-
Complementary Therapies in Medicine Dec 2022Sciatica results from primary or secondary damage to the sciatic nerve in the lumbar or gluteal region. The first option for sciatica is analgesics, but their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sciatica results from primary or secondary damage to the sciatic nerve in the lumbar or gluteal region. The first option for sciatica is analgesics, but their therapeutic effect and safety in long-term use are questionable. On the other hand, acupuncture has recently been recognized as a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) to conventional medicine, and studies on its effectiveness and safety have been actively conducted.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically compare acupuncture with analgesics in terms of effect, safety, and durability in the treatment of sciatica METHODS: This review was performed in accordance with Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2. Four databases were searched for this review: Wangfang, the Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal (KTKP), PubMed, and EBSCOhost. The primary outcome measures in the review were total effective rate (TER), visual analog scale (VAS) score and pain threshold, and the secondary ones were adverse effects (AEs) and relapse rates. Risk ratio (RR) for TER and mean difference (MD) for VAS score and pain threshold were used as statistics for the meta-analysis of effectiveness, along with associated 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. AEs and relapse rates were used for the safety and durability of the interventions. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used for the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the review.
RESULTS
The synthesized TER of 28 RCTs involving 2707 participants was significantly higher in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (RR [95 % CI] = 1.20 [1.16, 1.24], P < 0.001). The synthesized VAS score of 7 RCTs involving 589 participants was significantly reduced in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (MD [95 % CI] = - 1.78 [- 2.44, - 1.12], P < 0.001). In 5 RCTs involving 311 participants, the synthesized pain threshold was significantly elevated in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group (MD [95 % CI] = 0.93 [0.64, 1.22], P < 0.001). Additionally, adverse effects (AEs) and relapse rates of RCTs in the review were lower in the acupuncture group compared to the analgesic group.
CONCLUSION
In this systematic review, acupuncture treatment was significantly effective and safe compared to analgesics in sciatica. In the future, studies with a rigorous study design are required to increase the validity of the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatment for sciatica.
Topics: Humans; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Acupuncture Therapy; Analgesics; Complementary Therapies; Sciatica
PubMed: 35985442
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102872 -
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy =... Nov 2023Proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) are frequently used in the emergency and general practice settings in several clinical presentations linked to acute upper gastro-intestinal... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) are frequently used in the emergency and general practice settings in several clinical presentations linked to acute upper gastro-intestinal tract disorders as abdominal or chest pain without recommendations.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this scoping review was to assess pain reduction, diagnostic performance, and safety in the first 24 h-management in primary care or emergency medicine.
METHODS
Search was realized by 2 independent reviewers in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Only original articles or systematic reviews in English were included. Studies about chronic and/or bleeding conditions, therapeutic cocktails and studies without pain evaluation were excluded. Two methodologies were used for bias estimation.
RESULTS
From 4442 titles, 79 full-text articles were assessed, and 9 were included. There is no strong evidence supporting the use of PPI as a first line analgesic or diagnostic test in acute syndromes linked to acute upper gastro-intestinal tract disorder. A small effect in pain reduction was retrieved in patients with low pain scores. A poor additional value in patients with gastric reflux, and a low specificity compared to other diagnostic tests were observed. A short-term PPI administration appears to be safe with low risk of serious allergic reactions, and poor adverse effects (moderate evidence).
CONCLUSION
Although PPIs may contribute to the multimodal analgesia in acute settings, with few and/or minor side effects, no recommendation can be drawn for their use as a primary analgesic. Data regarding the relevance of the PPI test are much less clear, no data regarding care pathways are available.
