-
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Jun 2022There have been some modest recent advancements in the research of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, yet the amount and quality of the work in this complicated...
There have been some modest recent advancements in the research of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, yet the amount and quality of the work in this complicated multifactorial disease remains low (with some notable exceptions; e.g., the recent work on the dorsal root ganglion stimulation). The semi-systematic (though in some cases narrative) approach to review is necessary so that we might treat our patients while waiting for "better research." This semi-systematic review was conducted by experts in the field, (deliberately) some of whom are promising young researchers supplemented by the experience of "elder statesman" researchers, who all mention the system they have used to examine the literature. What we found is generally low- to medium-quality research with small numbers of subjects; however, there are some recent exceptions to this. The primary reason for this paucity of research is the fact that this is a rare disease, and it is very difficult to acquire a sufficient sample size for statistical significance using traditional statistical approaches. Several larger trials have failed, probably due to using the broad general diagnostic criteria (the "Budapest" criteria) in a multifactorial/multi-mechanism disease. Responsive subsets can often be identified in these larger trials, but not sufficient to achieve statistically significant results in the general diagnostic grouping. This being the case the authors have necessarily included data from less compelling protocols, including trials such as case series and even in some instances case reports/empirical information. In the humanitarian spirit of treating our often desperate patients with this rare syndrome, without great evidence, we must take what data we can find (as in this work) and tailor a treatment regime for each patient.
Topics: Aged; Complex Regional Pain Syndromes; Ganglia, Spinal; Humans; Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
PubMed: 35687369
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnac046 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders May 2017Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clinical examination findings are used in primary care to give an initial diagnosis to patients with low back pain and related leg symptoms. The purpose of this study was to develop best evidence Clinical Diagnostic Rules (CDR] for the identification of the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine; i.e. intervertebral discs, sacroiliac joints, facet joints, bone, muscles, nerve roots, muscles, peripheral nerve tissue, and central nervous system sensitization.
METHODS
A sensitive electronic search strategy using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases was combined with hand searching and citation tracking to identify eligible studies. Criteria for inclusion were: persons with low back pain with or without related leg symptoms, history or physical examination findings suitable for use in primary care, comparison with acceptable reference standards, and statistical reporting permitting calculation of diagnostic value. Quality assessments were made independently by two reviewers using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Clinical examination findings that were investigated by at least two studies were included and results that met our predefined threshold of positive likelihood ratio ≥ 2 or negative likelihood ratio ≤ 0.5 were considered for the CDR.
RESULTS
Sixty-four studies satisfied our eligible criteria. We were able to construct promising CDRs for symptomatic intervertebral disc, sacroiliac joint, spondylolisthesis, disc herniation with nerve root involvement, and spinal stenosis. Single clinical test appear not to be as useful as clusters of tests that are more closely in line with clinical decision making.
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first comprehensive systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluate clinical examination findings for their ability to identify the most common patho-anatomical disorders in the lumbar spine. In some diagnostic categories we have sufficient evidence to recommend a CDR. In others, we have only preliminary evidence that needs testing in future studies. Most findings were tested in secondary or tertiary care. Thus, the accuracy of the findings in a primary care setting has yet to be confirmed.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Intervertebral Disc Displacement; Low Back Pain; Pain Measurement; Spinal Stenosis; Spondylolisthesis
PubMed: 28499364
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1549-6 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Jan 2021Functional electrical stimulation (FES) applied to the paretic peroneal nerve has positive clinical effects on foot drop secondary to stroke. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Functional electrical stimulation (FES) applied to the paretic peroneal nerve has positive clinical effects on foot drop secondary to stroke.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of FES applied to the paretic peroneal nerve on gait speed, active ankle dorsiflexion mobility, balance, and functional mobility.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for articles published from inception to January 2020. We included randomized controlled trials or crossover trials focused on determining the effects of FES combined or not with other therapies in individuals with foot drop after stroke. Characteristics of studies, participants, comparison groups, interventions, and outcomes were extracted. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the I statistic.
