ABSTRACT
Background: Due to the global prevalence of opioid drugs, postsurgical prescriptions can lead to substantial opioid consumption, highlighting the increasing need for alternative medications. Alternative medicines can markedly lessen the usage of opioids after surgery, but the variety and notable side effects of these alternatives require meticulous experimental support. Objective: This study explored the efficacy and safety of ulinastatin for alleviating postsurgical pain, for reducing the need for opioids, and for inclusion in conventional treatment methods. Methods: A total of 108 patients undergoing elective hip replacement were randomly allocated into either the experimental group (56 cases, standard pain relief treatment plus 60 IU ulinastatin) or the control group (40 cases, standard pain relief treatment). The main outcomes measured were the total consumption of opioids at 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes comprised patient-reported pain indices and levels of satisfaction with pain control. The frequency of adverse events evaluated medication safety. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, or underlying diseases between the two groups. Over 24 hours, opioid consumption was higher in the standard treatment group (66.6 mg; mean difference [MD]: 4.43 mg; 95% CI: 57.6-75.5) than in the intervention group (54.5 mg; MD: 1.91 mg; 95% CI: 50.7-58.3). The standard treatment group exhibited a notably higher incidence of adverse reactions. However, there was no disparity in post-discharge satisfaction between the groups, with an odds ratio of 1.058 (95% CI: 0.62-1.82; P > 0.05). Additionally, significant differences in C-reactive protein levels were observed immediately and 6 h after surgery between the two groups. Conclusion: Within 72 h post-surgery, ulinastatin was effective in substantially reducing the use of opioids while maintaining adequate pain control. Ulinastatin may be beneficial for postoperative pain management and for reducing the risks associated with opioid use. Registered: ClinicalTrials.gov ChiCTR2300072126.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a chronic and challenging condition, addressed through various treatments including photodynamic therapy (PDT) and standard of care (SOC), yet lacking consensus on the optimal approach. This study presents a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PDT versus SOC in managing DFU. METHODS: An extensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify RCTs that compared the effectiveness of PDT with SOC in treating DFU. The primary metrics evaluated included changes in ulcer area, wound healing indices, and pain levels experienced by the patients. RESULTS: This meta-analysis incorporated data from 6 RCTs, encompassing 458 patients with 467 DFUs. The analysis indicated that while PDT led to a faster reduction in ulcer size compared to SOC, the difference was not statistically significant [mean difference (MD): 2.73cm², 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) -2.98 to 8.44; p > 0.05]. However, a notable improvement was observed in the wound healing rate in the PDT group [MD: 29.26 %, 95 % CI 7.24 to 51.28; p = 0.01]. Based on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), pain assessment revealed no significant difference between the two treatment groups [MD: 2.35, 95 % CI -2.36 to 7.06; p = 0.33]. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that PDT might offer an enhanced healing rate for DFUs compared to SOC alone, potentially leading to improved patient outcomes. Importantly, our findings highlight the superiority of photodynamic therapy in accelerating ulcer healing without an associated increase in complications. PROSPERO: 2023 CRD42023493930.