis described by Cochrane. Primary outcomes included: incidence of breakthrough pain requiring anaesthesiologist intervention; incidence of caesarean delivery; and incidence of instrumental delivery. Secondly, we assessed the duration of labour; hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents, maternal satisfaction after fetal delivery, and neonatal Apgar scores. The following subgroup analyses were chosen a priori: epidural alone versus CSE technique; regimens that used PCEA versus those that did not; and nulliparous versus combination of nulli- and multi-parous women. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence associated with our outcome measures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 studies of 4590 women, of which 13 enrolled healthy nulliparous women and five included healthy nulli- and multiparous women. All studies excluded women with preterm or complicated pregnancies. Techniques used to initiate epidural analgesia differed between the studies: seven used combined spinal epidural, 10 used epidural, and one used dural puncture epidural (DPE). There was also variation in analgesics used. Eight studies utilised ropivacaine with fentanyl, three used ropivacaine with sufentanil, two utilised levobupivacaine with sufentanil, one used levobupivacaine with fentanyl, and four utilised bupivacaine with fentanyl. Most of the studies were assessed to have low risk of randomisation, blinding, attrition, and reporting biases, except for allocation concealment where eight studies were assessed to have uncertain risk and three with high risk. Our results showed that AMB was associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain compared to BI (risk ratio (RR) 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.91; I = 57%) (16 studies, 1528 participants), and lower hourly LA consumption in bupivacaine equivalents (mean difference (MD) -0.84 mg/h; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.38, I = 87%) (16 studies, 1642 participants), both with moderate certainty. AMB was associated with an estimated reduction in breakthrough pain incidence of 29.1% (incidence 202 per 1000, 95% CI 157 to 259), and was therefore considered clinically significant. The incidence of caesarean delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.06; I = 0%) (16 studies, 1735 participants) and instrumental delivery (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; I = 0%) (17 studies, 4550 participants) were not significantly, both with moderate certainty. There was no significant difference in duration of labour analgesia (MD -8.81 min; 95% CI -19.38 to 1.77; I = 50%) (17 studies, 4544 participants) with moderate certainty. Due to differences in the methods and timing of outcome measurements, we did not pool data for maternal satisfaction and Apgar scores. Results reported narratively suggest AMB may be associated with increased maternal satisfaction (eight studies reported increased satisfaction and six reported no difference), and all studies showed no difference in Apgar scores. WIth the exception of epidural alone versus CSE which found significant subgroup differences in LA consumption between AMB and BI, no significant differences were detected in the remaining subgroup analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, AMB is associated with lower incidence of breakthrough pain, reduced LA consumption, and may improve maternal satisfaction. There were no significant differences between AMB and BI in the incidence of caesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, duration of labour analgesia, and Apgar scores. Larger studies assessing the incidence of caesarean and instrumental delivery are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Breakthrough Pain; Levobupivacaine; Ropivacaine; Sufentanil; United States
PubMed: 37276327
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011344.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2023The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear.
METHODS
Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched, enabling a systematic review of studies comparing PCEA and CEA in adult surgical patients (PROSPERO: CRD42018106644). The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1). Secondary outcomes were 24 or 48 h epidural or intravenous total analgesic dose, systemic analgesics, manual top-ups, side effects, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials with high heterogeneity of study characteristics were identified with a moderate risk of bias. Two studies showed significantly reduced resting pain scores on POD1 in PCEA compared with CEA patients (36-44%, < 0.05). Four studies found comparable pain scores between these groups. PCEA use reduced epidural medication (28% to 40% reduction, < 0.01) in four studies. One study found a 23% reduction ( < 0.001) of top-ups in PCEA; intravenous morphine use by PCEA patients was reduced (0.16 vs. 3.45 mg per patient, < 0.05) in one study. PCEA patients were more satisfied with analgesia ( < 0.001) in two studies. Nausea and vomiting were reduced in PCEA ( = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the reduction in pain scores, the effects of PCEA were not significant or clinically not relevant. However, regarding the amount of epidural drug use, the amount of required rescue systemic analgesics, patient satisfaction, and the number of required top-ups, PCEA had advantages over CEA in surgical patients.
