Success and safety of deep sedation as a primary anaesthetic approach for transvenous lead extraction: a retrospective analysis.

There is a rising number in complications associated with more cardiac electrical devices implanted (CIED). Infection and lead dysfunction are reasons to perform transvenous lead extraction. An ideal anaesthetic approach has not been described yet. Most centres use general anaesthesia, but there is a lack in studies looking into deep sedation (DS) as an anaesthetic approach. We report our retrospective experience for a large number of procedures performed with deep sedation as a primary approach. Extraction procedures performed between 2011 and 2018 in our electrophysiology laboratory have been included retrospectively. We began by applying a bolus injection of piritramide followed by midazolam as primary medication and would add etomidate if necessary. For extraction of leads a stepwise approach with careful traction, locking stylets, dilator sheaths, mechanical rotating sheaths and if needed snares and baskets has been used. A total of 780 leads in 463 patients (age 69.9 ± 12.3, 31.3% female) were extracted. Deep sedation was successful in 97.8% of patients. Piritramide was used as the main analgesic medication (98.5%) and midazolam as the main sedative (94.2%). Additional etomidate was administered in 15.1% of cases. In 2.2% of patients a conversion to general anaesthesia was required as adequate level of DS was not achieved before starting the procedure. Sedation related complications occurred in 1.1% (n = 5) of patients without sequalae. Deep sedation with piritramide, midazolam and if needed additional etomidate is a safe and feasible strategy for transvenous lead extraction.

Application of analgesics in emergency services in Germany: a survey of the medical directors.

ABSTRAC: BACKGROUND: Treatment of acute pain is an essential element of pre-hospital care for injured and critically ill patients. Clinical studies indicate the need for improvement in the prehospital analgesia. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the current situation in out of hospital pain management in Germany regarding the substances, indications, dosage and the delegation of the use of analgesics to emergency medical service (EMS) staff. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A standardized survey of the medical directors of the emergency services (MDES) in Germany was carried out using an online questionnaire. The anonymous results were evaluated using the statistical software SPSS (Chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney-U test). RESULTS: Seventy-seven MDES responsible for 989 rescue stations and 397 EMS- physician bases in 15 federal states took part in this survey. Morphine (98.7%), Fentanyl (85.7%), Piritramide (61%), Sufentanil (18.2%) and Nalbuphine (14,3%) are provided as opioid analgesics. The non-opioid analgesics (NOA) including Ketamine/Esketamine (98,7%), Metamizole (88.3%), Paracetamol (66,2%), Ibuprofen (24,7%) and COX-2-inhibitors (7,8%) are most commonly available. The antispasmodic Butylscopolamine is available (81,8%) to most rescue stations. Fentanyl is the most commonly provided opioid analgesic for treatment of a traumatic pain (70.1%) and back pain (46.8%), Morphine for visceral colic-like (33.8%) and non-colic pain (53.2%). In cases of acute coronary syndrome is Morphine (85.7%) the leading analgesic substance. Among the non-opioid analgesics is Ketamine/Esketamine (90.9%) most frequently provided to treat traumatic pain, Metamizole for visceral colic-like (70.1%) and non-colic (68.6%) as well as back pain (41.6%). Butylscopolamine is the second most frequently provided medication after Metamizole for "visceral colic-like pain" (55.8%). EMS staff (with or without a request for presence of the EMS physician on site) are permitted to use the following: Morphine (16.9%), Piritramide (13.0%) and Nalbuphine (10.4%), and of NOAs for (Es)Ketamine (74.1%), Paracetamol (53.3%) and Metamizole (35.1%). The dosages of the most important and commonly provided analgesic substances permitted to independent treatment by the paramedics are often below the recommended range for adults (RDE). The majority of medical directors (78.4%) of the emergency services consider the independent application of analgesics by paramedics sensible. The reason for the relatively rare authorization of opioids for use by paramedics is mainly due to legal (in)certainty (53.2%). CONCLUSION: Effective analgesics are available for EMS staff in Germany, the approach to improvement lies in the area of application. For this purpose, the adaptations of the legal framework as well as the creation of a guideline for prehospital analgesia are useful.

Pupillary Pain Index Predicts Postoperative Pain but Not the Effect of Peripheral Regional Anaesthesia in Patients Undergoing Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Observational Study.

