Opioid-Sparing Nonsteroid Anti-inflammatory Drugs Protocol in Patients Undergoing Intramedullary Nailing of Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Randomized Control Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective analgesics commonly used in fracture management. Although previously associated with delayed fracture healing, multiple studies have demonstrated their safety, with minimal risks of fracture healing. Given the current opioid crisis in the United States, alternate pain control modalities are essential to reduce opioid consumption. This study aims to determine whether the combination of oral acetaminophen and intravenous ketorolac is a viable alternative to opioid-based pain management in closed tibial shaft fractures treated with intramedullary nailing. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial evaluating postoperative pain control and opioid consumption in patients with closed tibial shaft fractures who underwent intramedullary nailing. Patients were randomized into an NSAID-based pain control group (52 patients) and an opioid-based pain control group (44 patients). Visual analog scale (VAS) scores and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) were evaluated at 12-hour postoperative intervals during the first 48 hours after surgery. Nonunion and delayed healing rates were recorded for both groups. RESULTS: A statistically significant decrease in MMEs was noted at every measured interval (12, 24, 36, and 48 hours) in the NSAID group compared with the opioid group ( P -value 0.001, 0.001, 0.040, 0.024, respectively). No significant change in visual analog scale scores was observed at 12, 36, and 48 hours between both groups ( P -value 0.215, 0.12, and 0.083, respectively). A significant decrease in VAS scores was observed at the 24-hour interval in the NSAID group compared with the opioid group ( P -value 0.041). No significant differences in union rates were observed between groups ( P -value 0.820). DISCUSSION: Using an NSAID-based postoperative pain protocol led to a decrease in opioid consumption without affecting pain scores or union rates. Owing to the minimal risk of short-term NSAID use, their role in the perioperative management of tibia shaft fractures is justified, especially when they reduce opioid consumption markedly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I.

Effect of patient-controlled analgesia on development of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing microvascular decompression: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurs frequently after microvascular decompression (MVD). Fentanyl, an opioid, is strongly related to the development of PONV, and ketorolac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, has been approved for postoperative pain management. However, how ketorolac-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) causes PONV or how its efficacy differs from that of fentanyl-based PCA after MVD is unclear. In this study, the authors compared ketorolac-based with fentanyl-based PCA in terms of the incidence and severity of PONV and analgesia after MVD. METHODS: This prospective, double-blind, single-center, randomized controlled trial conducted from December 2021 to February 2023 included patients with MVD who were randomly allocated to the ketorolac- or fentanyl-based PCA group postoperatively. The incidence (primary outcome) and severity of PONV and rescue antiemetic requirements were determined during the first 48 hours postoperatively. Additionally, postoperative pain scores, rescue analgesic requirement, PCA usage, and satisfaction scores were assessed during the study period. PONV severity and postoperative pain scores were assessed using an 11-point numeric rating scale (0 = none, 10 = extremely). Satisfaction scores for PONV and pain were determined (0 = very dissatisfied, 10 = very satisfied). Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Continuous variables were analyzed using the Student t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test based on normal distribution. RESULTS: Of 185 screened patients, 91 were excluded based on predetermined exclusion criteria; 87 patients (43 in the ketorolac group and 44 in the fentanyl group) were analyzed and showed no significant differences in demographic data between groups. PONV incidence (48.8% vs 79.5%, p = 0.003) and severity (p = 0.004) were lower in the ketorolac-based PCA group than in the fentanyl-based PCA group. In the ketorolac group, there was a significant reduction in rescue antiemetic requirements compared with the fentanyl group (p = 0.049). The number of discontinuations was lower in the ketorolac-based PCA group than in the fentanyl-based PCA group (p = 0.001), whereas no significant differences in postoperative pain were found between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with MVD, ketorolac-based PCA resulted in a decrease in PONV incidence and severity compared with fentanyl-based PCA, with analgesic effects similar to those of fentanyl-based PCA. This study provides clinical evidence that ketorolac-based PCA may be a valid alternative to fentanyl-based PCA in postoperative care.

Neurotrophic Keratopathy after wide retinal endolaser and postoperative Ketorolac eye drops: A case series.

