OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of TENS for managing pain in people with SCD who experience pain crises or chronic pain (or both).
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Register, comprising of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched online trial registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of the last search: 26 Febraury 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, where TENS was evaluated for managing pain in people with SCD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of the trials identified by the literature searches according to the inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data, assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane standard tool and rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS: One double-blind cross-over RCT with 22 participants with SCD (aged 12 to 27 years) was eligible for inclusion. Following stratification into four pain crises severity grades, participants were then randomised to receive TENS or placebo (sham TENS). The trial was concluded after 60 treatment episodes (30 treatment episodes of each treatment group). There is a lack of clarity regarding the trial design and the analysis of the cross-over data. If a participant was allocated to TENS treatment for an episode of pain and subsequently returned with a further episode of a similar degree of pain, they would then receive the sham TENS treatment (cross-over design). For those experiencing a pain episode of a different severity, it is not clear whether they were re-randomised or given the alternate treatment. Reporting and analysis was based on the total number pain events and not on the number of participants. It is unclear how many participants were crossed over from the TENS group to the sham TENS group and vice versa. The trial had a high risk of bias regarding random sequence generation and allocation concealment; an unclear risk regarding the blinding of participants and personnel; and a low risk regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors and selective outcome reporting. The trial was small and of very low quality; furthermore, given the issue with trial design we were unable to quantitatively analyse the data. Therefore, we present only a narrative summary and caution is advised in interpreting the results. In relation to our pre-defined primary outcomes, the included trial did not report pain relief at two to four weeks post intervention. The trial authors reported that no difference was found in the changes in pain ratings (recorded at one hour and four hours post intervention) between the TENS and the placebo groups. In relation to our secondary outcomes, the analgesic usage during the trial also did not show any difference between groups. Given the quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether TENS improves overall satisfaction as compared to sham TENS. The ability to cope with activities of daily living was not evaluated. Regarding adverse events, although one case of itching was reported in the TENS group, the site and nature of itching was not clearly stated; hence it cannot be clearly attributed to TENS. Also, two participants receiving 'sham' TENS reported a worsening of pain with the intervention.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since we have only included one small and very low-quality trial, with a high risk of bias across several domains, we are unable to conclude whether TENS is harmful or beneficial for managing pain in people with SCD. There is a need for a well-designed, adequately-powered, RCT to evaluate the role of TENS in managing pain in people with SCD.
METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional survey conducted between September and December 2013 in 10 countries/regions across Asia. Adult patients with a history of cancer pain at least 1 month before study entry completed the survey questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 1190 patients were included. The mean Box Scale-11 (BS-11) pain score was 6.0 (SD 2.1), with 86.2% experiencing moderate-to-severe pain and 53.2% receiving opioids at time of the survey. The mean BS-11 scores were 5.3 (SD 2.1) in the "others" (single non-opioid medication or untreated) group, 6.3 (SD 2.0) in the ≥2 non-opioids group and 6.7 (SD 1.9) in the opioid group. The proportions of patients experiencing moderate-to-severe pain were 79.1%, 87.3% and 93.7%, respectively. About 70% of patients reported adverse events due to their pain medications, about half had received medications to manage these symptoms. Adverse events were negatively associated with activities of daily living (P < 0.0001). Pain and hindrance to activities of daily living were negatively associated with employment status (P = 0.003 and 0.021). Unemployment was significantly associated with poorer quality of life (P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrates inadequate management of cancer pain and treatment-related adverse events in the participating cohort. Pain and inadequate management of adverse events were negatively associated with patients' overall well-being. More collaborative efforts should be taken to optimize pain treatment and increase awareness of adverse event management in physicians.
Materials and Methods: Forty eight hips with the conversion of bipolar HA to THA were followed up for an average 6.2 years (range 2.0-11.5 years). Twenty one hips had conversion surgery to THA using metal-on-metal articulation (28 or 32 mm head). Nine hips used ceramic-on-ceramic (28-40 mm) and eighteen hips used large head metal-on-metal bearing (>40 mm). Outcome was evaluated using Harris Hip Score (HHS) and Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. The radiographs were analyzed for evidence of osteolysis and/or loosening. The complications were evaluated, especially dislocation with different femoral head diameter.
Results: Average HHS significantly improved from 42 preoperatively to 86 postoperatively and the average WOMAC score also significantly improved from 47 to 22 postoperatively. Radiological evaluation showed all the femoral components were stable. There was one acetabular component loosening, which required revision 9 years after conversion to THA. One dislocation and one recurrent dislocation were recorded in isolated acetabular revision hip; whereas one dislocation, one recurrent dislocation, and one trochanteric nonunion occurred in the hips with revision of both components. All dislocations occurred in hips with a femoral head size of 28 mm (P = 0.052). The cup and femoral head interval length was the most significant factor contributing to dislocation (P = 0.013).
Conclusions: Conversion THA after failed bipolar HA offers a reliable pain relief and functional improvement. To prevent dislocation, it is highly recommended to use a larger diameter femoral head, especially where the cup size is big.
METHODS: We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled study of 420 patients from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2017 to evaluate the use of DBC in IOL in an Asian population looking at the adverse effects in the first 12 h after insertion. Women were assigned randomly to cervical ripening with either a DBC or a prostaglandin pessary. The adverse events in the 12 h after DBC or first prostaglandin inserted, the efficacy of a DBC to a prostaglandin in labour induction and maternal satisfaction were evaluated.
RESULTS: There were significantly less women with uterine hyperstimulation in the DBC (2 vs 24, p ≤ 0.0001) compared to the prostaglandin group. There were no women with uterine hyperstimulation and non-reassuring foetal status in the DBC while there were 5 women with uterine hyperstimulation and foetal distress in the prostaglandin group. Use of entonox was significantly less in the DBC group (p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in both groups in caesarean section, vaginal deliveries and time to delivery, although significant less time was needed to achieve cervical os dilation more than 4 cm in the DBC group (p ≤ 0.0001). Neonatal birth outcomes were similar. Women's pain scores were similar for both methods. 80.1% of women allocated the DBC and 76.8% of women allocated the PGE were keen to recommend their method of induction.
CONCLUSION: Double balloon catheter remains a good alternative method for inducing women in view of a good safety profile with low risk of hyperstimulation and high maternal satisfaction.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02620215.
METHODOLOGY: Questionnaires were distributed to all parents and teachers of children aged 11-12 years who attended a small rural school in which all the children were Malays. Complaints of RAP were defined as at least three such complaints occurring over a period of at least 3 months.
RESULTS: One hundred and sixty questionnaires were distributed, of which 148 were returned, giving a response rate of 92.5%. Sixty-one children (41.2%) had RAP. Approximately 45.2% of girls and 35.9% of boys reported having RAP. Compared with children without RAP, there was a significantly larger number of children with RAP (85.2%) who had at least one stress factor (P = 0.0109). There were no significant associations between RAP and total family income (P = 0.0573), a history of abdominal pain in at least one parent (P = 0.1686), a history of abdominal pain in at least one sibling (P = 0.0617), academic performance (P = 0.9967) or the degree of sports participation (P = 0.8469). There was an increased incidence of other systemic complaints in children with RAP when compared with children without RAP.
CONCLUSION: Recurrent abdominal pain was found to be common among 11- to 12-year-old children in a rural Malay school. There was a significant association found between RAP and the presence of stressful events, as well as with the presence of other systemic complaints.