Efficacy of Botulinum Toxin, Local Anesthetics, and Corticosteroids in Patients With Piriformis Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Piriformis syndrome (PS) is a painful condition caused by entrapment of the sciatic nerve within the piriformis muscle. PS is typically unilateral and mainly occurs related to entrapment of the sciatic nerve. Treatments include physiotherapy, analgesics, anti-inflammatory drugs, behavioral modifications, injection therapy with local anesthetics (LAs) and steroids, epidural injection, botulinum toxin (BT) injection, and surgery. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of BT, LA, and corticosteroid (CS) injections in relieving pain in patients affected by PS. STUDY DESIGN: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the "Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions" and the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses (PRISMA)" guidelines. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus through April 2021 for studies investigating the efficacy of BT, LA, or CS injection in improving pain in patients with PS. After screening retrieved studies, data were extracted from included studies and pooled. Overall results were reported as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Analysis was performed using RevMan software version 5.4. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in this systematic review, and 12 of them were included in the quantitative synthesis. The pain scores decreased significantly after treatment with BT (SMD = -2.00; 95% CI [-2.84, -1.16], P < 0.001), LA and CS (SMD = -4.34; 95% CI [-5.77, 2.90], P < 0.001), LA (SMD = -3.73; 95% CI [-6.47, -0.99], P = 0.008), CS (SMD = -2.78; 95% CI [-3.56, -2.00], P < 0.001), and placebo injection (SMD = -0.04; 95% CI [-0.07, -0.01], P = 0.002). BT injection was less effective than LA and CS together (P = 0.006), more effective than placebo (P = 0.001), and similar to LA (P = 0.24) and CS (P = 0.18), when injected alone. LIMITATIONS: A wide variety of study designs were utilized to obtain the largest sample size available. Many of the included studies lack randomization, and some are retrospective in nature. These limitations may introduce bias into the analyzed data and affect the results. Many studies had a low sample size and are of moderate quality, limiting the generalizability of the results. Also, we could not conduct a direct meta-analysis due to the lack of sufficient double-arm studies comparing different types of injection therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PS, satisfactory pain improvement can be obtained by BT, LA plus CS, LA, or CS injection therapy. Injection of LA plus CS showed the best efficacy.

Efficacy of bupivacaine injection after pulsed radiofrequency ablation in the management of trigeminal facial pain: A prospective, randomized, and double-blind study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of bupivacaine application following pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) ablation on trigeminal facial pain. METHODS: A total of 73 patients with trigeminal facial pain refractory to conservative therapy were randomized into 2 groups. Group I subjects underwent PRF ablation procedure, followed by the injection of 1 ml of bupivacaine. Whereas, Group II underwent the same procedure followed by the injection of 1 ml of normal saline. Pain relief duration, the time of onset of pain relief, and analgesic effect evaluated by numerical pain rating scale were considered as outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients in Group I and 34 in Group II. The duration of pain relief in the 2 groups was comparable (5 months in Group I vs. 6 months in Group II, p=0.53). The onset of pain relief in the patients of Group I was shorter than Group II (0 days vs. 4.5 days, p<0.001). The binary logistic regression analysis revealed that the application of bupivacaine alone had a significant effect on the reduction of the intake of medications (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: In situations involving patients who require rapid pain relief, bupivacaine injection following PRF ablation can be employed to provide immediate relief without subjecting the patients to the risks associated with major complications.

Perioperative pain management in COVID-19 patients: Considerations and recommendations by the Saudi Anesthesia Society (SAS) and Saudi Society of Pain Medicine (SSPM).

The COVID-19 pandemic has swept across the world over the past few months. Many articles have been published on the safety of anesthetic medications and procedures used in COVID-19 positive patients presenting for surgery. Several other articles covered the chronic pain management aspect during the pandemic. Our review aimed to focus on perioperative pain management for COVID-19 patients. We conducted a literature search for pertinent recent articles that cover considerations and recommendations concerning perioperative pain management in COVID-19 patients. We also searched the literature for the relevant adverse effects of the commonly used medications in the treatment of COVID-19, and their potential drug-drug interactions with the common medications used in perioperative pain management. Professional societies recommend prioritizing regional anesthesia techniques, which have many benefits over other perioperative pain management options. When neuraxial and continuous peripheral nerve block catheters are not an option, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) should be considered if applicable. Many of the medications used for the treatment of COVID-19 and its symptoms can interfere with the metabolism of medications used in perioperative pain management. We formulated an up-to-date guide for anesthesia providers to help them manage perioperative pain in COVID-19 patients presenting for surgery.