RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of magnesium sulphate on the total dose of intravenous morphine consumption postoperatively following limb amputations along with rescue analgesia requirement, pain scores and side effects. METHODS: This prospective, triple-blinded, randomised controlled study was conducted from October 2021 to May 2022 at the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan, and comprised of patients scheduled for limb amputations. They were randomised into 2 equal groups. The anaesthesia protocol was uniform for all patients. Intervention group A was administered 30mg/kg loading dose and 10mg/kg/hr maintenance dose of magnesium sulphate intravenously, while patients in control group B received the same amount of plain isotonic saline. Morphine consumption, including that used for rescue analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia, was measured for 24 hours postoperatively. Numeric rating scale was used for the evaluation of postoperative pain in both groups at 15min, 1h, 2h, at discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit and at 12h and 24h in the ward. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: Of the 24 patients enrolled, the study was completed by 20(83.33%). There were 10(50%) patients in group A; 8(40%) males and 2(20%) females with mean age 24.8±14.14 years and mean surgery time 130.5±47.86 minutes. There were 10(50%) patients in group B; 8(40%) males and 2(20%) females with mean age 23.2±7.4 years and mean surgery time 117±23.85 minutes (p>0.05). Total morphine used over 24 hours in group A was 16±3.1 mg compared to 29.6±11.2 mg in group B (p<0.05). The time for first use of patient-controlled analgesia after arriving in the postanaesthesia care unit was significantly delayed in group A (72.2±24.95 minutes) compared to that in group B (25±26.68 minutes) (p<0.05). Pain scores were significantly higher in the group B at 15min compared to group A (p<0.05), but not at the rest of the time points (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous magnesium sulphate proved to be effective in lowering postoperative opioid requirement following limb amputations.
Asunto(s)
Amputación Quirúrgica , Analgésicos Opioides , Sulfato de Magnesio , Morfina , Dimensión del Dolor , Dolor Postoperatorio , Humanos , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Sulfato de Magnesio/administración & dosificación , Sulfato de Magnesio/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Masculino , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Morfina/administración & dosificación , Morfina/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Analgesia Controlada por el Paciente/métodos , Adulto Joven , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Agudo/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Background: Thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) analgesia can be prolonged by local anesthetic adjuvants such as dexmedetomidine. This study aimed to evaluate the two administration routes of dexmedetomidine on acute pain and chronic neuropathic pain (NeuP) prevention compared with no dexmedetomidine. Methods: A total of 216 patients were randomized to receive TPVB using 0.4% ropivacaine alone (R Group), with perineural dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg·kg-1 (RD0.5 Group) or 1.0 µg·kg-1 (RD1.0 Group), or intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine 0.5 µg·kg-1·h-1 (RDiv Group). The primary outcome was the incidence of chronic NeuP, defined as a Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) pain score > 12 points at 3-month after surgery. Results: (1) For the primary outcome, RD0.5 Group and RD1.0 Group demonstrated a decreased incidence of chronic NeuP at 3-month after surgery; (2) Compared with R Group, RDiv Group, RD0.5 Group, and RD1.0 Group can reduce VAS scores at rest and movement and Prince-Henry Pain scores at 12 and 24-h after surgery, the consumption of oral morphine equivalent (OME) and improve QOD-15 at POD1; (3) Compared with RDiv Group, RD0.5 Group and RD1.0 Group can reduce VAS scores at rest and movement and Prince-Henry Pain scores at 12 and 24-h after surgery, the consumption of postoperative OME and improve QOD-15 at POD1; (4) Compared with RD0.5 Group, RD1.0 Group effectively reduced VAS scores at rest at 12 and 24-h after surgery, VAS scores in movement and Prince-Henry Pain scores at 12-h after surgery. However, RD1.0 Group showed an increased incidence of drowsiness. Conclusion: Perineural or IV dexmedetomidine are similarly effective in reducing acute pain, but only perineural dexmedetomidine reduced chronic NeuP. Moreover, considering postoperative complications such as drowsiness, perineural dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg·kg-1) may be a more appropriate choice. Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200058982).
