-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36269595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012157.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017This is an update of the review published in Issue 4, 2003. Bone metastasis cause severe pain as well as pathological fractures, hypercalcaemia and spinal cord... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the review published in Issue 4, 2003. Bone metastasis cause severe pain as well as pathological fractures, hypercalcaemia and spinal cord compression. Treatment strategies currently available to relieve pain from bone metastases include analgesia, radiotherapy, surgery, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, radioisotopes and bisphosphonates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of radioisotopes in patients with bone metastases to improve metastatic pain, decrease number of complications due to bone metastases and improve patient survival.
SEARCH METHODS
We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the PaPaS Trials Register up to October 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies selected had metastatic bone pain as a major outcome after treatment with a radioisotope, compared with placebo or another radioisotope.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed the risk of bias of included studies by their sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of study participants, researchers and outcome assessors, and incomplete outcome data. Two review authors extracted data. We performed statistical analysis as an "available case" analysis, and calculated global estimates of effect using a random-effects model. We also performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) sensitivity analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes 15 studies (1146 analyzed participants): four (325 participants) already included and 11 new (821 participants). Only three studies had a low risk of bias. We observed a small benefit of radioisotopes for complete relief (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.35; Number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5) and complete/partial relief (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.63; NNT = 4) in the short and medium term (eight studies, 499 participants). There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that radioisotopes modify the use of analgesia with respect to placebo. Leucocytopenia and thrombocytopenia are secondary effects significantly associated with the administration of radioisotopes (RR 5.03; 95% CI 1.35 to 18.70; Number needed to treat to harm (NNH) = 13). Pain flares were not higher in the radioisotopes group (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.06). There are scarce data of moderate quality when comparing Strontium-89 (Sr) with Samarium-153 (Sm), Rhenium-186 (Re) and Phosphorus-32 (P). We observed no significant differences between treatments. Similarly, we observed no differences when we compared different doses of Sm (0.5 versus 1.0 mCi).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update adds new evidence on efficacy of radioisotopes versus placebo, Sr compared with other radioisotopes, and dose-comparisons of Sm and Re. There is some evidence indicating that radioisotopes may provide complete reduction in pain over one to six months with no increase in analgesic use, but severe adverse effects (leucocytopenia and thrombocytopenia) are frequent.
Topics: Bone Neoplasms; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Hypercalcemia; Pain; Pain Measurement; Phosphorus Radioisotopes; Radioisotopes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ruthenium Radioisotopes; Samarium; Spinal Cord Compression; Strontium Radioisotopes
PubMed: 28334435
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003347.pub3 -
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 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong... 2023Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with clinical efficacy in chronic pain conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate the... (Review)
Review
Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) with clinical efficacy in chronic pain conditions. In this study, we aim to evaluate the analgesic effect and safety of duloxetine in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic search was completed on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase from inception to December 2022 to find relevant articles. We used Cochrane methodology to evaluate the bias of included studies. Investigated outcomes included postoperative pain, opioid consumption, adverse events (AEs), range of motion (ROM), emotional and physical function, patient satisfaction, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), knee-specific outcomes, wound complications, skin temperature, inflammatory markers, length of stay, and incidence of manipulations. Nine articles involving 942 participants were included in our systematic review. Out of nine papers, eight were randomized clinical trials and one was a retrospective study. The results of these studies indicated the analgesic effect of duloxetine on postoperative pain, which was measured using numeric rating scale and visual analogue scale. Deluxetine was also effective in reducing the morphine requirement and wound complications and enhancing patient satisfaction after surgery. However, the results on ROM, PCA, and knee-specific outcomes were contraventional. Deluxetine was generally safe without serious AEs. The most common AEs included headache, nausea, vomiting, dry mouth, and constipation. Duloxetine may be an effective treatment option for postoperative pain following TKA, but further rigorously designed and well-controlled randomized trials are required.