Background and Objectives: The pupillary pain index (PPI) allows the evaluation of intraoperative nociception by measuring pupillary reaction after a localized electrical stimulus. It was the objective of this observational cohort study to investigate the pupillary pain index (PPI) as a method to evaluate the fascia iliaca block (FIB) or adductor canal block (ACB) sensory areas during general anaesthesia in orthopaedic patients with lower-extremity joint replacement surgery. Materials and Methods: Orthopaedic patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty were included. After anaesthesia induction, patients received an ultrasound-guided single-shot FIB or ACB with 30 mL and 20 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine, respectively. Anaesthesia was maintained with isoflurane or propofol/remifentanil. The first PPI measurements were performed after anaesthesia induction and before block insertion, the second at the end of surgery. Pupillometry scores were evaluated in the area of the femoral or saphenous nerve (target) and C3 dermatome (control). Primary outcomes were differences between PPIs before and after peripheral block insertion as well as the relationship between PPIs and postoperative pain scores; secondary outcomes were the relationship between PPIs and opioid requirements after surgery. Results: PPI decreased significantly from the first to the second measurement (4.17 ± 2.7 vs. 1.6 ± 1.2, p < 0.001 for target; 4.46 ± 2.7 vs. 2.17 ± 2.1, p < 0.001 for control). Control and target measurements did not show significant differences. A linear regression analysis showed that early postoperative pain scores could be predicted with intraoperative piritramide with improved prediction after adding PPI scores, PCA opioids and surgery type. Forty-eight-hour pain scores at rest and in movement were correlated with intraoperative piritramide and control PPI after the PNB in movement and with second-postoperative-day opioids and target PPI scores before block insertion, respectively. Conclusions: While the effect of an FIB and ACB could not be shown with PPI postoperative pain scores due to a large effect of opioids, perioperative PPI was shown to be associated with postoperative pain. These results suggest that preoperative PPI may be used to predict postoperative pain.

Pre-hospital analgesia in pediatric trauma and critically ill patients: An analysis of a German air rescue service.

BACKGROUND: Pain management in the pre-hospital setting remains a particular challenge for paramedics and emergency physicians, especially in children. This study evaluates the pre-hospital use and effect of analgesics in children with trauma or pain due to other reasons. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of the database of a German air rescue service and was conducted over a period of 9 years (2012-2020) to assess pain in general and whether patients with trauma pain due to other reasons received treatment with analgesics. We included all patients in the registry under the age of 16 years. Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 3 at hospital admission and incomplete records were excluded. The intensity of pain was determined by the emergency physician on scene at arrival and hospital admission in a ten-point rating scale (0 = no pain). Effective pain reduction was analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 227,458 cases, a total of 22,025 emergency cases involved pediatric patients aged 0-16 years. 20,405 cases were included in the study. 12,000 (58.8%) children had suffered a trauma, 8108 (39.7%) had pain due to other reasons and 297 (1.5%) had both. In total, 4,608 (38.4%) of the children with trauma were assessed having a numerical rating scale (NRS) > 4 at EMS arrival. These patients received mainly ketamine (34.5%) and the opioids fentanyl (38.7%) and piritramide (19.1%). The value on the NRS was significantly lower at admission to hospital (mean 1.9) compared with the EMS arrival (mean 6.9). In 4.9% the NRS at hospital admission was still > 4. 282 patients within the non-trauma group had a pre-hospital NRS of > 4. The pain therapy consisted of opioids (35.8%) and ketamine (2.8%). 28.4% patients in the non-trauma group received no pain medication. In 16.0% the NRS at hospital admission was still > 4. CONCLUSIONS: German emergency physicians achieved a sufficient pain therapy in pediatric patients with a NRS > 4 after trauma. In case of non-trauma, the pain management by the emergency physicians is restrained and less successful. The most common analgesic medications administered were ketamine and fentanyl, followed by piritramide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered at DRKS (DRKS00026222).

