-
Pain Physician Mar 2016The prevalence of chronic low back pain and related disability is rapidly increasing as are the myriad treatments, including epidural injections. Even though epidural... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of chronic low back pain and related disability is rapidly increasing as are the myriad treatments, including epidural injections. Even though epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed procedures in managing low back and lower extremity pain, starting in 1901 with local anesthetic alone, conflicting recommendations have been provided, despite the extensive literature. Recently Chou et al performed a technology assessment review for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) part of which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine showing lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar radiculopathy and spinal stenosis. In contrast, multiple other publications have supported the efficacy and use of epidural injections.
PURPOSE
To assess the efficacy of 3 categories of epidural injections for lumbar and spinal stenosis: performed with saline with steroids, local anesthetic alone, or steroids with local anesthetic and separate facts from opinions.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, prior systematic reviews, and reference lists. The literature search was performed through August 2015.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized trials, either placebo or active control, of epidural injections for lumbar radiculopathy and spinal stenosis.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Thirty-nine randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria. There were 9 placebo-controlled trials evaluating epidural corticosteroid injections, either with sodium chloride solution or bupivacaine, compared to placebo injections. There were 12 studies comparing local anesthetic alone to local anesthetic with steroid.
RESULTS
A meta-analysis of 5 studies utilizing sodium chloride or bupivacaine with steroid showed a lack of efficacy.A comparison of lidocaine to lidocaine with steroids in 7 studies showed significant effectiveness from baseline to long-term follow-up periods. Meta-analysis showed a similar effectiveness for pain and function without non-inferiority of lidocaine compared to lidocaine with steroid at 3 months and 12 months.
LIMITATIONS
The review was restricted to the data available with at least 3 months of follow-up, which excluded some studies. The inclusion criteria were restricted to English language studies.
CONCLUSION
Epidural corticosteroid injections for radiculopathy or spinal stenosis with sodium chloride solution or bupivacaine were shown to be ineffective. Lidocaine alone or lidocaine in conjunction with steroids were significantly effective.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Pain Management; Radiculopathy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Stenosis; Steroids
PubMed: 27008296
DOI: No ID Found -
Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2017To compare the effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) and fentanyl as adjuvants to local anesthetics in spinal anesthesia. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
To compare the effects of dexmedetomidine (Dex) and fentanyl as adjuvants to local anesthetics in spinal anesthesia.
METHODS
Two researchers independently searched the PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and CBM for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of Dex and fentanyl as adjuvants to local anesthetics for intrathecal injection.
RESULTS
A total of 639 patients from nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed that Dex resulted in statistically significant longer duration of stable sensory block (mean difference [MD] =27.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] [9.89, 44.34], <0.01, =97%), sensory block (standardized mean difference [SMD] =3.81; 95% CI [2.35, 5.27], <0.01, =97%), motor block (SMD =3.64; 95% CI [2.19, 5.08], <0.01, =97%), and pain free period (SMD =2.98; 95% CI [1.69, 4.27], <0.01, =96%); reducing the incidence of pruritus (relative risk [RR] =0.15; 95% CI [0.06, 0.39], <0.01, =0%) compared with fentanyl. However, the onset of sensory and motor block, the time to peak sensory level, and the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia, and the side effects (nausea, vomiting, shivering and respiratory depression) were not significantly different between Dex and fentanyl.
CONCLUSION
Compared to fentanyl, Dex as local anesthetics adjuvant in spinal anesthesia prolonged the duration of spinal anesthesia, improved postoperative analgesia, reduced the incidence of pruritus, and did not increase the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Adolescent; Adult; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics, Local; Dexmedetomidine; Fentanyl; Humans; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 29238167
DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S146092 -
Journal (Canadian Dental Association) 2014Paresthesia is a neurosensitivity disorder caused by injury to the neural tissue. It is characterized by a burning or twinging sensation or by partial loss of local... (Review)
Review
Paresthesia is a neurosensitivity disorder caused by injury to the neural tissue. It is characterized by a burning or twinging sensation or by partial loss of local sensitivity. Paresthesia related to endodontic treatment can occur because of extravasation of filling material or the intracanal dressing, as a consequence of periapical surgery or because of periapical infection. A literature review of paresthesia in endodontics was undertaken, with a view to identifying and discussing the most commonly affected nerves, the diagnostic process and the treatment options. Among reported cases, the most commonly affected nerves were those passing through the jaw: the inferior alveolar nerve, the mental nerve and the lingual nerve. To diagnose paresthesia, the endodontist must carry out a complete medical history, panoramic and periapical radiography, and (in some cases) computed tomography, as well as mechanoceptive and nociceptive tests. To date, no specific treatment for endodontic-related paresthesia has been described in the literature, since the problem may be related to a variety of causes.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Face; Humans; Paresthesia; Periapical Diseases; Root Canal Filling Materials; Root Canal Preparation; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 24598329
DOI: No ID Found -
Palliative Medicine Dec 2017Rectal tenesmus is a distressing symptom in patients with advanced cancer and challenging to treat. There is lack of consensus on the appropriate management of tenesmus... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Rectal tenesmus is a distressing symptom in patients with advanced cancer and challenging to treat. There is lack of consensus on the appropriate management of tenesmus in this patient population.
