Comparison of analgesic effectiveness between nefopam and propacetamol in living kidney donors following rectus sheath block after hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nefopam and propacetamol are the most commonly used analgesics in postoperative multimodal analgesic regimens. Distinct mechanisms are involved in each drug's anti-nociceptive effects. No studies have compared pain relief efficacy between the two drugs in patients undergoing transplantation surgery. Here, we investigated whether the administration of nefopam or propacetamol to healthy living kidney donors who underwent rectus sheath block (RSB) for parietal pain could reduce the subsequent opioid dose necessary to produce adequate analgesia. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled trial included 72 donors undergoing elective hand-assisted living donor nephrectomy into two groups: propacetamol (n = 36) and nefopam (n = 36). Intraoperative RSB was performed in all enrolled donors. The primary outcome was the total volume of intravenous opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) used on postoperative day 1 (POD 1). Additionally, the Numeric Rating Scale scores for flank (visceral) and umbilicus (parietal) pain at rest and during coughing were compared, and the Korean adaptation of the Quality of Recovery-15 Questionnaire (QoR-15 K) was evaluated on POD 1. RESULTS: Both groups had similar preoperative and intraoperative characteristics. On POD 1, the total amount of PCA infusion was significantly lower in the nefopam group than in the propacetamol group (44.5 ± 19.3 mL vs. 70.2 ± 29.0 mL; p < 0.001). This group also reported lower pain scores at the flank and umbilical sites and required fewer rescue doses of fentanyl in the post-anesthesia care unit. However, pain scores and fentanyl consumption in the ward were comparable between groups. The QoR-15 K scores were similar between groups; there were substantial improvements in breathing, pain severity, and anxiety/depression levels in the nefopam group. The incidences of postoperative complications, including sweating and tachycardia, were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with propacetamol, nefopam provides a greater analgesic effect for visceral pain and enhances the effects of blocks that reduce the opioid requirement in living kidney donors with parietal pain managed by RSB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered prior to patient enrollment in the clinical trial database using the Clinical Research Information Service (registration no. KCT0007351 , Date of registration 03/06/2022).

Opioid-free general anesthesia: considerations, techniques, and limitations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the role of opioids during general anesthesia and examine their advantages and risks in the context of clinical practice. We define opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) as the absolute avoidance of intraoperative opioids. RECENT FINDINGS: In most minimally invasive and short-duration procedures, nonopioid analgesics, analgesic adjuvants, and local/regional analgesia can significantly spare the amount of intraoperative opioid needed. OFA should be considered in the context of tailoring to a specific patient and procedure, not as a universal approach. Strategies considered for OFA involve several adjuncts with low therapeutic range, requiring continuous infusions and resources, with potential for delayed recovery or other side effects, including increased short-term and long-term pain. No evidence indicates that OFA leads to decreased long-term opioid-related harms. SUMMARY: Complete avoidance of intraoperative opioids remains questionable, as it does not necessarily ensure avoidance of postoperative opioids. Multimodal analgesia including local/regional anesthesia may allow OFA for selected, minimally invasive surgeries, but further research is necessary in surgeries with high postoperative opioid requirements. Until there is definitive evidence regarding procedure and patient-specific combinations as well as the dose and duration of administration of adjunct agents, it is imperative to practice opioid-sparing approach in the intraoperative period.

Intravenous ibuprofen versus ketorolac for perioperative pain control in open abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the analgesic effects of intravenous ibuprofen to ketorolac after open abdominal hysterectomy. METHODS: This randomized double-blinded controlled trial included adult women scheduled for elective open abdominal hysterectomy. Participants were randomized to receive either 30 mg ketorolac (n = 50) or 800 mg ibuprofen (n = 50) preoperatively, then every 8 h postoperatively for 24 h. All participants received paracetamol 1 gm/6 h. Rescue analgesic was given if the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain assessment was > 3. The primary outcome was the mean postoperative dynamic VAS during the first 24 h. Secondary outcomes were static VAS, intraoperative fentanyl consumption, postoperative morphine consumption, time to independent movement, and patient's satisfaction. RESULTS: Forty-six patients in the ibuprofen group and fifty patients in the ketorolac group were analyzed. The 24-h dynamic and static VAS were similar in the two groups. The median (quartiles) dynamic VAS was 1.1 (0.9, 1.9) in the ibuprofen group versus 1.0 (0.7, 1.3) in the ketorolac group, P-value = 0.116; and the median (quartiles) static VAS was 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) in the ibuprofen group versus 0.7 (0.4, 1.1) in the ketorolac group, P-value = 0.113. The intra- and postoperative analgesic requirements were also similar in the two groups. However, patient satisfaction was slightly higher in the ketorolac group than that in the ibuprofen group (median [quartiles]: 6 [5, 7] versus 5 [4, 7], respectively), P-value: 0.009. CONCLUSION: The two drugs, intravenous ibuprofen and ketorolac produced similar analgesic profile in patients undergoing open abdominal hysterectomy receiving multimodal analgesic regimen. NCT05610384, Date of registration: 09/11/2022 CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05610384. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05610384.