PURPOSE: We report a series of 5 cases, happened in a period of 5 months, who developed neurotrophic keratopathy (NK) following pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and retinal endolaser for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). In our several decennary experience of surgical center predominantly based on vitreoretinal surgery, we had rare cases of postoperative NK. These recent cases of post-surgical NK happened contextually to our change of postoperative non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) drops, based on Ketorolac Tromethamine 0.5% eye drops. CASES PRESENTATION: Five patients with a mean age of 61 ± 7.3 years were treated with one or more PPV with intraoperative peripheral endolaser for RRD. Nobody had previous herpetic keratitis, systemic disease like diabetes mellitus or other predisposing factors for NK. In the postoperative period, all patients received Ketorolac Tromethamine 0.5% eye drops for a mean period of 54 ± 25 days. During follow-up visits they developed NK and they were successfully treated with suspension of Ketorolac eye drops, application of therapeutic contact lens or amniotic membrane patch and topical lubricant therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative Ketorolac eye drops, in patients who underwent PPV with endolaser, may reduce the corneal sensitivity, predispose to epithelial disruption and NK development. Studies are needed to explore the effect of NSAIDs on corneal sensitivity reduction in patient who will undergo PPV and extensive endolaser.

Comparison of Preemptive Effect of Intravenous Ketorolac Versus Nalbuphine on Postoperative Shivering and Pain in Patients Undergoing Surgery Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain and postanesthesia shivering are the two common problems in patients undergoing surgery under spinal anesthesia (SA). The present study aimed to compare the preemptive prescription of the single dose of intravenous (IV) ketorolac versus nalbuphine on postoperative shivering and pain in patients undergoing surgery under SA. METHODS: Present study was a prospective, randomized double-blind study, conducted on patients of either gender, with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I or II, aged 21-60 years, posted for elective lower abdominal surgeries under SA. Patients were randomized by computer-generated random numbers into two groups of 50 patients each: group N (received 0.2 mg/kg nalbuphine IV) and group K (received 0.5 mg/kg ketorolac IV). RESULTS: The incidence of postoperative shivering was 22 % and 36 % in groups N and K respectively and the difference was statistically significant. The first request for analgesia (minutes) was later in group N (295.17 ± 54.62) than in group K (223.80 ± 15.34) and the difference was statistically significant. Increased total analgesic consumption was noted more in group K (131.34 ± 43.27) than in group N (79.23 ± 21.34), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). The incidence of side effects was comparable among both groups. CONCLUSION: Preemptive nalbuphine had less incidence of postoperative shivering, delayed first request for analgesia, and less total analgesic consumption than ketorolac in patients undergoing surgery under SA.

The Effect of Perianal Tramadol Infiltration on Postoperative Pain Following Hemorrhoidectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The present study was attempted to evaluate the effect of perianal infiltration of tramadol on postoperative pain in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy. METHOD: This double-blind clinical trial study was carried out on 90 patients with grade 3 and 4 hemorrhoids undergoing hemorrhoidectomy. Patients were randomly assigned into 3 groups of control or bupivacaine or tramadol. Before the surgery, perianal infiltration of .25% bupivacaine or tramadol or normal saline was prescribed to each group, respectively. Data on pain severity (based on the visual analog scale (VAS), the duration of surgery, sedation score, pain at the first defecation, first request time for additional analgesia, nausea and vomiting, and analgesic intakes) were evaluated and analyzed. RESULTS: Duration of surgery was almost similar in all 3 groups (P = .974). The results showed a significant difference in pain score between 3 groups (P ≤.05) at all times after the surgery. In addition, the means of sedation scores (P = .03), pain score at the first defecation (P = .001), the time to first analgesic request (P = .001), and ketorolac administration times (P = .01) were significantly different between 3 groups. Finally, no complication was reported regarding postoperative nausea and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Given the notable efficacy of tramadol in reducing pain after hemorrhoidectomy and its minor side effects, this medication is suggested as an effective topical anesthetic to decrease pain after hemorrhoidectomy.

Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs  Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups.   Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.