AIM
To identify and examine the effectiveness of interventions to palliate rectal tenesmus caused by advanced cancer when surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy are no longer treatment options.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature following standard systematic review methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was conducted from date of inception to April 2016. PubMed 'related articles' search, grey literature search and hand-searches of the bibliographies of relevant papers and textbooks were also performed. Non-cancer patients were excluded. Any studies involving surgery or radiotherapy to treat tenesmus were excluded. Studies involving interventions to treat pelvic pain syndromes without specific outcome measures on severity of tenesmus were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence-recommended quality assessment tool.
RESULTS
From 861 studies, 9 met full criteria and were selected. All were case series investigating the use of pharmacological interventions (diltiazem, nifedipine, methadone, mexiletine hydrochloride, lidocaine and bupivacaine), anaesthetic interventions (lumbar sympathectomy, neurolytic superior hypogastric plexus block), and endoscopic laser interventions. The included studies showed substantial heterogeneity, and therefore, a meta-analysis was not feasible.
CONCLUSION
From this review, we identified a significant gap in research into the palliation of rectal tenesmus. A multimodal approach may be necessary due to the complexity of the pathophysiology of tenesmus. Future research should focus on randomised controlled trials of drug therapies whose potential effectiveness is suggested by case series.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthetics; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Laser Therapy; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Rectal Diseases
PubMed: 28590211
DOI: 10.1177/0269216317697897 -
BioMed Research International 2022To compare the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections of local anesthetic with vs. without a steroid. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To compare the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections of local anesthetic with vs. without a steroid.
METHODS
Three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library) were used to search and assess all clinical randomized controlled trials regarding the clinical efficacy of epidural injections from January 01, 2009, to October 31, 2020. Cochrane review criteria and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment instrument were used to evaluate the methodologic quality of the included studies. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed according to best evidence synthesis principles and by single-arm meta-analysis, respectively.
RESULTS
Based on the search criteria, 4 RCTs were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed in the single-arm meta-analysis. Treatment with lidocaine alone or with the steroid resulted in decreases of 4.46 and 4.29 points, respectively, in pain scores and of 15.8 and 14.46 points, respectively, in functional scores at 6 months. Similar trends were observed at the 1-year follow-up: pain scores decreased by 4.27 and 4.14 points, while functional scores decreased by 15.94 and 14.44 points in patients with neck pain who received lidocaine without or with the steroid, respectively. In the 3 studies that reported 2-year follow-up data, patients with neck pain treated with lidocaine or lidocaine + steroid showed 4.2- and 4.14-point decreases, in pain score and 15.92- and 14.89-point decreases, respectively, in functional scores.
CONCLUSIONS
The studies showed level I (strong) evidence for short- and long-term improvements in pain relief and functionality with cervical epidural injections of local anesthetic alone or with a steroid in the management of neck pain.
Topics: Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Injections, Epidural; Lidocaine; Neck Pain; Reproducibility of Results; Steroids; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35663039
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8952220 -
Journal of Anesthesia Apr 2021This review compares the effects of peripheral dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia. We included six randomized controlled trials (354 patients)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparison of postoperative analgesic effects in response to either dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine as local anesthetic adjuvants: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
This review compares the effects of peripheral dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine on postoperative analgesia. We included six randomized controlled trials (354 patients) through a systematic literature search. We found that analgesia duration was comparable between dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine (58.59 min, 95% CI (confidence interval), - 66.13, 183.31 min) with extreme heterogeneity. Secondary outcome was also compared and no significant difference was observed in sensory block onset and duration and motor block duration and also for postoperative nausea and vomiting. It is noteworthy that dexamethasone reduced analgesic consumption (fentanyl) by 29.12 mcg compared with dexmedetomidine. We performed subgroup analyses and found no significant difference between the following: (1) lidocaine vs ropivacaine (P = 0.28), (2) nerve block vs nerve block + general anesthesia (P = 0.47), and (3) upper limb surgery vs thoracoscopic pneumonectomy (P = 0.27). We applied trial sequential analysis to assess the risks of type I and II errors and concluded that the meta-analysis was insufficiently powered to answer the clinical question, and further analysis is needed to establish which adjuvant is better. In conclusion, we believe that existing research indicates that dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine have equivalent analgesic effects in peripheral nerve blocks.