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Dolor Crónico , Dexmedetomidina , Bloqueo Nervioso , Humanos , Dexmedetomidina/administración & dosificación , Dexmedetomidina/farmacología , Método Doble Ciego , Masculino , Bloqueo Nervioso/métodos , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano , Ultrasonografía Intervencional , Toracoscopía , Neoplasias Pulmonares/cirugía , Adulto , Administración IntravenosaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and tumour resection carries a high prevalence of chronic persistent postsurgical pain (CPSP). Perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion has been proposed as protective against CPSP; however, evidence of its benefits is conflicting. This review evaluates the effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Randomised trials comparing perioperative lidocaine infusions with parenteral analgesia in breast cancer surgery patients were sought. The two co-primary outcomes were the odds of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after operation. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0-24 and 25-48 h; quality of recovery; opioid-related side-effects; and lidocaine infusion side-effects. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) random effects modelling was used. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1039 patients; lidocaine: 518, control: 521) were included. Compared with control, perioperative lidocaine infusion did not decrease the odds of developing CPSP at 3 and 6 months. Lidocaine infusion improved postoperative pain at 1 h by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.65 cm (-0.73 to -0.57 cm) (P<0.0001); however, this difference was not clinically important (1.1 cm threshold). Similarly, lidocaine infusion reduced oral morphine consumption by 7.06 mg (-13.19 to -0.93) (P=0.029) over the first 24 h only; however, this difference was not clinically important (30 mg threshold). The groups were not different for any of the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate-quality evidence that perioperative lidocaine infusion does not reduce CPSP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Routine use of lidocaine infusions for perioperative analgesia and CPSP prevention is not supported in this population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023420888.
Asunto(s)
Anestésicos Locales , Neoplasias de la Mama , Dolor Crónico , Lidocaína , Dolor Postoperatorio , Atención Perioperativa , Humanos , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Lidocaína/administración & dosificación , Lidocaína/uso terapéutico , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Femenino , Anestésicos Locales/administración & dosificación , Anestésicos Locales/uso terapéutico , Dolor Crónico/prevención & control , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Atención Perioperativa/métodos , Infusiones Intravenosas , Resultado del Tratamiento , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of the femoral branch block of the genitofemoral nerve (FBB) versus local infiltration anesthesia (LIA) for femoral arterial access gain and closure. METHODS: Eighty-two patients (age, 64.8 ± 10.9 years; female, 30.5%) undergoing endovascular procedures using 5-Fr femoral sheath were assigned to either FBB (n = 41) or LIA (n = 41). In both groups, 2% lidocaine HCL with 1:100,000 epinephrine was used as an anesthetic solution. Pain scores during access gain and closure were evaluated using a visual analog scale (score 0-10), patient satisfaction levels with the quality of anesthesia were scored on a 7-point Likert scale, and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The primary endpoint, pain scores during access closure, was significantly lower in the FBB group than in the LIA group (0.1 ± 0.37 vs 1.73 ± 0.92; p < 0.001). The FBB group also had significantly lower pain scores during access gain compared to the LIA group (0.83 ± 0.83 vs 2.78 ± 1.26; p < 0.001). There was an inverse relationship between pain scores and FBB after adjustment for age, gender, and body mass index (p < 0.001). FBB group reported significantly higher satisfaction with anesthesia quality compared to the LIA group (6.49 ± 0.64 vs 4.05 ± 1.05; p < 0.001). No complications were recognized in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided genitofemoral nerve blocks offered better acute pain relief and higher patient satisfaction than LIA during femoral arterial access gain and closure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, ultrasound-guided genitofemoral nerve blocks offered better acute pain relief than local infiltration anesthesia, resulting in enhanced patient satisfaction. KEY POINTS: ⢠FBB provided better pain relief during access gain and closure than LIA. ⢠FBB offered higher patient satisfaction with the quality of anesthesia than LIA. ⢠No anesthesia-related or access site complications were recognized in either treatment group.