METHOD: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1996 to Feb 2019) and MEDLINE (1966 to Feb 2019) were searched, including the related randomised control trials and reviewed articles to find unpublished trials or trials not obtained via electronic searches. Inclusion criteria for the studies included comparing recovery time, recording clinician satisfaction, and assessing the adverse effects of ketofol.
RESULTS: Eleven trials consisting of a total of 1274 patients met our criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. Five trials compared ketofol with a single agent, while six trials compared ketofol with combined agents. While comparing between ketofol and a single agent (either ketamine or propofol), ketofol showed significant effect on recovery time (MD: -9.88, 95% CI: - 14.30 to - 5.46; P = 0.0003; I2 = 92%). However, no significant difference was observed while comparing ketofol with combined agents (RR: 0.75, 95% CI: - 6.24 to 7.74; P < 0.001; I2 = 98%). During single-agent comparison, ketofol showed no significant differences in terms of clinician satisfaction (RR: 2.86, 95% CI: 0.64 to 12.69; P = 0.001; I2 = 90%), airway obstruction (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.35 to 11.48; P = 0.81; I2 = 0%), apnoea (RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.33 to 2.44; P = 0.88; I2 = 0%), desaturation (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.94; P = 0.28; I2 = 21%), nausea (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.41; P = 0.2; I2 = 38%), and vomiting (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.61; P = 0.18; I2 = 42%). During comparison with combined agents, ketofol was more effective in reducing hypotension (RR: 4.2, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.85; P = 0.76; I2 = 0%), but no differences were observed in terms of bradycardia (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.14 to 03.63; P = 0.09; I2 = 53%), desaturation (RR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.15 to 23.6; P = 0.11; I2 = 61%), and respiratory depression (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 0.18 to 21.94; P = 0.12; I2 = 59%).
CONCLUSION: There is low certainty of evidence that ketofol improves recovery time and moderate certainty of evidence that it reduces the frequency of hypotension. There was no significant difference in terms of other adverse effects when compared to other either single or combined agents.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019127278 .
METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous US national online survey was conducted among 8049 Kratom users in October, 2016 to obtain demographic, health, and Kratom use pattern information.
RESULTS: People who use Kratom to mitigate illicit drug dependence self-reported less pain and better overall health than individuals who used Kratom for acute/chronic pain. Self-reported improvements in pre-existing mental health symptoms (attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder/attention deficit disorder, anxiety, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression) attributed to Kratom use were greater than those related to somatic symptoms (back pain, rheumatoid arthritis, acute pain, chronic pain, fibromyalgia). Demographic variables, including female sex, older age, employment status, and insurance coverage correlated with increased likelihood of Kratom use.
CONCLUSIONS: Kratom use may serve as a self-treatment strategy for a diverse population of patients with pre-existing health diagnoses. Healthcare providers need to be engaging with patients to address safety concerns and potential limitations of its use in clinical practice for specific health conditions.
Results: The findings showed piano players have a higher NDI, lower CVA, and RSP when compared with the non-piano players at a statistically significant level of p-value <0.05.
Objective: Playing-related musculoskeletal disorders (PRMSD) are a common problem for the pianist. The poor upper body ergonomics influences the natural positioning of the neck and shoulders, which involves forward head posture (FHP) and rounded shoulder posture (RSP). This misaligned position could produce a sensation of pain over the upper body, which affects the piano player and computer users with similar ergonomic posture. Recently, photogrammetry methods are commonly applied in a clinical setting to assess posture. The goal of this research is to compare the upper body playing-related muscu-loskeletal disorders between the piano and the non-piano players by applying photogrammetry.
Materials and Methods: This causal-comparative study includes 70 participants with 35 piano and 35 non-piano players. The participant's FHP was assessed using a digitized photo to record the Craniovertebral angle (CVA) with the support of Kinovea software. Besides, digital Vernier Calliper used to assess the scapular index on the RSP and Neck disability indices (NDI) used to measure neck pain and functional disability of the participants.
OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to determine the clinical effects and safety of D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain treatment compared with standard regimen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
METHODS: International and Thai databases were searched from inception through August 2015. Comparative randomized controlled trials investigating oral D. scandens for musculoskeletal pain were included. Outcomes of interest included level of pain and adverse event. Mean changes of the outcomes from baseline were compared between D. scandens and NSAIDs by calculating mean difference.
RESULTS: From 42 articles identified, 4 studies involving a total of 414 patients were included for efficacy analysis. The effects of oral D. scandens on reducing pain score were no different from those of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at any time points (3, 7, 14 days and overall). The overall pain reduction in the D. scandens group was not inferior to treatment with NSAIDs (weighted mean difference 0.06; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.31) without evident of heterogeneity (I(2)=0.00%, p=0.768). When compared, the adverse events (AEs) of D. scandens showed no different relative risk with NSAIDs. The major adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms.