Impact of Intraoperative Nefopam on Postoperative Pain, Opioid Use, and Recovery Quality with Parietal Pain Block in Single-Port Robotic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Objectives: This study explored how nefopam, a non-opioid analgesic in a multimodal regimen, impacts postoperative pain, opioid use, and recovery quality in single-port robot-assisted laparoscopic cholecystectomy (RALC) patients with a parietal pain block, addressing challenges in postoperative pain management. Materials and Methods: Forty patients scheduled for elective single-port RALC were enrolled and randomized to receive either nefopam or normal saline intravenously. Parietal pain relief was provided through a rectus sheath block (RSB). Postoperative pain was assessed using a numeric rating scale (NRS) in the right upper quadrant (RUQ) of the abdomen, at the umbilicus, and at the shoulder. Opioid consumption and recovery quality, measured using the QoR-15K questionnaire, were also recorded. Results: The 40 patients had a mean age of 48.3 years and an average body mass index (BMI) of 26.2 kg/m2. There were no significant differences in the pre- or intraoperative variables between groups. Patients receiving nefopam reported significantly lower RUQ pain scores compared to the controls, while the umbilicus and shoulder pain scores were similar. Rescue fentanyl requirements were lower in the nefopam group in both the PACU and ward. The QoR-15K questionnaire scores for nausea and vomiting were better in the nefopam group, but the overall recovery quality scores were comparable between the groups. Conclusions: Nefopam reduces RUQ pain and opioid use post-single-port RALC with a parietal pain block without markedly boosting RSB's effect on umbilicus or shoulder pain. It may also better manage postoperative nausea and vomiting, underscoring its role in analgesia strategies for this surgery.

Effectiveness and safety of prehospital analgesia with nalbuphine and paracetamol versus morphine by paramedics - an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the development of various analgesic concepts, prehospital oligoanalgesia remains very common. The present work examines prehospital analgesia by paramedics using morphine vs. nalbuphine + paracetamol. METHODS: Patients with out-of-hospital-analgesia performed by paramedics from the emergency medical services of the districts of Fulda (morphine) and Gütersloh (nalbuphine + paracetamol) were evaluated with regards to pain intensity at the beginning and the end of prehospital treatment using the Numeric-Rating-Scale for pain (NRS), sex, age, and complications. The primary endpoint was achievement of adequate analgesia, defined as NRS < 4 at hospital handover, depending on the analgesics administered (nalbuphine + paracetamol vs. morphine). Pain intensity before and after receiving analgesia using the NRS, sex, age and complications were also monitored. RESULTS: A total of 1,808 patients who received out-of-hospital-analgesia were evaluated (nalbuphine + paracetamol: 1,635 (90.4%), NRS-initial: 8.0 ± 1.4, NRS-at-handover: 3.7 ± 2.0; morphine: 173(9.6%), NRS-initial: 8.5 ± 1.1, NRS-at-handover: 5.1 ± 2.0). Factors influencing the difference in NRS were: initial pain intensity on the NRS (regression coefficient (RK): 0.7276, 95%CI: 0.6602-0.7950, p < 0.001), therapy with morphine vs. nalbuphine + paracetamol (RK: -1.2594, 95%CI: -1.5770 - -0.9418, p < 0.001) and traumatic vs. non-traumatic causes of pain (RK: -0.2952, 95%CI: -0.4879 - -0.1024, p = 0.002). Therapy with morphine (n = 34 (19.6%)) compared to nalbuphine + paracetamol (n = 796 (48.7%)) (odds ratio (OR): 0.274, 95%CI: 0.185-0.405, p < 0.001) and the initial NRS score (OR:0.827, 95%CI: 0.771-0.887, p < 0.001) reduced the odds of having an NRS < 4 at hospital handover. Complications occurred with morphine in n = 10 (5.8%) and with nalbuphine + paracetamol in n = 35 (2.1%) cases. Risk factors for complications were analgesia with morphine (OR: 2.690, 95%CI: 1.287-5.621, p = 0.008), female sex (OR: 2.024, 95%CI: 1.040-3.937, p = 0.0379), as well as age (OR: 1.018, 95%CI: 1.003-1.034, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to morphine, prehospital analgesia with nalbuphine + paracetamol yields favourable effects in terms of analgesic effectiveness and a lower rate of complications and should therefore be considered in future recommendations for prehospital analgesia.