RESULTS
We included 14 studies providing data for 1115 participants. FES did not enhance gait speed as compared with conventional treatments (i.e., supervised/unsupervised exercises and regular activities at home). FES combined with supervised exercises (i.e., physiotherapy) was better than supervised exercises alone for improving gait speed. We found no effect of FES combined with unsupervised exercises and inconclusive effects when FES was combined with regular activities at home. When FES was compared with conventional treatments, it improved ankle dorsiflexion, balance and functional mobility, albeit with high heterogeneity for these last 2 outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis revealed low quality of evidence for positive effects of FES on gait speed when combined with physiotherapy. FES can improve ankle dorsiflexion, balance, and functional mobility. However, considering the low quality of evidence and the high heterogeneity, these results must be interpreted carefully.
Topics: Electric Stimulation Therapy; Gait Disorders, Neurologic; Humans; Peroneal Nerve; Physical Therapy Modalities; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Walking Speed
PubMed: 32376404
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2020.03.012 -
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 -
Anaesthesia May 2021Caesarean section is associated with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding...
Caesarean section is associated with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding success and mother-child bonding. The aim of this systematic review was to update the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after elective caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia. A systematic review utilising procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language between 1 May 2014 and 22 October 2020 evaluating the effects of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating pain management for emergency or unplanned operative deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia were excluded. A total of 145 studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients undergoing elective caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia, recommendations include intrathecal morphine 50-100 µg or diamorphine 300 µg administered pre-operatively; paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone administered after delivery. If intrathecal opioid was not administered, single-injection local anaesthetic wound infiltration; continuous wound local anaesthetic infusion; and/or fascial plane blocks such as transversus abdominis plane or quadratus lumborum blocks are recommended. The postoperative regimen should include regular paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with opioids used for rescue. The surgical technique should include a Joel-Cohen incision; non-closure of the peritoneum; and abdominal binders. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation could be used as analgesic adjunct. Some of the interventions, although effective, carry risks, and consequentially were omitted from the recommendations. Some interventions were not recommended due to insufficient, inconsistent or lack of evidence. Of note, these recommendations may not be applicable to unplanned deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cesarean Section; Dexamethasone; Female; Humans; Injections, Spinal; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Pregnancy
PubMed: 33370462
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15339 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) is the second most common entrapment neuropathy after carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatment may be conservative or surgical, but optimal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE) is the second most common entrapment neuropathy after carpal tunnel syndrome. Treatment may be conservative or surgical, but optimal management remains controversial. This is an update of a review first published in 2010 and previously updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of conservative and surgical treatment in ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE). We intended to test whether:- surgical treatment is effective in reducing symptoms and signs and in increasing nerve function;- conservative treatment is effective in reducing symptoms and signs and in increasing nerve function;- it is possible to identify the best treatment on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological, or nerve imaging assessment.
