Pain management after ambulatory surgery: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded parallel controlled trial comparing nalbuphine and tramadol.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain in ambulatory surgery is a multifactorial issue affecting patient satisfaction, time of discharge, and rehospitalization. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine for the treatment of postoperative pain after ambulatory surgery, relative to tramadol. METHODS: This multi-center, randomized, double blind, and controlled study was conducted at 10 centers. In accordance with the inclusion criteria, 492 ambulatory surgery patients were recruited. These patients had moderate to severe pain after ambulatory surgery, with a visual analogue scale (VAS) score > 3 cm. They were randomly divided into an experimental (n = 248) or control (n = 244) group and treated for analgesia with 0.2 mg/kg of nalbuphine or 2 mg/kg of tramadol, respectively. VAS scores, adverse events, and vital signs of the patients were recorded before administration (baseline; T1); and 30 min (T2), 2 h (T3), 4 h (T4), and 6 h (T5) after administration of analgesia. A decrease in pain intensity of more than 25% compared with the baseline was used as an indicator of analgesic efficacy. The experimental and control groups were compared with regard to this indicator of efficacy at each timepoint. RESULTS: The VAS scores of the experimental and control groups were statistically comparable at timepoints T1-T4. At T5, the VAS scores of the experimental group were significantly lower than that of the control. The pain intensity was significantly higher in the experimental group compared with the control at T2 and T3. Adverse events and vital signs were similar for the two groups at each timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: Nalbuphine can provide effective and safe pain relief in patients after ambulatory surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registration number is ChiCTR-IOR-16010032 , the date of registration was 2016-11-28.

High-voltage, Long-duration Pulsed Radiofrequency to the Dorsal Root Ganglion Provides Improved Pain Relief for Herpes Zoster Neuralgia in the Subacute Stage.

BACKGROUND: Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is pain persisting beyond 3 months from rash onset and is the most common complication of herpes zoster (HZ); it is commonly refractory to medication treatment. Available evidence indicates that high-voltage, long-duration pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) is a novel and effective treatment for this complication. Nevertheless, the effects of this intervention on refractory HZ neuralgia less than 3 months have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the therapeutic efficacy and safety of high-voltage, long-duration PRF to the DRG for patients with subacute HZ neuralgia compared with that of patients with PHN. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective comparative research. SETTING: Hospital department in China. METHODS: Sixty-four patients with HZ neuralgia in different stages receiving high-voltage, long-duration PRF to the DRG were included. According to the days from zoster onset to PRF implementation, they were divided into the subacute (one to 3 months) or PHN group (more than 3 months). The therapeutic effect was evaluated by pain relief using the Numeric Rating Scale at one day, one week, one month, 3 months, and 6 months post-PRF. The five-point Likert scale measured patient satisfaction. Post-PRF side effects were also recorded to determine the safety of the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention significantly reduced pain in all patients, but pain relief at one month, 3 months, and 6 months post-PRF was better in the subacute group than in the PHN group. Furthermore, the success rate of PRF was significantly increased in the subacute group compared with the PHN group (81.3% vs 56.3%, P = 0.031). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction at 6 months between groups. LIMITATIONS: This is a single-center retrospective study with a small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: High-voltage, long-duration PRF to the DRG is effective and safe for HZ neuralgia in different stages, and can provide an improved pain relief for HZ neuralgia in the subacute stage.

Blockade of Erythropoietin-Producing Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receptor B1 in Spinal Dorsal Horn Alleviates Visceral Pain in Rats.

Objective: This experiment was designed to determine whether erythropoietin-producing human hepatocellular carcinoma (Eph) receptors were involved in the development of visceral pain. Methods: Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into three groups receiving different treatments (n = 16 per group): intracolonic vehicle (control group), intracolonic 2, 4, 6-trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS) (TNBS group), and intracolonic TNBS and intrathecal EphB1 receptor blocking reagent (TNBS + EphB2-Fc group). Visceral hyperalgesia was evaluated with quantification of visceral pain threshold induced by colorectal distention. The spinal expressions of EphB1 and ephrinB2 and levels of their phosphorylated forms (p-EphB1 and p-ephrinB2) were assessed by Western blotting and immunohistochemistry. Results: The TNBS-treated rats developed significant visceral hyperalgesia. The spinal expressions of EphB1, p-EphB1, ephrinB2, and p-ephrinB2 were significantly increased in the TNBS group compared with the control group, but visceral hyperalgesia and elevation of spinal EphB1 and p-EphB1 expressions were evidently alleviated by intrathecal administration of EphB2-Fc in the TNBS + EphB2-Fc group. The number of EphB1- and p-EphB1-immunopositive cells, the average optical (AO) value of EphB1, and its phosphorylated form in the spinal dorsal horn were significantly increased in the TNBS group than in the control group, but they were obviously reduced by intrathecal administration of EphB2-Fc. There were no significant differences in the number of ephrinB2- and p-ephrinB2-immunopositive cells and the AO value of ephrinB2 and its phosphorylated form between the TNBS and TNBS + EphB2-Fc groups. Conclusion: EphB1 receptors in the spinal dorsal horn play a pivotal role in the development of visceral pain and may be considered as a potential target for the treatment of visceral pain.

Spray-as-you-go airway topical anesthesia in patients with a difficult airway: a randomized, double-blind comparison of 2% and 4% lidocaine.

BACKGROUND: We designed this randomized, double-blind clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of 2% and 4% lidocaine during airway topical anesthesia with a spray-as-you-go technique via the fiberoptic bronchoscope. METHODS: Fifty-two adult patients with a difficult airway were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups to receive 2% (Group 1) or 4% lidocaine (Group 2) by a spray-as-you-go technique with the fiberoptic bronchoscope, in a double-blind manner. After airway topical anesthesia, awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation (FOI) was performed. Level of sedation, time for each lidocaine spray in different targeted areas, total times for airway sprays, total dosages of lidocaine used for airway sprays, intubation times, and number of intubation attempts were noted. An independent investigator scored patients' comfort during airway topical anesthesia, patients' reaction, coughing severity, and intubating condition during awake FOI, and observed changes of arterial blood pressure and heart rate during each stage in the airway manipulation process. Serial blood samples were obtained for analysis of plasma lidocaine concentrations. RESULTS: Except for the total dosages and plasma concentrations of lidocaine, there were no significant differences in any of the observed variables between groups. All patients exhibited excellent or acceptable intubating conditions. The total dosages of lidocaine were significantly smaller in Group 1 (3.4 +/- 0.6 mg/kg) than in Group 2 (7.1 +/- 2.1 mg/kg). The plasma lidocaine concentrations in all observed points after the supraglottic sprays were larger in Group 2 than in Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Both 2% and 4% lidocaine administered topically by a spray-as-you-go technique can provide clinically acceptable intubating conditions for awake FOI in sedated patients with a difficult airway. As compared with 4% lidocaine, however, 2% lidocaine requires a smaller dosage and results in lower plasma concentrations.