The efficacy of periarticular injection intraoperatively for mini-open rotator cuff repair: A comparative study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal postoperative analgesia after open rotator cuff repair surgery remains unclear. This study compared the use of a multimodal pain regimen including periarticular injection (PAI), with a control condition. We hypothesized that PAI leads to decreased opioid consumption and lower pain scores. METHODS: The perioperative analgesic regimen was standardized and implemented from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. The PAI was administered from July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. The historical control group was enrolled from January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017. The evaluation items included assessments of pain using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) before and after the mini-open rotator cuff repair and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. The dose of ketorolac suppository and its side effects were also evaluated. RESULTS: The VAS score on the day of the operation was significantly low in the PAI group and less incidence of night pain. The time point of the rescue drug was longer in the PAI group than the control group (12.7 hours vs. 0.62 hours; p < 0.01). No cardiac or central nervous system toxicity was observed. DISCUSSION: In our study, PAI in the shoulder after mini-open rotator cuff repair showed effective pain control on the day of the surgery, postponed the time of the first dosage of intravenous pain medication, and reduced the total dosage of the intravenous pain medication.

Prospective randomized trial of continuous femoral nerve block with posterior capsular injection versus periarticular injection for analgesia in primary total knee arthroplasty.

Background: Femoral nerve block (NB) and periarticular injection (PI) are 2 common options for pain control after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed a prospective triple-blinded randomized trial comparing continuous femoral NB to PI, with follow-up to 1 year. Methods: Patients younger than 70 years of age who were scheduled to undergo elective primary TKA under spinal anesthesia between 2009 and 2010 were randomly allocated to receive either continuous femoral NB or PI. Patients in the NB group received ropivacaine through an NB catheter and a sham saline PI. The PI group received a PI of ropivacaine, morphine, ketorolac and epinephrine, and a sham saline infusion via an NB catheter. Both groups had standardized oral analgesia preoperatively, spinal anesthesia and sedation, and postoperative analgesia. Surgeons, anesthesiologists, patients and assessors were blinded to group assignment. Pain was measured twice daily on postoperative days 1 and 2, at rest and with motion, with a numeric rating scale. Patient satisfaction, pain (Oxford Knee Score) and range of motion were assessed at 1 year. Results: There were 39 participants in the NB group and 35 participants in the PI group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups at baseline. Statistically but nonclinically significant reductions in pain scores on postoperative day 2 and in narcotic need on the day of surgery were found in the PI group. Patient-reported satisfaction did not differ at any time point. At 1 year, knee flexion was significantly greater in the NB group than in the PI group (mean range of motion 120° v. 110°, p = 0.03). Conclusion: There was no demonstrated improvement in pain control with the use of an NB versus PI when used with multimodal analgesia. Clinicians should opt for the modality that has the best efficiency for their surgical environment. ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00869037

Contexte: Le bloc nerveux (BN) fémoral et l'infiltration périarticulaire (IP) sont 2 options d'usage courant pour maîtriser la douleur après l'arthroplastie totale du genou (ATG). Nous avons procédé à un essai prospectif randomisé à triple insu afin de comparer le BN fémoral et l'IP, avec un suivi allant jusqu'à 1 an. Méthodes: Les patients de moins de 70 ans qui devaient subir une ATG élective sous épidurale entre 2009 et 2010 ont été assignés aléatoirement à un BN fémoral continu ou à une IP. Les patients du groupe soumis au BN recevaient de la ropivacaïne par un cathéter de BN et une IF simulée (solution saline). Le groupe soumis à l'IP recevait de la ropivacaïne, de la morphine, du kétorolac et de l'épinéphrine et une perfusion simulée (solution saline) par un cathéter de BN. Les 2 groupes avaient reçu une analgésie orale standard avant l'intervention, une anesthésie rachidienne avec sédatifs et une analgésie postopératoire. Les chirurgiens, les anesthésiologistes, les patients et les évaluateurs ne connaissaient pas l'assignation des agents aux différents groupes. La douleur a été mesurée 2 fois par jour aux jours 1 et 2 postopératoires, au repos et à la mobilisation, au moyen d'une échelle numérique. La satisfaction des patients, la douleur (questionnaire d'Oxford pour le genou) et l'amplitude de mouvement ont toutes été évaluées après 1 an. Résultats: Le groupe soumis au BN comptait 39 participants et le groupe soumis à l'IP en comptait 35. Il n'y avait aucune différence statistiquement significative entre les groupes au départ. Des réductions statistiquement (et non cliniquement) significatives des scores de douleur au deuxième jour postopératoire et du recours aux narcotiques le jour de la chirurgie ont été notées dans le groupe soumis à l'IP. La satisfaction autodéclarée des patients n'a différé à aucun moment. Au bout de 1 an, la flexion du genou était significativement plus marquée dans le groupe soumis au BN que dans le groupe soumis à l'IP (amplitude de mouvement moyenne 120° c. 110°, p = 0,03) Conclusion: On n'a démontré aucune amélioration de la maîtrise de la douleur avec l'utilisation du BN c. IP avec analgésie multimodale. Les médecins devraient opter pour la modalité qui offre le meilleur degré d'efficience en fonction de leur environnement chirurgical. ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00869037

