-
Obesity Surgery Feb 2021Pain after bariatric surgery can prolong recovery. This patient group is highly susceptible to opioid-related side effects. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Appears to Be Effective and Safe as a Part of Multimodal Analgesia in Bariatric Surgery: a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
PURPOSE
Pain after bariatric surgery can prolong recovery. This patient group is highly susceptible to opioid-related side effects. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines strongly recommend the administration of multimodal medications to reduce narcotic consumption. However, the role of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (USG-TAP) block in multimodal analgesia of weight loss surgeries remains controversial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was performed in four databases for studies published up to September 2019. We considered randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of perioperative USG-TAP block as a part of multimodal analgesia in patients with laparoscopic bariatric surgery.
RESULTS
Eight studies (525 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed lower pain scores with USG-TAP block at every evaluated time point and lower opioid requirement in the USG-TAP block group (weighted mean difference (WMD) = - 7.59 mg; 95% CI - 9.86, - 5.39; p < 0.001). Time to ambulate was shorter with USG-TAP block (WMD = - 2.22 h; 95% CI - 3.89, - 0.56; p = 0.009). This intervention also seemed to be safe: only three non-severe complications with USG-TAP block were reported in the included studies.
CONCLUSION
Our results may support the incorporation of USG-TAP block into multimodal analgesia regimens of ERAS protocols for bariatric surgery.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Bariatric Surgery; Humans; Laparoscopy; Obesity, Morbid; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33083978
DOI: 10.1007/s11695-020-04973-8 -
PloS One 2020A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases (updated March 2020) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of EMLA for patients that underwent ESWL. The search strategy and study selection process were managed according to the PRISMA statement. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the results indicated that EMLA significantly reduced pain compared to the control group (RR = -2.98, 95% CI = -5.82 to -0.13, P = 0.04) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 57% (P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis showed that EMLA did not significantly reduce pain when the patients took an analgesic premedication (RR = -1.46, 95% CI = -5.89 to 2.98, P = 0.52) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 38% (P = 0.52). Conversely, studies without premedication showed a significant pain relief effect (RR = -4.08, 95% CI = -7.36 to -0.65, P = -0.80) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 48% (P = 0.14). Most studies showed there was no difference in the patient's need for analgesics. EMLA was effective for reducing pain during EWSL. However, this analgesic effect was limited and did not reduce the need for analgesics.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Analgesia; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Combined; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lidocaine, Prilocaine Drug Combination; Lithotripsy; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 33017397
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237783 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2020Postoperative pain is still a major concern in several surgical procedures. Multimodal analgesia is best for postoperative pain management; however, opioid therapy is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Postoperative pain is still a major concern in several surgical procedures. Multimodal analgesia is best for postoperative pain management; however, opioid therapy is still the main treatment for pain after surgical procedures. Transdermal buprenorphine is a partial μ-agonist opioid widely used for chronic pain syndromes, with limited evidence for acute postoperative pain. A systematic review of studies examining transdermal buprenorphine for acute pain management after surgery was conducted.
CONTENTS
Data from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL via EBSCOhost, and LILACS were reviewed, including randomized clinical trials that evaluated total postoperative pain, postoperative analgesic consumption, drug-related side effects and patient satisfaction with analgesia regimen. Data from nine studies (615 patients) were included in this review. Most studies initiated transdermal buprenorphine use 6 to 48 hours before surgery, maintaining use from 1 to 28 days after the procedure. Most studies showed lower or similar postoperative pain scores, postoperative analgesic consumption and patient satisfaction comparing buprenorphine to placebo, tramadol, celecoxib, flurbiprofen and parecoxib. The incidence of side effects varied between studies, with most showing no increase in drug-related side effects with buprenorphine use, except one study, which compared buprenorphine to oral tramadol, and one to transdermal fentanyl. However, most results were derived from evidence with an overall high or unclear risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Although more studies are necessary, initial results show that transdermal buprenorphine seems to be an effective and safe opioid choice for management of acute postoperative pain.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 32819729
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2020.04.004 -
The International Journal of... Apr 2021Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transcranial direct current stimulation has shown promising clinical results, leading to increased demand for an evidence-based review on its clinical effects.
OBJECTIVE
We convened a team of transcranial direct current stimulation experts to conduct a systematic review of clinical trials with more than 1 session of stimulation testing: pain, Parkinson's disease motor function and cognition, stroke motor function and language, epilepsy, major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, schizophrenia, and drug addiction.
METHODS
Experts were asked to conduct this systematic review according to the search methodology from PRISMA guidelines. Recommendations on efficacy were categorized into Levels A (definitely effective), B (probably effective), C (possibly effective), or no recommendation. We assessed risk of bias for all included studies to confirm whether results were driven by potentially biased studies.