Topics: Adjuvants, Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Local; Dexamethasone; Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33515302
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-021-02895-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2015Sore throat is a common side-effect of general anaesthesia and is reported by between 30% and 70% of patients after tracheal intubation. The likelihood of a sore throat... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Sore throat is a common side-effect of general anaesthesia and is reported by between 30% and 70% of patients after tracheal intubation. The likelihood of a sore throat varies with the type, diameter, and cuff pressure of the endotracheal tube used. If intubation is essential, it may be helpful to give drugs prophylactically to alleviate postoperative sore throat. Local anaesthetics and steroids have been used for this purpose. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and any harm caused by topical and systemic lidocaine used prophylactically to prevent postoperative sore throat in adults undergoing general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2013), and EMBASE (1980 to October 2013). We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. The original search was undertaken in June 2007. We reran the search in February 2015 and found four studies of interest. We will deal with those studies when we next update the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical and systemic prophylactic lidocaine therapy versus control (using air or saline) that reported on the risk and severity of postoperative sore throat as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information, such as the risk of any adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies involving 1940 participants in this updated review. Of those 1940 participants, 952 received topical or systemic lidocaine therapy and 795 were allocated to the control groups. Topical and systemic lidocaine therapy appeared to reduce the risk of postoperative sore throat (16 studies, 1774 participants, risk ratio (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85), the quality of the evidence was low), although when only high-quality trials were included (eight studies, 814 participants) the effect was no longer significant (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.09). Lidocaine given systemically in two studies (320 participants) did not reveal evidence of an effect (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.05 ). The severity of sore throat as measured on a visual-analogue scale (VAS) was reduced by lidocaine therapy (six trials, 611 participants, (mean difference (MD) -10.80, 95% CI -14.63 to -6.98). The adverse effects of lidocaine were not reported in these studies, though toxicity is generally rare.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In our revised systematic review, although the results of included studies show generally positive results, they should be interpreted carefully. The effect size of lidocaine appeared to be affected by study quality; drug concentration; route of administration; management of cuff pressure during anaesthesia; the included population; and the type of outcome measured.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal; Lidocaine; Pharyngitis; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26171894
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004081.pub3 -
Handchirurgie, Mikrochirurgie,... Aug 2021Liposuctions are among the most frequently performed operations in plastic surgery worldwide. They are offered as inpatient as well as outpatient procedures. In the...
BACKGROUND
Liposuctions are among the most frequently performed operations in plastic surgery worldwide. They are offered as inpatient as well as outpatient procedures. In the outpatient setting, tumescent anaesthesia is used in various forms. There is ambiguity about the amount of lipoaspirate that can be removed safely in an outpatient setting, and also about the monitoring of parameters and the duration of postoperative care.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted with the help of the MEDLINE data base of the U. S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) and the bibliographic search engine Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com) of Google LLC. The key words "Liposuction Anesthesia" and "Liposuction Guidelines" were used. All items resulting from the search were checked for thematic concordance and further analysed by their level of evidence, significance and availability.
RESULTS
After the literature review, a total of 197 items were identified for further analysis. The analysis of the international and German literature yielded a systematic overview of recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
Tumescence anaesthesia in an outpatient setting has various advantages, e. g. cost reduction for provider and patient as well as avoidance of the risk profile of general anaesthesia. Also patients can change their position autonomously, which can be beneficial for surgery. However, there are limitations in terms of the lipoaspirate volume that can be removed safely. With increasing lipoaspirate volumes, more local anaesthetic is needed, which also increases the postoperative monitoring time. In the authors view, tumescent anaesthesia should only be used for small-volume and localised liposuctions. Liposuction in general anaesthesia offers more advantages, especially with increasing lipoaspirate volumes.