Topics: Humans; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Retrospective Studies; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesics, Opioid; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37279647
DOI: 10.1177/10225536231177482 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra-abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to update and expand a previously published Cochrane Review on IVPCA versus CEA for pain after intra-abdominal surgery with the addition of the comparator PCEA. We have compared both forms of EA to IVPCA. Where appropriate we have performed subgroup analysis for CEA versus PCEA.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017; Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to September 2017), and Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to September 2017) using a combination of MeSH and text words. We searched the following trial registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register in September 2017, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.We included only randomized controlled trials and used no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEA or PCEA (or both) with IVPCA for postoperative pain relief in adults following intra-abdominal surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JS and EY) independently identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction using a data extraction form. In cases of disagreement (three occasions) a third review author (MB) was consulted. We appraised each included study to assess the risk of bias as outlined in Section 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies (1716 participants) in our review. There are 10 studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study. A total of 869 participants (51%) received EA and 847 (49%) received IVPCA. The EA trials included 16 trials with CEA (418 participants) and 16 trials with PCEA (451 participants). The studies included a broad range of surgical procedures (including hysterectomies, radical prostatectomies, Caesarean sections, colorectal and upper gastrointestinal procedures), a wide range of adult ages, and were performed in several different countries.Our pooled analyses suggested a benefit with regard to pain scores (using a visual analogue scale between 0 and 100) in favour of EA techniques at rest. The mean pain reduction at rest from waking to six hours after operation was 5.7 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 9.5; 7 trials, 384 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From seven to 24 hours, the mean pain reduction was 9.0 points (95% CI 4.6 to 13.4; 11 trials, 558 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From 24 hours the mean pain reduction was 5.1 points (95% CI 0.9 to 9.4; 7 trials, 393 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to high statistical heterogeneity, no pooled analysis was possible for the estimation of pain on movement at any time. Two single studies (one using CEA and one PCEA) reported lower pain scores with EA compared to IVPCA at 0 to 6 hours and 7 to 24 hours. At > 24 hours the results from 2 studies (both CEA) were conflicting.We found no difference in mortality between EA and IVPCA, although the only deaths reported were in the EA group (5/287, 1.7%). The risk ratio (RR) of death with EA compared to using IVPCA was 3.37 (95% CI 0.72 to 15.88; 9 trials, 560 participants; low-quality evidence).A single study suggested that the use of EA may result in fewer episodes of respiratory depression, with an RR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.69; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The successful placement of an epidural catheter can be technically challenging. The improvements in pain scores above were accompanied by an increase in the risk of failure of the analgesic technique with EA (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.45; 10 trials, 678 participants; moderate-quality evidence); the occurrence of pruritus (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.35; 8 trials, 492 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and episodes of hypotension requiring intervention (RR 7.13, 95% CI 2.87 to 17.75; 6 trials, 479 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an advantage of one technique over another for other adverse effects considered in this review (Venous thromboembolism with EA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.95; 2 trials, 101 participants; low-quality evidence); nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 10 trials, 645 participants; moderate-quality evidence); sedation requiring intervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; 4 trials, 223 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or episodes of desaturation to less than 90% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.37; 5 trials, 328 participants; moderate-quality evidence)).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The additional pain reduction at rest associated with the use of EA rather than IVPCA is modest and unlikely to be clinically important. Single-trial estimates provide low-quality evidence that there may be an additional reduction in pain on movement, which is clinically important. Any improvement needs to be interpreted with the understanding that the use of EA is also associated with an increased chance of failure to successfully institute analgesia, and an increased likelihood of episodes of hypotension requiring intervention and pruritus. We have rated the evidence as of moderate quality given study limitations in most of the contributing studies. Further large RCTs are required to determine the ideal analgesic technique. The 10 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30161292
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010434.pub2 -
Medicine Jan 2020Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) has been suggested as an effective method of pain relief. There are several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with tramadol for patient-controlled intravenous analgesia in Chinese surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) has been suggested as an effective method of pain relief. There are several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dexmedetomidine (DEX) combined with tramadol for PCIA in Chinese surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX combined with tramadol for PCIA in Chinese surgical patients from current data.
