AIMS: To investigate the effect of ketamine on emergence agitation in children.
METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were systematically searched from their start date until February 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous ketamine and placebo in children were sought. The primary outcome was the incidence of emergence agitation. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain score, duration of discharge time, and the adverse effects associated with the use of ketamine, namely postoperative nausea and vomiting, desaturation, and laryngospasm.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies (1125 patients) were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. The incidence of emergence agitation was 14.7% in the ketamine group and 33.3% in the placebo group. Children receiving ketamine had a lower incidence of emergence agitation, with an odds ratio being 0.23 (95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 0.46), certainty of evidence: low. In comparison with the placebo, ketamine group achieved a lower postoperative pain score (odds ratio: -2.42, 95% confidence interval: -4.23 to -0.62, certainty of evidence: very low) and lower pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale at 5 minutes after operation (odds ratio: -3.99, 95% confidence interval: -5.03 to -2.95; certainty of evidence: moderate). However, no evidence was observed in terms of incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, desaturation, and laryngospasm.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials, high degree of heterogeneity and low certainty of evidence limit the recommendations of ketamine for the prevention of emergence agitation in children undergoing surgery or imaging procedures. However, the use of ketamine is well-tolerated without any notable adverse effects across all the included trials.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42019131865.
DESIGN: Two-centre, randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis.
PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two adults who had undergone cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy were included.
INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups at 4 (SD 1) days after surgery. The control group received the usual advice to restrict their upper limb use for 4 to 6 weeks (ie, restrictive sternal precautions). The experimental group received advice to use pain and discomfort as the safe limits for their upper limb use during daily activities (ie, less restrictive precautions) for the same period. Both groups received postoperative individualised education in hospital and via weekly telephone calls for 6 weeks.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was physical function assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery. Secondary outcomes included upper limb function, pain, kinesophobia, and health-related quality of life. Outcomes were measured before hospital discharge and at 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Adherence to sternal precautions was recorded.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in physical function between the groups at 4 weeks (MD 1.0, 95% CI -0.2 to 2.3) and 12 weeks (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.9 to 1.6) postoperatively. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Modified (ie, less restrictive) sternal precautions for people following cardiac surgery had similar effects on physical recovery, pain and health-related quality of life as usual restrictive sternal precautions. Similar outcomes can be anticipated regardless of whether people following cardiac surgery are managed with traditional or modified sternal precautions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTRN12615000968572. [Katijjahbe MA, Granger CL, Denehy L, Royse A, Royse C, Bates R, Logie S, Nur Ayub MA, Clarke S, El-Ansary D (2018) Standard restrictive sternal precautions and modified sternal precautions had similar effects in people after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy ('SMART' Trial): a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 97-106].
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised control clinical trial was conducted at the Central Surgery Installation and Hasan Sadikin General Hospital Bandung and Dr. Mohammad Husein Hospital Palembang from December 2022 to June 2023. A total of 40 participants were divided into two groups using block randomisation. Group I receives bupivacaine 0.25% and clonidine 2 μg/kg, and group II receives bupivacaine 0.25% and dexamethasone 8 mg. The plasma cortisol levels of the patient will be assessed at (T0, T1 and T2). All the patient were intubated under general anesthaesia and received the drug for scalp block based on the group being randomised. Haemodynamic monitoring was carried out.
RESULTS: There was a significant difference in administering bupivacaine 0.25% and clonidine 2μg/kg compared to administering bupivacaine 0.25% and dexamethasone 8 mg/kg as analgesia for scalp block in tumour craniotomy patients on cortisol levels at 12 hours post-operatively (T1) (p=0.048) and 24 hours post-surgery (T2) (p=0.027), while post-intubation cortisol levels (T0) found no significant difference (p=0.756). There is a significant difference in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at post-intubation (T0) (p=0.003), 12 hours post-operatively (T1) (p=0.002) and 24 hours post-surgery (T2) (p=0.004), There were no postprocedure scalp block side effects in both groups.
CONCLUSION: The study found that scalp block with 0.25% bupivacaine and 2μg/kg clonidine is more effective in reducing NRS scores and cortisol levels compared bupivacaine 0.25% and dexamethasone 8mg in tumour craniotomy patients.
METHOD: A randomized controlled open-label study was performed at the cardiothoracic intensive care unit of Penang Hospital, Malaysia. A total of 28 patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine or morphine. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative baseline characteristics. Efficacy measures included sedation scores and pain intensity and requirements for additional sedative/analgesic. Mean heart rate and arterial blood pressure were used as safety measures. Other measures were additional inotropes, extubation time and other concurrent medications.