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Bloqueo Nervioso , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Anestésicos Locales/uso terapéutico , Nervio Femoral , Bloqueo Nervioso/métodos , Estudios Prospectivos , Ultrasonografía Intervencional , MasculinoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Thoracotomy is considered one of the most painful surgical procedures and can cause debilitating chronic post-surgical pain lasting months or years postoperatively. Aggressive management of acute pain resulting from thoracotomy may reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. This trial compares the two most commonly used modes of acute analgesia provision at the time of thoracotomy (thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) and paravertebral blockade (PVB)) in terms of their clinical and cost-effectiveness in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain. METHODS: TOPIC 2 is a multi-centre, open-label, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot investigating the use of TEB and PVB in 1026 adult (≥ 18 years old) patients undergoing thoracotomy in up to 20 thoracic centres throughout the UK. Patients (N = 1026) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TEB or PVB. During the first year, the trial will include an integrated QuinteT (Qualitative Research Integrated into Trials) Recruitment Intervention (QRI) with the aim of optimising recruitment and informed consent. The primary outcome is the incidence of chronic post-surgical pain at 6 months post-randomisation defined as 'worst chest pain over the last week' equating to a visual analogue score greater than or equal to 40 mm indicating at least a moderate level of pain. Secondary outcomes include acute pain, complications of regional analgesia and surgery, health-related quality of life, mortality and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: Both TEB and PVB have been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of acute pain following thoracotomy and nationally practice is divided. Identification of which mode of analgesia is both clinically and cost-effective in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain could ameliorate the debilitating effects of chronic pain, improving health-related quality of life, facilitating return to work and caring responsibilities and resulting in a cost saving to the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03677856 [ClinicalTrials.gov] registered September 19, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03677856 . First patient recruited 8 January 2019.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Analgesia Epidural , Dolor Crónico , Bloqueo Nervioso , Adulto , Humanos , Adolescente , Toracotomía/efectos adversos , Dolor Crónico/diagnóstico , Dolor Crónico/etiología , Dolor Crónico/prevención & control , Analgesia Epidural/efectos adversos , Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Dolor Agudo/diagnóstico , Dolor Agudo/etiología , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Calidad de Vida , Bloqueo Nervioso/efectos adversos , Bloqueo Nervioso/métodos , Dolor Postoperatorio/diagnóstico , Dolor Postoperatorio/etiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estudios Multicéntricos como AsuntoRESUMEN
PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is associated with an acute pain syndrome (P-APS- and chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). P-APS is associated with higher risk of CIPN. Omega-3 fatty acids have well-established anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties. The primary purpose of this pilot study was to assess whether omega-3 fatty acids could decrease P-APS and thus CIPN. METHODS: Patients scheduled to receive weekly paclitaxel for breast cancer were randomized to receive 4 g of omega-3 acid ethyl esters (Lovaza) or placebo, beginning 1 week prior and continued until paclitaxel was stopped. Patients completed acute pain questionnaires at baseline, daily after each treatment, and 1 month after completion of therapy. RESULTS: Sixty patients (49 evaluable) were randomized to treatment versus placebo. Seventeen (68.0%) patients receiving the omega-3 fatty acids intervention experienced P-APS, compared to 15 (62.5%) of those receiving placebo during the first week of treatment (p = 0.77). Over the full 12-week study, 21 (84.0%) patients receiving the omega-3 fatty acid intervention experienced P-APS, compared to 21 (87.5%) of those receiving placebo (p = 1.0). Secondary outcomes suggested that those in the intervention arm used more over-the-counter analgesics (OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.72-3.78, p = 0.23), used more opiates (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 0.55-7.75, p = 0.28), and experienced higher levels of CIPN (12.8, 95% CI: 7.6-19.4 vs. 8.4, 95% CI: 4.6-13.2, p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study do not support further study of the use of omega-3 fatty acids for the prevention of the P-APS and CIPN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Number: NCT01821833.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Neoplasias de la Mama , Ácidos Grasos Omega-3 , Enfermedades del Sistema Nervioso Periférico , Humanos , Femenino , Paclitaxel , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Proyectos Piloto , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Dolor Agudo/inducido químicamente , Método Doble Ciego , Ácidos Grasos Omega-3/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades del Sistema Nervioso Periférico/inducido químicamenteRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice on feelings of reassurance and management intentions among people with acute low back pain (LBP). DESIGN: Three-arm parallel-group randomized experiment. METHODS: We recruited people with acute LBP (pain for ≤6 weeks) to participate in an online experiment. Participants were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of three groups: guideline advice alone or guideline advice with the addition of brief pain science or ergonomics messages. The intervention was delivered via prerecorded videos in all 3 groups. Coprimary outcomes were reassurance that (1) no serious condition is causing LBP and (2) continuing with daily activities is safe. Secondary outcomes were perceived risk of developing chronic pain, management intentions (bed rest, see a health professional, see a specialist, and imaging), credibility, and relevance of the advice in addressing the participant's concerns. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred ninety-seven responses (99.3% of 2,313 randomized) were analyzed. Adding brief pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not change reassurance that LBP was not caused by serious disease. The addition of ergonomics advice provided worse reassurance that it is safe to continue with daily activities compared to guideline advice (mean difference [MD], -0.33; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.53). There was no difference between groups on management intentions. CONCLUSION: Adding pain science or ergonomics messages to guideline advice did not increase reassurance or change management intentions in people with acute LBP. Ergonomics messages may lead to reduced feelings of reassurance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(12)1-11. Epub 26 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12090.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Dolor Crónico , Dolor de la Región Lumbar , Humanos , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/terapia , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Reposo en Cama , ErgonomíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial aimed to compare the postoperative analgesic efficacy of One-Level pre-incisional erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and Bi-Level pre-incisional ESPB in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS). METHODS: This pilot trial was conducted between April 2022 and February 2023 with sixty patients. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. In One-Level ESPB Group (n = 30) block was performed at the thoracal(T)5 level with the 30 ml 0.25% bupivacaine. In the Bi-Level ESPB Group (n = 30) block was performed at T4 and T6 levels by using 15 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine for each level. In the postoperative period, 50 mg dexketoprofen every 12 h and 1 g paracetamol every 8 h were given intravenously (IV). Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) prepared with morphine was applied to the patients. 0.5 mg/kg of tramadol was administered via IV for rescue analgesia. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded in the postoperative 1st, 2nd, 4th, 12th, 24th, and 48th -hours. The need for additional analgesics and side effects were recorded. In two groups, patients' demographics and postoperative hemodynamic data were recorded. RESULTS: VAS scores at resting were statistically significantly higher at the 1st (p: 0.002) and 4th -hour (p: 0.001) in the One-Level ESPB. When the groups were evaluated in terms of VAS coughing scores, the 4th -hour (p: 0.001) VAS coughing scores results were found to be statistically significantly higher in the One-Level ESPB group. In terms of VAS values evaluated during follow-up, the rates of VAS coughing score > 3 values were found to be statistically significantly lower in the Bi-Level ESPB group (p: 0.011). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of side effects, morphine consumption, and additional analgesic use (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adequate analgesia was achieved in the early postoperative period in the group treated with Bi-Level ESPB with similar morphine consumption and side effects. This may be an advantage, especially in the early postoperative period when the pain is quite intense.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Bupivacaína , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Bloqueo Nervioso , Dolor Postoperatorio , Humanos , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Analgesia Controlada por el Paciente , Analgésicos Opioides , Bupivacaína/administración & dosificación , Tos , Morfina , Bloqueo Nervioso/métodos , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Estudios Prospectivos , Cirugía Torácica Asistida por Video , Ultrasonografía IntervencionalRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical efficacy of prophylactic metoclopramide in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting in emergency department (ED) patients with acute pain who were treated with intravenous tramadol. RESULTS: We conducted a single-center randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. A total of 99 ED patients presented with acute pain were recruited. Sixty-four patients were randomized, 31 patients in the treatment arm and 33 in the control arm. Overall, there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between treatment arm and control arm. Only one patient within each arm reported having nausea symptom. No patients reported vomiting episode. There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients with nausea or vomiting symptoms between the two groups (3.2% in the treatment arm vs. 3.0% in the control arm, p = 1.000). The administration of prophylactic metoclopramide may not provide additional benefit in reducing the occurrence of nausea and/or vomiting episode in ED patients with acute pain treated with intravenous tramadol. Trial registration Randomized clinical trial TCTR20220525001; registration date: 21 October 2021. Retrospectively registered.