Pain levels and patient comfort after lower limb arthroplasty comparing i.v. patient-controlled analgesia, continuous peripheral nerve block and neuraxial analgesia: a retrospective cohort analysis of clinical routine data.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient pain control after lower limb arthroplasty results in delayed recovery and increased risk for pain chronicization. The ideal kind of analgesia is still discussed controversially. We conducted a retrospective analysis of single-center routine data from a German university hospital, including patients receiving either total hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: All patients received general anesthesia. Patients undergoing THA received either continuous epidural ropivacaine infusion (0.133%, Epi) or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with the Wurzburg Pain Drip (tramadol, metamizole and droperidol, WPD) or with piritramide (Pir). After TKA, patients received either continuous femoral nerve block (ropivacaine 0.2%, PNB) or Pir. RESULTS: The analyzed cohort comprised 769 cases. Use of WPD after THA (n = 333) resulted in significantly reduced Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) values at rest, compared to Epi (n = 48) and Pir (n = 72) (.75 [IQR 1.14] vs. 1.17 [1.5], p = .02 vs. 1.47 [1.33], p < .0001) as well as maximum NRS scores (2.4 [1.7] vs. 3.29 [1.94], p < .001 vs. 3.32 [1.76], p < .0001). Positive feedback during follow-up visits was significantly increased in patients with a WPD PCA (p < .0001), while negative feedback (senso-motoric weakness/technical problems/nausea/dizziness/constipation) was particularly increased in Epi patients and lowest in those with WPD (p < .0001). After TKA, Pir (n = 131) resulted in significantly reduced NRS values at rest, compared to PNB (n = 185) (1.4 [1.4] vs. 1.6 [1.68], p = .02). Positive feedback was increased in patients with a Pir PCA in comparison with PNB (p = .04), while negative feedback was increased in PNB patients (p = .04). Overall, WPD presented with the lowest rate of any complications (8.7%), followed by Pir (20.2%), PNB (27.6%) and Epi (31.3%) (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the assessed population, the use of a WPD PCA after THA offered better pain control and patient comfort in comparison with continuous epidural or piritramide-based analgesia. After TKA, the use of a Pir PCA provided superior analgesia and a lower complication rate compared to continuous PNB.

Intravenous ibuprofen versus diclofenac plus orphenadrine in orthognathic surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of ibuprofen versus diclofenac plus orphenadrine on postoperative pain in orthognathic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent orthognathic surgery were randomized into two groups to receive intravenously either 600 mg of ibuprofen (I-group) or 75 mg diclofenac plus 30 mg orphenadrine (D-group), both of which were given twice daily. Additionally, both groups were given metamizole 500 mg. Rescue pain medication consisted of acetaminophen 1000 mg and piritramide 7.5 mg as needed. To assess the pain intensity, the primary end point was the numeric rating scale (NRS) recorded over the course of the hospital stay three times daily for 3 days. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients were enrolled (age range, 18 to 61 years) between May 2019 and November 2020. Forty-eight bilateral sagittal split osteotomies (BSSO) and 51 bimaxillary osteotomies (BIMAX) were performed. Surgical subgroup analysis found a significant higher mean NRS (2.73 vs.1.23) in the BIMAX D-group vs. I-group (p = 0.015) on the third postoperative day. Additionally, as the patient's body mass index (BMI) increased, the mean NRS (r = 0.517, p = 0.001) also increased. No differences were found between age, gender, length of hospital stay, weight, operating times, number of patients with complete pain relief, acetaminophen or piritramide intake, and NRS values. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that ibuprofen administration and lower BMI were associated with less pain for patients who underwent bimaxillary osteotomy on the third postoperative day. Therefore, surgeons may prefer ibuprofen for more effective pain relief after orthognathic surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ibuprofen differs from diclofenac plus orphenadrine in class and is a powerful analgetic after orthognathic surgery.

Analgesic effects of piritramide in acute postoperative pain - comparison of intramuscular administration with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia and impact of OPRM1 and ABCB1 polymorphisms.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, consumption and safety after piritramide administered either intramuscularly (IM) on demand or via patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) and to examine the impact of OPRM1 and ABCB1 gene polymorphisms on the drug efficacy/safety in both regimens. METHODS: One hundred and four patients scheduled for elective inguinal hernioplasty received piritramide with PCA or IM for postoperative pain management. We evaluated piritramide consumption, pain intensity using visual analogue scale (VAS) and adverse effects. RESULTS: Median (IQR) piritramide consumption was 18.5 (13.5-31.2) and 15.0 (15.0-15.0) mg in the PCA and IM groups, respectively (P=0.0092). The respective values of area under the VAS2-16-time curve were 40 and 280 mm.h (P=0.0027). Opioid-induced adverse effects were more frequent in the PCA than in the IM group. Variant OPRM1 allele was associated with decreased pain relief, increased opioid consumption and increased incidence of adverse effects, while ABCB1 polymorphisms showed no impact on the observed parameters. CONCLUSIONS: We observed higher piritramide consumption, better pain relief and slightly worse safety profile in the PCA group compared with IM administration. Variant OPRM1 118G allele carriers required higher opioid dosing and suffered from more adverse effects, however, the differences between genotypes have been less pronounced in the PCA patients likely due to improved pain management via PCA.

[Safety and monitoring of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia : Clinical practice in German hospitals]. / Sicherheit und Monitoring der patientenkontrollierten intravenösen Analgesie : Anwendungspraxis in deutschen Krankenhäusern.