Ketorolac plus Lidocaine vs Lidocaine for pain relief following core needle soft tissue biopsy: A CONSORT-compliant double-blind randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUNDS: The main objective of this study was to compare the pain control efficacy of local administration of Lidocaine with or without the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, Ketorolac, and local conventional Lidocaine injection in core needle biopsy of the musculoskeletal tumor. METHODS: The current study was a randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial that included 128 patients with suspected musculoskeletal tumors. Patients were randomly assigned to either the Ketorolac plus Lidocaine (n = 64) or Lidocaine group (n = 64). The Ketorolac - Lidocaine combination syringe contained 30 mg Ketorolac and 2% Lidocaine - adrenaline dosage, and the Lidocaine syringe contained 2% Lidocaine - adrenaline dosage. The level of pain after core needle biopsy was evaluated for each patient at 1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and >48 hours by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The mean VAS changes over time were compared between the Ketorolac plus Lidocaine and Lidocaine groups using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: baseline information including mean age of patients in Lidocaine group (51.5 ±â€Š19.4 years) and in Lidocaine - Ketorolac combination group (50.1 ±â€Š18 years), diagnosis (malignant, benign, metastatic, infection), tumor location (upper and lower extremities, back), VAS score 1-hour post-operation (mild and moderate pain) were noted. The VAS score ratings were significantly lower in Lidocaine - Ketorolac combination group when compared to the Lidocaine group during the 1 to 24 hours post-operation time period. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving Lidocaine - Ketorolac combination dosage had significantly lower VAS scores, and these results confirm that local injection of Lidocaine - Ketorolac combination had a superior pain-controlling effect during the first 24 hours after the biopsy procedure in comparison to Lidocaine injection alone, as measured by VAS score scale.

Narcotic-Free Perioperative Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does the Periarticular Injection Medication Make a Difference?

Multimodal pain management strategies are critical in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There has recently been a shift toward opioid sparing protocols, yet most publications continue to use narcotics in the perioperative period. Periarticular injections are a popular adjunct but studies regarding the optimal medications have high variability making it difficult to choose the optimal medication. The purpose of this study is to validate a perioperative, opioid-free protocol and compare two different periarticular injections without the variability in previous reports. A multimodal pain protocol was instituted that administered no narcotic medications in the perioperative period. Over 2 years, primary TKA patients were informally randomized to receive liposomal bupivacaine (LB), or a cocktail of medications (CO). A total of 189 patients were included: 101 patients in group LB and 88 patients in group CO. Postoperative opioid consumption, length of stay, and inpatient distance ambulated were compared across the two injection groups. In morphine milligram equivalents, group LB consumed a mean of 20.36 mg of oxycodone versus 23.18 mg in group CO (p = 0.543). For tramadol, group LB consumed 27.24 mg versus 28.69 mg in group CO (p = 0.714). Mean hospital stay was 1.70 days for group LB and 1.72 days for group CO (p = 0.811). Distance ambulated was 528.4ft for group LB and 499.8ft for group CO (p = 0.477). In the LB group, 50% of patients required no oxycodone, and 12% of them took neither oxycodone nor tramadol for pain. In the CO group, 40% declined oxycodone and 10% declined both oxycodone and tramadol. We successfully treated all patients without narcotic medications in the perioperative period. Although we saw trends for improvements in group LB, these were small and not clinically meaningful. It appears that both injections were effective. There is a significant cost difference and medications should be chosen based on surgeon preference and institutional needs.