PubMed: 37176605
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12093164 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2023This critical review assessed the advantages of invasive procedures that were recently included in systematic reviews, to evaluate whether the definition of refractory... (Review)
Review
This critical review assessed the advantages of invasive procedures that were recently included in systematic reviews, to evaluate whether the definition of refractory pain condition was correctly followed to select patients for invasive interventions and to analyze how data were positively interpreted. A total of 21 studies were selected for the purpose of this review. Three were randomized controlled studies, ten were prospective studies, and eight were retrospective studies. Analysis of these studies showed evident lack of proper assessment before implantation for different reasons. These included an optimistic interpretation regarding the outcomes, poor consideration of complications, and inclusion of patients with short survival. Moreover, the indication of intrathecal therapy as a condition in which a patient has failed to respond to multiple therapies provided by a pain or palliative care physician or at sufficient doses for adequate durations, as suggested by a recent research group, has been disregarded. Regretfully, this can discourage the use of intrathecal therapy in patients who are unresponsive to multiple opioid strategies subtrahend a potent means to be used in a very selective population.
PubMed: 37055698
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-023-00507-z -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Neonates are an extremely vulnerable patient population, with 6% to 9% admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) following birth. Neonates admitted to the NICU will undergo multiple painful procedures per day throughout their stay. There is increasing evidence that frequent and repetitive exposure to painful stimuli is associated with poorer outcomes later in life. To date, a wide variety of pain control mechanisms have been developed and implemented to address procedural pain in neonates. This review focused on non-opioid analgesics, specifically non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, which alleviate pain through inhibiting cellular pathways to achieve analgesia. The analgesics considered in this review show potential for pain relief in clinical practice; however, an evidence summation compiling the individual drugs they comprise and outlining the benefits and harms of their administration is lacking. We therefore sought to summarize the evidence on the level of pain experienced by neonates both during and following procedures; relevant drug-related adverse events, namely episodes of apnea, desaturation, bradycardia, and hypotension; and the effects of combinations of drugs. As the field of neonatal procedural pain management is constantly evolving, this review aimed to ascertain the scope of non-opioid analgesics for neonatal procedural pain to provide an overview of the options available to better inform evidence-based clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of non-opioid analgesics in neonates (term or preterm) exposed to procedural pain compared to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, and two trial registries in June 2022. We screened the reference lists of included studies for studies not identified by the database searches.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs in neonates (term or preterm) undergoing painful procedures comparing NSAIDs and NMDA receptor antagonists to placebo or no drug, non-pharmacological intervention, other analgesics, or different routes of administration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were pain assessed during the procedure and up to 10 minutes after the procedure with a validated scale; episodes of bradycardia; episodes of apnea; and hypotension requiring medical therapy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs involving a total of 269 neonates conducted in Nigeria and India. NMDA receptor antagonists versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention One RCT evaluated using oral ketamine (10 mg/kg body weight) versus sugar syrup (66.7% w/w at 1 mL/kg body weight) for neonatal circumcision. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure, assessed with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS), compared with placebo (mean difference (MD) -0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.32 to -0.58; 1 RCT; 145 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No other outcomes of interest were reported on. Head-to-head comparison of different analgesics One RCT evaluated using intravenous fentanyl versus intravenous ketamine during laser photocoagulation for retinopathy of prematurity. Neonates receiving ketamine followed an initial regimen (0.5 mg/kg bolus 1 minute before procedure) or a revised regimen (additional intermittent bolus doses of 0.5 mg/kg every 10 minutes up to a maximum of 2 mg/kg), while those receiving fentanyl followed either an initial regimen (2 μg/kg over 5 minutes, 15 minutes before the procedure, followed by 1 μg/kg/hour as a continuous infusion) or a revised regimen (titration of 0.5 μg/kg/hour every 15 minutes to a maximum of 3 μg/kg/hour). