-
Journal of Anesthesia Oct 2022This meta-analysis of all relevant clinical trials investigated surgical plethysmographic index (SPI)-guided analgesia's efficacy under general anesthesia for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
This meta-analysis of all relevant clinical trials investigated surgical plethysmographic index (SPI)-guided analgesia's efficacy under general anesthesia for perioperative opioid requirement and emergence time after anesthesia.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2022 to identify clinical trials comparing SPI-guided and conventional clinical practice for patients who underwent general anesthesia. With the random-effects model, we compared intraoperative opioid consumption, emergence time, postoperative pain, analgesia requirement, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).
RESULTS
Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 1314) met our selection criteria. The overall pooled effect sizes of all RCTs indicated that SPI-guided analgesia could not significantly reduce opioid consumption during general anesthesia. SPI-guided analgesia accompanied with hypnosis monitoring could decrease intraoperative opioid consumption (standardized mean difference [SMD] - 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.63 to 0.00) more effectively than SPI without hypnosis monitoring (SMD 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.53), showing a significant difference (p < 0.001). SPI-guided analgesia could significantly shorten the emergence time, whether assessed by extubation time (SMD - 0.36, 95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.03, p < 0.05, I = 67%) or eye-opening time (SMD - 0.40, 95% CI - 0.63 to - 0.18, p < 0.001, I = 54%). SPI-guided analgesia did not affect the incidence of PONV, postoperative pain, and analgesia management.
CONCLUSION
SPI-guided analgesia under general anesthesia could enhance recovery after surgery without increasing the postoperative complication risk. However, it did not affect intraoperative opioid requirement. Notably, SPI-guided analgesia with hypnosis monitoring could effectively reduce intraoperative opioid requirement.
Topics: Airway Extubation; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35986787
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-022-03094-z -
Perioperative Medicine (London, England) Nov 2023Lumbar spine disorders have become an increasingly common health problem in recent years. Modern clinical studies have shown that perioperative analgesia at certain... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Lumbar spine disorders have become an increasingly common health problem in recent years. Modern clinical studies have shown that perioperative analgesia at certain doses can reduce postoperative pain by inhibiting the process of peripheral sensitization and central sensitization, which is also known as "preemptive analgesia," Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a class of drugs that achieve antipyretic and analgesic effects by inhibiting cyclooxygenase (COX) and affecting the production of prostaglandins. Our meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of perioperative preemptive analgesia with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with lumbar spine surgery.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 12 clinical studies were included to assess the efficacy and safety of perioperative NSAIDs preemptive analgesia for lumbar spine surgery.
RESULT
Twelve studies, including 845 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that perioperative receipt of NSAIDs for preemptive analgesia was effective and safe. Patient's postoperative morphine consumption (P < 0.05), visual analog scale (P < 0.05), and numerical rating scale (P < 0.05) were not statistically associated with postoperative complications (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Our findings suggest that NSAIDs are effective and safe for preemptive analgesia in the perioperative period of lumbar spine surgery and that more and better quality RCTs and more in-depth studies of pain mechanics are still needed.
PubMed: 37996936
DOI: 10.1186/s13741-023-00347-7 -
International Journal of Clinical... 2023To compare the effects of different physical and rehabilitation therapies on women with overactive bladder (OAB). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effects of different physical and rehabilitation therapies on women with overactive bladder (OAB).
DESIGN
Network meta-analysis. Data source: The Embase, Scopus, and PubMed databases were systematically searched from their inception to June 22, 2022. We included only RCTs, with no language restrictions. Articles in the reference lists and related studies were thoroughly reviewed. . This network meta-analysis included related studies on different physical and rehabilitation therapies for OAB. Data were extracted independently from the included randomized controlled trials by two authors, and they used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to evaluate the risk of bias. We used RevMan to assess the risk assessment of research bias. This network meta-analysis was performed using the Stata software. We completed the review in accordance with the PRISMA items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement.
RESULTS
Twelve randomized controlled trials involving 637 patients were included in this meta-analysis. All physical and rehabilitation therapies improved daytime micturition frequency and nocturia frequency in OAB patients. Percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), BT + ES, and BT + BF + ES are better interventions for OAB treatment. There were no significant differences in PTNS, BT + ES, and BT + BF + ES.
CONCLUSION
All physical and rehabilitation therapies can improve daytime micturition and nocturia frequency in OAB. PTNS, BT + ES, and BT + BF + ES were the priority therapies.
Topics: Humans; Female; Urinary Bladder, Overactive; Nocturia; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Urination; Physical Examination; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36704247
DOI: 10.1155/2023/6758454 -
Anesthesiology Sep 2019Thoracic paravertebral block is the preferred regional anesthetic technique for breast cancer surgery, but concerns over its invasiveness and risks have prompted search... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Thoracic paravertebral block is the preferred regional anesthetic technique for breast cancer surgery, but concerns over its invasiveness and risks have prompted search for alternatives. Pectoralis-II block is a promising analgesic technique and potential alternative to paravertebral block, but evidence of its absolute and relative effectiveness versus systemic analgesia (Control) and paravertebral block, respectively, is conflicting. This meta-analysis evaluates the analgesic effectiveness of Pectoralis-II versus Control and paravertebral block for breast cancer surgery.