Intravenous ketorolac is associated with reduced mortality and morbidity after open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVES: The role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in aortic aneurysm disease has been debated. Animal studies demonstrated that intrathecal ketorolac reduces the inflammatory response associated with aortic clamping. However, no human-subject study evaluated this association. Therefore, we sought to explore the effects of ketorolac use in open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database (June 2009-March 2015) was inquired to capture patients who underwent open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair for non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, identified via International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes. Intravenous ketorolac was coded as any or none. Outcomes were in-hospital mortality, cardiac, respiratory, renal, neurological, and hemorrhagic complications. Multivariable logistic regression coarsened exact matching followed by conditional fixed-effect regression modeling were performed. RESULTS: A total of 6394 patients were identified (ketorolac: 806; 12.6%). Patients who received ketorolac were younger and less likely to have hypertension (76.1% vs. 79.3%), diabetes mellitus (12.5% vs. 17.4%), or chronic kidney disease (8.3% vs. 21.4%; all p values ≤ .033). There was no significant difference in medication use including oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and malignant or musculoskeletal diseases. Mortality, respiratory, and renal complications were less prevalent with ketorolac (2.5% vs. 4.9%, 25.2% vs. 34.6%, 10.0% vs. 21.1%; p ≤ .002). Ketorolac was associated with lower adjusted odds for those events: 0.58 (0.36-0.93), 0.53 (0.42-0.68), and 0.72 (0.60-0.86), respectively (all p values ≤ .025). There was no association with neurological, cardiac, or hemorrhagic complications. The findings were replicated by coarsened exact matching analysis. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated 40% mortality reduction with intravenous ketorolac following open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. The survival benefit could be due to its anti-inflammatory and opioid-sparing properties. This is evident by its protective effect against respiratory outcomes. The lack of association with the classical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-related cardiac and hemorrhagic complication could be attributable to the short-term use of ketorolac compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs chronic use.

Real-world opioid prescribing after cataract surgery among patients who received intracameral phenylephrine and ketorolac 1.0%/0.3.

OBJECTIVE: To examine opioid prescribing following cataract surgery among patients who did or did not receive Omidria (phenylephrine and ketorolac intraocular solution 1.0%/0.3%) referred to as "P/K". METHODS: The retrospective study compared adults over 65 without recent opioid use in the MarketScan databases who had a cataract-related surgical procedure between 1 January 2015 and 31 July 2019. Opioid prescription fills in the initial 2 and 7 days following surgery were compared between patients who did or did not receive P/K during surgery. RESULTS: We identified 218,672 older adults with cataract-related surgical procedures, of whom 5145 received P/K during surgery. Within 2 days of surgery, 0.50% of P/K patients and 0.68% of non-P/K patients received at least one opioid prescription. Pill counts in the first prescription post-surgery were lower for patients who received P/K than those who did not receive P/K (20 vs 45 respectively, p = .015). Findings were similar when a 7 day window was used. The reduction in opioids prescribed to patients who received P/K occurred despite the P/K-treated patients having a significantly higher incidence of preoperative comorbidities or risk factors for surgical complexity than patients who did not receive P/K (46.6% vs 31.3%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients without recent opioid use who received P/K during cataract surgery, despite greater incidence of preoperative comorbidities and higher risk for surgical complexity, were prescribed fewer opioid pills following surgery than patients who did not receive P/K.

Effect of the Combination of Ketorolac and Bupivacaine on Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Postoperative Analgesia After Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery.

BACKGROUND This study assessed the additional benefits of bupivacaine when combined with ketorolac for transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block after gynecological laparoscopic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS This randomized, observer-blind trial recruited 153 patients who underwent gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive bupivacaine combined with ketorolac 15 mg/side for TAP block (TK group), bupivacaine for TAP block and 30 mg postoperative intravenous ketorolac (T group), or 30 mg postoperative intravenous ketorolac alone (C group). The primary endpoints included consumption of sufentanil for 24 h postoperatively, actual press times of the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump, and effective press times of the PCA pump, whereas the secondary endpoints included numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at rest and during activity, satisfaction with analgesia, episodes of nausea and vomiting and length of hospital stay. RESULTS Sufentanil consumption, actual press times of the PCA pump, and effective press times of the PCA pump were lower in the TK and T groups than in the C group. NRS scores at rest and during activity at 1, 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours were significantly lower in the TK and T groups than in the C group. The TK and T groups showed greater satisfaction with analgesia than the C group, while the TK group showed greater overall satisfaction than the C group. Lengths of stay, rates of nausea and vomiting, and venting times did not differ significantly among the three groups. CONCLUSIONS Combined ketorolac and bupivacaine as TAP block improved the effectiveness of analgesia without increasing adverse events. Trial registration number: ChiCTR1900022577.