METHODS
The RCTs of DEX combined with tramadol for PCIA were gathered from the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and VIP databases. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included RCTs, RevMan 5.3 software was employed for the meta-analysis of visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Ramsay sedation scores, effective pressure times for PCIA, tramadol consumption, and safety.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs were included. Compared with tramadol alone, postoperative intravenous tramadol-DEX combination PCA led to lower VAS scores (weighted mean differences [WMD]12h = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] v1.50 to 1.79; WMD24h = 0.78, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.62; WMD48h = 0.51, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.38; all P < .05), lower Ramsay sedation scores (WMD24h = 0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; WMD48h = 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.07; all P < .05), and less postoperative tramadol consumption (WMD0-24h = -102.59 mg, 95% CI -149.68 to -55.49; WMD0-48h = -152.91 mg, 95% CI -259.93 to -45.89; all P < .05). With regard to safety, there was a significant difference between DEX-tramadol and tramadol for PCIA in terms of the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness, chills, and restlessness (all P < .05).
CONCLUSION
According to the domestic evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that DEX-tramadol PCIA is superior to tramadol in terms of analgesic efficacy and safety for Chinese surgical patients. However, because of some clear limitations (sample size and heterogeneity), these results should be interpreted with caution. Further large-scale and well-designed studies are needed to summarize and analyze the data to draw a more convincing conclusion.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; China; Dexmedetomidine; Drug Combinations; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Tramadol
PubMed: 32011494
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018825 -
Arab Journal of Urology 2021: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess whether music reduces the use of analgesics and anxiolytics during flexible cystoscopy. : The systematic... (Review)
Review
: To conduct a systematic review of the literature to assess whether music reduces the use of analgesics and anxiolytics during flexible cystoscopy. : The systematic review was performed in line with the Cochrane guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The databases searched included the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Clinicaltrials.gov, the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane library, Google Scholar, and Web of Science from inception of the databases to February 2020. The primary outcome measure was the effect of music on pain and anxiety, and secondary outcome measures were patient heart rate and blood pressure. : The initial search yielded 234 articles and after going through titles and abstracts, four studies (399 patients, 199 in the music group and 200 in no music group) were included for the final review. There were three randomised controlled trials and one prospective study published between 2014 and 2017. These studies were done in China, the USA and Italy, with the study duration between 9 and 24 months. All patients had 2% topical lignocaine jelly given per-urethra before the procedure. The choice of music was classical in three studies and a mixture of different music types in one study. Three of the four studies showed significantly reduced pain and anxiety with the use of music for flexible cystoscopy procedures. Heart rate was noted to be higher for the no music group, reflecting a higher pain perceived by these patients. : The present review showed that listening to music was associated with reduced anxiety and pain during flexible cystoscopy. Listening to music is therefore likely to increase procedural satisfaction and willingness to undergo the procedure again, considering repeated flexible cystoscopy is often needed for surveillance. As music is simple, inexpensive and easily accessible, it should be routinely offered to patients for outpatient and office-based urological procedures. : IQR: interquartile range; NRS: numerical rating scale; PTSD: post-traumatic stress disorder; RCT: randomised control trial; STAI: State-trait Anxiety Inventory; VAS: visual analogue scale.
PubMed: 34881066
DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2021.1894814 -
Cureus Nov 2023Opioid-related fatalities are a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain in children and adolescents. The... (Review)
Review
Opioid-related fatalities are a leading cause of accidental death in the United States. Appendicitis is a common cause of abdominal pain in children and adolescents. The management of pain throughout the laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in the pediatric population is a critical concern. This study aimed to evaluate trends in analgesic use and patient satisfaction following LA, with a focus on reducing the reliance on opioids for pain management. From 2003 to 2023, 18258 articles were filtered for all types of analgesic use with LA. The publications were screened using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and 19 studies were included for analysis and review. The study included peer-reviewed experimental and observational studies involving individuals under 18 years. Pain management strategies varied across studies, involving a combination of analgesics, nerve blocks, and wound infiltrations. Analgesics such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids were administered before and after surgery. Some studies implemented patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps. Other studies explored non-pharmacological interventions like magnetic acupuncture. The results showed a reduction in the need for postoperative analgesics in patients treated with LA, particularly when using non-opioid medications and novel analgesic techniques. Pediatric patients who received gabapentin reported lower opioid use, shorter hospital stays, and high satisfaction rates. However, the reliance on opioids remained significant in some cases, particularly among patients with peritonitis who required more morphine. Pain management in pediatric patients is multifaceted, involving preoperative and postoperative analgesics, nerve blocks, and PCA pumps. Efforts to improve pain management following pediatric LA while reducing opioid reliance are essential in the context of the ongoing opioid epidemic. The findings from this study highlight the potential benefits of non-opioid analgesics, nerve blocks, and alternative methods for managing postoperative pain in <18 appendectomy patients. Further research and standardization of pain management protocols are needed to ensure optimal patient outcomes and minimize the risk of opioid-related complications.
