-
Asian Journal of Surgery Dec 2023
Meta-Analysis
Topics: Humans; Lidocaine; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Anesthetics, Local; Pain Management; Analgesia; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid
PubMed: 37597985
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.07.132 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Jul 2022Postoperative pain remains a significant challenge with the growing number of abdominoplasties every year. Opioids are currently considered the mainstay modality for...
INTRODUCTION
Postoperative pain remains a significant challenge with the growing number of abdominoplasties every year. Opioids are currently considered the mainstay modality for controlling postoperative pain. However, opioid-related side effects raise the need for a safer and more effective approach. In this study, we aimed to investigate these alternative evidence-based postoperative pain relief modalities following abdominoplasty.
METHODS
This systematic review was designed and conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The literature was systematically searched in December 2021 using the following databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE. The MeSH terms used to aid the search were the following: abdominoplasty, postoperative pain management, postoperative analgesia, pain control, analgesia, and pain.
RESULTS
Reviewing the literature resulted in a total of 851 publications. After implementing our criteria, only 13 articles were included in this study, with 990 patients. A continuous infusion pump was the most commonly used method of analgesia (n = 3), followed by a transversus abdominis plane block (n = 2). The postoperative pain assessment scale was mentioned in nine out of the 13. Compared to controls, all interventions resulted in considerably lower pain levels in all the patients. Patient satisfaction was reported in three studies, and all studies reported higher satisfaction rates than the control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The authors performed a systematic review of the existing database of high-quality research on pain management after cosmetic abdominoplasty to determine the best pain management options currently available. However, future studies are recommended to assess the optimum dosing and administration methods.
PubMed: 35924003
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004441 -
Anaesthesia Sep 2020Effective analgesic alternatives to interscalene brachial plexus block are sought for shoulder surgery. Peri-articular infiltration analgesia is a novel, less invasive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effective analgesic alternatives to interscalene brachial plexus block are sought for shoulder surgery. Peri-articular infiltration analgesia is a novel, less invasive technique, but evidence surrounding its use is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the utility of peri-articular infiltration analgesia in shoulder surgery. We searched literature for trials comparing peri-articular infiltration analgesia with control or with interscalene brachial plexus block. Control groups received no intervention, placebo or systemic opioids. The primary outcome was cumulative oral morphine equivalent consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included: rest pain scores up to 48 h; risk of side-effects; and durations of post-anaesthetic care unit and hospital stay. Data were pooled with random-effects modelling. Seven trials (383 patients) were included. Compared with control, peri-articular infiltration analgesia reduced 24-h oral morphine consumption by a mean difference (95%CI) of -38.0 mg (-65.5 to -10.5; p = 0.007). It also improved pain scores up to 6 h, 36 h and 48 h, with the greatest improvement observed at 0 h (-2.4 (-2.7 to -1.6); p < 0.001). Peri-articular infiltration analgesia decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting by an odds ratio (95%CI) of 0.3 (0.1-0.7; p = 0.006). In contrast, peri-articular infiltration analgesia was not different from interscalene brachial plexus block for analgesic consumption, pain scores or side-effects. This review provides moderate evidence supporting peri-articular infiltration for postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery. The absence of difference between peri-articular infiltration analgesia and interscalene brachial plexus block for analgesic outcomes suggests that these interventions are comparable, but further trials are needed to support this conclusion and identify the optimal peri-articular infiltration technique.
Topics: Analgesia; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Shoulder
PubMed: 32037525
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14996 -
International Urogynecology Journal Sep 2022We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of local preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain control in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS
We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of local preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain control in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched systematically to identify eligible studies published through September 25, 2019. Only randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews addressing local preemptive analgesia compared to placebo at vaginal hysterectomy were considered. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results were compared, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria for full-text review. Four RCTs, including a total of 197 patients, and two SRs were included in the review.
RESULTS
Preemptive local analgesia reduced postoperative pain scores up to 6 h and postoperative opioid requirements in the first 24 h after surgery.
CONCLUSION
Preemptive local analgesia at vaginal hysterectomy results in less postoperative pain and less postoperative opioid consumption.
Topics: Female; Humans; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Hysterectomy; Hysterectomy, Vaginal; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34870713
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04999-1 -
Danish Medical Journal Jun 2013Pain and distress during minor hospital-related procedures is a familiar problem in many children. Inadequate relief of children's procedural pain and distress not only... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
Pain and distress during minor hospital-related procedures is a familiar problem in many children. Inadequate relief of children's procedural pain and distress not only affects the experience of the children and their parents, but also adversely impacts procedural success. We aimed to review the safety and efficacy of nitrous oxide during brief, but painful paediatric procedures and to compare nitrous oxide with some of the commonly used pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for relieving anxiety and mild to moderate pain in Denmark.
METHOD
We searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with the MeSH term nitrous oxide combined with midazolam, surgical procedures minor, analgesia or conscious sedation. The references in the articles acquired that were not found in the MEDLINE search were further investigated. Only articles written in English and published after 1980 were included to ensure optimal data collection.
