RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) are common after noncardiac surgery. Postsurgical pain is frequent and can persist as chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). The association between postsurgical pain and POD or POCD is biologically plausible. We conducted this systematic review to evaluate the association between acute postsurgical pain or CPSP and POD or POCD in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. METHODS: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and PSYCHINFO up to May 2023. We included cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies of any language. Pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the CLARITY tool and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Where possible, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses to summarise our findings. RESULTS: We analysed 30 studies (>9000 participants) that assessed the association between acute postoperative pain and POD/POCD. Dose-response meta-analyses found that postoperative pain intensity was associated with occurrence of POD (adjusted relative risk [aRR]/unit of pain intensity: 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-1.35; low certainty of evidence) and risk of developing POD (aRR/unit of pain intensity: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.08-1.30; low certainty of evidence). There was very low certainty of evidence regarding the association between postoperative pain and POCD. No studies assessed the association between CPSP and POCD. Residual confounding and substantial methodological variability between studies prevented pooling data from many of the included studies and lowered certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-response meta-analyses found that postoperative pain intensity was associated with occurrence of and risk of developing POD. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO-CRD42021192105.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Dolor Postoperatorio , Humanos , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Dolor Postoperatorio/etiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/prevención & control , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/etiología , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Riesgo , Conducta de Reducción del RiesgoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Satisfactory management of postoperative pain remains challenging. Nonpharmacological modalities such as virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) offer potential benefits and are becoming increasingly popular. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of VR/AR interventions on postoperative pain and recovery. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to July 27, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English, evaluating the use of VR/AR interventions for surgical pain relief. Study selection and data extraction were performed by pairs of reviewers independently and in duplicate, and potential risk of bias was determined using the Risk of Bias-version 2 (RoB 2) tool. Our outcomes included pain relief, reduction of anxiety, satisfaction, and adverse effects. Due to substantial heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis without meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: We included 35 trials among 2257 citations, categorized as surgery (n = 12), minor procedures (n = 15), and postoperative physiotherapy (n = 8). Surgical group included various surgeries, with 11 using immersive VR predominantly in the postoperative period, and most reporting no differences in pain, but potential for reduced anxiety and sedation requirements. In the minor procedures group, most studies reported decreased pain and anxiety during the procedural performance. Two studies reported increased heart rate, while 2 others reported better hemodynamic stability. Home-based AR physiotherapy achieved (n = 6) similar pain and functional outcomes after knee replacement, with 1 large study (n = 306) reporting reduction of mean costs by $2745 for provision of 12 weeks physiotherapy. There were some concerns around potential bias for most studies, as the nature of interventions make it challenging to blind assessors and participants. No important adverse effects were noted using VR/AR technology. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from RCTs indicates that the use of immersive VR during minor procedures may reduce procedural pain, decrease anxiety, and improve satisfaction. However, small studies, inconsistent effect, and variation in the application of interventions are important limitations. Evidence to support the application of AR/VR for major surgeries is limited and needs to be further investigated. Use of home-based physiotherapy with AR likely has economic advantages, and facilitates virtual care for appropriate patients who can access and use the technology safely.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit. METHODS: Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. RESULTS: This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections. CONCLUSIONS: In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the role of opioids during general anesthesia and examine their advantages and risks in the context of clinical practice. We define opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) as the absolute avoidance of intraoperative opioids. RECENT FINDINGS: In most minimally invasive and short-duration procedures, nonopioid analgesics, analgesic adjuvants, and local/regional analgesia can significantly spare the amount of intraoperative opioid needed. OFA should be considered in the context of tailoring to a specific patient and procedure, not as a universal approach. Strategies considered for OFA involve several adjuncts with low therapeutic range, requiring continuous infusions and resources, with potential for delayed recovery or other side effects, including increased short-term and long-term pain. No evidence indicates that OFA leads to decreased long-term opioid-related harms. SUMMARY: Complete avoidance of intraoperative opioids remains questionable, as it does not necessarily ensure avoidance of postoperative opioids. Multimodal analgesia including local/regional anesthesia may allow OFA for selected, minimally invasive surgeries, but further research is necessary in surgeries with high postoperative opioid requirements. Until there is definitive evidence regarding procedure and patient-specific combinations as well as the dose and duration of administration of adjunct agents, it is imperative to practice opioid-sparing approach in the intraoperative period.