CONCLUSION: D. scandens may be considered as an alternative for musculoskeletal pain reduction.
OBJECTIVE: To determine medications available and used in the management of six symptoms at the end of life among pediatric palliative care practitioners in Asia Pacific. To identify alternative pharmacological strategies for these six symptoms if the oral route was no longer possible and injections are refused.
DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey of all Asia Pacific Hospice Palliative Care Network (APHN) members was carried out to identify medications used for six symptoms (pain, dyspnea, excessive respiratory secretions, nausea/vomiting, restlessness, seizures) in dying children. Two scenarios were of interest: (1) hours to days before death and (2) when injectables were declined or refused.
RESULTS: There were 54 responses from 18 countries. Majority (63.0%) of respondents were hospital based. About half of all respondents were from specialist palliative care services and 55.6% were from high-income countries. All respondents had access to essential analgesics. Several perceived that there were no available drugs locally to treat the five other commonly encountered symptoms. There was a wide variation in preferred drugs for treating each symptom that went beyond differences in drug availability or formulations.
CONCLUSION: Future studies are needed to explore barriers to medication access and possible knowledge gaps among service providers in the region, so that advocacy and education endeavors by the APHN may be optimized.
DESIGN: 1805 consecutive unselected patients with FGID who presented for primary or secondary care to 11 centres across Asia completed a cultural and linguistic adaptation of the Rome III Diagnostic Questionnaire that was translated to the local languages. Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was used to identify symptom clusters.
RESULTS: Nine symptom clusters were identified, consisting of two oesophageal factors (F6: globus, odynophagia and dysphagia; F9: chest pain and heartburn), two gastroduodenal factors (F5: bloating, fullness, belching and flatulence; F8 regurgitation, nausea and vomiting), three bowel factors (F2: abdominal pain and diarrhoea; F3: meal-related bowel symptoms; F7: upper abdominal pain and constipation) and two anorectal factors (F1: anorectal pain and constipation; F4: diarrhoea, urgency and incontinence).
CONCLUSION: We found that the broad categorisation used both in clinical practice and in the Rome system, that is, broad anatomical divisions, and certain diagnoses with long historical records, that is, IBS with diarrhoea, and chronic constipation, are still valid in our Asian societies. In addition, we found a bowel symptom cluster with meal trigger and a gas cluster that suggests a different emphasis in our populations. Future studies to compare a non-Asian cohort and to match to putative pathophysiology will help to verify our findings.
METHODS: Patients diagnosed with a single lumbar herniated intervertebral disc (HIVD) refractory to conservative management but not willing for immediate surgery were selected for a prospective nonrandomized comparative study. An SNRB was administered as a therapeutic alternative using the AP subpedicular approach in one group (n = 25; mean age, 45 ± 5.4 years) and the oblique Scotty dog subpedicular approach in the other group (n = 22; mean age, 43.8 ± 4.7 years). Results were compared in terms of the duration of the procedure, the number of C-arm exposures, accuracy, pain relief, functional outcome and the duration of relief.
RESULTS: Our results suggest that the oblique Scotty dog subpedicular approach took a significantly longer duration (p = 0.02) and a greater number of C-arm exposures (p = 0.001). But, its accuracy of needle placement was 95.5% compared to only 72% using the AP subpedicular approach (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in terms of clinical outcomes between these approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: The AP subpedicular approach was simple and facile, but the oblique Scotty dog subpedicular approach was more accurate. However, a brief window period of pain relief was achieved irrespective of the approaching technique used.
OBJECTIVE: Department of Neurosurgery Sarawak aimed to evaluate the surgical outcome of carpal tunnel release done over five years.
METHODS: The carpal tunnel surgeries were done under local anaesthesia (LA) given by neurosurgeons (Bupivacaine 0.5% or Lignocaine 2%). Monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) was later introduced by our hospital neuroanaesthetist in the beginning of 2018 (Target-controlled infusion propofol and boluses of fentanyl). We looked into our first 17 cases and compared these to the two anaesthesia techniques (LA versus MAC + LA) in terms of patient's pain score based on visual analogue scale (VAS).
RESULTS: Result showed MAC provided excellent pain control during and immediately after the surgery. None experienced anaesthesia complications. There was no difference in pain control at post-operation one month. Both techniques had equal good clinical outcome during patients' clinic follow up.
CONCLUSION: Neurosurgeons provide alternative route for CTS patients to receive surgical treatment. Being a designated pain free hospital, anaesthetist collaboration in carpal tunnel surgery is an added value and improves patients overall experience and satisfaction.