Effects of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation on early postoperative pain and recovery: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Previous studies have indicated beneficial outcomes of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS), but high-quality and comprehensive meta-analyses are lacking. The aim was to quantitatively analyze the efficacy and safety of perioperative TEAS on postoperative pain and recovery. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched through July 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the perioperative application of TEAS in adults compared with sham-TEAS and/or non-TEAS were eligible. Cumulative analgesic consumption within 24 h and rest pain scores at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively were the two co-primary outcomes. Results: Seventy-six RCTs (n = 9,665 patients) were included. Patients treated with TEAS experienced a reduction in clinical importance in cumulative analgesic (morphine equivalent) consumption (WMD: -14.60 mg, 97.5% CI: -23.60 to -5.60; p < 0.001) and a reduction in statistical importance in rest pain scores at multiple time points within the first 24 postoperative hours. The secondary outcome analysis also identified clinically significant recovery benefits to TEAS during the first 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, TEAS could effectively reduce opioid-related side effects and did not increase serious side effects. Conclusion: This article describes current evidence about TEAS intervention on early postoperative pain and recovery. The results support the effectiveness of TEAS, but more high-quality evidence of clinical applicability is also needed. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021249814).

Dexamethasone Does Not Provide Additional Clinical Analgesia Effect to Local Wound Infiltration: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: Although the use of dexamethasone as an adjunct agent is associated with alleviating pain and prolonging analgesic duration in local wound infiltration (LWI), efficacy and safety of dexamethasone infiltration have not been fully explored. The study sought to quantify the pooled effects of dexamethasone infiltration on postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, and side effects through a review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Approach: RCTs comparing dexamethasone + LWI with LWI alone were retrieved from seven electronic databases. Co-primary outcomes were rest pain scores and cumulative morphine equivalent consumption within 24 h postoperatively. The study followed PRISMA, AMSTAR, and the Cochrane Collaboration. Results: Eight trials comprising 609 patients were included in the final analysis. Results indicated that dexamethasone infiltration effects were only statistical but not clinically significant at individual time points of rest pain and patient satisfaction scores. Notably, the effect of dexamethasone infiltration therapy on other pain-related parameters, including cumulative morphine consumption (mean difference, -9.05 mg; 95% CI: -22.47 to 4.37), was not significantly different compared with the control group. Analysis showed no significant differences in safety indicators between the two groups. The overall quality of evidence was high to very low. Innovation: Although statistically significant effects of dexamethasone infiltration were observed for some outcomes of postoperative wound pain, the overall benefits were below the expected minimal clinically important difference. Conclusions: In summary, the current evidence does not support routine clinical use of dexamethasone in LWI. However, further studies should explore the clinical value of preemptive analgesia and safety of a combination of dexamethasone with ropivacaine for LWI.

Does the last 20 years paradigm of clinical research using volatile organic compounds to non-invasively diagnose cancer need to change? Challenges and future direction.

PURPOSE: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have shown great potential as novel biomarkers for cancer detection; however, comprehensive quantitative analysis is lacking. In this study, we performed a bibliometric analysis of non-invasive cancer diagnosis using VOCs to better characterise international trends and to predict future hotspots in this field, and then we focussed on human studies to analyse clinical characteristics for presenting the current controversies and future perspectives of further clinical work. METHODS: Publications, from 2002 to 2022, were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. CiteSpace and VOSviewer were used to generate network maps and identify the annual publications, top countries, authors, institutions, journals, references, and keywords. Then, we further screened clinical trials, and the key information was extracted into Microsoft Excel for further systematical analysis. RESULTS: Six hundred and forty-one articles were identified to evaluate research trends, of which 301 clinical trials were selected for further systematical analysis. Overall, the annual publications in this area increased, with an overall upward trend, while the quality of clinical research remains remarkably uneven. CONCLUSION: The study of non-invasive cancer diagnosis using VOCs would continue to be an active field. However, without stringent clinical design criteria, most suitable acquisition and analysis devices and statistical approaches, a list of exclusive, specific, reliable and reproducible VOCs to identify a disease and these VOCs appearing in a breath at detectable levels at early stage disease, the clinical utility of VOC tests will be difficult to have any breakthroughs.

Does Inhaled Methoxyflurane Implement Fast and Efficient Pain Management in Trauma Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence on the use of inhaled methoxyflurane in the management of trauma pain is conflicting and obfuscated. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of inhaled methoxyflurane for trauma pain on the basis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: RCTs assessing the efficacy of methoxyflurane in adults or adolescents with acute trauma pain published in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. The control groups were those that received placebo or standard analgesic treatment (SAT). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in pain scores during the first 30 min of treatment. Secondary outcomes included time to first pain relief, the proportion of patients experiencing pain relief, rescue analgesia rate, the treatment satisfaction of patients and investigators, and the methoxyflurane-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS: A total of nine RCTs (1806 patients) were identified. Results revealed that methoxyflurane provided a clinically unimportant benefit by improving the mean difference of change from baseline in pain intensity (from - 0.44 to - 1.23 cm, p < 0.001) at various time points within the first 20 min compared to control treatment. Besides, methoxyflurane decreased the time of onset of pain relief (mean difference - 5.29 min; 95% CI - 6.97 to - 3.62) and the proportion of patients who needed rescue analgesic medication (risk ratio 1.41; 95% CI 1.17-1.70) despite it increasing the risk of non-severe TEAEs (risk ratio 3.09; 95% CI 1.72-5.57). Notably, the benefit of almost all secondary pain-related outcomes was rendered clinically nonsignificant between methoxyflurane and SAT strata besides the time of onset of pain relief. The quality of evidence was low or very low in all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In emergency situations without effective therapy, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides low-quality evidence that methoxyflurane can be used as a rapid-acting and effective treatment for acute trauma pain, although its utilization is associated a risk of non-severe TEAEs. However, the current evidence does not support the notion that inhaled methoxyflurane offered superior analgesic efficacy to SAT. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020223000.