-
Pain Physician May 2019Postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain condition often characterized by allodynia and hyperalgesia, is a deleterious consequence experienced by patients after an...
BACKGROUND
Postherpetic neuralgia, a persistent pain condition often characterized by allodynia and hyperalgesia, is a deleterious consequence experienced by patients after an acute herpes zoster vesicular eruption has healed. The pain associated with postherpetic neuralgia can severely affect a patient's quality of life, quality of sleep, and ability to participate in activities of daily living. Currently, first-line treatments for this condition include the administration of medication therapies such as tricyclic antidepressants, pregabalin, gabapentin, and lidocaine patches, followed by the application of tramadol and capsaicin creams and patches as second- or third-line therapies. As not all patients respond to such conservative options, however, interventional therapies are valuable for those who continue to experience pain.
OBJECTIVE
This review focuses on interventional therapies that have been subjected to randomized controlled trials for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia, including transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; local botulinum toxin A, cobalamin, and triamcinolone injection; intrathecal methylprednisolone and midazolam injection; stellate ganglion block; dorsal root ganglion destruction; and pulsed radiofrequency therapy.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTING
Hospital department in Taiwan.
METHODS
Search of PubMed database for all randomized controlled trials regarding postherpetic neuralgia that were published before the end of May 2017.
RESULTS
The current evidence is insufficient for determining the single best interventional treatment. Considering invasiveness, price, and safety, the subcutaneous injection of botulinum toxin A or triamcinolone, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and stellate ganglion block are recommended first, followed by paravertebral block and pulsed radiofrequency. If severe pain persists, spinal cord stimulation could be considered. Given the destructiveness of dorsal root ganglion and adverse events of intrathecal methylprednisolone injection, these interventions should be carried out with great care and only following comprehensive discussion.
LIMITATIONS
Although few adverse effects were reported, these procedures are invasive, and a careful assessment of the risk-benefit ratio should be conducted prior to administration.
CONCLUSION
With the exception of intrathecal methylprednisolone injection for postherpetic neuralgia, the evidence for most interventional procedures used to treat postherpetic neuralgia is Level 2, according to "The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2". Therefore, these modalities have received only grade B recommendations. Despite the lack of a high level of evidence, spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation are possibly useful for the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.
KEY WORDS
Interventional treatment, postherpetic neuralgia, botulinum toxin, steroid, stellate ganglion block, peripheral nerve stimulation, paravertebral block, radiofrequency, spinal cord stimulation.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pain Management; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31151330
DOI: No ID Found -
International Journal of Molecular... Feb 2023The use of neuraxial procedures, such as spinal and epidural anaesthesia, has been linked to some possible complications. In addition, spinal cord injuries due to... (Review)
Review
The use of neuraxial procedures, such as spinal and epidural anaesthesia, has been linked to some possible complications. In addition, spinal cord injuries due to anaesthetic practice (Anaes-SCI) are rare events but remain a significant concern for many patients undergoing surgery. This systematic review aimed to identify high-risk patients summarise the causes, consequences, and management/recommendations of SCI due to neuraxial techniques in anaesthesia. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted in accordance with Cochrane recommendations, and inclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant studies. From the 384 studies initially screened, 31 were critically appraised, and the data were extracted and analysed. The results of this review suggest that the main risk factors reported were extremes of age, obesity, and diabetes. Anaes-SCI was reported as a consequence of hematoma, trauma, abscess, ischemia, and infarction, among others. As a result, mainly motor deficits, sensory loss, and pain were reported. Many authors reported delayed treatments to resolve Anaes-SCI. Despite the potential complications, neuraxial techniques are still one of the best options for opioid-sparing pain prevention and management, reducing patients' morbidity, improving outcomes, reducing the length of hospital stay, and pain chronification, with a consequent economic benefit. The main findings of this review highlight the importance of careful patient management and close monitoring during neuraxial anaesthesia procedures to minimise the risk of spinal cord injury and complications.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthesia, Epidural; Spinal Cord Injuries; Pain
PubMed: 36902095
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24054665 -
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma,... Aug 2019Traumatic spinal cord injury is a relatively rare injury in Denmark but may result in serious neurological consequences. For decades, prehospital spinal stabilisation...
Traumatic spinal cord injury is a relatively rare injury in Denmark but may result in serious neurological consequences. For decades, prehospital spinal stabilisation with a rigid cervical collar and a hard backboard has been considered to be the most appropriate procedure to prevent secondary spinal cord injuries during patient transportation. However, the procedure has been questioned in recent years, due to the lack of high-quality studies supporting its efficacy. A national interdisciplinary task force was therefore established to provide updated clinical guidelines on prehospital procedures for spinal stabilisation of adult trauma patients in Denmark. The guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature and grading of the evidence, in addition to a standardised consensus process.This process yielded five main recommendations:A strong recommendation against spinal stabilisation of patients with isolated penetrating trauma; a weak recommendation against the prehospital use of a rigid cervical collar and a hard backboard for ABCDE-stable patients; and a weak recommendation for the use of a vacuum mattress for patient transportation. Finally, our group recommends the use of our clinical algorithm to ensure good clinical practice.