METHODS
Databases were searched for breast cancer surgery trials comparing Pectoralis-II with Control or paravertebral block. Postoperative oral morphine consumption and difference in area under curve for pooled rest pain scores more than 24 h were designated as coprimary outcomes. Opioid-related side effects, effects on long-term outcomes, such as chronic pain and opioid dependence, were also examined. Results were pooled using random-effects modeling.
RESULTS
Fourteen randomized trials (887 patients) were analyzed. Compared with Control, Pectoralis-II provided clinically important reductions in 24-h morphine consumption (at least 30.0 mg), by a weighted mean difference [95% CI] of -30.5 mg [-42.2, -18.8] (P < 0.00001), and in rest pain area under the curve more than 24 h, by -4.7cm · h [-5.1, -4.2] or -1.2cm [-1.3, -1.1] per measurement. Compared with paravertebral block, Pectoralis-II was not statistically worse (not different) for 24-h morphine consumption, and not clinically worse for rest pain area under curve more than 24 h. No differences were observed in opioid-related side effects or any other outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
We found that Pectoralis-II reduces pain intensity and morphine consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively when compared with systemic analgesia alone; and it also offers analgesic benefits noninferior to those of paravertebral block after breast cancer surgery. Evidence supports incorporating Pectoralis-II into multimodal analgesia and also using it as a paravertebral block alternative in this population.
Topics: Analgesia; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Pectoralis Muscles
PubMed: 31408448
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002822 -
Frontiers in Surgery 2022Paravertebral block (PVB) has been widely used in postoperative analgesia, especially in thoracic and breast surgery. However, the efficacy and safety of PVB for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Paravertebral block (PVB) has been widely used in postoperative analgesia, especially in thoracic and breast surgery. However, the efficacy and safety of PVB for analgesia after renal surgery remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of PVB in renal surgery.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched up to December 20, 2021. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the postoperative analgesic efficacy of PVB in renal surgery were collected. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata/MP 14.0 software.
RESULTS
A total of 16 RCTs involving 907 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Ten studies investigated patients under percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and six studies were done for patients under other renal surgery (nephrectomy or pyeloplasty). Compared with control groups (no block, sham block, or other nerve blocks), meta-analysis showed that PVB reduced 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption significantly (SMD = -0.99, 95%CI: -1.60-0.38, = 0.001, = 92%) and reduced pain scores at various time points within 24 h at rest and 1 h, 4 h, and 24 h at movement after renal surgery, furthermore, PVB prolonged the time to first postoperative analgesic requirement (SMD = 2.16, 95%CI: 0.94-3.39, = 0.005, = 96%) and reduced the incidence of postoperative additional analgesia (OR = 0.14, 95%CI: 0.06∼0.33, < 0.00001, = 50%). Subgroup analysis revealed that the postoperative analgesia effect of PVB was more significant in PCNL, and the use of bupivacaine for PVB seemed to have a better performance. Besides, there was no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and itching between PVB and control groups.
CONCLUSION
This study indicates that PVB may provide effective postoperative analgesia in patients under renal surgery, especially PCNL patients. Moreover, PVB is a safe analgesic method without significant analgesia-related complications.
PubMed: 35923436
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.865362 -
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 -
Scandinavian Journal of Pain Jan 2022Offset analgesia (OA) induces a brief pain inhibition and studies suggest OA impairment in patients with chronic pain when compared to healthy subjects. Conditioned pain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Offset analgesia (OA) induces a brief pain inhibition and studies suggest OA impairment in patients with chronic pain when compared to healthy subjects. Conditioned pain modulation remains the most studied descending pain inhibitory control mechanism and is modulated by centrally-acting analgesics. Since OA may be mediated by similar neural substrates as conditioned pain modulation, understanding if OA is a peripheral or central proxy of pain modulation is important. The modulatory effect of centrally-acting drugs on OA in healthy and chronic pain populations has not yet been systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed, and this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify studies employing interventions for modulating OA magnitude.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library yielded 146 records of which 11 (172 healthy pain-free subjects, 106 chronic pain patients) were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and 10 for meta-analysis on overall modulatory effect of interventions on OA, and subgroup analysis of patients and healthy pain-free subjects.
RESULTS
Risk of bias was evident for study participation and study confounding in the included studies. Several different methods for assessing and calculating OA magnitude were identified, which may affect interpretability of findings and warrants standardization. The meta-analysis showed no modulatory effects on OA overall (standardized mean difference (SMD) [95%CI]: 0.04 [-0.22, 0.30], =0.29, p=0.77), or in the subgroup analysis for patients (SMD [95%CI]: -0.04 [-0.63, 0.71], =0.13, p=0.90) or healthy pain-free subjects (SMD [95%CI]: 0.01 [-0.21, 0.24], =0.11, p=0.91). Moderate to substantial heterogeneity was found for the overall analysis (I=47%, p=0.03) and patient subgroup analysis (I=75%, p=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS
The current systematic review and meta-analysis conclude that centrally-acting drugs and exercise do not influence OA. Evidence on the peripheral contribution to OA response requires further investigations. Preclinical models of OA should be established to identify the neurophysiology and -biology behind OA.