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine compared with fentanyl on pain score assessed with the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised (PIPP-R) scores during the procedure (MD 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.20; 1 RCT; 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence); on episodes of apnea occurring during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.18; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence); and on hypotension requiring medical therapy occurring during the procedure (RR 5.53, 95% CI 0.27 to 112.30; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.10; 1 study; 124 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The included study did not report pain score assessed up to 10 minutes after the procedure or episodes of bradycardia occurring during the procedure. We did not identify any studies comparing NSAIDs versus no treatment, placebo, oral sweet solution, or non-pharmacological intervention or different routes of administration of the same analgesics. We identified three studies awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two small included studies comparing ketamine versus either placebo or fentanyl, with very low-certainty evidence, rendered us unable to draw meaningful conclusions. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ketamine on pain score during the procedure compared with placebo or fentanyl. We found no evidence on NSAIDs or studies comparing different routes of administration. Future research should prioritize large studies evaluating non-opioid analgesics in this population. As the studies included in this review suggest potential positive effects of ketamine administration, studies evaluating ketamine are of interest. Furthermore, as we identified no studies on NSAIDs, which are widely used in older infants, or comparing different routes of administration, such studies should be a priority going forward.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Male; Analgesics; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Apnea; Body Weight; Bradycardia; Fentanyl; Ketamine; Pain; Pain, Procedural; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 37014033
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015179.pub2 -
OTO Open 2023To determine whether intracapsular tonsillectomy, using plasma ablation, results in differences in postoperative patient outcomes to total tonsillectomy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether intracapsular tonsillectomy, using plasma ablation, results in differences in postoperative patient outcomes to total tonsillectomy.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review of two databases (Embase and PubMed) was conducted in March 2022 to identify published English-language randomized controlled trials and observational studies which provided a comparison between intracapsular tonsillectomy, using plasma ablation, and total tonsillectomy.
REVIEW METHODS
Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were used to compare outcomes between techniques.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were identified for inclusion. Across these, 1996 and 4565 patients underwent intracapsular and total tonsillectomy, respectively. Studies included 8 randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 8 retrospective cohort studies. Time to pain free, time on analgesia, time to normal diet, and time to normal activity were significantly shorter with intracapsular tonsillectomy by on average 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-5.9; < .0001), 4.1 (95% CI 2.7-5.4; < .0001), 3.5 (95% CI 1.7-5.4; = .0002) and 2.8 (95% CI 1.6-4; < .0001) days, respectively. Risk of posttonsillectomy hemorrhage was significantly lower following intracapsular tonsillectomy (relative risk [RR] 0.36; 95% CI 0.16-0.81; = .0131); risk of posttonsillectomy hemorrhage requiring surgical management was lower but failed to reach significance (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.19-1.39; = .19).
CONCLUSION
Intracapsular tonsillectomy using plasma ablation has similar efficacy in managing indications for tonsil surgery to total tonsillectomy while significantly reducing the postoperative morbidity and likelihood of posttonsillectomy hemorrhage experienced by patients, allowing them to return to their normal life faster.
PubMed: 36998549
DOI: 10.1002/oto2.22 -
BMJ Open Mar 2023To evaluate the effectiveness of a subanaesthetic single-dose ketamine (SDK) as an adjunct to opioids for acute pain in emergency department (ED) settings. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of a subanaesthetic single-dose ketamine (SDK) as an adjunct to opioids for acute pain in emergency department (ED) settings.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science through March 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated SDK as an adjunct to opioids in adult patients for any painful condition in ED settings were selected. Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data and assessed study quality. Data were pooled using random-effects models. The primary outcome was mean pain intensity score measured at baseline, >0-15 min, >15-30 min, >30-45 min, 60 min, 90 min and 120 min. Secondary outcomes included need for rescue analgesia, adverse events and patient satisfaction. Results were reported as mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios. Statistical heterogeneity was calculated using the statistic.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs were included (n=903). Studies were judged to be at moderate to high risk of bias. Mean pain intensity scores were significantly lower 60 min after study drug administration favouring adjuvant SDK (MD -0.76; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.33), compared with opioids alone. There was no evidence of differences in mean pain intensity scores at any other time point. Patients who received adjuvant SDK were less likely to require rescue analgesia, no more likely to experience serious side effects and had higher satisfaction scores, compared with opioids alone.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence suggests adjuvant SDK can have an effect on lowering pain intensity scores. Although reduction of pain scores was not clinically significant, the combination of reduced pain intensity and reduced opioid requirements suggest the results could be clinically important and support the potential utility of SDK as an adjunct to opioids to treat acute pain in adult ED patients. However, current evidence is limited and higher quality RCTs are needed.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42021276708.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain Management; Ketamine; Acute Pain; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 36972961