No Difference in Pain After Spine Surgery with Local Wound Filtration of Morphine and Ketorolac: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Controlling postoperative pain after spinal surgery is important for rehabilitation and patient satisfaction. Wound infiltration with local anesthetics may improve postoperative pain, but true multimodal approaches for achieving analgesia after spinal surgery remain unknown. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial after lumbar interbody fusion, we asked: (1) Does multimodal analgesia reduce VAS pain scores by a clinically important amount? (2) Does this analgesic approach reduce the amount of morphine patients consume after surgery? (3) Is this approach associated with fewer opioid-related side effects after surgery? METHODS: This study included 80 adult patients undergoing lumbar interbody fusion who were randomized into two groups: A control group (n = 40) who received infiltration of the surgical incision at the end of the procedure with an injection of 0.5% bupivacaine 100 mg (20 mL) and epinephrine 0.5 mg (0.5 mL), and the multimodal group (n = 40), who received wound infiltration with the same approach but with different medications: 0.5% bupivacaine 92.5 mg (18.5 mL), ketorolac 30 mg (1 mL), morphine 5 mg (0.5 mL), and epinephrine 0.5 mg (0.5 mL). There were no between-group differences in the proportion of patients who were male, nor in the mean age, height, weight, preoperative pain score, or surgical time. All treatments were administered by one surgeon. All patients, the surgeon, and the researchers were blinded to the allocation of patients to each group. Pain at rest was recorded using the VAS. Postoperative morphine consumption (administered using a patient-controlled analgesia pump) and opiod-associated side effects including nausea/vomiting, pruritus, urinary retention, and respiratory depression were assessed; this study was analyzed according to intention-to-treat principles. No loss to follow-up or protocol deviations were noted. We considered a 2-cm change on a 10-cm scale on the VAS as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Differences smaller than this were considered unlikely to be important. RESULTS: At no point were there between-group differences in the VAS scores that exceeded the MCID, indicating no clinically important reductions in pain associated with administering multimodal injections. The highest treatment effect was observed at 3 hours that showed only a -1.3 cm mean difference between the multimodal and the control groups (3.2 ± 1.8 versus 4.5 ± 1.9 [95% CI -1.3 to -0.3]; p < 0.001), which was below the MCID. Morphine consumption was very slightly higher in the control group than in the multimodal group (2.8 ± 2.8 versus 0.3 ± 1.0, mean difference 2.47; p < 0.001). The percentage of patients reporting opioid-related side effects was lower in the multimodal group than in the control group. The proportions of nausea and vomiting were higher in the control group (30% [12 of 40] than in the multimodal group (3% [1 of 40]; p = 0.001). All of these side effects were transient and none was severe. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal wound infiltration with an NSAID and morphine did not yield any clinically important reduction in pain or opioid consumption. Since no substantial benefit of adding these drugs to a patient's aftercare regimen was achieved, and considering the potential risks of administering opioids and NSAIDs (such as, polypharmacy in older patients, serious adverse effects of NSAIDs), we recommend against routine use of this approach in clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A prospective study.

AIM: The purpose of this study is to evaluate three different analgesic procedures after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for pain control. MATERIAL OF STUDY: The study involved 183 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the same technique for the induction and maintenance of the general anesthesia. They were divided into three different postoperative pain treatment groups: continuous infusion of Tramadol and Ketorolac with elastomeric pump, intraperitoneal topical instillation of Levobupivacaine, and intraperitoneal aerosolization of Levobupivacaine. RESULTS: No differences were found in the demographics. shorter operating time was observed in group 1. Eight hours after surgery in groups 2 and 3, there was an increase in pain compared to patients in the first group. The request for postoperative analgesic assistance was lower in groups 1 and 2. DISCUSSION: Various topical and intravenous ways for analgesic actions have been used to improve the pain control after laparoscopic procedures, individually and in comparison between them. The main result of our research is that the use of levobupivacaine employed in the topical intraperitoneal application anesthesia by instillation and nebulization, do not improve the postoperative pain in the first 24 hours after LC, compared with intravenous analgesic elastomeric pump. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the positive data found in the literature, our observations have not shown a better pain control after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with the use of intraperitoneal analgesia compared to intravenous. KEY WORDS: Gallstone disease, Gallbladder bladder, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Postoperative pain, Stones.