Topics: Adult; Algorithms; Denmark; Evidence-Based Emergency Medicine; Humans; Immobilization; Moving and Lifting Patients; Orthotic Devices; Spinal Cord Injuries; Stretchers; Triage; Wounds, Penetrating
PubMed: 31426850
DOI: 10.1186/s13049-019-0655-x -
Anaesthesia Jul 2018Combined spinal-epidural and single-shot spinal anaesthesia are both used for caesarean section. It has been claimed in individual trials that combined spinal-epidural... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Combined spinal-epidural and single-shot spinal anaesthesia are both used for caesarean section. It has been claimed in individual trials that combined spinal-epidural is associated with higher sensory spread and greater cardiovascular stability. We set out to gather all available evidence. We performed: a systematic literature search to identify randomised controlled trials comparing combined spinal-epidural with spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section: conventional meta-analysis; trial-sequential analysis; and assessment of trial quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Fifteen trials with high heterogeneity, including 1015 patients, were analysed. There was no significant difference between combined spinal-epidural and spinal anaesthesia for our primary outcomes maximum sensory height and vasopressor use (mg ephedrine equivalents). However, trial-sequential analysis suggested insufficient data and the GRADE scores showed 'very low' quality of evidence for these outcomes. The secondary outcomes hypotension, time for sensory block to recede to the level of T10, and the combined outcome of nausea and vomiting, did not differ significantly between the interventions. The block times were statistically significantly longer for combined spinal-epidural in individual trials, but only one trial showed a clinically meaningful difference (11 min). Based on this analysis, and taking into consideration all comparisons irrespective of whether drugs had been applied via the epidural route, there is not enough evidence to postulate any advantage compared with the spinal technique. Future analyses and studies need to examine the potential advantages of the combined spinal-epidural technique by using the epidural route intra- and/or postoperatively.
Topics: Adult; Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 29330854
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14210 -
European Journal of Anaesthesiology Sep 2021Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved...
BACKGROUND
Complex spinal procedures are associated with intense pain in the postoperative period. Adequate peri-operative pain management has been shown to correlate with improved outcomes including early ambulation and early discharge.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after complex spine surgery.
DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES
A systematic review using the PROcedure SPECific postoperative pain managemenT methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language from January 2008 to April 2020 assessing postoperative pain after complex spine surgery using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases.
RESULTS
Out of 111 eligible studies identified, 31 randomised controlled trials and four systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific-inhibitors or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous ketamine infusion and regional analgesia techniques including epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Limited evidence was found for local wound infiltration, intrathecal and epidural opioids, erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine and gabapentin.
CONCLUSIONS
The analgesic regimen for complex spine surgery should include pre-operative or intra-operative paracetamol and COX-2 specific inhibitors or NSAIDs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. Other recommendations are intra-operative ketamine and epidural analgesia using local anaesthetics with or without opioids. Although there is procedure-specific evidence in favour of intra-operative methadone, it is not recommended as it was compared with shorter-acting opioids and due to its limited safety profile. Furthermore, the methadone studies did not use non-opioid analgesics, which should be the primary analgesics to ultimately reduce overall opioid requirements, including methadone. Further qualitative randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the efficacy and safety of these recommended analgesics on postoperative pain relief.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 34397527
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001448 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a central nerve block technique achieved by injection of a local anaesthetic close to the nerves that transmit pain, and is widely used as a form of pain relief in labour. However, there are concerns about unintended adverse effects on the mother and infant. This is an update of an existing Cochrane Review (Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour), last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of all types of epidural analgesia, including combined-spinal-epidural (CSE) on the mother and the baby, when compared with non-epidural or no pain relief during labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of epidural with any form of pain relief not involving regional blockade, or no pain relief in labour. We have not included cluster-randomised or quasi-randomised trials in this update.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risks of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed selected outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-two trials met the inclusion criteria and we have included data from 40 trials, involving over 11,000 women. Four trials included more than two arms. Thirty-four trials compared epidural with opioids, seven compared epidural with no analgesia, one trial compared epidural with acu-stimulation, one trial compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, and one trial compared epidural with continuous midwifery support and other analgesia. Risks of bias varied throughout the included studies; six out of 40 studies were at high or unclear risk of bias for every bias domain, while most studies were at high or unclear risk of detection bias. Quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE ranged from moderate to low quality.Pain intensity as measured using pain scores was lower in women with epidural analgesia when compared to women who received opioids (standardised mean difference -2.