RESULTS
Nitrous oxide is an effective sedative/analgesic for mildly to moderately painful paediatric procedures. Furthermore, it is safely administrated, particularly for short procedures (< 15 min.). Serious and potentially serious adverse events are rare and occur in less than 0.5% of cases, while minor events typically occur amongst 4-8% of patients.
CONCLUSION
Nitrous oxide is a safe and effective method to achieve analgesia and sedation during minor, but painful procedures. It can be safely administered by a dedicated staff member. This helpful method is still underused in Denmark, and we believe that it could be an alternative or the first choice of treatment in emergency and paediatric departments.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesia; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Catheterization, Peripheral; Child; Child, Preschool; Conscious Sedation; Denmark; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infant; Injections, Intramuscular; Midazolam; Nitrous Oxide; Pain; Spinal Puncture
PubMed: 23743110
DOI: No ID Found -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Jun 2021Sedation and analgesia are essential in the intensive care unit in order to promote control of pain, anxiety, prevent loss of materials, accidental extubation and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sedation and analgesia are essential in the intensive care unit in order to promote control of pain, anxiety, prevent loss of materials, accidental extubation and improve the synchrony of patients with ventilator. However, excess of these medications leads to an increased morbidity and mortality, and thus demands protocol.
METHODS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and the Meta-Analysis Protocol have been used to undertake this review. Pub Med, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar search engines were used to find up-to-date evidence that helps to draw recommendations and conclusions.
RESULTS
In this Guideline and Systematic Review, we have used 16 Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis, 3 Evidence-Based Guidelines and 10 RCT Meta-Analysis, 6 Systemic Reviews of Non-randomized Studies, 8 Randomized Clinical Trials, 11 Cohort Studies, 5 Cross-Sectional Studies and 1 Case Report with their respective study descriptions.
DISCUSSION
Analgesia, which as a sedation basement can reduce sedative use, is key aspect of treatment in ICU patients, and we can also conclude that an analgesic sedation regimen can reduce the occurrence of delirium by reducing sedatives. The aim of this guideline and the systematic review is to write up and formulate analgesia-based sedation for limited resource settings.
CONCLUSIONS
Analgesia and sedation are effective in critically ill patients; however, too much sedation is associated with longer periods of mechanical ventilation and longer duration of ICU stay. Poorly managed ICU patients have a delirium rate of up to 80%, increased mortality, longer hospital stays, higher hospital costs and bad long-term outcomes.
PubMed: 34035907
DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102356 -
PloS One 2017Perioperative infusion of adenosine has been suggested to reduce the requirement for inhalation anesthetics, without causing serious adverse effects in humans. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Perioperative infusion of adenosine has been suggested to reduce the requirement for inhalation anesthetics, without causing serious adverse effects in humans. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of adenosine on postoperative analgesia.
METHODS
We retrieved articles in computerized searches of Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, up to July 2016. We used adenosine, postoperative analgesia, and postoperative pain(s) as key words, with humans, RCT, and CCT as filters. Data of eligible studies were extracted, which included pain scores, cumulative opioid consumption, adverse reactions, and vital signs. Overall incidence rates, relative risk (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated employing fixed-effects or random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity of the included trials.
RESULTS
In total, 757 patients from 9 studies were included. The overall effect of adenosine on postoperative VAS/VRS scores and postoperative opioid consumption was not significantly different from that of controls (P >0.1). The occurrence of PONV and pruritus was not statistically significantly different between an adenosine and nonremifentanil subgroup (P >0.1), but the rate of PONV occurrence was greater in the remifentanil subgroup (P <0.01). Time to first postoperative analgesic requirement in the adenosine group was not significantly difference from that of the saline group (SMD = 0.07, 95%CI: -0.28 to 0.41, P = 0.71); but this occurred significantly later than with remifentanil (SMD = 1.10, 95%CI: 2.48 to 4.06, P < 0.01). Time to hospital discharge was not significantly different between the control and adenosine groups (P = 0.78). The perioperative systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the adenosine than in the control group in the mannitol subgroup (P < 0.01). The incidence of bradycardia, transient first- degree atrioventricular block, and tachycardia was not significantly different between the adenosine and control groups (P > 0.1).
CONCLUSION
Adenosine has no analgesic effect or prophylactic effect against PONV, but reduce systolic blood pressure and heart rates. Adenosine may benefit patients with hypertension, ischemic heart disease, and tachyarrhythmia, thereby improving cardiac function.
Topics: Adenosine; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Pain, Postoperative; Young Adult
PubMed: 28333936
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173518 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Jul 2023Secondary constipation refers to constipation that occurs after certain diseases or medications, such as acute stroke or opioids, and the efficacy of electroacupuncture... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Secondary constipation refers to constipation that occurs after certain diseases or medications, such as acute stroke or opioids, and the efficacy of electroacupuncture for secondary constipation is controversial. So, this study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture for secondary constipation through a meta-analysis and systematic review.
METHOD
We retrieved articles from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases up to 28 February 2023. The study was screened strictly according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Revman5.4 was used for quality evaluation; grade rating was used for index evaluation, and stata15.0 was used for data consolidation analysis.