Topics: Humans; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Acute Disease; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Pain; Analgesics
PubMed: 37742610
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115523 -
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related... May 2014Despite the overall success of total joint arthroplasty, patients undergoing this procedure remain susceptible to cognitive decline and/or delirium, collectively termed... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the overall success of total joint arthroplasty, patients undergoing this procedure remain susceptible to cognitive decline and/or delirium, collectively termed postoperative cognitive dysfunction. However, no consensus exists as to whether general or regional anesthesia results in a lower likelihood that a patient may experience this complication, and controversy surrounds the role of pain management strategies to minimize the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
We systematically reviewed the English-language literature to assess the influence of the following anesthetic and/or pain management strategies on the risk for postoperative cognitive dysfunction in patients undergoing elective joint arthroplasty: (1) general versus regional anesthesia, (2) different parenteral, neuraxial, or inhaled agents within a given type of anesthetic (general or regional), (3) multimodal anesthetic techniques, and (4) different postoperative pain management regimens.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed of the MEDLINE(®) and EMBASE™ databases to identify all studies that assessed the influence of anesthetic and/or pain management strategies on the risk for postoperative cognitive dysfunction after elective joint arthroplasty. Twenty-eight studies were included in the final review, of which 21 (75%) were randomized controlled (Level I) trials, two (7%) were prospective comparative (Level II) studies, two (7%) used a case-control (Level III) design, and three (11%) used retrospective comparative (Level III) methodology.
RESULTS
The evidence published to date suggests that general anesthesia may be associated with increased risk of early postoperative cognitive dysfunction in the early postoperative period as compared to regional anesthesia, although this effect was not seen beyond 7 days. Optimization of depth of general anesthesia with comprehensive intraoperative cerebral monitoring may be beneficial, although evidence is equivocal. Multimodal anesthesia protocols have not been definitively demonstrated to reduce the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Nonopioid postoperative pain management techniques, limiting narcotics to oral formulations and avoiding morphine, appear to reduce the risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS
Both anesthetic and pain management strategies appear to influence the risk of early cognitive dysfunction after elective joint arthroplasty, although only one study identified differences that persisted beyond 1 week after surgery. Investigators should strive to use accepted, validated tools for the assessment of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and to carefully report details of the anesthetic and analgesic techniques used in future studies.
Topics: Analgesics; Anesthesia, Conduction; Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics; Arthroplasty, Replacement; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Elective Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pain Management; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24186470
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3363-2 -
Pain Physician Oct 2022The optimal analgesia for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is still unknown. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Various Regional Analgesia Methods for Postoperative Analgesic Effects in Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The optimal analgesia for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is still unknown.
OBJECTIVES
Our aim was to conduct a network meta-analysis and systematic review to compare the efficacy of different analgesic strategies in VATS.
STUDY DESIGN
Bayesian network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, Springer, Google Scholar, and Web of Science to evaluate all relevant randomized controlled trials that investigated the analgesic effects of different regional analgesia methods for VATS published through July 2021. After a comprehensive search of electronic databases, the following methods were identified: epidural analgesia (EA), local anesthetics (LA), superficial serratus anterior plane block (SSAPB), deep serratus anterior plane block (DSAPB), erector spinae plane block (ESPB), paravertebral block (PVB), and intercostal nerve block (ICNB). Primary outcomes were the visual analog scale score at rest, at 2 hours, 6 hours and 24 hours postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were postoperative analgesic consumption, incidence of nausea and emesis, and pruritus.
RESULT
Overall, 35 trials met our inclusion criteria. EA and PVB were relatively more advantageous in terms of analgesic effect at 2 hours and 6 hours postoperatively; the EA group was superior to the DSAPB, ESPB, and ICNB groups at 24 hours postoperatively. EA was found to be superior to other analgesia techniques for 24 hour postoperative analgesic consumption., PVB showed advantages in reducing postoperative nausea, emesis, and pruritus.
LIMITATIONS
Different concentrations and volumes of local anesthetics might affect the analgesic effects of the various analgesia techniques.
CONCLUSION
EA and PVB have certain advantages in analgesia, but the incidence of postoperative pruritus after EA is higher. At the same time, considering the risk of coagulation and puncture complications, PVB may be a better choice.