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.56 to -0.73; 1133 women; studies = 5; I = 98%; low-quality evidence) and a higher proportion were satisfied with their pain relief, reporting it to be "excellent or very good" (average risk ratio (RR) 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.08; 1911 women; studies = 7; I = 97%; low-quality evidence). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity in both these outcomes. There was a substantial decrease in the need for additional pain relief in women receiving epidural analgesia compared with opioid analgesia (average RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.25; 5099 women; studies = 16; I = 73%; Tau = 1.89; Chi = 52.07 (P < 0.00001)). More women in the epidural group experienced assisted vaginal birth (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.60; 9948 women; studies = 30; low-quality evidence). A post hoc subgroup analysis of trials conducted after 2005 showed that this effect is negated when trials before 2005 are excluded from this analysis (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46). There was no difference between caesarean section rates (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18; 10,350 women; studies = 33; moderate-quality evidence), and maternal long-term backache (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 814 women; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). There were also no clear differences between groups for the neonatal outcomes, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.12; 4488 babies; studies = 8; moderate-quality evidence) and Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.02; 8752 babies; studies = 22; low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence for study design limitations, inconsistency, imprecision in effect estimates, and possible publication bias.Side effects were reported in both epidural and opioid groups. Women with epidural experienced more hypotension, motor blockade, fever, and urinary retention. They also had longer first and second stages of labour, and were more likely to have oxytocin augmentation than the women in the opioid group. Women receiving epidurals had less risk of respiratory depression requiring oxygen, and were less likely to experience nausea and vomiting than women receiving opioids. Babies born to women in the epidural group were less likely to have received naloxone. There was no clear difference between groups for postnatal depression, headache, itching, shivering, or drowsiness. Maternal morbidity and long-term neonatal outcomes were not reported.Epidural analgesia resulted in less reported pain when compared with placebo or no treatment, and with acu-stimulation. Pain intensity was not reported in the trials that compared epidural with inhaled analgesia, or continuous support. Few trials reported on serious maternal side effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-quality evidence shows that epidural analgesia may be more effective in reducing pain during labour and increasing maternal satisfaction with pain relief than non-epidural methods. Although overall there appears to be an increase in assisted vaginal birth when women have epidural analgesia, a post hoc subgroup analysis showed this effect is not seen in recent studies (after 2005), suggesting that modern approaches to epidural analgesia in labour do not affect this outcome. Epidural analgesia had no impact on the risk of caesarean section or long-term backache, and did not appear to have an immediate effect on neonatal status as determined by Apgar scores or in admissions to neonatal intensive care. Further research may be helpful to evaluate rare but potentially severe adverse effects of epidural analgesia and non-epidural analgesia on women in labour and long-term neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk
PubMed: 29781504
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub4 -
Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic... 2020Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is usually a constant or intermittent burning, stabbing, or sharp shooting pain with hyperalgesia or allodynia, persisting beyond the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) is usually a constant or intermittent burning, stabbing, or sharp shooting pain with hyperalgesia or allodynia, persisting beyond the healing of herpetic skin lesions. This review was carried out in concordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We used PICOS (Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome Study) design for inclusion of potential studies into this review. Online literature available in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was searched for studies from January 1995 till March 2020, which evaluated interventional treatments in PHN by an independent reviewer, using the relevant medical subject heading (MeSH) terms. We analyzed the following outcome parameters with regard to each intervention-pain status at predefined fixed intervals after the intervention, quality of sleep using any of the reported questionnaires, analgesic consumption, functional evaluation, and quality of life assessment after the intervention.
CONCLUSION
Interventional pain management options provide effective and long-lasting pain relief to patients not responding to medical management. The choice of intervention will depend on the region involved, cost, and invasiveness. Simple procedures such as intercostal nerve blocks/neurolysis, stellate ganglion blocks, paravertebral neurolysis, epidural steroid injections, and dorsal root ganglion-radiofrequency ablation are effective interventions, and if they fail, spinal cord stimulators could be effective in the hands of experienced pain physicians.
PubMed: 33911406
DOI: 10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_45_20 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2022We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient-and public-informed outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set, and outcomes defined as important by patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives.