A comparative study of the analgesic effects of intravenous ketorolac, paracetamol, and morphine in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A double-blind, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial.

Background: Opioids are traditionally used as the drug of choice for the management of postoperative pain. However, their use is limited in patients undergoing Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), due to their side effects, such as respiratory depression, nausea, and vomiting. Aim: In this double-blind active-controlled randomized study, we have compared the analgesic effects of ketorolac and paracetamol to morphine. Methods: Patients were randomly chosen from a pool of candidates who were undergoing VATS and were divided into three groups. During the first 24 h postsurgery, patients in the control group received a cumulative dose of morphine 20 mg, while patients in two treatment groups received ketorolac 120 mg and paracetamol 4 g in total. Doses were administered as bolus immediately after surgery and infusion during the first 24 h. Patients' pain severity was evaluated by visual analogue scale rating (VAS) at rest and during coughing episodes. Results: The average pain score at recovery time was 2.29 ± 2.13 and 2.26 ± 2.16 for ketorolac and paracetamol, respectively, and it was significantly lower than the morphine group with an average pain score of 3.87 (P = 0.003). Additionally, the VAS score during cough episodes was significantly higher in the control group throughout the study period compared to study groups. Comparison of mean morphine dose utilized as liberation analgesic (in case of patients had VAS >3) between three groups was not significantly different (P = 0.17). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates the non-inferiority of ketorolac and paracetamol to morphine in controlling post-VATS pain without causing any significant side effects. We also show that ketorolac and paracetamol are superior to morphine in controlling pain during 2 h postsurgery.

Whole-Course Application of Dexmedetomidine Combined with Ketorolac in Nonnarcotic Postoperative Analgesia for Patients with Lung Cancer Undergoing Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-based postoperative analgesia provides adequate analgesia with much adverse effects and immunosuppression. Dexmedetomidine and ketorolac have properties of opioid-sparing, antiinflammation, and immune protection. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of whole-course application of dexmedetomidine combined with ketorolac in nonnarcotic postoperative analgesia and its effect on inflammatory response and immune function in thoracoscopic surgery of lung cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized control trial. SETTING: The First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, Liaoning, China. METHODS: Sixty patients scheduled for thoracoscopic surgery were enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups to receive a combination of intraoperative usage of dexmedetomidine and postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia of dexmedetomidine 0.1 µg/kg/h and ketorolac 3 mg/kg (DEX group) or only postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia of sufentanil 1.5 µg/kg and ketorolac 3 mg/kg (SUF group) for 48 hours. Vital signs, postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score, Ramsay sedation score, patient-controlled analgesia pressing times, consumption of sufentanil and rescue drug, and complications were compared between the 2 groups. The levels of inflammatory factors and immune function were also compared. RESULTS: A significant reduction in median blood pressures and heart rates within 48 hours after surgery and perioperative consumption of sufentanil were observed in the DEX group compared with the SUF group (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found in VAS scores, patient-controlled analgesia pressing times, and rescue drug consumption between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The incidence of nausea was significantly lower in the DEX group compared with the SUF group (P < 0.05). A significant decrease of interleukin (IL)-1 beta, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, and increased CD4+ and CD4+/CD8+ were observed in the DEX group compared with the SUF group at 24 and 48 hours after surgery (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the levels of CD8+ and natural killer cells between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Whole-course application of dexmedetomidine combined with ketorolac in nonnarcotic postoperative analgesia provided adequate and safe postoperative analgesia, reduced sufentanil consumption, analgesia-related complications, alleviated inflammatory response, and immunosuppression compared with sufentanil-based analgesia in thoracoscopic surgery. KEY WORDS: Dexmedetomidine, ketorolac, sufentanil, thoracoscopic surgery, postoperative analgesic, patient-controlled analgesia, inflammatory response, immune function.