Low doses of acetaminophen produce antidepressive-like effects through the opioid system in mice.

Acetaminophen (paracetamol) is one of the most popular analgesics for the management of fever and pain but few reports have investigated its antidepressant-like effect. Moreover, the role of the opioidergic pathway has been indicated in depression pathophysiology. This study aimed to examine the involvement of the opioid receptors in the antidepressant-like effect of acetaminophen after acute and sub-chronic administration using mice forced swimming test (FST). Our finding showed that administration of acetaminophen (50 and 100 mg/kg, i.p.) 30 min before the FST produced an antidepressant effect which was reduced by naloxone (1 mg/kg, i.p., a nonselective opioid receptor antagonist). Moreover, we observed that acetaminophen in higher doses (200 and 400 mg/kg) was ineffective. Also, the response of the non-effective dose of acetaminophen (25 mg/kg) was potentiated by the non-effective dose of morphine (0.1 mg/kg) in the FST that was antagonized by naloxone. Also, in contrast to morphine (10 mg/kg), acetaminophen (100 mg/kg, i.p.) induced neither tolerance to the anti-immobility behavior nor withdrawal syndrome after repeated administration. In addition, RT-PCR showed that hippocampal mu- and kappa-opioid receptor mRNA expression increased in mice after repeated administration of acetaminophen; however, morphine therapy for 6 days did not affect kappa-opioid receptor expression. Our findings demonstrated that acetaminophen in lower doses but not high doses revealed an antidepressant-like activity without inducing tolerance and withdrawal syndromes. Moreover, the observed effect of acetaminophen may be via altering the opioid system, particularly hippocampal mu- and kappa-receptors.

A comparison of port-site infiltration with bupivacaine alone vs. bupivacaine plus dexemedetomidine after diagnostic staging laparoscopy.

Objectives: To compare the effects of bupivacaine alone and in combination with dexmedetomidine following staging laparoscopies. METHODS: This triple-blinded, prospective study was conducted from June to September 2021 at a tertiary care cancer hospital in Lahore, Pakistan, and comprised adult patients having American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I-III, weighing >30kg and undergoing diagnostic staging laparoscopy. The subjects were randomised into two equal groups. Group A received 6ml of 2mg/kg bupivacaine at each of the four laparoscopic port sites before skin closure, while group B additionally received 2µg/kg dexmedetomidine. The presence and severity of pain were recorded and assessed at 15 min, 1, 2 and 4 hours as well as at the time of discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit. The time to first request for rescue analgesia, total morphine consumption, and the occurrence of any side effects during their stay were also recorded. Data was analysed using SPSS 23. RESULTS: Of the 30 patients, 15(50%) were in group A; 10(66.6%) males and 5(33.3%) females with mean age 43.27±7.59 years. There were 15(50%) patients in group B; 12(80%) males and 3(20%) females with mean age 41.36±12.42 years (p>0.05). Of the total, 29(96.66%) patients were classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade II, and 1(3.33%) patient in group A was grade III. There was no significant difference between the groups in any of the outcome measures assessed (p>0.05), and none of the patients experienced any side effect throughout the post-operative stay. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of dexmedetomidine and bupivacaine had no significant improvement in pain relief compared to bupivacaine alone.