RESULTS
Although most of the clinical trials have been designed as proof-of-concept trials, some of the indications analyzed in this review can be considered as definitely effective (Level A), such as depression, and probably effective (Level B), such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, migraine, post-operative patient-controlled analgesia and pain, Parkinson's disease (motor and cognition), stroke (motor), epilepsy, schizophrenia, and alcohol addiction. Assessment of bias showed that most of the studies had low risk of biases, and sensitivity analysis for bias did not change these results. Effect sizes vary from 0.01 to 0.70 and were significant in about 8 conditions, with the largest effect size being in postoperative acute pain and smaller in stroke motor recovery (nonsignificant when combined with robotic therapy).
CONCLUSION
All recommendations listed here are based on current published PubMed-indexed data. Despite high levels of evidence in some conditions, it must be underscored that effect sizes and duration of effects are often limited; thus, real clinical impact needs to be further determined with different study designs.
Topics: Brain Diseases; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Mental Disorders; Pain; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 32710772
DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyaa051 -
Anaesthesia Apr 2021Phrenic-sparing analgesic techniques for shoulder surgery are desirable. Intra-articular infiltration analgesia is one promising phrenic-sparing modality, but its role... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Phrenic-sparing analgesic techniques for shoulder surgery are desirable. Intra-articular infiltration analgesia is one promising phrenic-sparing modality, but its role remains unclear because of conflicting evidence of analgesic efficacy and theoretical concerns regarding chondrotoxicity. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the benefits and risks of intra-articular infiltration in arthroscopic shoulder surgery compared with systemic analgesia or interscalene brachial plexus block. We sought randomised controlled trials comparing intra-articular infiltration with interscalene brachial plexus block or systemic analgesia (control). Cumulative 24-h postoperative oral morphine equivalent consumption was designated as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores during the first 24 h postoperatively; time-to-first analgesic request; patient satisfaction; opioid-related side-effects; block-related adverse events; and any indicators of chondrotoxicity. Fifteen trials (863 patients) were included. Compared with control, intra-articular infiltration reduced 24-h postoperative analgesic consumption by a weighted mean difference (95%CI) of -30.9 ([-38.9 to -22.9]; p < 0.001). Intra-articular infiltration also reduced the weighted mean difference (95%CI) pain scores up to 12 h postoperatively, with the greatest reduction at 4 h (-2.2 cm [(-4.4 to -0.04]); p < 0.05). Compared with interscalene brachial plexus block, there was no difference in opioid consumption, but patients receiving interscalene brachial plexus block had better pain scores at 2, 4 and 24 h postoperatively. There was no difference in opioid- or block-related adverse events, and none of the trials reported chondrotoxic effects. Compared with systemic analgesia, intra-articular infiltration provides superior pain control, reduces opioid consumption and enhances patient satisfaction, but it may be inferior to interscalene brachial plexus block patients having arthroscopic shoulder surgery.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Arthroscopy; Brachial Plexus Block; Humans; Injections, Intra-Articular; Morphine; Pain, Postoperative; Shoulder
PubMed: 32596840
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15172 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a...
BACKGROUND
As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias. The included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events. The study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL. We are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). The included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta. The quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals). There is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Job Satisfaction; Nerve Block; Pain, Procedural; Patient Satisfaction; Placenta, Retained; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32529658
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013013.pub2 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2020Pain is commonly experienced among patients after surgical procedures. Clinical pain management after surgery is far from being successful. Patients may control... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Pain is commonly experienced among patients after surgical procedures. Clinical pain management after surgery is far from being successful. Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient-controlled analgesia or PCA). PCA devices have been developed including the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS). A systematic review of the use of SSTS for postoperative pain is needed to identify an alternative method of pain management.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of PCA with SSTS used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute post-operative pain in a hospital setting.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in December 2019 for studies examining SSTS for pain in adult after surgical procedures. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies evaluating SSTS were included for a total of 2311 patients. All participants in the SSTS group reported NRS ≤ 4 within 24 h after surgery. Patient satisfaction was high, with a minimum of 70% satisfaction among patients treated with SSTS. The most common adverse events (AEs) overall for SSTS 15 and 30 mcg were nausea, vomiting, and headache. AEs observed in the studies were generally consistent with those associated with opioids and the postsurgical setting.
CONCLUSIONS
SSTS is an important system for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain in a hospital setting. SSTS is well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events (AEs) and no clinically meaningful vital sign changes. These data confirm the safety and tolerability of the SSTS. Successful pain management resulted in a high level of acceptance of the SSTS by patients with high satisfaction for the method of pain control.