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Antieméticos , Tramadol , Humanos , Metoclopramida/uso terapéutico , Tramadol/uso terapéutico , Tramadol/efectos adversos , Antieméticos/uso terapéutico , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Vómitos/prevención & control , Náusea/tratamiento farmacológico , Náusea/prevención & control , Método Doble CiegoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published the Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain-United States, 2022 (CDCCPG) to replace the 2016 guideline. This guideline was designed to serve as a clinical tool to improve communication between clinicians and patients and empower them to make informed, person-centered decisions regarding pain management and the prescribing of opioids. It is intended for primary care and other clinicians, including dentists, who provide pain management for adults with acute, subacute, and chronic pain. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: This article summarizes the CDCCPG, with an emphasis on information of relevance to dentistry. RESULTS: For dentists, the most important recommendations for pain management are that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications are first-line medications for acute dental pain, interdisciplinary care for chronic orofacial pain is indicated, and opioids should only be prescribed for acute dental pain for a maximum of 3 days after risk assessment. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The CDCCPG contains a great deal of relevant information that can help dentists and dental specialists make safe, effective, and evidence-based decisions in providing pain control for their patients.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Dolor Crónico , Adulto , Humanos , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Dolor Crónico/tratamiento farmacológico , Odontólogos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) prevalence has not changed over the past decades what questions the efficacy of preventive strategies. Regional analgesia is used to control acute pain, but preventive effect on CPSP remains debated. Failures and future application of regional analgesia to prevent transition from acute to chronic pain will be discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: After thoracotomy, perioperative regional analgesia does not seem to prevent CPSP. After breast cancer surgery, paravertebral block might prevent CPSP intensity and impact on daily life up to 12âmonths, particularly in high catastrophizing patients. In knee arthroplasty, perioperative regional analgesia or preoperative genicular nerve neuroablation do not prevent CPSP, although current studies present several bias. The protective role of effective regional analgesia and early pain relief in trauma patients deserves further studies. SUMMARY: Regional analgesia failure to prevent CPSP development should prompt us to reconsider its perioperative utilization. Patients' stratification, for example high-pain responders, might help to target those who will most benefit of regional analgesia. The impact of regional analgesia on secondary pain-related outcomes such as intensity and neuropathic character despite no difference on CPSP incidence requires more studies. Finally, the preventive effect of regional analgesia targeted interventions on CPSP in patients suffering from severe subacute pain deserves to be assessed.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Analgesia , Dolor Crónico , Dolor Agudo/etiología , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Analgesia/efectos adversos , Dolor Crónico/prevención & control , Humanos , Manejo del Dolor/efectos adversos , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & controlAsunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Neoplasias de la Mama , Dolor Agudo/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Agudo/etiología , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Neoplasias de la Mama/cirugía , Clorhidrato de Duloxetina/efectos adversos , Femenino , Humanos , Mastectomía , Mastectomía Radical Modificada , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor Postoperatorio/etiología , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Importance: The use of intercostal nerve block (ICNB) analgesia with local anesthesia is common in thoracic surgery. However, the benefits and safety of ICNB among adult patients undergoing surgery is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the analgesic benefits and safety of ICNB among adults undergoing thoracic surgery. Data Sources: A systematic search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases using terms for ICNB and thoracic surgery (including thoracic surgery, thoracoscopy, thoracotomy, nerve block, intercostal nerves). The search and results were not limited by date, with the last search conducted on July 24, 2020. Study Selection: Selected studies were experimental or observational and included adult patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery in which ICNB was administered with local anesthesia via single injection, continuous infusion, or a combination of both techniques in at least 1 group of patients. For comparison with ICNB, studies that examined systemic analgesia and different forms of regional analgesia (such as thoracic epidural analgesia [TEA], paravertebral block [PVB], and other techniques) were included. These criteria were applied independently by 2 authors, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus. A total of 694 records were selected for screening. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data including patient characteristics, type of surgery, intervention analgesia, comparison analgesia, and primary and secondary outcomes were extracted independently by 3 authors. Synthesis was performed using a fixed-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity (measured as the worst static or dynamic pain using a validated 10-point scale, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating severe pain) and opioid consumption (measured in morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]) at prespecified intervals (0-6 hours, 7-24 hours, 25-48 hours, 49-72 hours, and >72 hours). Clinically relevant analgesia was defined as a 1-point or greater difference in pain intensity score at any interval. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative complications and pulmonary function. Results: Of 694 records screened, 608 were excluded based on prespecified exclusion criteria. The remaining 86 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 20 of those articles were excluded. All of the 66 remaining studies (5184 patients; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [10.2] years; approximately 59% men and 41% women) were included in the qualitative analysis, and 59 studies (3325 patients) that provided data for at least 1 outcome were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Experimental studies had a high risk of bias in multiple domains, including allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessors. Marked differences (eg, crossover studies, timing of the intervention [intraoperative vs postoperative], blinding, and type of control group) were observed in the design and implementation of studies. The use of ICNB vs systemic analgesia was associated with lower static pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.40 points [95% CI, -1.46 to -1.33 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.27 points [95% CI, -1.40 to -1.13 points]) and lower dynamic pain (0-6 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.66 points [95% CI, -1.90 to -1.41 points]; 7-24 hours after surgery: mean score difference, -1.43 points [95% CI, -1.70 to -1.17 points]). Intercostal nerve block analgesia was noninferior to TEA (mean score difference in worst dynamic panic at 7-24 hours after surgery: 0.79 points; 95% CI, 0.28-1.29 points) and marginally inferior to PVB (mean score difference in worst dynamic pain at 7-24 hours after surgery: 1.29 points; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.41 points). The largest opioid-sparing effect of ICNB vs systemic analgesia occurred at 48 hours after surgery (mean difference, -10.97 MMEs; 95% CI, -12.92 to -9.02 MMEs). The use of ICNB was associated with higher MME values compared with TEA (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 48.31 MMEs; 95% CI, 36.11-60.52 MMEs) and PVB (eg, 48 hours after surgery: mean difference, 3.87 MMEs; 95% CI, 2.59-5.15 MMEs). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, single-injection ICNB was associated with a reduction in pain during the first 24 hours after thoracic surgery and was clinically noninferior to TEA or PVB. Intercostal nerve block analgesia had opioid-sparing effects; however, TEA and PVB were associated with larger decreases in postoperative MMEs, suggesting that ICNB may be most beneficial for cases in which TEA and PVB are not indicated.
Asunto(s)
Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Anestesia Epidural/métodos , Bloqueo Nervioso/métodos , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Torácicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Femenino , Humanos , Nervios Intercostales/efectos de los fármacos , MasculinoAsunto(s)
Dolor Agudo/etiología , Anemia de Células Falciformes/complicaciones , Anticuerpos Monoclonales Humanizados/uso terapéutico , Arteriopatías Oclusivas/etiología , Dolor Agudo/epidemiología , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Anemia de Células Falciformes/tratamiento farmacológico , Arteriopatías Oclusivas/epidemiología , Arteriopatías Oclusivas/prevención & control , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Incidencia , Selectina-P/antagonistas & inhibidores , Selectina-P/inmunologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Visceral and parietal peritoneum layers have different sensory innervations. Most visceral peritoneum sensory information is conveyed via the vagus nerve to the nucleus of the solitary tract (NTS). We already showed in animal models that intramuscular (i.m.) injection of local anesthetics decreases acute somatic and visceral pain and general inflammation induced by aseptic peritonitis. The goal of the study was to compare the effects of parietal block, i.m. bupivacaine, and vagotomy on spinal cord and NTS stimulation induced by a chemical peritonitis. METHODS: We induced peritonitis in rats using carrageenan and measured cellular activation in spinal cord and NTS under the following conditions, that is, a parietal nerve block with bupivacaine, a chemical right vagotomy, and i.m. microspheres loaded with bupivacaine. Proto-oncogene c-Fos (c-Fos), cluster of differentiation protein 11b (CD11b), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) expression in cord and NTS were studied. RESULTS: c-Fos activation in the cord was inhibited by nerve block 2 hours after peritoneal insult. Vagotomy and i.m. bupivacaine similarly inhibited c-Fos activation in NTS. Forty-eight hours after peritoneal insult, the number of cells expressing CD11b significantly increased in the cord (P = .010). The median difference in the effect of peritonitis compared to control was 30 cells (CI95, 13.5-55). TNF-α colocalized with CD11b. Vagotomy inhibited this microglial activation in the NTS, but not in the cord. This activation was inhibited by i.m. bupivacaine both in cord and in NTS. The median difference in the effect of i.m. bupivacaine added to peritonitis was 29 cells (80% increase) in the cord and 18 cells (75% increase) in the NTS. Our study underlines the role of the vagus nerve in the transmission of an acute visceral pain message and confirmed that systemic bupivacaine prevents noxious stimuli by inhibiting c-Fos and microglia activation. CONCLUSIONS: In rats receiving intraperitoneal carrageenan, i.m. bupivacaine similarly inhibited c-Fos and microglial activation both in cord and in the NTS. Vagal block inhibited activation only in the NTS. Our study underlines the role of the vagus nerve in the transmission of an acute visceral pain message and confirmed that systemic bupivacaine prevents noxious stimuli. This emphasizes the effects of systemic local anesthetics on inflammation and visceral pain.