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) is a well-established technique in acute pain management and available in most German hospitals. Despite its widespread use, information on current clinical practice is limited. This investigation evaluated clinical practice and monitoring as well as PCIA-associated adverse events and critical incidents in German hospitals. METHODS: An invitation to participate in this online-survey was sent to 995 heads of anesthesiology departments belonging to the "German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine". RESULTS: Of the departments receiving the link, 244 took part (response rate 25%). PCIA was used in 193 of these hospitals (79%). All the following statements relate to the hospitals in which PCIA was used. Piritramide was the most frequently used opioid. In parallel with PCIA, additional nonopioid analgesics were used in 94% of the hospitals, and in 38%, additional slow-release oral opioids were used. Parenteral opioids were administered by the ward staff in 4% of the hospitals. In 75% of hospitals, there were standardized indications for PCIA therapy, with almost two thirds of respondents stating that PCIA was the technique of second choice if regional procedures were contraindicated or failed. In all, 76% of the hospitals had an acute pain service. Twenty-four percent of the hospitals regularly used PCIA in non-surgical patients. In pediatric patients, PCIA was used in 62 hospitals (32%). Only 31% of the hospitals reported the use of standardized protocols for the specific monitoring of patients' vital signs on general wards, exceeding general care. Of the department, 158 (82%) reported adverse events in connection with the use of PCIA within the six-month period preceding the survey (most frequently due to patients' noncompliance [52%], dislocated intravenous lines [41%], communication errors [16%], administration of additional analgesics [16%] and/ or sedatives [14%], problems with the pump [16%], programming errors [9%], incorrect opioid concentration in the reservoir [8%], non-observance of contraindications [7%], incorrect dosing [6%] and self-dosing by the patient [4%] or by third parties [3%], filling the reservoir with thewrong medication [2%]; and other problems [5%]). Only 35 of the hospitals (18%) reported no problems associated with PCIA therapy. Seventy-five of the 193 respondents (39%) stated that at least one critical incident had occurred in the context of the use of PCIA. This resulted in a total of 335 cases out of an estimate of 50.000 patients treated with PCIA. The respondents classified these as follows: I) 273 incidents requiring a prolonged stay in the recovery room, but without further complications, II) 58 requiring transfer to the intensive care unit, but without further complications, III) three resulting in permanent harm to the patient and IV) one resulting in the death of the patient. A comparison of the monitoring standards for PCIA showed that critical incidents were reported less frequently in hospitals with less intensive monitoring, and more frequently in hospitals with higher monitoring standards. CONCLUSION: PCIA is a frequently used analgesic technique in German hospitals. There were many differences in how PCIA therapy was applied and monitored on general wards. Adverse events occurred to a significant extent, with a considerable part of them, which might be preventable. Critical incidents were perceived more often when standards for monitoring on general wards were higher. Consented current recommendations regarding treatment and monitoring standards as well as the systematic recording of complications when using PCIA are pending.

The effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative pain management compared to PCIA : A cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Standard protocols or algorithms are considered essential to ensure adequate analgesia. Germany has widely adopted postoperative protocols for pain management including oral opioids for rescue medication, but the effectiveness of such protocols has only been evaluated longitudinally in a before and after setting. The aim of this cohort analysis was to compare the effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative management of pain to the gold standard of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study compared cohorts of patients of two prospective observational studies undergoing elective total hip replacement. After surgery patients received piritramide to achieve a pain score of ≤3 on the numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10). A protocol was started consisting of oral long-acting oxycodone and ibuprofen (basic analgesia). Cohort 1 (C1, 126 patients) additionally received an oral opioid rescue medication (hydromorphone) when reporting pain >3 on the NRS. Cohort 2 (C2, 88 patients) was provided with an opioid by PCIA (piritramide) for opioid rescue medication. Primary endpoints were pain intensity at rest, during movement, and maximum pain intensity within the first 24 h postoperative. Secondary endpoints were opioid consumption, functional outcome and patient satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS: Pain during movement and maximum pain intensity were higher in C1 compared to C2: pain on movement median 1st-3rd quartile: 6 (3.75-8) vs. 5 (3-7), p = 0.023; maximum pain intensity: 7 (5-9) vs. 5 (3-8), p = 0.008. There were no differences in pain intensity at rest or between women and men in either group. The mean opioid consumption in all patients (combined PACU, baseline, and rescue medication; mean ± SD mg ME) was 126.6 ± 51.8 mg oral ME (median 120 (87.47-154.25) mg ME). Total opioid consumption was lower in C1 than C2 (117 ± 46 mg vs 140 ± 56 mg, p = 0.002) due to differences in rescue opioids (C1: 57 ± 37 mg ME, C2: 73 ± 43 mg ME, p = 0.006, Z = -2.730). Basic analgesia opioid use was comparable (C1: 54 ± 31 mg ME, C2: 60 ± 36 mg ME, p = 0.288, Z = -1.063). There were no differences in respect to the addition of non-opioids and reported quality of mobilization, sleep, frequency of nausea and vomiting, or general satisfaction with pain management. CONCLUSION: In this study PCIA provided a better reduction of pain intensity, when compared to a standardized protocol with oral opioid rescue medication. This effect was associated with increased opioid consumption. There were no differences in frequencies of opioid side effects. This study was a retrospective analysis of two cohorts of a major project. As with all retrospective studies, our analysis has several limitations to consider. Data can only represent the observation of clinical practice. It cannot reflect the quality of a statement of a randomized controlled trial. Observational studies do not permit conclusions on causal relationships.