Comprehensive Analysis of the Effect of Ketorolac Administration after Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Outcome improvement is a major goal of pancreatic surgery. Such efforts include decreasing perioperative narcotic use to optimize care and reduce potential contributions to the opioid crisis. Ketorolac, a frequent component of opioid-minimizing recovery pathways, has not been universally adopted over concerns regarding adverse events including anastomotic fidelity, hemorrhage, and renal failure. We examined ketorolac's effects on pancreatic fistula (PF) formation and related morbidity after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing PD from December 2008 to September 2018 was conducted and stratified by receipt of ketorolac during the initial 5 postoperative days. The primary outcome was clinically relevant PF (CR-PF) per international consensus definitions. Secondary outcomes included fistula risk score (FRS)-adjusted CR-PF and cumulative morbidity. RESULTS: Of 429 patients, CR-PF occurred in 9.3% (n = 40), and 249 patients received ketorolac before postoperative day 6 (58.0%), with a mean dose of 36.1 ± 22.3 mg/day. CR-PF occurred in 11.2% (n = 28) of patients receiving ketorolac vs 6.7% (n = 12) who did not ( p = 0.12); CR-PF incidence was unrelated to dose. Overall CR-PF incidence did not differ statistically by ketorolac use in the first 5 days postoperatively across FRS categories. Results from multivariable logistic regression models, adjusted for known PF risk factors suggested that ketorolac was not significantly associated with risk of CR-PF (odds ratio [OR] 1.99 [range 0.93 to 4.26], p = 0.08). Operative mortality and major (Clavien ≥ 3) morbidity, including hemorrhage and renal failure, did not differ statistically between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ketorolac administration was associated with an acceptable risk of CR-PF and no increase in major morbidity after PD. These data suggest ketorolac can be used in strategies to optimize analgesia and minimize opioid usage.

Investigation of sumatriptan and ketorolac trometamol in the human experimental model of headache.

BACKGROUND: Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP38) induces headache in healthy volunteers but the precise mechanisms by which PACAP38 leads to headache are unclear. We investigated the headache preventive effect of sumatriptan and ketorolac on PACAP38-induced headache in healthy volunteers. In addition, we explored contribution of vascular mechanisms to PACAP38-induced headache using high resolution magnetic resonance angiography. METHODS: Thirty-four healthy volunteers were divided in two groups (A and B) and received infusion of PACAP38 (10 picomol/kg/min) over 20 min. Group A was pretreated with intravenous sumatriptan (4 mg) or ketorolac (30 mg) 20 min before infusion of PACAP38. Group B received infusion of sumatriptan or ketorolac as post-treatment 90 min after infusion of PACAP38. In both experiments, we used a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. We recorded headache characteristics and circumference of extra-intracerebral arteries. RESULTS: We found no difference in AUC (0-6 h) of PACAP38-induced headache in group A, pretreated with sumatriptan or ketorolac (p = 0.297). There was no difference between sumatriptan and ketorolac in PACAP38-induced circumference change (AUCBaseline-110 min) of MMA (p = 0.227), STA (p = 0.795) and MCA (p = 0.356). In group B, post-treatment with ketorolac reduced PACAP38-headache compared to sumatriptan (p < 0.001). Post-treatment with sumatriptan significantly reduced the circumference of STA (p = 0.039) and MMA (p = 0.015) but not of MCA (p = 0.981) compared to ketorolac. In an explorative analysis, we found that pre-treatment with sumatriptan reduced PACAP38-induced headache compared to no treatment (AUC0-90min). CONCLUSIONS: Post-treatment with ketorolac was more effective in attenuating PACAP38-induced headache compared to sumatriptan. Ketorolac exerted its effect without affecting PACAP38-induced arterial dilation, whereas sumatriptan post-treatment attenuated PACAP38-induced dilation of MMA and STA. Pre-treatment with sumatriptan attenuated PACAP38-induced headache without affecting PACAP38-induced arterial dilation. Our findings suggest that ketorolac and sumatriptan attenuated PACAP38-induced headache in healthy volunteers without vascular effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03585894). Registered 13 July 2018.