PubMed: 32303979
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-020-00166-4 -
BMC Anesthesiology Apr 2020Cataract surgery is one of the most common procedures performed worldwide in the elderly. Various medications can provide effective anesthesia and analgesia for cataract... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Cataract surgery is one of the most common procedures performed worldwide in the elderly. Various medications can provide effective anesthesia and analgesia for cataract surgery, but undesirable side effects limit the utility of each medication or combination of medications. Dexmedetomidine may serve as an anesthesia adjunct for outpatient cataract surgery in the elderly.
METHODS
Searches were conducted in Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for randomized clinical trials investigating the use of dexmedetomidine in adult patients undergoing outpatient, or ambulatory, cataract surgery with sedation and topical or peribulbar block. Ninety-nine publications were identified, of which 15 trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. A total of 914 patients were included in this review. The following data were collected: American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) physical status and age of study patients; method of blinding and randomization; medication doses and routes of administration; and intraoperative levels of sedation. We also recorded statistically significant differences between dexmedetomidine and other study medications or placebo with respect to the following outcomes: hemodynamic and respiratory parameters; pain; sedation; post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV); discharge from post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) or recovery times; patient satisfaction; surgeon satisfaction; and effects on intraocular pressure (IOP).
RESULTS
Hypotension with or without bradycardia was reported following bolus doses of dexmedetomidine ranging from 0.5-1.0 mcg/kg with or without a continuous dexmedetomidine infusion. Delayed PACU discharge times were associated with the use of dexmedetomidine, but no clear association was identified between delayed recovery and higher levels of intraoperative sedation. Better analgesia and higher patient satisfaction were commonly reported with dexmedetomidine as well as reductions in IOP.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this review demonstrates better analgesia, higher patient satisfaction, and reduced IOP with dexmedetomidine for outpatient cataract surgery when compared to traditional sedatives, hypnotics, and opioids. These benefits of dexmedetomidine, however, must be weighed against relative cardiovascular depression and delayed PACU discharge or recovery times. Therefore, the utility of dexmedetomidine for outpatient cataract surgery should be considered on a patient-by-patient basis.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Cataract Extraction; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32247310
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-020-00973-4 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2020Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA is superior to EA in decreasing the risk of intrapartum maternal fever during labor.
METHODS
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the risk of intrapartum maternal fever with RPCA compared with EA alone or EA in combination with spinal analgesia during labor were included.
RESULTS
A total of 825 studies were screened, and 6 RCTs including 3341 patients were identified. Compared with EA, RPCA was associated with a significantly lower incidence of intrapartum maternal fever (risk ratio [RR] 0.48, P = 0.02, I = 49%) during labor analgesia. After excluding 2 trials via the heterogeneity analysis, there was no difference in the incidence of intrapartum fever between patients receiving RPCA and those receiving EA. Satisfaction with pain relief during labor was lower in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (- 10.6 [13.87, - 7.44], P < 0.00001, I = 0%). The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly greater in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (risk ratio 2.86 [1.65, 4.96], P = 0.0002, I = 58%). The incidence of Apgar scores < 7 at 5 min in the RPCA group was equivalent to that in the EA group.
CONCLUSION
There is no solid evidence to illustrate that the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever is lower in patients receiving intravenous RPCA than in patients receiving EA.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Apgar Score; Female; Fever; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Remifentanil
PubMed: 32164593
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2800-y -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong... 2020Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a common complication after total joint arthroplasties (TJAs). The POUR is managed with urinary catheterization, which is...
PURPOSE
Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) is a common complication after total joint arthroplasties (TJAs). The POUR is managed with urinary catheterization, which is associated with a risk of urinary tract infection and subsequent periprosthetic joint infection. The purpose of this review was to afford a comprehensive understanding of POUR and its management.
METHODS
We identified 15 original articles concerning POUR after TJA, which were published from January 2010 to February 2019. The diagnostic method, incidence, risk factors, and management of POUR of the 15 studies were reviewed.
RESULTS
The incidence of POUR was ranged from 4.1% to 46.3%. Ultrasound was used for the detection of POUR among the total of the 15 studies. The following factors of old age, male gender, benign prostatic hypertrophy, history of urinary retention, spinal/epidural anesthesia, excessive fluid administration, patient-controlled analgesia, the use of opiates, underlying comorbidities, and poor American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade were risk factors for POUR. Most of the studies did not use indwelling catheterization during surgery. The POUR patients were managed with intermittent catheterization. The most common volume criterion for bladder catheterization was 400 mL. In inevitable use of an indwelling catheter, it should be removed within 48 h.
CONCLUSIONS
This review provided an up-to-date guide for the detection and management of POUR.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Global Health; Humans; Incidence; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Urinary Bladder; Urinary Retention; Urination
PubMed: 32114894
DOI: 10.1177/2309499020905134