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides , Anestesia General , Dolor Postoperatorio , Humanos , Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Anestesia General/métodos , Anestesia General/efectos adversos , Anestesia General/normas , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Postoperatorio/etiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/diagnóstico , Analgésicos no Narcóticos/administración & dosificación , Analgésicos no Narcóticos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The incidence and factors associated with chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) after ambulatory surgeries have not been well studied. Our primary objective was to determine the incidence of CPSP and secondary objectives included assessment of intensity of CPSP, incidence of moderate-to-severe CPSP, and exploration of factors associated with CPSP. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of ambulatory surgery patients having procedures with a potential to cause moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. All patients had participated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) showing no difference in achieving satisfactory analgesia in a recovery unit with either morphine or hydromorphone. CPSP was defined as chronic pain that developed or increased in intensity after the surgical procedure and is localized to the surgical field or within the innervation territory of a nerve in the surgical field, and has persisted for 3 months post-surgery, with the exclusion of other causes of pain. Incidences of CPSP were reported as rate (%) with 95% CI, and intensity using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (95% CI). We used logistic regression to explore factors associated with CPSP adjusting for baseline catastrophizing and depression. RESULTS: Among 402 RCT patients, 208 provided data for the 3-month outcome. Incidence of CPSP was 18.8% (39/208), 95% CI = 13.7%-24.7% and 78% (28/39) of them had moderate-to-severe CPSP. Average CPSP intensity was 5.5, 95% CI = 4.7-6.4. Every unit increase in pain over the first 24 h was significantly associated with increased odds of moderate-to-severe CPSP at 3 months; odds ratio = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.04-1.58. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in five patients develop CPSP after ambulatory surgeries with the majority of them having moderate-to-severe pain. Considering that acute pain after discharge is associated with CPSP and that there are no formal care pathways to address this need, studies need to focus on evaluating feasible strategies to provide continuing care.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios , Dolor Crónico , Dolor Postoperatorio , Humanos , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Postoperatorio/etiología , Masculino , Femenino , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Dolor Crónico/epidemiología , Dolor Crónico/etiología , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Anciano , Incidencia , Estudios de CohortesRESUMEN
The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Analgesia Epidural , Humanos , Abdomen , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Lidocaína , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Estudios de Equivalencia como AsuntoAsunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Realidad Virtual , Humanos , Dolor Agudo/diagnóstico , Dolor Agudo/terapia , Manejo del DolorRESUMEN
This case report describes the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with sensorimotor training (SMT) to treat an individual with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type 2 with allodynia of the right hand/wrist. After the 9-week intervention, there was a clinically meaningful reduction in pain intensity which continued to 3 months after intervention. Further, clinically meaningful improvements in wrist and hand function and allodynia were observed. Although the use of rTMS for CRPS has been reported, this unique report provides valuable insight into the clinical utility of rTMS plus SMT for the treatment of CRPS and related symptoms.
Asunto(s)
Síndromes de Dolor Regional Complejo , Estimulación Magnética Transcraneal , Humanos , Hiperalgesia , Extremidad Superior , Síndromes de Dolor Regional Complejo/terapia , ManoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Knee arthritis is a leading cause of limited function and long-term disability in older adults. Despite a technically successful total knee arthroplasty (TKA), around 20% of patients continue to have persisting pain with reduced function, and low quality of life. Many of them continue using opioids for pain control, which puts them at risk for potential long-term adverse effects such as dependence, overdose and risk of falls. Although persisting pain and opioid use after TKA have been recognised to be important issues, individual strategies to decrease their burden have limitations and multi-component interventions, despite their potential, have not been well studied. In this study, we propose a multi-component pathway including personalized pain management, facilitated by a pain management coordinator. The objectives of this pilot trial are to evaluate feasibility (recruitment, retention, and adherence), along with opioid-free pain control at 8 weeks after TKA. METHODS: This is a protocol for a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial using a 2-arm parallel group design. Adult participants undergoing unilateral total knee arthroplasty will be considered for inclusion and randomised to control and intervention groups. Participants in the intervention group will receive support from a pain management coordinator who will facilitate a multicomponent pain management pathway including (1) preoperative education on pain and opioid use, (2) preoperative risk identification and mitigation, (3) personalized post-discharge analgesic prescriptions and (4) continued support for pain control and recovery up to 8 weeks post-op. Participants in the control group will undergo usual care. The primary outcomes of this pilot trial are to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and adherence to the interventions, and key secondary outcomes are persisting pain and opioid use. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial for the implementation of a multicomponent pain pathway to improve pain control and reduce harms using a coordinated approach, while keeping an emphasis on patient centred care and shared decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04968132).