Remifentanil for abdominal surgery is associated with unexpectedly unfavorable outcomes.

Insufficient perioperative pain treatment is known as a highly predictive risk factor for the development of chronic postoperative pain. Remifentanil is an ultrashort-acting opioid that provides quick and efficient analgesia but is associated with the induction of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Despite these well-known characteristics, this substance is being increasingly used in anesthesia and in a variety of medical fields, such as intensive-care medicine and obstetrics. The aim of our study was to reveal whether remifentanil influences postoperative pain, the requirement for postoperative analgesics, and requirement of antiemetics (as indirect indicator of postoperative nausea and vomiting), as well as the effects on time to extubation and length of stay in the postanesthesia care unit in daily clinical routine. From an electronic medical records database of 55,693 anesthesias, we analyzed data from all patients receiving intraabdominal surgery (visceral, gynecological, and urological) under general anesthesia or combined general-epidural anesthesia by propensity score matching. The administration of remifentanil was associated with higher postoperative pain scores despite a higher requirement of postoperative analgesics. Additional epidural analgesia was not able to avoid this finding. The intraoperative use of remifentanil is associated with a deterioration of pain levels and postoperative analgesic requirement, wherefore the potential benefit of this substance seems to be outweighed by its potential disadvantages. Especially in operative procedures in which high postoperative pain scores are expected, the unreflective use should be critically questioned.

Treating Therapy-Resistant Headache After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage with Acupuncture.

INTRODUCTION: Subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) is usually associated with severe headache, whereas the options of pharmacological analgesia are restricted. Acupuncture is a promising method in treatment of headaches associated with meningeal sensitivity or irritation, such as migraine or post-dural puncture headache. CASE REPORT: We report on 3 patients, who suffered severe headache due to aneurysmal SAH, and received acupuncture when pharmacological measures were exhausted. After acupuncture treatment all patients reported at least 50% pain reduction and could stop or reduce analgesics without side effects. DISCUSSION: Acupuncture may be an effective pain treatment method in patients suffering from headache due to SAH. Randomized trials using acupuncture as an add-on to standard analgesic therapy would help evaluate the role of acupuncture for this purpose.

Bupivacaine infiltration in children for postoperative analgesia after tonsillectomy: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adenotonsillectomy is a frequently performed procedure in paediatric day-case surgery. Postoperative pain can be significant and standard analgesia protocols are often insufficient. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to investigate if infiltration of the peritonsillar space with bupivacaine would reduce the need for postoperative opioids compared with pre-emptive intravenous tramadol. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Ambulatory surgical day care centre, University Hospitals of Leuven, Belgium, from January 2012 to September 2016. PATIENTS: Two hundred children, between 4 and 10 years old, undergoing elective adenotonsillectomy were included in the study. INTERVENTION: Children were randomly allocated to receive either a bolus of 3 mg kg intravenous tramadol or infiltration of the tonsillar lodge with 5-ml bupivacaine 0.25%. Reasons for exclusion were American Society of Anesthesiologists classification greater than 2, allergies to the investigated products, psychomotor retardation, bleeding disorders and lack of proficiency in Flemish. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the number of children in need of piritramide postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the cumulative dose of postoperative piritramide, pain scores and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 postoperative hours, time to discharge and adverse effects. RESULTS: The proportion of children in need of postoperative piritramide was significantly lower in the tramadol group than in children with peritonsillar infiltration (57 vs. 81%, P < 0.001). When in need of postoperative piritramide, the tramadol-group required a significantly lower dose (median [IQR] 0.7 [0.6 to 1] vs. 1 [0.6 to 1.5] mg, P < 0.007) and had lower pain scores during the first 60 min after surgery. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence, need for antiemetics or complications. CONCLUSION: Compared with peritonsillar infiltration, preemptive intravenous tramadol decreases the need for postoperative opioids after tonsillectomy in children without increasing the incidence of side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2011-005467-25.