PubMed: 38156159
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49581 -
OTO Open 2023To determine whether intracapsular tonsillectomy, using plasma ablation, results in differences in postoperative patient outcomes to total tonsillectomy. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether intracapsular tonsillectomy, using plasma ablation, results in differences in postoperative patient outcomes to total tonsillectomy.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic review of two databases (Embase and PubMed) was conducted in March 2022 to identify published English-language randomized controlled trials and observational studies which provided a comparison between intracapsular tonsillectomy, using plasma ablation, and total tonsillectomy.
REVIEW METHODS
Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were used to compare outcomes between techniques.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies were identified for inclusion. Across these, 1996 and 4565 patients underwent intracapsular and total tonsillectomy, respectively. Studies included 8 randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective cohort study, and 8 retrospective cohort studies. Time to pain free, time on analgesia, time to normal diet, and time to normal activity were significantly shorter with intracapsular tonsillectomy by on average 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-5.9; < .0001), 4.1 (95% CI 2.7-5.4; < .0001), 3.5 (95% CI 1.7-5.4; = .0002) and 2.8 (95% CI 1.6-4; < .0001) days, respectively. Risk of posttonsillectomy hemorrhage was significantly lower following intracapsular tonsillectomy (relative risk [RR] 0.36; 95% CI 0.16-0.81; = .0131); risk of posttonsillectomy hemorrhage requiring surgical management was lower but failed to reach significance (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.19-1.39; = .19).
CONCLUSION
Intracapsular tonsillectomy using plasma ablation has similar efficacy in managing indications for tonsil surgery to total tonsillectomy while significantly reducing the postoperative morbidity and likelihood of posttonsillectomy hemorrhage experienced by patients, allowing them to return to their normal life faster.
PubMed: 36998549
DOI: 10.1002/oto2.22 -
BMC Anesthesiology May 2019Previous studies have demonstrated that dexmedetomidine improves the quality of postoperative analgesia. In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Dexmedetomidine and sufentanil combination versus sufentanil alone for postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have demonstrated that dexmedetomidine improves the quality of postoperative analgesia. In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to quantify the effect of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to sufentanil for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials in which dexmedetomidine was used as an adjuvant for PCA with sufentanil. In the retrieved studies, we quantitatively analyzed pain intensity, sufentanil consumption, and drug-related side effects.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 907 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with sufentanil alone, dexmedetomidine-sufentanil for postoperative intravenous PCA reduced pain intensity at 24 h (mean difference (MD) = - 0.70points; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 1.01, - 0.39; P < 0.00001) and 48 h postoperatively (MD = -0.61points; 95% CI: - 1.00, - 0.22; P = 0.002). Moreover, dexmedetomidine-sufentanil reduced sufentanil consumption during the first 24 h (MD = -13.77 μg; 95% CI: - 18.56, - 8.97; P < 0.00001) and 48 h postoperatively (MD = -20.81 μg; 95% CI: - 28.20, - 13.42; P < 0.00001). Finally, dexmedetomidine-sufentanil improved patient satisfaction without increasing the incidence of side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to sufentanil for postoperative PCA can reduce postoperative pain score and sufentanil consumption.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Dexmedetomidine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infusions, Intravenous; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sufentanil
PubMed: 31103031
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-019-0756-0