SEARCH METHODS
On 31 May 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also searched PEDro (14 October 2016), and the papers cited in relevant reviews. On 4 July 2016 we searched trials registries for ongoing or unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The review included only randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs evaluating people with clinical symptoms suggesting the presence of UNE. We included trials evaluating all forms of surgical and conservative treatments. We considered studies regarding therapy of UNE with or without neurophysiological evidence of entrapment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts of references retrieved from the searches and selected all potentially relevant studies. The review authors independently extracted data from included trials and assessed trial quality. We contacted trial investigators for any missing information.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified nine RCTs (587 participants) for inclusion in the review, of which three studies were found at this update. The sequence generation was inadequate in one study and not described in three studies. We performed two meta-analyses to evaluate the clinical (3 trials, 261 participants) and neurophysiological (2 trials, 101 participants) outcomes of simple decompression versus decompression with submuscular or subcutaneous transposition; four trials in total examined this comparison.We found no difference between simple decompression and transposition of the ulnar nerve for both clinical improvement (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.08; moderate-quality evidence) and neurophysiological improvement (mean difference (in m/s) 1.47, 95% CI -0.94 to 3.87). The number of participants to clinically improve was 91 out of 131 in the simple decompression group and 97 out of 130 in the transposition group. Transposition showed a higher number of wound infections (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.85; moderate-quality evidence).In one trial (47 participants), the authors compared medial epicondylectomy with anterior transposition and found no difference in clinical and neurophysiological outcomes.In one trial (48 participants), the investigators compared subcutaneous transposition with submuscular transposition and found no difference in clinical outcomes.In one trial (54 participants for 56 nerves treated), the authors found no difference between endoscopic and open decompression in improving clinical function.One trial (51 participants) assessed conservative treatment in clinically mild or moderate UNE. Based on low-quality evidence, the trial authors found that information on avoiding prolonged movements or positions was effective in improving subjective discomfort. Night splinting and nerve gliding exercises in addition to information provision did not result in further improvement.One trial (55 participants) assessed the effectiveness of corticosteroid injection and found no difference versus placebo in improving symptoms at three months' follow-up.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found only two studies of treatment of ulnar neuropathy using conservative treatment as the comparator. The available comparative treatment evidence is not sufficient to support a multiple treatment meta-analysis to identify the best treatment for idiopathic UNE on the basis of clinical, neurophysiological, and imaging characteristics. We do not know when to treat a person with this condition conservatively or surgically. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that simple decompression and decompression with transposition are equally effective in idiopathic UNE, including when the nerve impairment is severe. Decompression with transposition is associated with more deep and superficial wound infections than simple decompression, also based on moderate-quality evidence. People undergoing endoscopic surgery were more likely to have a haematoma. Evidence from one small RCT of conservative treatment showed that in mild cases, information on movements or positions to avoid may reduce subjective discomfort.
Topics: Decompression, Surgical; Elbow; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Nerve Transfer; Patient Education as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Splints; Ulna; Ulnar Nerve; Ulnar Nerve Compression Syndromes
PubMed: 27845501
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006839.pub4 -
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation... Jul 2019Spasticity causes significant long-term disability-burden, requiring comprehensive management. This review evaluates evidence from published systematic reviews of...
OBJECTIVES
Spasticity causes significant long-term disability-burden, requiring comprehensive management. This review evaluates evidence from published systematic reviews of clinical trials for effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for improved spasticity outcomes.
METHODS
Data sources: a literature search was conducted using medical and health science electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library) databases for published systematic reviews up to 15th June 2017.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
two reviewers applied inclusion criteria to select potential systematic reviews, independently extracted data for methodological quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Quality of evidence was critically appraised with Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS
Overall 18 systematic reviews were evaluated for evidence for a range of non-pharmacological interventions currently used in managing spasticity in various neurological conditions. There is "moderate" evidence for electro-neuromuscular stimulation and acupuncture as an adjunct therapy to conventional routine care (pharmacological and rehabilitation) in persons following stroke. "Low" quality evidence for rehabilitation programs targeting spasticity (such as induced movement therapy, stretching, dynamic elbow-splinting, occupational therapy) in stroke and other neurological conditions; extracorporeal shock-wave therapy in brain injury; transcranial direct current stimulation in stroke; transcranial magnetic stimulation and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for other neurological conditions; physical activity programs and repetitive magnetic stimulation in persons with MS, vibration therapy for SCI and stretching for other neurological condition. For other interventions, evidence was inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the available range of non-pharmacological interventions for spasticity, there is lack of high-quality evidence for many modalities. Further research is needed to judge the effect with appropriate study designs, timing and intensity of modalities, and associate costs of these interventions.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Adult; Brain Injuries; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Evidence-Based Medicine; Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy; Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Muscle Spasticity; Physical Therapy Modalities; Spinal Cord Injuries; Stroke
PubMed: 29042299
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2017.10.001 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly. Most women in labour... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly. Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour).
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus. WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects. Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.
Topics: Acupuncture Analgesia; Administration, Inhalation; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesics; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Immersion; Labor Pain; Massage; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Relaxation Therapy; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 22419342
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2