Interventions to reduce shoulder pain following gynaecological laparoscopic procedures.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is a common procedure used to diagnose and treat various gynaecological conditions. Shoulder-tip pain (STP) as a result of the laparoscopy occurs in up to 80% of women, with potential for significant morbidity, delayed discharge and readmission. Interventions at the time of gynaecological laparoscopy have been developed in an attempt to reduce the incidence and severity of STP. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of methods for reducing the incidence and severity of shoulder-tip pain (STP) following gynaecological laparoscopy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 8 August 2018. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions used during or immediately after gynaecological laparoscopy to reduce the incidence or severity of STP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes: incidence or severity of STP and adverse events of the interventions; secondary outcomes: analgesia usage, delay in discharge, readmission rates, quality-of-life scores and healthcare costs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies (3284 women). Laparoscopic procedures in these studies varied from diagnostic procedures to complex operations. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.Specific technique versus "standard" technique for releasing the pneumoperitoneumUse of a specific technique of releasing the pneumoperitoneum (pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre, extended assisted ventilation or actively aspirating intra-abdominal gas) reduced the severity of STP at 24 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.50; 5 RCTs; 670 participants; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) and reduced analgesia usage (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.35; 4 RCTs; 570 participants; I2 = 91%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be little or no difference in the incidence of STP at 24 hours (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.82; 1 RCT; 118 participants; low-quality evidence).No adverse events occurred in the only study assessing this outcome.Fluid instillation versus no fluid instillationFluid instillation is probably associated with a reduction in STP incidence (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.66; 2 RCTs; 220 participants; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) and severity (mean difference (MD) (0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) scale) -2.27, 95% CI -3.06 to -1.48; 2 RCTs; 220 participants; I2 = 29%, moderate-quality evidence) at 24 hours, and may reduce analgesia usage (MD -12.02, 95% CI -23.97 to -0.06; 2 RCTs; 205 participants, low-quality evidence).No study measured adverse events.Intraperitoneal drain versus no intraperitoneal drainUsing an intraperitoneal drain may reduce the incidence of STP at 24 hours (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; 3 RCTs; 417 participants; I2 = 90%, low-quality evidence) and may reduce analgesia use within 48 hours post-operatively (SMD -1.84, 95% CI -2.14 to -1.54; 2 RCTs; 253 participants; I2 = 90%). We are uncertain whether it reduces the severity of STP at 24 hours, as the evidence was very low quality (MD (0 to 10 VAS scale) -1.85, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.55; 3 RCTs; 320 participants; I2 = 70%).No study measured adverse events.Subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control (no fluid instillation, normal saline or Ringer's lactate)There is probably little or no difference between the groups in incidence of STP (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.23; 4 RCTs; 336 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in STP severity (MD -1.13, 95% CI -2.52 to 0.26; 1 RCT; 50 participants; low-quality evidence), both measured at 24 hours. However, the intervention may reduce post-operative analgesia use (SMD-0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.21; 2 RCTs; 129 participants; I2 = 51%, low-quality evidence).No adverse events occurred in any study.Local anaesthetic into peritoneal cavity (not subdiaphragmatic) versus normal salineLocal anaesthetic into the peritoneal cavity may reduce the incidence of STP at 4 to 8 hours post-operatively (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93; 2 RCTs; 157 participants; I2 = 56%; low-quality evidence). Our other outcomes of interest were not assessed.Warmed, or warmed and humidified CO2 versus unwarmed and unhumidified CO2There may be no difference between these interventions in incidence of STP at 24 to 48 hours (OR 0.81 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 2 RCTs; 194 participants; I2 = 12%; low-quality evidence) or in analgesia usage within 48 hours (MD -4.97 mg morphine, 95% CI -11.25 to 1.31; 1 RCT; 95 participants; low-quality evidence); there is probably little or no difference in STP severity at 24 hours (MD (0 to 10 VAS scale) 0.11, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.97; 2 RCTs; 157 participants; I2 = 50%; moderate-quality evidence).No study measured adverse events.Gasless laparoscopy versus CO2 insufflationGasless laparoscopy may be associated with increased severity of STP within 72 hours post-operatively when compared with standard treatment (MD 3.8 (0 to 30 VAS scale), 95% CI 0.76 to 6.84; 1 RCT; 54 participants, low-quality evidence), and there may be no difference in the risk of adverse events (OR 2.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 26.28; 1 RCT; 54 participants; low-quality evidence).No study measured the incidence of STP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low to moderate-quality evidence that the following interventions are associated with a reduction in the incidence or severity, or both, of STP, or a reduction in analgesia requirements for women undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy: a specific technique for releasing the pneumoperitoneum; intraperitoneal fluid instillation; an intraperitoneal drain; and local anaesthetic applied to the peritoneal cavity (not subdiaphragmatic).There is low to moderate-quality evidence that subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal local anaesthetic and warmed and humidified insufflating gas may not make a difference to the incidence or severity of STP.There is low-quality evidence that gasless laparoscopy may increase the severity of STP, compared with standard treatment.Few studies reported data on adverse events. Some potentially useful interventions have not been studied by RCTs of gynaecological laparoscopy.