RESULT
Thirteen randomized controlled studies, involving a total of 1437 people (722 electroacupuncture and 715 control groups), were included in this review. Meta-analysis results indicated that electroacupuncture significantly improved constipation overall response (RR = 1.31, 95%CI: 1.11, 1.55, P < 0.001), reduced defecation straining score (MD = - 0.46, 95%CI: - 0.67, - 0.251, P < 0.001), increased weekly complete spontaneous bowel movements (MD = 0.41, 95%CI: 0.20, 0.63, P = 0.002), and increased in the weekly spontaneous bowel movements (MD = 0.80, 95%CI (0.49, 01.11), P < 0.001), and electroacupuncture had no effect on change stool consistency score compared (MD = - 0.03, 95%CI (- 0.38, 0.33), P = 0.88) and did not increase adverse events (RR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.18, 1.44, P = 0.20).
CONCLUSION
According to the current studies, the overall relief rate of patients with secondary constipation after electroacupuncture treatment was improved, the defecation pressure score was reduced, the weekly natural defecation was more complete, and adverse reactions were not increased. Electroacupuncture therefore shows potential for treating constipation, but more high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Topics: Humans; Electroacupuncture; Defecation; Constipation; Research Design; Control Groups
PubMed: 37452920
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04487-6 -
Brain & Spine 2021During lumbar decompressive spine surgery, the epidural space is easily accessible. This intraoperative situation allows surgeons to apply an epidural bolus of analgesia... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
During lumbar decompressive spine surgery, the epidural space is easily accessible. This intraoperative situation allows surgeons to apply an epidural bolus of analgesia at the end of the surgical procedure. In literature, several papers about the methods and effectiveness of delivering local analgesia during lumbar decompressive spine surgery have been published.
RESEARCH QUESTION
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summaries the current literature on the effectiveness and safety of intraoperative epidural analgesia in lumbar decompressive surgery, delivered as a bolus.
MATERIAL AND METHOD
A systematic search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or comparative cohort studies of patients aged 18 years or older who underwent decompressive lumbar spine surgery. Nonsteroidal epidural analgesia had to be administered as a bolus, intraoperatively, as an adjunct to standard analgesia therapy. Primary outcome measures were reduction in postoperative pain scores, analgesics consumption and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were adverse events.
RESULTS
Eight studies evaluating the effectiveness of intraoperative epidural analgesia were included. Seven studies reported statistically significant reductions in postoperative VAS-pain scores. Six studies reported a statistically significant decrease in postoperative analgesics consumption. Four studies reported on the length of hospital stay, with no statistically significant difference between study groups.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that additional intraoperative epidural nonsteroidal analgesia, delivered as a bolus, can reduce postoperative pain and postoperative analgesics consumption in patients undergoing decompressive spinal surgery. Further well-powered research is needed to bolster the evidence.
PubMed: 36247401
DOI: 10.1016/j.bas.2021.100306 -
International Braz J Urol : Official... 2017Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first line treatment modality for a significant proportion of patients with upper urinary tracts stones. Simple analgesics, opioids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are all suitable agents but the relative efficacy and tolerability of these agents is uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy of the different types of analgesics used for the control of pain during SWL for urinary stones.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles (Figure-1). Randomised controlled trials (RCT's) comparing the use of any opioid, simple analgesic or NSAID during SWL were included. These were compared with themselves, each-other or placebo. We included any route or form of administration (bolus, PCA). We excluded agents that were used for their sedative qualities. Data were extracted and assessed for quality independently by three reviewers. Meta-analyses have been performed where possible. When not possible, descriptive analyses of variables were performed. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Overall, we included 9 RCTs (539 participants from 6 countries). Trial agents included 7 types of NSAIDs, 1 simple analgesic and 4 types of opioids. There were no significant differences in clinical efficacy or tolerability between a simple analgesic (paracetamol) and an NSAID (lornoxicam). When comparing the same simple analgesic with an opioid (tramadol), both agents provided safe and effective analgesia for the purpose of SWL with no significant differences. There were no significant differences in pain scores between NSAIDs or opioids in three studies. Adequate analgesia could be achieved more often for opioids than for NSAIDs (RR 0.358; 95% CI 043 to 0.77, P=0.0002) but consumed doses of rescue analgesia were similar between NSAIDs and opioids in two studies (P=0.58, >0.05). In terms of tolerability, there is no difference in post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) between the groups (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.17, P=0.55). One study compared outcomes between two types of NSAIDs (diclofenac versus dexketoprofen). There were no significant differences in any of our pre-defined outcomes measures.
CONCLUSION
Simple analgesics, NSAIDs and opioids can all reduce the pain associated with shock wave lithotripsy to a level where the procedure is tolerated. Whilst there are no compelling differences in safety or efficacy of simple analgesics and NSAIDs, analgesia is described as adequate more often for opioids than NSAIDs.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Lithotripsy; Pain, Postoperative; Urinary Calculi
PubMed: 28338301
DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0078