Tramadol-paracetamol for postoperative pain after spine surgery - A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: Multimodal pain management is one component in enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Here we evaluate the efficacy of tramadol-paracetamol in acute postoperative pain and pain outcome at 12 months after spine surgery in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: We randomized 120 patients undergoing spine surgery to receive, for add-on pain management, two tramadol-paracetamol 37.5 mg/325 mg (n = 61) or placebo tablets (n = 59) twice a day for 5 postoperative days. In the hospital, multimodal pain management consisted of dexketoprofen and oxycodone. After discharge, patients were prescribed ibuprofen 200 mg, maximum 1,200 mg/day. Pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction with pain medication were followed up with the Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire before surgery and at 1 and 52 weeks after surgery. The primary outcome was patients' satisfaction with pain medication 1 week after surgery. RESULTS: At 1 week after surgery, patients' satisfaction with pain medication was similarly high in the two groups, 75% [interquartile range, 30%] in the placebo group and 70% [40%] in the tramadol-paracetamol group (p = 0.949) on a scale: 0% = not satisfied, 100% = totally satisfied. At 1 week, ibuprofen dose was lower in the placebo group 200 mg [1,000] compared to the tramadol-paracetamol group, 800 mg [1,600] (p = 0.016). There was no difference in the need for rescue oxycodone. Patients in the tramadol-paracetamol group had more adverse events associated with analgesics during the first postoperative week (relative risk = 1.8, 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.6). CONCLUSION: Add-on pain treatment with tramadol-paracetamol did not enhance patients' satisfaction with early pain management after back surgery.

Pain Reduction of Ibuprofen Sodium Dihydrate Alone and in Combination with Acetaminophen in an Untreated Endodontic Pain Model: A Randomized, Double-blind Investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Most pain studies have been based on a postsurgical, third molar model using ibuprofen (IBU)/acetaminophen (APAP). Studies have found quicker onset of pain relief with a newer formulation of IBU - ibuprofen sodium dihydrate (ISD). The purpose of this study was to compare pain reduction of ISD/APAP to ISD in an acute endodontic pain model of untreated patients experiencing moderate to severe pain with symptomatic apical periodontitis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this double-blind randomized study, 64 adult emergency patients in acute moderate to severe pain, a pulpal diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis or necrosis, and symptomatic apical periodontitis participated. Each patient randomly received either one dose of 768 mg ISD/1000 mg APAP or one dose of 768 mg ISD. Pain intensity scores were recorded every 15 minutes over 240 minutes using the Heft-Parker VAS along with time to first sign of pain relief, time to meaningful pain relief, and time to 50% pain relief also recorded. The data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: Both ISD and ISD/APAP groups showed a progressive decrease in pain from baseline to 120 minutes after medication administration. Afterward, a relative plateau was seen in the patients' pain. There was no difference in the VAS scores between the ISD and ISD/APAP at any given time point, time to first sign of pain relief, time to meaningful pain relief, and time to 50% pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of APAP to ISD for pain control in an untreated endodontic pain model did not differ significantly from ISD alone.

Intermittent intravenous paracetamol versus continuous morphine in infants undergoing cardiothoracic surgery: a multi-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether intermittent intravenous (IV) paracetamol as primary analgesic would significantly reduce morphine consumption in children aged 0-3 years after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: Multi-center, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial in four level-3 Pediatric Intensive Care Units (PICU) in the Netherlands and Belgium. Inclusion period; March 2016-July 2020. Children aged 0-3 years, undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were eligible. Patients were randomized to continuous morphine or intermittent IV paracetamol as primary analgesic after a loading dose of 100 mcg/kg morphine was administered at the end of surgery. Rescue morphine was given if numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores exceeded predetermined cutoff values. Primary outcome was median weight-adjusted cumulative morphine dose in mcg/kg in the first 48 h postoperative. For the comparison of the primary outcome between groups, the nonparametric Van Elteren test with stratification by center was used. For comparison of the proportion of patients with one or more NRS pain scores of 4 and higher between the two groups, a non-inferiority analysis was performed using a non-inferiority margin of 20%. RESULTS: In total, 828 were screened and finally 208 patients were included; parents of 315 patients did not give consent and 305 were excluded for various reasons. Fourteen of the enrolled 208 children were withdrawn from the study before start of study medication leaving 194 patients for final analysis. One hundred and two patients received intermittent IV paracetamol, 106 received continuous morphine. The median weight-adjusted cumulative morphine consumption in the first 48 h postoperative in the IV paracetamol group was 5 times lower (79%) than that in the morphine group (median, 145.0 (IQR, 115.0-432.5) mcg/kg vs 692.6 (IQR, 532.7-856.1) mcg/kg; P < 0.001). The rescue morphine consumption was similar between the groups (p = 0.38). Non-inferiority of IV paracetamol administration in terms of NRS pain scores was proven; difference in proportion - 3.1% (95% CI - 16.6-10.3%). CONCLUSIONS: In children aged 0-3 years undergoing cardiac surgery, use of intermittent IV paracetamol reduces the median weight-adjusted cumulative morphine consumption in the first 48 h after surgery by 79% with equal pain relief showing equipoise for IV paracetamol as primary analgesic. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier: NCT05853263; EudraCT Number: 2015-001835-20.