METHODS
RCTs comparing any of the core outcomes (mortality, time from injury to surgery, acute coronary syndrome, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, orthogeriatric input, being out of bed at day 1 postoperatively, and pain) or PPI-defined outcomes (return to preoperative residence, quality of life, and mobility status) between SA and GA were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (2000 to February 2022). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference in the risk of delirium comparing SA vs GA (RR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29). Comparing SA vs GA, the RR for mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.22-1.44) in-hospital, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.52-2.23) at 30 days, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.55-2.12) at 90 days. Spinal anaesthesia reduced the risk of acute kidney injury compared with GA: RR=0.59 (95% CI, 0.39-0.89). There were no significant differences in the risk of other outcomes. Few studies reported PPI-defined outcomes, with most studies reporting on one to three core outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Except for acute kidney injury, there were no differences between SA and GA in hip fracture surgery when using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient and public involvement-defined outcomes. Most studies reported limited outcomes from the core outcome set, and few reported outcomes important to patients, which should be considered when designing future RCTs.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021275206.
Topics: Humans; Anesthesia, Spinal; Consensus; Quality of Life; Postoperative Complications; Anesthesia, General; Hip Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Delirium; Acute Kidney Injury; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36270701
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.07.031 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Jul 2020Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common pediatric spinal deformity with reported complications including pain, mental health concern and respiratory...
BACKGROUND
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common pediatric spinal deformity with reported complications including pain, mental health concern and respiratory dysfunction. The scoliosis-specific exercise (SSE) is prescribed throughout pubertal growth to slow progression although effects are unclear. This review aims to establish the effectiveness of SSE for alleviating AIS in terms of reducing Cobb angle, improving trunk asymmetry and quality of life (QoL). Additionally, it aims to define the effects of age, skeletal maturity, curve magnitude and exercise compliance on the outcomes of SSE.
METHODS
A systematic reviewed was conducted to net SSE articles. Searched databases included PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL and Google scholar. The quality of study was critically appraised according to the PEDro scale.
RESULTS
A total of ten trials with an average PEDro score of 6.9/10 were examined in this study. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two clinical controlled trials suggested that SSE alone and with bracing or traditional exercise had clinical significance in reducing Cobb angle more than 5°. One RCT specifically implicated no comparable effects between bracing and SSE in prevention of curve progression for moderate scoliosis. There was insufficient evidence to support the positive effects of SSE on improving truck asymmetry (n = 4) and QoL (n = 3). Five studies evaluated the interaction effects of age (n = 2), skeletal maturity (n = 1) and curve magnitude (n = 2) with SSE in reducing Cobb angle yet without drawing any firm conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Insufficient evidence is available to prove that SSE with or without other conservative treatments can reduce Cobb angle, improve trunk balance and QoL. The interaction effects of age, skeletal maturity, curve magnitude, and exercise compliance with SSE in reducing Cobb angle are not proven. Future studies should investigate the relationship of influencing factors and SSE in treating AIS but not only testing its effectiveness.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
INPLASY202050100 .
Topics: Adolescent; Braces; Child; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Kyphosis; Scoliosis
PubMed: 32718339
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03517-6 -
International Journal of Obstetric... Aug 2021Spinal anesthesia is the standard for elective cesarean section but spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension remains an important problem. Accurate prediction of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Spinal anesthesia is the standard for elective cesarean section but spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension remains an important problem. Accurate prediction of hypotension could enhance clinical decision-making, alter management, and facilitate early intervention. We performed a systematic review of predictors of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension and their predictive value during cesarean section.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Web of Science databases were searched for prospective observational studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of predictors of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension in elective cesarean section. The quality of studies was assessed and predictors were grouped in domains based on the type of predictor.
RESULTS
Thirty-eight studies (n=3086 patients) were included. In most studies, patients received 500-1000 mL crystalloid preload or 500-2000 mL crystalloid coload. Vasopressors for post-spinal hypotension were boluses of ephedrine 5-15 mg and/or phenylephrine 25-100 µg in most studies. The hypotension rate varied from 29% to 80% based on the definition. For analysis, >30 predictors were classified into seven domains: demographic characteristics, baseline hemodynamic variables, baseline sympathovagal balance, postural stress testing, peripheral perfusion indices, blood volume and fluid responsiveness indices, and genetic polymorphism.
CONCLUSIONS
Environmental and individual factors increased outcome variability, which restricted the value of the autonomic nervous system and peripheral perfusion indices for prediction of spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension. Supine stress tests may reflect parturients' cardiovascular tolerance during hemodynamic fluctuations and may optimize the predictive value of static state predictors. Future research for predicting spinal anesthesia-induced hypotension should focus on composite and dynamic parameters during the supine stress tests.
Topics: Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Spinal; Cesarean Section; Colloids; Female; Humans; Hypotension; Hypotension, Controlled; Observational Studies as Topic; Phenylephrine; Pregnancy; Vasoconstrictor Agents
PubMed: 34034957
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2021.103175