Topics: Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Local; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Lipectomy; United States
PubMed: 33525036
DOI: 10.1055/a-1333-2696 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Aug 2022Several studies have suggested that the addition of iPACK block (the popliteal artery and the posterior knee capsule have been given interspace local anesthetic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
iPACK block (local anesthetic infiltration of the interspace between the popliteal artery and the posterior knee capsule) added to the adductor canal blocks versus the adductor canal blocks in the pain management after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Several studies have suggested that the addition of iPACK block (the popliteal artery and the posterior knee capsule have been given interspace local anesthetic infiltration) might get better analgesia than adductor canal block (ACB) only after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This paper compiles all available evidence on the effect of two analgesia regimens (ACB and iPACK + ACB) involving all sides.
METHODS
We searched in eight major databases for all clinical trials discussing the effect of two analgesia regimens after TKA. Statistical analyses were conducted by Stata and RevMan Software. In addition, we performed GOSH analysis, subgroup analysis, meta-regression analysis to study the source of heterogeneity. Publication bias was checked using Egger's test. Trim-and-fill analysis was applied in terms of sensitivity analysis of the results.
RESULTS
There are fourteen eligible studies for our meta-analysis. There are significant differences between the two groups in VAS score at rest and with activity, and the VAS scores were lower in the ACB + iPACK Group (VAS scores at rest: 95%CI [- 0.96, - 0.53], P < 0.00001. VAS scores with activity: 95%CI [- 0.79, - 0.43], P < 0.00001). A differential was discovered to support the ACB + iPACK Group when comparing the two groups on postoperative cumulative morphine consumption (95%CI: [- 0.52, - 0.14], P: 0.0007). The patients in the group of ACB + iPACK performed better in the postoperative range of knee movement (95%CI: [5.18, 10.21], P < 0.00001) and walking distance (95%CI: [0.15, 0.41], P < 0.00001). There were significant differences between the patients in the ACB + iPACK Group and ACB Group on the TUG test of POD1 and POD2. We found that patients' hospital stays in the ACB + iPACK Group were significantly shorter than in the ACB Group (95%CI: [- 0.78, - 0.16], P: 0.003). No difference was found between the patients in the ACB + iPACK Group and ACB Group on postoperative quadriceps muscle strength and the incidence of PONV.
CONCLUSION
The addition of iPACK lowers postoperative VAS scores, cumulative morphine consumption, and hospital stays. Meanwhile, the addition of iPACK improves postoperative patients' activity performance without extra side effects. iPACK combined with ACB proves to be a suitable pain management technique after TKA.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Morphine; Nerve Block; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Popliteal Artery
PubMed: 35962410
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-022-03272-5 -
JAMA Network Open Nov 2020Many patients are admitted to the intensive care unit following surgery, and some of them will experience incomplete recovery. For patients in this situation,...
IMPORTANCE
Many patients are admitted to the intensive care unit following surgery, and some of them will experience incomplete recovery. For patients in this situation, preoperative discussions regarding patient values and preferences may direct care decisions. Existing literature shows that it is uncommon for surgeons to have these conversations preoperatively; it is unclear whether anesthesia professionals engage with patients on this topic prior to surgery.
OBJECTIVE
To review the literature on communication between patients and anesthesia professionals, with a focus on discussions related to postoperative critical care.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched using specific search criteria from January 1980 to April 2020. Studies describing encounters between patients and anesthesia professionals were selected, and data regarding study objectives, study design, methodology, measures, outcomes, patient characteristics, and clinical setting were extracted and collated. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.
FINDINGS
A total of 12 studies including 1284 individual patient encounters were eligible for inclusion in the review. These studies demonstrated that communication between patients and anesthesia professionals related to postoperative care is rare: only 2 studies reported communication regarding adverse postoperative events, and this communication behavior was reported in only 46 of 1284 consultations (3.6%) across all studies. Additional findings were that communication during these encounters is dominated by anesthetic planning and perioperative logistics, with variable discussion of perioperative risks vs benefits and infrequent elicitation of patient values and preferences. Some data suggest that patients wish to be involved in perioperative decision-making but are often limited by an incomplete understanding of risks and benefits.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review found that communication in anesthesia is dominated by anesthetic planning and discussion of preoperative logistics, whereas postoperative critical care is rarely discussed. Most patients who are admitted to an intensive care unit after a major operation will not have had a discussion regarding goals of care specific to protracted recovery or prolonged intensive care with their anesthesiologist.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Critical Care; Decision Making; Humans; Patient Preference; Physician-Patient Relations; Postoperative Care
PubMed: 33180130
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.23503