Differential efficacy with epidural blood and fibrin patches for the treatment of post-dural puncture headache.

BACKGROUND: Accidental dural puncture (ADP) is the most frequent major complication when performing an epidural procedure in obstetrics. Consequently, loss of pressure in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leads to the development of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), which occurs in 16%-86% of cases. To date, the efficacy of epidural fibrin patches (EFP) has not been evaluated in a controlled clinical trial, nor in comparative studies with epidural blood patches (EBP). METHODS: The objective of the present study was to compare the efficacy of EFP with respect to EBP for the treatment of refractory accidental PDPH. This prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel, comparative study included 70 puerperal women who received an EBP or EFP (35 in each group) after failure of the conventional analgesic treatment for accidental PDPH in a hospital. RESULTS: A higher percentage of women with EFP than EBP achieved complete PDPH relief after 2 (97.1% vs. 54.3%) and 12 h (100.0% vs. 65.7%) of the patch injection. The percentage of patients who needed rescue analgesia was significantly lower with EFP after 2 (2.9% vs. 48.6%) and 12 h (0.0% vs. 37.1%). After 24 h, PDPH was resolved in all women who received EFP. The recurrence of PDPH was reported in one woman from the EBP group (2.9%), who subsequently required a second patch. The mean length of hospital stay was significantly lower with EFP (3.9 days) than EBP (5.9 days). Regarding satisfaction, the mean value (Likert scale) was significantly higher with EFP (4.7 vs. 3.0). CONCLUSIONS: EFP provided better outcomes than EBP for the treatment of obstetric PDPH in terms of efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction.

Efficacy and Safety of Celiac Plexus Neurolysis in the Treatment of Chronic Pain Secondary to Oncological Pathology of the Upper Hemiabdomen: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objectives: The management of chronic pain among patients with abdominal cancer is complex; against that, the neurolysis of the celiac plexus (CPN) is the best technique at the moment to determine the efficacy and safety in the treatment of chronic pain secondary to oncological pathology of the upper abdomen. Material and Methods: This was a systematic review of controlled clinical trials between 2000 and 2021, in the sources MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Three independent evaluators analysed the results of the bibliographical research. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Jadad scale and the mean difference (95% confidence interval) and heterogeneity of the studies (I2) were calculated with Review Manager 5.3. Results: Seven hundred and forty-four publications were identified, including 13 studies in the qualitative synthesis and three studies in the quantitative synthesis. No difference was found in the decrease in pain intensity between 1 and 12 weeks after the intervention, comparing the experimental group with the control (P > 0.05). The adverse effects related to neurolysis were not serious and transitory, mentioning the most frequent adverse effects and reporting a percentage between 21% and 67% (with 17% for echoendoscopic neurolysis and 49% for percutaneous neurolysis). Conclusion: Celiac plexus neurolysis for the treatment of severe chronic pain secondary to oncological pathology in the upper hemiabdomen produces similar pain relief as conventional pharmacological analgesic treatment. It is a safe analgesic technique since the complications are mild and transitory.

Effectiveness of telemedicine psychoeducational interventions for adults with non-oncological chronic disease: A systematic review.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of telemedicine psychoeducational interventions (PIs) in adult patients on the clinical management of chronic non-oncological diseases compared with another therapeutic option or no treatment. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched between January 2011 and August 2021. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. A third arbiter was available if discrepancies. RESULTS: A total of 719 articles were reviewed and 17 studies met the inclusion and quality criteria. The included studies related to smoking, chronic pain, obesity and mental illness. Most interventions were based on cognitive behavioural theory. Most of the included studies (12/17, 70.5%) showed improvements in health and significant reductions in anxiety, pain and depression with variable effect sizes. Patients reported a high satisfaction rate and indicated lectures or self-report writings as helpful in their recovery compared with more interactive items. Only financial incentives demonstrated greater adherence. A specific intervention format or complementary professional support was not associated with health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine PIs are a safe and effective option for the clinical management of adults with chronic diseases. Future longitudinal studies are needed to assess the impact of these interventions on chronic physical and mental disease, evaluating the quality of life, morbidity and mortality. IMPACT: The results reinforce the telemedicine PIs with effects on clinical management similar to those of the face-to-face modality and can be carried out in a safe environment for patients at a lower cost to the health system. These conditions make them suitable for comprehensive care in the epidemiological COVID-19 context with the highest safety conditions for the patients and professionals.