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Anestésicos Locales/administración & dosificación , Bupivacaína/administración & dosificación , Manejo del Dolor , Núcleo Solitario/efectos de los fármacos , Médula Espinal/efectos de los fármacos , Vagotomía , Nervio Vago/cirugía , Dolor Visceral/prevención & control , Dolor Agudo/inducido químicamente , Dolor Agudo/metabolismo , Dolor Agudo/fisiopatología , Animales , Antígeno CD11b/metabolismo , Carragenina , Modelos Animales de Enfermedad , Inyecciones Intramusculares , Masculino , Microglía/efectos de los fármacos , Microglía/metabolismo , Peritonitis/inducido químicamente , Proteínas Proto-Oncogénicas c-fos/metabolismo , Ratas Sprague-Dawley , Núcleo Solitario/metabolismo , Núcleo Solitario/fisiopatología , Médula Espinal/metabolismo , Médula Espinal/patología , Factor de Necrosis Tumoral alfa/metabolismo , Nervio Vago/fisiopatología , Dolor Visceral/inducido químicamente , Dolor Visceral/metabolismo , Dolor Visceral/fisiopatologíaRESUMEN
The incidence of acute pain during caesarean section varies between studies, with a reported rate ranging between 0.5%-17% for spinal anaesthesia and 1.7%-20% for epidural anaesthesia. Leaders from the French Club anesthésie-réanimation en obstétrique (CARO) convened to provide a clinical framework and practice bulletin to prevent, recognise and treat acute pain during caesarean section. First, a steering group agreed on 5 themes guiding quality of anaesthesia care for caesarean section: (1) appropriate neuraxial anaesthesia and testing of the surgical block prior to incision (PREVENTION); (2) appropriate organisation around decision to delivery time (COMMUNICATION); 3) appropriate management of pain before and/or after skin incision (RECOGNITION & RESPONSE); (4) appropriate prevention, identification and management of post-traumatic stress disorder (SCREENING, PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF COMPLICATIONS); (5) management of medico-legal issues (MITIGATION). Then, an interdisciplinary multi-professional taskforce composed of obstetric anaesthesiologists, obstetricians, neonatologists, psychiatrists, midwifes, nurse anaesthetists, lawyers and patients, developed 23 statements that contribute to optimise care for caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia, of which 10 were deemed key recommendations. A decision-tree was built to optimise prevention, communication, recognition, response and management. The aim of this practice bulletin, which was endorsed by 6 societies, is to raise awareness on the risks associated with severe acute pain during caesarean section and to provide best clinical practices; pain during caesarean is not acceptable and should be prevented and managed by all stakeholders.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo , Anestesia Epidural , Anestesia Obstétrica , Anestesia Raquidea , Dolor Agudo/diagnóstico , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Cesárea/efectos adversos , Femenino , Humanos , EmbarazoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours). MAIN RESULTS: We included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain. Pre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I2 = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I2 = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I2 = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs. Preventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I2 = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I2 = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I2 = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I2 = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/uso terapéutico , Dolor Postoperatorio/prevención & control , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos/efectos adversos , Adulto , Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/efectos adversos , Sesgo , Intervalos de Confianza , Inhibidores de la Ciclooxigenasa 2/efectos adversos , Inhibidores de la Ciclooxigenasa 2/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Morfina/administración & dosificación , Morfina/efectos adversos , Satisfacción del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Hemorragia Posoperatoria/cirugía , Náusea y Vómito Posoperatorios/epidemiología , Prurito/inducido químicamente , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , ReoperaciónRESUMEN
AIM: Pain control is an important aspect of ED patient management, and there are many different protocols used around the world influenced by both availability of local resources as well as staff competency and experience. This study aims to evaluate the use of topical ketamine in acute pain reduction by directly comparing it to lidocaine-prilocaine (EMLA) cream. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 300 adult patients classified as level 4 or 5 by ESI triage system were enrolled. These patients were divided randomly into three groups. The site of venipuncture was covered with 2 g of topical ketamine cream 10% in group one, 2 g of 5% EMLA cream in group two, and finally, in group 3 (control group), was covered with placebo (2 g of cold cream). The primary end point of the study was reported pain severity with secondary end points being onset of local anesthesia as well as any side effects noted. RESULTS: The data gathered showed pain score during venipuncture in both intervention groups were significantly lower when compared to the control group (P < 0.05). However, pain score did not differ between the 2 intervention groups (P = 0.395). There was no statistically significant difference between the ketamine or EMLA in onset of local anesthesia (P = 0.419). We noted itching and irritation was significantly higher in the EMLA group when compared to ketamine(P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study showed that local cutaneous ketamine is as effective as EMLA in relieving pain during venipuncture.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Anestesia Local/métodos , Anestésicos Locales/administración & dosificación , Ketamina/administración & dosificación , Dolor Asociado a Procedimientos Médicos/prevención & control , Flebotomía/efectos adversos , Dolor Agudo/diagnóstico , Dolor Agudo/etiología , Administración Cutánea , Adolescente , Adulto , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Combinación Lidocaína y Prilocaína , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor , Dolor Asociado a Procedimientos Médicos/diagnóstico , Dolor Asociado a Procedimientos Médicos/etiología , Estudios Prospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disease that often leads to misdiagnosis. The delay of diagnosis is > 10 years in China. Recurrent and acute abdominal pain is one of the common symptoms of HAE. Because of the high misdiagnosis rate, it usually results in unnecessary surgical procedures. This study focused on the clinical symptoms and management of HAE-related abdominal attacks in Chinese patients to provide some new insight for the emergency department (ED) physicians and gastroenterologists. Methods: A Web-based survey was conducted among 107 patients with HAE from 94 unrelated families. Detailed questions with respect to the abdominal attacks were asked, including the frequency, symptoms, and duration before and after confirmed diagnosis. The demographic characteristics, diagnosis process, and treatment outcomes were also included. Results: Approximately 70% of the patients with HAE presented with abdominal symptoms during the onset of edema, mostly characterized by pain (94.8%), nausea (83.1%), vomiting (83.1%), diarrhea (59.7%), and constipation (23.4%). The patients were easily misdiagnosed as having gastroenteritis (35.1%) and appendicitis (10.4%), and 24.7% of them received unnecessary appendectomy or laparotomy. Danazol, a widely used drug for long-term prophylaxis of HAE in China, can reduce the attack frequency and alleviate the abdominal symptoms, but the adverse effects are also significant and more severe in women. Conclusions: Abdominal symptoms are common and important clinical features of HAE but are easily confused with other gastrointestinal diseases. ED physicians and gastroenterologists should consider HAE when patients experience recurrent and unexplained abdominal pain. Proper medical treatment should be administered in a timely manner if an HAE diagnosis is confirmed and efforts are required to increase access in China to medications both for on-demand treatment and long-term prophylaxis.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Abdominal/etiología , Dolor Agudo/etiología , Angioedemas Hereditarios/complicaciones , Dolor Abdominal/diagnóstico , Dolor Abdominal/prevención & control , Dolor Agudo/diagnóstico , Dolor Agudo/prevención & control , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Angioedemas Hereditarios/diagnóstico , Angioedemas Hereditarios/tratamiento farmacológico , Niño , China , Danazol/uso terapéutico , Diagnóstico Tardío , Diagnóstico Diferencial , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Recurrencia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Procedimientos Innecesarios , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Lumbar intervertebral disc (IVD) herniation causes severe low back pain (LBP), which results in substantial financial and emotional strains. Despite the effectiveness of discectomy, there is no existing treatment for post-operative LBP induced by progressive IVD degeneration. Two key factors of LBP are intradiscal inflammation, indicated by tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6), and sensory nerve ingrowth into the inner layer of the annulus fibrosus, triggered by nerve growth factor/high-affinity tyrosine kinase A (TrkA) signalling. In an animal models of discectomy, the bioresorbable ultra-purified alginate (UPAL) gel with an extremely low-toxicity has been effective in acellular tissue repair. We aimed to investigate whether UPAL gel can alleviate LBP using a rat nucleus pulposus (NP) punch model and a rabbit NP aspirate model. In both models, we assessed TNF-α and IL-6 production and TrkA expression within the IVD by immunohistochemistry. Further, histological analysis and behavioural nociception assay were conducted in the rat model. UPAL gel implantation suppressed TNF-α and IL-6 production, downregulated TrkA expression, inhibited IVD degeneration, and reduced nociceptive behaviour. Our results suggest the potential of UPAL gel implantation as an innovative treatment for IVD herniation by reducing LBP and preventing IVD degeneration after discectomy.