Topics: Humans; Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthetics, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Analgesia, Epidural; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Analgesics; Pruritus
PubMed: 36288578
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2006Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis. Published guidelines and expert opinion are divided over the relative role of acetaminophen (also called... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis. Published guidelines and expert opinion are divided over the relative role of acetaminophen (also called paracetamol or Tylenol) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-line pharmacologic therapy. The comparative safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs is also important to consider. This update to the original 2003 review includes nine additional RCTs.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen versus placebo and versus NSAIDs (ibuprofen, diclofenac, arthrotec, celecoxib, naproxen, rofecoxib) for treating OA.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched MEDLINE (up to July 2005), EMBASE (2002-July 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ACP Journal Club, DARE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (all from 1994 to July 2005). Reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles were also hand searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen alone in OA were considered for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pain, physical function and global assessment outcomes were reported. Results for continuous outcome measures were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD). Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifteen RCTs involving 5986 participants were included in this review. Seven RCTs compared acetaminophen to placebo and ten RCTs compared acetaminophen to NSAIDs. In the placebo-controlled RCTs, acetaminophen was superior to placebo in five of the seven RCTs and had a similar safety profile. Compared to placebo, a pooled analysis of five trials of overall pain using multiple methods demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in pain (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.04), which is of questionable clinical significance. The relative percent improvement from baseline was 5% with an absolute change of 4 points on a 0 to 100 scale. The NNT to achieve an improvement in pain ranged from 4 to 16. In the comparator-controlled RCTs, acetaminophen was less effective overall than NSAIDs in terms of pain reduction, global assessments and in terms of improvements in functional status. No significant difference was found overall between the safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs, although patients taking traditional NSAIDS were more likely to experience an adverse GI event (RR 1.47, (95% CI 1.08 to 2.00). 19% of patients in the traditional NSAID group versus 13% in the acetaminophen group experienced an adverse GI event. However, the median trial duration was only 6 weeks and it is difficult to assess adverse outcomes in a relatively short time period.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence to date suggests that NSAIDs are superior to acetaminophen for improving knee and hip pain in people with OA. The size of the treatment effect was modest, and the median trial duration was only six weeks, therefore, additional considerations need to be factored in when making the decision between using acetaminophen or NSAIDs. In OA subjects with moderate-to-severe levels of pain, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than acetaminophen.
Topics: Acetaminophen; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 16437479
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004257.pub2 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2023Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a complex condition that is mainly treated with analgesic drugs. However, antidepressant intervention is also an important factor... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is a complex condition that is mainly treated with analgesic drugs. However, antidepressant intervention is also an important factor in the treatment of CMP. Duloxetine is an effective treatment option for patients with CMP as its antidepressant effect. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in treating CMP.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library from inception to May, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of duloxetine versus placebo in patients with CMP were included. We identified 13 articles and studied a population of 4201 participants in 4 countries.
RESULTS
This meta-analysis showed that the duloxetine has statistically significant compared with the placebo control, benefits on 24-hour average pain, living quality, physical function, and global impressions and there was no difference in the incidence of serious adverse event. In general, duloxetine can improve mood and pain level at the same time.
CONCLUSIONS
This review shows a significant contribution of duloxetine to CMP symptom relief. This meta-analysis improved that duloxetine can significantly reduce the pain level of patients, improve depressive symptoms and global impression, and has no obvious serious adverse reactions. However, additional studies are required to confirm the relationship between psychological diseases and chronic pain and explore their internal links.
Topics: Humans; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Musculoskeletal Pain; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Antidepressive Agents
PubMed: 37198620
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06488-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Administration, Sublingual; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Child; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25826743
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009596.pub4 -
Anesthesiology May 2024Liposomal bupivacaine is reported to prolong the duration of analgesia when used for abdominal fascial plane blocks compared to plain local anesthetics; however,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Analgesic Effectiveness of Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Plain Local Anesthetics for Abdominal Fascial Plane Blocks: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.
BACKGROUND
Liposomal bupivacaine is reported to prolong the duration of analgesia when used for abdominal fascial plane blocks compared to plain local anesthetics; however, evidence from randomized trials is mixed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the analgesic effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine to plain local anesthetics in adults receiving abdominal fascial plane blocks.