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066444 -
Pain Aug 2023There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for the application of virtual reality (VR) in pain management, however, with varying effectiveness. Little is known about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for the application of virtual reality (VR) in pain management, however, with varying effectiveness. Little is known about patient-related and VR-related factors affecting efficacy of VR. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including 122 randomised controlled trials (9138 patients), reporting on subjectively reported pain scores comparing an immersive VR intervention to a non-VR control group. Virtual reality significantly reduced pain in the pooled analysis (standardized mean difference = -0.65, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.54, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences between type of pain, ie, VR effects were similar in acute, chronic, and procedural pain conditions. Univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of intervention, patient, and pain characteristics on VR. Virtual reality effectively reduced pain, especially in patients reporting moderate to severe pain and in younger subjects. Studies comparing VR with a control group receiving no distraction methods were associated with higher effect sizes. The effect of VR was not related to a specific frequency or duration of use. Type of software and interaction level were related to VR effects in the univariable, but not in the multivariable, meta-regression analysis. Heterogeneity was considerable for all meta-analyses, and risk of bias was moderate to high in most included studies. Studies on mechanisms behind VR analgesia in younger patients and patients reporting moderate to severe pain are recommended to confirm our hypotheses while taking into account risk of bias and the comparator. Optimal application of VR using treatment modules for long-term pain conditions are an important issue for future research.
Topics: Humans; Pain; Pain Management; Virtual Reality; Analgesia; Regression Analysis
PubMed: 36943251
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002883 -
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Apr 2023Proximal femoral fractures are characterized as one of the most common and most painful injuries sustained by patients of all ages and are associated with high rates of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Proximal femoral fractures are characterized as one of the most common and most painful injuries sustained by patients of all ages and are associated with high rates of oligoanalgesia in the prehospital setting. Current treatments include oral and parenteral opiates and sedative agents, however regional anesthesia techniques for pain relief may provide superior analgesia with lower risk of side effects during patient transportation. The fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is an inexpensive treatment which is performed with minimal additional equipment, ultimately making it suitable in prehospital settings.
PROBLEM
In adult patients sustaining proximal femoral fractures in the prehospital setting, what is the effect of the FICB on non-verbal pain scores (NVPS), patient satisfaction, success rate, and adverse events compared to traditional analgesic techniques?
METHODS
A librarian-assisted literature search was conducted of the Cochrane Database, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science indexes. Additionally, reference lists for potential review articles from the , the , the , , and the were reviewed. Databases and journals were searched during the period from January 1, 1980 through July 1, 2022. Each study was scrutinized for quality and validity and was assigned a level of evidence as per Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines.
RESULTS
Five studies involving 340 patients were included (ie, two randomized control trials [RCTs], two observational studies, and one prospective observational study). Pain scores decreased after prehospital FICB across all included studies by a mean of 6.65 points (5.25 - 7.5) on the NVPS. Out of the total 257 FICBs conducted, there was a success rate of 230 (89.3%). Of these, only two serious adverse events were recorded, both of which related to local analgesia toxicity. Neither resulted in long-term sequelae and only one required treatment.
CONCLUSION
Use of FICBs results in a significant decrease in NVPS in the prehospital setting, and they are ultimately suitable as regional analgesic techniques for proximal femur fractures. It carries a low risk of adverse events and may be performed by health care practitioners of various backgrounds with suitable training. The results suggest that FICBs are more effective for pain management than parenteral or oral opiates and sedative agents alone and can be used as an appropriate adjunct to pain management.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nerve Block; Femoral Fractures; Proximal Femoral Fractures; Pain; Emergency Medical Services; Fascia; Opiate Alkaloids; Hip Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36912109
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X23000298