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Although a single-injection interscalene block provides effective early postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery, patients may experience "rebound pain" when the block resolves. Our objective was to determine if oral hydromorphone (2 mg) given six hours after a single-injection interscalene block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery leads to a clinically significant reduction in the severity of rebound pain. METHODS: After approval from research ethics boards, we conducted a two-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial. Patients received preoperative interscalene block, general anesthesia, and either hydromorphone or placebo six hours after the block. The primary outcome was the worst pain score in the first 24 hr postoperatively, measured on an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants were randomly assigned to either the hydromorphone or placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean (standard deviation) worst pain score within 24 hr between the hydromorphone and placebo groups (6.5 [2.4] vs 5.9 [2.3]; mean difference, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 1.8). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the pain trajectory, opioid use, or incidence of nausea and vomiting between the groups. The mean time to worst pain was 14.6 hr, and the mean time to first rescue analgesia was 11.3 hr after interscalene block. CONCLUSION: Hydromorphone 2 mg given six hours after interscalene block did not reduce the severity of rebound pain postoperatively compared with placebo in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); registered 19 October 2016.
RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Bien qu'un bloc interscalénique à injection unique fournisse une analgésie postopératoire précoce efficace après une chirurgie de l'épaule, les patient·es peuvent ressentir une « douleur de rebond ¼ lorsque le bloc se résorbe. Notre objectif était de déterminer si l'hydromorphone orale (2 mg) administrée six heures après une injection unique de bloc interscalénique pour une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule entraînait une réduction cliniquement significative de la gravité de la douleur de rebond. MéTHODE: Après l'approbation des comités d'éthique de la recherche, nous avons mené une étude de supériorité dans deux centres, en groupes parallèles, à double insu, randomisée et contrôlée par placebo. Les patient·es ont reçu un bloc interscalénique préopératoire, une anesthésie générale et de l'hydromorphone ou un placebo six heures après le bloc. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le pire score de douleur au cours des premières 24 heures postopératoires, mesuré sur une échelle d'évaluation numérique de 11 points (0 à 10). RéSULTATS: Au total, 73 personnes ont participé à l'étude et ont été aléatoirement assignées au groupe hydromorphone ou au groupe placebo. Il n'y avait pas de différence statistiquement significative dans le score moyen (écart type) de la pire douleur dans les 24 heures entre les groupes hydromorphone et placebo (6,5 [2,4] vs 5,9 [2,3]; différence moyenne, 0,6; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, −0,5 à 1,8). De même, nous n'avons trouvé aucune différence significative dans la trajectoire de la douleur, la consommation d'opioïdes ou l'incidence de nausées et vomissements entre les groupes. Le temps moyen jusqu'à la pire douleur était de 14,6 heures, et le temps moyen jusqu'à la première analgésie de secours était de 11,3 heures après le bloc interscalénique. CONCLUSION: L'hydromorphone 2 mg administrée six heures après le bloc interscalénique n'a pas réduit la gravité de la douleur de rebond postopératoire par rapport au placebo chez les patient·es bénéficiant d'une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); enregistrée le 19 octobre 2016.
RESUMEN
Chronic pain is a public health concern that affects approximately 1.5 billion people globally. Conventional therapeutic agents including opioid and non-opioid analgesics have been associated with adverse side effects, issues with addiction, and ineffective analgesia. Novel agents repurposed to treat pain via different mechanisms are needed to fill the therapeutic gap in chronic pain management. Psychedelics such as lysergic acid diethylamide and psilocybin (the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms) are thought to alter pain perception through direct serotonin receptor agonism, anti-inflammatory effects, and synaptic remodeling. This scoping review was conducted to identify human studies in which psychedelic agents were used for the treatment of pain. Twenty-one articles that assessed the effects of psychedelics in treating various pain states were included. The present scarcity of clinical trials and small sample sizes limit their application for clinical use. Overall, psychedelics appear to show promise for analgesia in patients with certain headache disorders and cancer pain diagnoses. Future studies must aim to examine the combined effects of psychotherapy and psychedelics on chronic pain.