METHODS
Randomized trials comparing liposomal bupivacaine and plain (nonliposomal) local anesthetics in abdominal fascial plane blocks were sought. The primary outcome was area under the curve rest pain between 24 to 72 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at individual timepoints (1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h); analgesic consumption at 0 to 24, 25 to 48, and 49 to 72 h; time to analgesic request; hospital stay duration; and opioid-related side effects. Data were pooled using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects method.
RESULTS
Sixteen trials encompassing 1,287 patients (liposomal bupivacaine, 667; plain local anesthetics, 620) were included. The liposomal bupivacaine group received liposomal bupivacaine mixed with plain bupivacaine in 10 studies, liposomal bupivacaine alone in 5 studies, and both preparations in 1 three-armed study. No difference was observed between the two groups for area under the curve pain scores, with a standardized mean difference (95% CI) of -0.21 cm.h (-0.43 to 0.01; P = 0.058; I2 = 48%). Results were robust to subgroup analysis based on (1) potential conflict of interest and (2) mixing of plain local anesthetics with liposomal bupivacaine. The two groups were not different for any of the day 2 or day 3 secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests similar analgesic effectiveness between liposomal bupivacaine and plain local anesthetics when used for fascial plane block of the abdominal wall. The authors' analysis does not support an evidence-based preference for liposomal bupivacaine compared to plain local anesthetics for abdominal fascial plane blocks.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics; Bupivacaine; Pain
PubMed: 38592360
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004932 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2008Up to 80% of people with cancer experience pain at some time during their illness, and most will need opioid analgesics. This review assesses how different opioid... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to 80% of people with cancer experience pain at some time during their illness, and most will need opioid analgesics. This review assesses how different opioid analgesics compare, in terms of both pain control and adverse effects, in people with cancer.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: what are the effects of opioids in treating cancer-related pain? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to July 2007 (BMJ Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 22 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: codeine, dihydrocodeine, transdermal fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Codeine; Fentanyl; Humans; Methadone; Neoplasms; Oxycodone; Pain
PubMed: 19445735
DOI: No ID Found -
Anaesthesia Oct 2022The quadratus lumborum block (QLB) is reported to reduce pain and improve function following total hip arthroplasty; however, randomised controlled trials evaluating the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The quadratus lumborum block (QLB) is reported to reduce pain and improve function following total hip arthroplasty; however, randomised controlled trials evaluating the benefits of adding this block to general or spinal anaesthesia in this population are conflicting. We performed a systematic review seeking randomised controlled trials investigating QLB benefits for total hip arthroplasty, stratifying comparisons regarding the addition of QLB to either general or spinal anaesthesia. The primary outcome was 24-h area under the curve (AUC) pain score. Pain scores were interpreted in the context of a population-specific minimal clinically important difference of 1.86 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, or an AUC pain score of 5.58 cm.h. Secondary outcomes included analgesic consumption, functional recovery and opioid-related side-effects. In all, 18 trials (1318 patients) were included. Adding QLB to general or spinal anaesthesia improved 24-h AUC rest pain scores by a mean difference (95%CI) of -3.56 cm.h (-6.70 to -0.42; p = 0.034) and - 4.19 cm.h (-7.20 to -1.18; p = 0.014), respectively. These improvements failed to reach the pre-determined minimal clinically important difference, as did the reduction in analgesic consumption. Quadratus lumborum block improved functional recovery for general, but not spinal, anaesthesia. Opioid-related side-effects were reduced with QLB regardless of anaesthetic modality. Low-to-moderate quality evidence suggests that the extent to which adding QLB to either general or spinal anaesthesia reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption after total hip arthroplasty is statistically significant but may be clinically unimportant for most patients. However, adding QLB to general anaesthesia might enhance functional recovery. Taken together, our findings do not support the routine use of QLB as part of multimodal analgesic regimens for total hip arthroplasty.
Topics: Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 35947882
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15823