A comparison of sufentanil vs. remifentanil in fast-track cardiac surgery patients.

We retrospectively compared patients receiving remifentanil with patients receiving sufentanil undergoing fast-track cardiac surgery. After 1:1 propensity score matching there were 609 patients in each group. The sufentanil group had a significantly longer mean (SD) ventilation time compared with the remifentanil group; 122 (59) vs. 80 (44) min, p < 0.001 and longer mean (SD) length of stay in the recovery area; 277 (77) vs. 263 (78) min, p = 0.002. The sufentanil group had a lower mean (SD) visual analogue pain score than the remifentanil group; 1.5 (1.2) vs. 2.4 (1.5), p < 0.001 and consumed less mean (SD) piritramide (an opioid analgesic used in our hospital); 2.6 (4.7) vs. 18.9 (7.3) mg, p < 0.001. The results of our study show that although remifentanil was more effective in reducing time to tracheal extubation and length of stay in the recovery area, there was an increased requirement for postoperative analgesia when remifentanil was used.

[Oxycodone, piritramide and tramadol for the management of postoperative pain : A registry study on use and effectiveness in clinical routine]. / Oxycodon, Piritramid und Tramadol zur postoperativen Schmerztherapie : Eine Registerstudie zur Verwendung und Wirksamkeit.

BACKGROUND: In the context of improving perioperative pain management and shortening hospital stays, potent oral analgesics, such as slow release opioids, are gaining increasingly in importance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the use and effectiveness of different opioids in postoperative pain treatment in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from the QUIPS database, the records of 5249 patients were evaluated. The total study population was divided into four groups: group 1 (10 mg oxycodone with or without naloxone 5 mg), group 2 (20 mg oxycodone with or without naloxone 10 mg), group 3 (piritramide) and group 4 (tramadol). Maximum pain intensity, pain-related interference with sleep and respiration, vomiting, postoperative fatigue, desire for more pain treatment and satisfaction with pain management were evaluated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The differences in pain intensity were statistically significant between groups. Patients with piritramide reported more pain, more interference with sleep and respiration and more fatigue compared to those from the other groups. In the group with 10 mg oxycodone, the desire for additional pain medication was the lowest. Postoperative vomiting and satisfaction with pain management differed significantly between the four groups. Procedure-specific analysis has shown that differences between sub-groups were also significant following cholecystectomy and total knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our findings suggest that postoperative pain treatment with slow release oral oxycodone does not show disadvantages compared to tramadol or piritramide with regard to pain-related impairments and opioid-induced side effects. This hypothesis needs to be further analyzed in controlled studies.

Intrathecal Morphine for Laparoscopic Segmental Colonic Resection as Part of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Management of postoperative pain after laparoscopic segmental colonic resections remains controversial. We compared 2 methods of analgesia within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program. The goal of the study was to investigate whether administration of intrathecal bupivacaine/morphine would lead to an enhanced recovery. METHODS: A single-center, randomized, double-blind controlled trial was performed (NL43488.101.13). Patients scheduled for laparoscopic segmental intestinal resections were considered. Exclusion criteria were patients in whom contraindications to spinal anesthesia were present, conversion to open surgery, and gastric and rectal surgery. The intervention group received single-shot intrathecal bupivacaine/morphine (12.5 mg/300 µg), with an altered dose for older patients. The control group received a sham procedure and a bolus of piritramide (0.1 mg/kg). Both groups received standardized general anesthesia and a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia pump as postoperative analgesia. All patients were treated according to an ERAS protocol. A decrease in days to "fit for discharge" was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled. Intervention group patients were fit for discharge earlier (median of 3 vs 4 days, P = 0.044). Furthermore, there was a significant decrease in opioid use and lower pain scores on the first postoperative day in the intervention group. There were no differences in adverse events (except for more pruritus), time to mobilization, fluid administration, or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial shows that intrathecal morphine is a more effective method of postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic surgery than intravenous opioids within an ERAS program. Recovery is faster and less painful with intrathecal morphine. Other studies have confirmed these results, although data on faster recovery are new and require confirmation in future trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02284282.