Topics: Analgesia; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Healthy Volunteers; Humans; Pain Management
PubMed: 34644466
DOI: 10.1515/sjpain-2021-0137 -
Journal of Pediatric Surgery May 2014The minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair (MIPER) is a painful procedure. The ideal approach to postoperative analgesia is debated. We performed a systematic review... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
The minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair (MIPER) is a painful procedure. The ideal approach to postoperative analgesia is debated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia compared to intravenous Patient Controlled Analgesia (PCA) following MIPER.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE (1946-2012) and the Cochrane Library (inception-2012) for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies comparing epidural analgesia to PCA for postoperative pain management in children following MIPER. We calculated weighted mean differences (WMD) for numeric pain scores and summarized secondary outcomes qualitatively.
RESULTS
Of 699 studies, 3 RCTs and 3 retrospective cohorts met inclusion criteria. Compared to PCA, mean pain scores were modestly lower with epidural immediately (WMD -1.04, 95% CI -2.11 to 0.03, p=0.06), 12 hours (WMD -1.12; 95% CI -1.61 to -0.62, p<0.001), 24 hours (WMD -0.51, 95%CI -1.05 to 0.02, p=0.06), and 48 hours (WMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.07, p=0.03) after surgery. We found no statistically significant differences between secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Epidural analgesia may provide superior pain control but was comparable with PCA for secondary outcomes. Better designed studies are needed. Currently the analgesic technique should be based on patient preference and institutional resources.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Child; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Funnel Chest; Humans; Length of Stay; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Research Design; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 24851774
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.02.072 -
The Journal of Pain Aug 2014Postoperative pain after hip arthroplasty (HA) is very common and severe. Currently, use of routine analgesic methods is often accompanied by adverse events (AEs). Local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
Postoperative pain after hip arthroplasty (HA) is very common and severe. Currently, use of routine analgesic methods is often accompanied by adverse events (AEs). Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) for controlling pain has been a therapeutic option in many surgical procedures. However, its analgesic efficacy in HA and its safety remain unclear. Data from 9 randomized controlled trials, involving 760 participants, comparing the effect of LIA with that of placebo infiltration or no infiltration on patients undergoing HA were retrieved from an electronic database, and the pain scores, analgesic consumption, and AEs were analyzed. Effects were summarized using weighted mean differences, standardized mean differences, or odds ratio with fixed or random effect models. There was strong evidence of an association between LIA and reduced pain scores at 4 hours at rest (P < .00001) and with motion (P < .00001), 6 hours with motion (P = .02), and 24 hours at rest (P = .01), and decreased analgesic consumption during 0 to 24 hours (P = .001) after HA. These analgesic efficacies for LIA were not accompanied by any increased risk for AEs. However, the current meta-analysis did not reveal any associations between LIA and the reduced pain scores or analgesic consumption at other time points. The results suggest that LIA can be used for controlling pain after HA because of its efficacy in reducing pain scores and thus can reduce analgesic consumption on the first day without increased risk of AEs.
PERSPECTIVE
This is the first pooled database meta-analysis to assess the analgesic effects and safety of LIA in controlling pain after HA. The derived information offers direct evidence that LIA can be used for patients undergoing HA because of its ability to reduce pain scores and analgesic consumption without any additional AEs.
Topics: Analgesia; Arthroplasty; Drug Administration Routes; Fenoprofen; Hip; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 24709160
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.03.002 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... May 2018We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of local infiltration anesthesia (LIA)... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of local infiltration anesthesia (LIA) versus epidural analgesia (EPA) for postoperative pain control in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
METHODS
In December 2017, a systematic computer-based search was conducted in Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RCTs of patients prepared for spine surgery that compared LIA versus EPA for postoperative pain control in TKA were retrieved. The primary endpoint was the VAS score with rest or mobilization at 12, 24 and 48, and 72 h. The secondary outcomes were the range of motion, the length of stay, and the occurrence of infection and nausea. After testing for publication bias and heterogeneity between studies, data were aggregated for random-effects models when necessary.
RESULTS
Seven clinical studies with 251 patients (LIA = 124, EPA = 127) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between LIA and EPA group in terms of the VAS score with rest at 12 and 24 h. LIA was associated with a reduction of the VAS score with rest at 48 and 72 h than EPA (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the LIA group and EPA group in terms of the VAS with mobilization at 24, 48, and 72 h (P > 0.05). And LIA was associated with an increase of the range of motion at 24 and 48 h (P < 0.05) and a reduction of the length of hospital stay (P < 0.05). What is more, LIA was associated with a reduction of the occurrence of the nausea.
CONCLUSIONS
LIA has equivalent efficacy as EPA for pain control after TKA and shows an increase of the range of motion and a reduction of the occurrence of nausea and length of hospital stay. Due to the limited number of the included studies, more high-quality RCTs are still needed to identify the long-term effects of LIA for pain control after TKA.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Local; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29769140
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0770-9