Fixed-time interval vs on-demand oral analgesia after vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Scheduled administration of analgesics was proven superior to on-demand dosing following cesarean deliveries. However, this protocol was not compared after vaginal delivery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a fixed- vs on-demand analgesic protocol for the management of pain in the first 24 hours after a vaginal delivery. STUDY DESIGN: This randomized, prospective, controlled trial was conducted at a single tertiary medical center between June 1, 2020 and June 30, 2022. Vaginally delivered patients were randomly assigned to receive oral analgesics (paracetamol 1 g + ibuprofen 400 mg) either every 6 hours for the first 24 hours postpartum (scheduled analgesia group) or as needed (on-demand group). Pain level during the first 24 hours postdelivery was measured using a 10-point visual analog scale. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were randomized 1:1 to the 2 cohorts. Baseline and delivery characteristics, including oxytocin augmentation, epidural anesthesia, episiotomy rate, and neonatal birthweight, were comparable between groups. Patients in the scheduled group received more paracetamol and ibuprofen doses in the first 24 hours (2.9±1.3 and 2.9±1.2 doses vs 0.8±1.1 and 0.7±1.1 doses, respectively; P<.001). Pain score was comparable between study groups (5.31±1.92 vs 5.29±1.67; P=.626) even after subanalysis for primiparity, episiotomy, and vacuum-assisted delivery (P>.05). However, patients on a fixed treatment schedule were more likely to breastfeed their baby (98% vs 88%; P=.006) as than those receiving treatment on demand. In addition, they were more satisfied with their labor and delivery experience, as evaluated by Birth Satisfaction Scale questionnaires quality control (37.9±4.7 vs 31.1±5.2; P=.0324), patient attributes (35.0±5.1 vs 30.3±6.3; P=.0453), and stress experienced (58.1±8.5 vs 50.1±8.3; P=.0398). No side effects or adverse outcomes were reported in either group. CONCLUSION: A scheduled analgesic protocol for postpartum pain management following vaginal delivery revealed similar pain scores compared with an on-demand protocol, although it was associated with higher breastfeeding rates and higher maternal satisfaction.

Effect of an intravenous acetaminophen/ibuprofen fixed-dose combination on postoperative opioid consumption and pain after video-assisted thoracic surgery: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) often induces significant postoperative pain, potentially leading to chronic pain and decreased quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate the acetaminophen/ibuprofen combination effectiveness in reducing analgesic requirements and pain intensity in patients undergoing VATS. STUDY DESIGN: This is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Adult patients scheduled for elective VATS for lung resection were randomized to receive either intravenous acetaminophen and ibuprofen (intervention group) or 100 mL normal saline (control group). Treatments were administered post-anesthesia induction and every 6 h for three cycles. The primary outcome was total analgesic consumption at 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were cumulative analgesic consumption at 2 and 48 h; analgesic-related side effects at 2, 24, and 48 h; quality of recovery at 24 h and 48 h postoperatively; pain intensity at rest and during coughing; and rescue analgesics use. Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) was assessed through telephone interviews 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The study included 96 participants. The intervention group showed significantly lower analgesic consumption at 24 h and 48 h postoperatively (24 h: median difference: - 100 µg equivalent intravenous fentanyl [95% confidence interval (CI) - 200 to - 5 µg], P = 0.037; 48 h: median difference: - 140 µg [95% CI - 320 to - 20 µg], P = 0.035). Compared to the controls, the intervention group exhibited a significantly lower quality of recovery 24 h post-surgery, with no significant difference at 48 h. All pain scores except for coughing at 48 h post-surgery were significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the controls. No significant differences were observed between the groups in postoperative nausea and vomiting occurrence, hospital stay length, and CPSP. CONCLUSION: Perioperative administration of acetaminophen/ibuprofen significantly decreased analgesic needs in patients undergoing VATS, providing an effective postoperative pain management strategy, and potentially minimizing the need for stronger analgesics.