RESULTS: The mean dose of dexmedetomidine infused was 0.12 [SD 0.03] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, while that of morphine was 13.2 [SD 5.84] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine group showed more benefits in sedation and pain levels, additional sedative/analgesic requirements, and extubation time. No significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures, except heart rate, which was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine was at least comparable to morphine in terms of efficacy and safety among cardiac surgery patients. Further studies with larger samples are recommended in order to determine the significant effects of the outcome measures.
METHODS: The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017071899). A literature search was performed in the MEDLINE and EBSCOhost databases until June 2017 with no language restriction. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of oral premedications, whether given alone or in combination, compared with other agents, placebo, or no treatment in adult patients before NSRCT for postoperative pain were included. Nonintervention studies, nonendodontic studies, animal studies, and reviews were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Pair-wise meta-analysis, network meta-analysis, and quality of evidence assessment using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was performed.
RESULTS: Eleven studies comparing pharmacologic groups of medications were included in the primary analysis. Compared with placebo, corticosteroids (prednisolone 30-40 mg) was ranked best for reducing postoperative pain (median difference [MD] = -18.14 [95% confidence interval (CI), -32.90 to -3.37] for the pain score at 6 hours; MD = -22.17 [95% CI, -36.03 to -8.32] for the pain score at 12 hours; and MD = -21.50 [95% CI, -37.95 to -5.06] for the pain score at 24 hours). However, the evidence was very low (6 and 24 hours) to moderate quality (12 hours). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were ranked least among the medications, and the quality of this evidence was very low. Additional analysis based on the chemical name showed that sulindac, ketorolac, and ibuprofen significantly reduced pain at 6 hours, whereas piroxicam and prednisolone significantly reduced the pain at 12 and 24 hours. Etodolac was found to be least effective in reducing pain. Overall, the evidence was of moderate to very low quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited and low-quality evidence, oral premedication with piroxicam or prednisolone could be recommended for controlling postoperative pain after NSRCT. However, more trials are warranted to confirm the results with a higher quality of evidence.
AIMS: To investigate the effect of intraperitoneal administration of ondansetron for postoperative pain management as an adjuvant to intravenous acetaminophen in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (n = 25 each) to receive either intraperitoneal ondansetron or saline injected in the gall bladder bed at the end of the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in pain from baseline to 24-h post-operative assessed by comparing the area under the curve of visual analog score between the two groups.
RESULTS: The derived area under response curve of visual analog scores in the ondansetron group (735.8 ± 418.3) was 33.97% lower than (p = 0.005) that calculated for the control group (1114.4 ± 423.9). The need for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the ondansetron (16%) versus in the control group (54.17%) (p = 0.005), indicating better pain control. The correlation between the time for unassisted mobilization and the area under response curve of visual analog scores signified the positive analgesic influence of ondansetron (rs =0.315, p = 0.028). The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in patients who received ondansetron than that reported in the control group (p = 0.023 (8 h), and 0.016 (24 h) respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The added positive impact of ondansetron on postoperative pain control alongside its anti-emetic effect made it a unique novel option for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Sixty patients were randomised to receive IV dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg.kg-1 (Group DEX, n = 30) or IV saline (Group P, n = 30). General anaesthesia was maintained with Sevoflurane: oxygen: air, titrated to BIS 40-60. Pain intensity, sedation, rescue analgesics, nausea/vomiting and resumption of daily activities were recorded at 1 h, and postoperative day (POD) 1-5.
RESULTS: Group DEX patients had significant reduction in sevoflurane minimum alveolar concentration (MAC), mean (SD) DEX vs. Placebo 0.6 (0.2) vs. 0.9 (0.1), p = 0.037; reduced postoperative resting pain at 1 h (VAS 0-10) (mean (SD) 1.00 (1.84) vs. 2.63 (2.78), p = 0.004), POD 1 (mean (SD) 1.50 (1.48) vs. 2.87 (2.72), p = 0.002), POD 2 (0.53 (0.97) vs. 1.73 (1.96), p = 0.001) and POD 3 (0.30 (0.75) vs. 0.89 (1.49), p = 0.001). DEX patients also had less pain on movement POD 1 (3.00 (2.12) vs. 4.30 (3.10), p = 0.043) and POD 2 (2.10 (1.98) vs. 3.10 (2.46), p = 0.040), with higher resumption of daily activities by 48 h compared to placebo, 87% vs. 63%, p = 0.04.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a single dose of dexmedetomidine was a useful adjuvant in reducing MAC and postoperative pain (at 1 h and POD 1-3), facilitating faster return to daily activities by 48 h.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12617001120369 , 31st July 2017, retrospectively registered.