Asunto(s)
Analgesia , Dolor Crónico , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Alucinógenos , Humanos , Alucinógenos/efectos adversos , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Manejo del Dolor , Percepción del DolorRESUMEN
PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate 1) patient- and anesthesiologist-reported rates of postoperative delirium (POD) risk discussion during preoperative meetings, 2) patients' and anesthesiologists' ratings of the importance of POD, and 3) predictors of patient-reported discussion of POD risk during preoperative meetings. METHODS: In this multicentre two-part cross-sectional survey study, patients ≥ 65 yr scheduled to undergo elective noncardiac surgery completed a five-minute survey after preoperative anesthesia consultation. Patients were asked about their perception of POD importance, and whether they discussed or were assessed for POD risk. Anesthesiologists were surveyed using self-administered surveys circulated via institutional email lists. Anesthesiologists were asked about the frequency of POD risk assessment and discussion in older adults, tools used, and perception of POD-screening barriers. RESULTS: Four hundred and twelve (of 510 approached) patients (50% male; mean age, 73 yr) and 267 anesthesiologists (of 1,205 invited via e-mail) participated in this study conducted in five Canadian hospitals. Postoperative delirium screening and discussion was reported by 88/412 (22%) patients and 229/267 (86%) anesthesiologists. Postoperative delirium was rated as "somewhat-extremely" important by 64% of patients. A previous history of delirium, higher education, the number of daily medications, and longer surgical duration were associated with POD discussion. On average, anesthesiologists rated the importance of POD at 8/10, and 42% ranked "patient risk factors" as the top reason prompting discussion. CONCLUSION: The combined evaluation of patients' and anesthesiologists' perspectives provides valuable information on preoperative POD screening and risk assessment, and highlights areas for improvement in the current practice. Most factors we identified to be associated with higher odds of POD discussion are recognized risk factors of POD.
RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à évaluer 1) les taux de discussion concernant le risque de delirium postopératoire (DPO) déclarés par les patient·es et les anesthésiologistes lors des rencontres préopératoires, 2) les évaluations des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes de l'importance de DPO, et 3) les prédicteurs d'une discussion telle que rapportée par les patient·es sur le risque de DPO pendant les rencontres préopératoires. MéTHODE: Dans ce sondage transversal multicentrique en deux parties, les patient·es ≥ 65 ans devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente ont rempli un sondage de cinq minutes après la consultation d'anesthésie préopératoire. Les patient·es ont été interrogé·es sur leur perception de l'importance du DPO et si leur risque de DPO avait été discuté ou évalué. Des sondages auto-administrés ont été distribués aux anesthésiologistes via les listes de courriels institutionnelles. Ce sondage interrogeait les anesthésiologistes quant à la fréquence de l'évaluation et de la discussion des risques de DPO chez les personnes âgées, aux outils utilisés et à la perception des obstacles au dépistage de DPO. RéSULTATS: Quatre cent douze (des 510 personnes approchées) patient·es (50 % d'hommes; âge moyen, 73 ans) et 267 anesthésiologistes (sur 1205 invité·es par courriel) ont participé à cette étude menée dans cinq hôpitaux canadiens. Le dépistage et la discussion sur le delirium postopératoire ont été signalés par 88/412 (22 %) des patient·es et 229/267 (86 %) des anesthésiologistes. Le delirium postopératoire a été jugé « assez extrêmement ¼ important par 64 % des patient·es. Des antécédents de delirium, des études supérieures, le nombre de médicaments quotidiens et une durée chirurgicale plus longue ont été associés à la discussion sur le DPO. En moyenne, les anesthésiologistes ont évalué l'importance du DPO à 8/10, et 42 % ont classé les « facteurs de risque liés au/à la patient·e ¼ comme la principale raison suscitant la discussion. CONCLUSION: L'évaluation combinée des points de vue des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes fournit des informations précieuses sur le dépistage préopératoire des DPO et l'évaluation des risques, et met en évidence les domaines à améliorer dans la pratique actuelle. La plupart des facteurs que nous avons identifiés comme étant associés à des probabilités plus élevées de discussion sur le DPO sont des facteurs de risque reconnus de DPO.