Synergistic interaction of guanfacine or dexmedetomidine coadministered with lidocaine for cutaneous analgesia in rats.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the cutaneous analgesic effects of lidocaine co-injected with guanfacine and its comparison with dexmedetomidine. METHODS: Cutaneous analgesic effects are quantified through the blocking effects of the cutaneous trunci muscle reflex against skin pinpricks in rats. The dose-response curves of guanfacine, dexmedetomidine, and lidocaine were constructed and drug-drug interactions were analyzed by the ED50 isobologram. RESULTS: Subcutaneous injections of guanfacine, dexmedetomidine, and lidocaine produced dose-dependently nociceptive/sensory blockade. On the ED50 (50% effective dose) basis, the potency rankings of the drug are dexmedetomidine (0.09 [0.08-0.11] µmol/kg) > guanfacine (3.98 [2.96-5.34] µmol/kg) > lidocaine (25.40 [23.51-27.44] µmol/kg) (p < 0.01). On their equipotent doses (ED25, ED50, and ED75), the duration of sensory blockade induced by guanfacine or dexmedetomidine was longer than lidocaine's (p < 0.01). Both guanfacine and dexmedetomidine showed synergistic effects with lidocaine. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that guanfacine elicits dose-dependent cutaneous analgesia when administered subcutaneously. Lidocaine is less potent than guanfacine or dexmedetomidine. Both guanfacine and dexmedetomidine enhance the potency and duration of lidocaine. Better synergistic responses we are getting with guanfacine plus lidocaine.

Robotic-assisted hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease in the United States: in-hospital use of opioid and non-opioid analgesics.

To compare the in-hospital opioid and non-opioid analgesic use among women who underwent robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) vs. open (OH), vaginal (VH), or laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH). Records of women in the United States who underwent hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease were extracted from the Premier Healthcare Database (2013-2019). Propensity score methods were used to create three 1:1 matched cohorts stratified in inpatients [RH vs. OH (N = 16,821 pairs), RH vs. VH (N = 6149), RH vs. LH (N = 11,250)] and outpatients [RH vs. OH (N = 3139), RH vs. VH (N = 29,954), RH vs. LH (N = 85,040)]. Opioid doses were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Within matched cohorts, opioid and non-opioid analgesic use was compared. On the day of surgery, the percentage of patients who received opioids differed only for outpatients who underwent RH vs. LH or VH (maximum difference = 1%; p < 0.001). RH was associated with lower total doses of opioids in all matched cohorts (each p < 0.001), with the largest difference observed between RH and OH: median (IQR) of 47.5 (25.0-90.0) vs. 82.5 (36.0-137.0) MME among inpatients and 39.3 (19.5-66.0) vs. 60.0 (35.0-113.3) among outpatients. After the day of surgery, fewer inpatients who underwent RH received opioids vs. OH (78.7 vs. 87.5%; p < 0.001) or LH (78.6 vs. 80.6%; p < 0.001). The median MME was lower for RH (15.0; 7.5-33.5) versus OH (22.5; 15.0-55.0; p < 0.001). Minor differences were observed for non-opioid analgesics. RH was associated with lower in-hospital opioid use than OH, whereas the same magnitude of difference was not observed for RH vs. LH or VH.

Clinical validation of a fast-acting acetaminophen: a randomized, active and placebo controlled dental pain study.