Material and Methods: We enrolled 26 patients scheduled for hallux valgus surgery and treated with the same surgical technique (SCARF osteotomy). After subgluteal sciatic nerve block with a short acting local anaesthetic (Mepivacaine 1.5%, 15ml), each patient received an ultrasound-guided Posterior Tibialis Nerve Block (PTNB) with Levobupivacaine 0.5% (7-8ml). We measured the postoperative intensity of pain using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the consumption of oxycodone after operative treatment and the motor recovery. VAS was detected at baseline (time 0, before the surgery) and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 hours after the operative procedure (T1, T2, T3, T4 respectively). Control group of 26 patients were treated with another post-operative analgesia technique: local infiltration (Local Infiltration Anaesthesia, LIA) with Levobupivacaine 0.5% (15ml) performed by the surgeon.
Results: PTNB group showed a significant reduction of VAS score from the sixth hour after surgery compared to LIA group (p<0.028 at T2, p<0.05 at T3 and p<0.002 at T4, respectively). Instead, no significant differences were found in terms of post-operative oxycodone consumption and motor recovery after surgery.Conclusions: PTNB resulted in a valid alternative to LIA approach for post-operative pain control due to its better control of post-operative pain along the first 24 hours. In a multimodal pain management according to ERAS protocol, both PTNB and LIA should be considered as clinically effective analgesic techniques.
Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of 179 patients who underwent cementless bipolar hemiarthroplasty during the 2011-2019 period at an orthopaedic and traumatology hospital. Data on the patient's demography, pre-operative American Society Anaesthesiologist (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), canal flare index (CFI), Dorr classification, and stem alignment were obtained. The primary outcomes were post-operative femoral stem subsidence, post-operative pain, and functional outcome using Harris Hip Score (HHS). Statistical analysis was conducted to identify risk factors associated with the primary outcome.
Results: The mean femoral stem subsidence was 2.16 ±3.4 mm. The mean post-operative Visual Analog Score (VAS) on follow-up was 1.38 ± 1. Mean HHS on follow-up was 85.28±10.3. American Society Anaesthesiologist score 3 (p = 0.011, OR = 2.77) and varus alignment (p=0.039, OR = 6.963) were related to worse stem subsidence. Otherwise, neutral alignment (p = 0.045 and OR = 0.405) gave protection against femoral stem subsidence. The female gender (p = 0.014, OR 2.53) was associated with postoperative pain onset. Neutral alignment had significant relationship with functional outcomes (p = 0.01; OR 0.33).
Conclusion: A higher ASA score and varus stem alignment were related to a higher risk of femoral stem subsidence. Meanwhile, neutral stem alignment had a protective effect on the femoral stem subsidence and outcome.
METHODS: Patients aged 18 years old or above and who were scheduled for gynecology surgery were selected. Three different models with a combination of latent factors were based on a priori hypotheses from previous studies. The root-mean-squared error of approximation, comparative fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, Chi-squared test, and change in Chi-squared statistic given a change in degrees of freedom between models were used to assess the model fit to the present data.
RESULTS: A total of 302 patients completed the questionnaire. The five-factor model which was based on Gordon's study has an acceptable fit for the data and was superior when compared to the one-factor baseline model. Although the four-factor model, which originated from Botti's study, also demonstrates a good model fit, the "perception of care" construct was excluded in this model. The "perception of care" construct is conceptually important as patient-centered care has become the focus of quality improvement of pain service.
CONCLUSIONS: The APS-POQ-R is easy to administer and is useful for quality evaluation in postoperative pain management. The present study demonstrates that a five-factor structure of the APS-POQ-R is the best fitting model in our patient sample. The results of this study provide further evidence to support the use of APS-POQ-R as a measurement tool for pain management evaluation in acute postoperative patients with a multi-cultural background.
METHODS: Parents whose children aged below 12 years and were scheduled for elective surgery in a teaching hospital, were approached to participate in this survey. The reliability of the modified version of revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha test, while the construct validity was assessed with a principal component analysis using a varimax rotation. The parental satisfaction with pain treatment received was measured.
RESULTS: A total of 108 parents completed the questionnaire. The internal consistency of the questionnaire shows a Cronbach's alpha of 0.798. Principal component analysis revealed a four-factor structure of the 12 items which explained 69.7% of the total variance. The factors are "Interference of sleep and activity," "Pain severity and drowsiness," "Perception of care," and "Adverse effects," respectively. Our study showed that this questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure for "Interference of sleep and activity" and "Pain severity and drowsiness" factors, but not for "Perception of care" and "Adverse effects." The results for "Perception of care" and "Adverse effects," therefore, should be reported as individual items instead of total score. The parental satisfaction with pain treatment given was good (median 8.0; IQR 3.0).
CONCLUSION: The modified version of revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire is a feasible and easy instrument to administer. The questionnaire can be used to obtain feedback from parents about the outcomes and experiences of pain management and is helpful in continuous quality evaluation and improvement in the postoperative care in a pediatric setting.