Asunto(s)
Delirio , Delirio del Despertar , Humanos , Masculino , Anciano , Femenino , Estudios Transversales , Anestesiólogos , Delirio/diagnóstico , Delirio/epidemiología , Delirio/complicaciones , Canadá , Factores de Riesgo , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiologíaRESUMEN
Background: Emerging evidence suggests preoperative opioid use may increase the risk of negative outcomes following orthopedic procedures. This systematic review evaluated the impact of preoperative opioid use in patients undergoing shoulder surgery with respect to preoperative clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, and postoperative dependence on opioids. Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to April, 2021 for studies reporting preoperative opioid use and its effect on postoperative outcomes or opioid use. The search, data extraction and methodologic assessment were performed in duplicate for all included studies. Results: Twenty-one studies with a total of 257,301 patients were included in the final synthesis. Of which, 17 were level III evidence. Of those, 51.5% of the patients reported pre-operative opioid use. Fourteen studies (66.7%) reported a higher likelihood of opioid use at follow-up among those used opioids preoperatively compared to preoperative opioid-naïve patients. Eight studies (38.1%) showed lower functional measurements and range of motion in opioid group compared to the non-opioid group post-operatively. Conclusion: Preoperative opioid use in patients undergoing shoulder surgeries is associated with lower functional scores and post-operative range of motion. Most concerning is preoperative opioid use may predict increased post-operative opioid requirements and potential for misuse in patients. Level of evidence: Level IV, Systematic review.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success. FINDINGS: Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0-30) and 7 (0-56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico , Estimulación de la Médula Espinal , Adulto , Humanos , Estimulación de la Médula Espinal/efectos adversos , Selección de Paciente , Manejo del Dolor , Dolor Crónico/diagnóstico , Dolor Crónico/terapia , Proyectos de Investigación , Médula EspinalRESUMEN
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico , Estimulación de la Médula Espinal , Humanos , Dolor Crónico/diagnóstico , Dolor Crónico/terapia , Estimulación de la Médula Espinal/métodos , Analgésicos Opioides , Selección de Paciente , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Médula Espinal , Resultado del TratamientoAsunto(s)
Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica , Síndrome de Fracaso de la Cirugía Espinal Lumbar , Dolor de la Región Lumbar , Vértebras Lumbares , Radiculopatía , Humanos , Dolor Crónico/etiología , Dolor Crónico/terapia , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/etiología , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/terapia , Vértebras Lumbares/cirugía , Médula Espinal , Síndrome de Fracaso de la Cirugía Espinal Lumbar/etiología , Síndrome de Fracaso de la Cirugía Espinal Lumbar/terapia , Radiculopatía/etiología , Radiculopatía/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite the use of intraoperative opioid analgesia, postoperative pain is often reported by patients undergoing craniotomies. Opioids also cause undesirable side effects in neurosurgical patients. Hence, the role of nonopioid analgesia has been explored for craniotomies in recent years. METHODS: This systematic review evaluated evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing opioid and nonopioid analgesia during craniotomies regarding postoperative pain, recovery, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 10,459 records obtained by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases, 6 RCTs were included. No difference was observed in pain scores between opioid and nonopioid analgesia at 1 and 24 hours after surgery: mean difference (MD), 1.11 units; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.16 to 2.38, P = 0.09 and MD, -0.06 units; 95% CI, -1.14 to 1.01, P = 0.91, respectively. The time for first postoperative analgesic requirement was shorter with opioids but was not statistically significant (MD, -84.77 minutes; 95% CI, -254.65 to 85.11; P = 0.33). Postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk = 1.60; 95% CI, 0.96-2.66; P = 0.07) was similar but shivering (relative risk = 2.01; 95% CI, 1.09-3.71; P = 0.03) was greater in the opioid group than nonopioid group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no important differences in clinical outcomes between the groups in our review. The GRADE certainty of evidence was rated low for most outcomes. Available evidence does not suggest superiority of intraoperative nonopioid over opioid analgesia for postoperative pain in patients undergoing craniotomy. More studies are needed to firmly establish the role of nonopioid intraoperative analgesics as an alternative to opioids in this population.
Asunto(s)
Analgesia , Analgésicos no Narcóticos , Humanos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Analgésicos no Narcóticos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios , CraneotomíaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Opioids are the primary analgesics used in patients undergoing spine surgery. Postoperative pain is common despite their liberal use and so are opioid-associated side effects. Non-opioid analgesics are gaining popularity as alternative to opioids in spine surgery. METHODS: This systematic review evaluated current evidence regarding opioid and non-opioid intraoperative analgesia and their influence on immediate postoperative pain and adverse events in spine surgery. RESULTS: A total of 10,459 records were obtained by searching Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases and six randomized controlled trials were included. Differences in postoperative pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups were not significant at 1 h: 4 studies, mean difference (MD) = 0.65 units, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [-0.12 to 1.41], p = 0.10, but favored non-opioid at 24 h after surgery: 3 studies, MD = 0.75 units, 95%CI [0.03 to 1.46], p = 0.04. The time for first postoperative analgesic requirement was shorter (MD = -45.06 min, 95%CI [-72.50 to -17.62], p = 0.001), and morphine consumption during first 24 h after surgery was higher in opioid compared to non-opioid group (MD = 4.54 mg, 95%CI [3.26 to 5.82], p < 0.00001). Adverse effects of postoperative nausea and vomiting (Relative risk (RR) = 2.15, 95%CI [1.37 to 3.38], p = 0.0009) and shivering (RR = 2.52, 95%CI [1.08 to 5.89], p = 0.03) were higher and bradycardia was lower (RR = 0.35, 95%CI [0.17 to 0.71], p = 0.004) with opioid analgesia. CONCLUSION: The certainty of evidence on GRADE assessment is low for studied outcomes. Available evidence supports intraoperative non-opioid analgesia for overall postoperative pain outcomes in spine surgery. More research is needed to find the best drug combination and dosing regimen. Prospero Registration: CRD42020209042.