OBJECTIVES: To address the need for faster pain relief of over-the-counter (OTC) analgesic users, a novel drug delivery technology was developed to achieve faster absorption of orally administered acetaminophen with the goal of delivering earlier onset of pain relief. Previous development studies suggested that a 1000 mg dose of this fast-acting acetaminophen (FA-acetaminophen) formulation provided faster absorption and onset of action versus, commercially available OTC fast-acting analgesics, 1000 mg of extra-strength acetaminophen (ES-acetaminophen) or 400 mg of liquid-filled ibuprofen capsules (LG-ibuprofen). This study was designed as the definitive trial evaluating the onset of pain relief of FA-acetaminophen versus these same OTC comparators. METHODS: This single-dose, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled clinical trial compared analgesic onset, overall efficacy, and safety of FA-acetaminophen 1000 mg, ES-acetaminophen 1000 mg, LG-ibuprofen 400 mg, and placebo over 4 h in a postsurgical dental pain model. Following removal of 3 to 4 impacted third molars, 664 subjects with moderate-to-severe pain were randomized in a 4:4:2:1 ratio to FA-acetaminophen (249), ES-acetaminophen (232), LG-ibuprofen (124), or placebo (59). Mean age was 18.9 years; 45.5% were male; 57.5% had severe baseline pain intensity. Subjects stopped a first stopwatch if/when they had perceptible pain relief and a second stopwatch if/when their pain relief became meaningful to them. Pain intensity difference (PID) and pain relief (PAR) were obtained using an 11-point numerical rating scale. FINDINGS: FA-acetaminophen 1000 mg had faster median time to onset of pain relief (15.7 min) compared to ES-acetaminophen 1000 mg (20.2 min, p = 0.035), LG-ibuprofen 400 mg (23.2 min, p < 0.001), and placebo (non-estimable), statistically greater mean PAR and PID scores than other treatment groups at 15 and 30 min, and a statistically greater percentage of subjects with confirmed perceptible pain relief at 15 and 20 min. At 25 min, FA-acetaminophen 1000 mg had a statistically significantly greater percentage of subjects with confirmed perceptible pain relief than LG-ibuprofen 400 mg and placebo. No clinically significant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports previous studies, demonstrating faster onset of analgesia with FA-acetaminophen 1000 mg compared to OTC ES-acetaminophen 1000 mg and OTC LG-ibuprofen 400 mg. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03224403 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03224403.

Postoperative pain management using an intravenous combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen compared with acetaminophen alone after thyroidectomy: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple medications are more effective than single agents for postoperative pain management. We investigated the analgesic effects of an intravenous combination of acetaminophen and ibuprofen immediately after thyroidectomy. METHODS: In this double-blind clinical trial, 62 patients who underwent thyroidectomies were randomized to either the treatment (1000 mg acetaminophen, 300 mg ibuprofen) or control (1000 mg acetaminophen) group. Postoperative pain intensity was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) 0, 15, and 30 min after recovery room admission. Opioid rescue consumption was also recorded. RESULTS: The VAS scores were significantly lower in the treatment than in the control group 15 [3 (2-4.3) vs. 5 (3-6); p = 0.015] and 30 [3 (2-4.3) vs. 4 (3-5); p = 0.018] min after recovery room admission, as were the opioid rescue dose requirements (p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Combined intravenous acetaminophen and ibuprofen may be better than acetaminophen alone for immediately acute postoperative pain after thyroidectomy.

Comparison of preemptive and preventive intravenous acetaminophen on opioid consumption in pediatrics undergoing posterior spinal fusion surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Posterior spinal fusion (PSF), commonly used for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), causes severe postoperative pain. Intravenous (IV) administration of acetaminophen has shown promise for opioid-sparing analgesia; however, its analgesic effect and optimal timing for its standard use remain unclear. Our study aimed to evaluate the analgesic effect and optimal timing of IV acetaminophen administration in pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing PSF and requiring adequate pain control. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, triple-blind trial was conducted in patients aged 11-20 undergoing PSF. Participants were randomized into three groups: the preemptive group (received IV acetaminophen 15 mg/kg after anesthetic induction/before surgical incision), the preventive group (received IV acetaminophen 15 mg/kg at the end of surgery/before skin closure), and the placebo group. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption during the first 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Among the 99 enrolled patients, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) amount of opioid consumption during the postoperative 24 h was 60.66 ± 23.84, 52.23 ± 22.43, and 66.70 ± 23.01 mg in the preemptive, preventive, and placebo groups, respectively (overall P = 0.043). A post hoc analysis revealed that the preventive group had significantly lower opioid consumption than the placebo group (P = 0.013). However, no significant differences between the groups were observed for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The preventive administration of scheduled IV acetaminophen reduces cumulative opioid consumption without increasing the incidence of drug-induced adverse events in pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing PSF.