Comparison of incisional and epidural analgesia in the treatment of postoperative pain after cesarean section.

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of incisional and epidural analgesia in the treatment of postoperative pain after cesarean sectio. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study in the period from 2015 to 2016. SETTING: Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Masaryk University, University Hospital Brno. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The group included 72 patients in the 38th-41st. week of pregnancy. They were divided at the time of indication to the cesarean section (SC) into two groups according to the selected type of analgesia (epidural/incisional). Women with epidural analgesia (EA) received bupivacaine and sufentanil after surgery in the epidural catheter. A second group was patients during general anesthesia SC introduced into the surgical wound IA Painfusor which was continuously administered bupivacaine. The intensity of the patients pain was evaluated on the visual analogue scale (VAS). If the VAS exceeded 4, the dose of the opioid analgesic piritramide (additional dose of DDA analgesic) was administered intravenously. The intensity of pain and the number of DDAs required were evaluated 24 hours after SC. Satisfaction with pain relief, sleep quality, and patient side effects were assessed using a questionnaire. RESULTS: Patients in the EA group (n = 36) evaluated postoperative pain (PB) value of 4.4 ± 1.8 according to VAS, women in group IA (n = 36) reported a PB according to VAS of 4.4 ± 1.3 (p = 0.972). The difference in the number of applied DDA was not statistically significant compared groups (2.3 ± 0.9 EA vs. 2.4 ± 0.9 IA, p = 0.301). By comparing the other parameters evaluated by the questionnaire statistically significant more vertigo cases were found in women with IA (22.2% EA vs. 72.2% IA, p < 0.001). In the other evaluated parameters the differences between the two methods were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Epidural and incisional analgesia are comparable methods in the effectiveness of pain management during the first day of the cesarean section. Except for vertigo, both methods were also comparable in terms of the occurrence of undesirable effects.

Anesthesia in a child with suspected peroxisomal disorder.

We present the case of an 8­year-old female child with suspected peroxisomal disorder requiring general anesthesia for adenotomy, paracentesis and brainstem-evoked response audiometry. Peroxisomes are small intracellular organelles that catalyse key metabolic reactions. Peroxisomal disorders are a heterogeneous group of rare genetic diseases. Anesthesia can be challenging as adrenal insufficiency, mental retardation, muscle weakness, risk of pulmonary aspiration, airway complications, seizure disorders and altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can occur in these patients but guidelines for anesthesia do not exist due to the heterogeneity and rarity of these diseases and case reports are rare. Anesthesia was induced by sevoflurane via a face mask, followed by remifentanil and rocuronium for oral intubation after intravenous access was obtained. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and remifentanil. Dexamethasone was given for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting as well as perioperative adrenal crises. Piritramide was given for postoperative analgesia. With this approach anesthesia was uneventful. The trachea was extubated with the patient awake and she was taken to the recovery room in a stable condition. The classification and breadth of clinical manifestations of peroxisomal disorders is complex and briefly summarized. Anesthesiologists should consider characteristics of their particular patient's form of peroxisomal disorder, as this may greatly influence procedural planning.

[Piritramide : A critical review]. / Piritramid : Eine kritische Übersicht.

BACKGROUND: In many European countries and particularly in Germany, piritramide is the first choice opioid analgesic for the management of postoperative and posttraumatic pain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the pharmacological properties of piritramide and to evaluate whether these result in any clinical advantages with respect to effectiveness, safety and side effect profile compared to other strong opioids. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar and 27 articles published between 1961 and 2015 were retrieved and included in this review. RESULTS: Piritramide is a strong opioid that can only be administered parenterally. After intravenous injection it is effective after 17 min with pain relief lasting for up to 6 h. It is metabolized in the liver to inactive compounds, which is advantageous compared to morphine where active metabolites can accumulate in patients with renal failure. Piritramide is highly lipophilic resulting in a long context-sensitive half-life, making it unsuitable for continuous infusions. Studies further suggest that the side effect profile of piritramide is comparable to morphine. CONCLUSION: So far there is little evidence to support the widespread use of piritramide as first-line opioid analgesic for postoperative pain management in Germany. Especially lacking are in-depth studies about its mechanisms of action, receptor pharmacology, dose-response relationships and clinical dosing regimens. It is therefore questionable why piritramide is given priority.