Pain relief that matters to patients: systematic review of empirical studies assessing the minimum clinically important difference in acute pain

Erector Spinae Plane Block Reduces Immediate Postoperative Pain and Opioid Demand After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Matched cohort comparison.

OBJECTIVE

To determine perioperative outcomes of erector spinae plane (ESP) block for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is a paucity of data on the impact of lumbar ESP block on perioperative outcomes and its safety in MI-TLIF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent 1-level MI-TLIF and received the ESP block (group E ) were included. An age and sex-matched control group was selected from a historical cohort that received the standard-of-care (group NE). The primary outcome of this study was 24-hour opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents. Secondary outcomes were pain severity measured by a numeric rating scale, opioid-related side effects, and hospital length of stay. Outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight and 55 patients were included in the E and NE groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two cohorts in patient demographics. Group E had lower 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption ( P = 0.117, not significant), reduced opioid consumption on a postoperative day (POD) 0 ( P = 0.016), and lower first pain scores postsurgery ( P < 0.001). Group E had lower intraoperative opioid requirements ( P < 0.001), and significantly lower average numeric rating scale pain scores on POD 0 ( P = 0.034). Group E reported fewer opioid-related side effects as compared with group NE, although this was not statistically significant. The average highest postoperative pain score within 3 hours postprocedurally was 6.9 and 7.7 in the E and NE cohorts, respectively ( P = 0.029). The median length of stay was comparable between groups with the majority of patients in both groups being discharged on POD 1.

CONCLUSIONS

In our retrospective matched cohort, ESP blocks resulted in reduced opioid consumption and decreased pain scores on POD 0 in patients undergoing MI-TLIF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Hand Pain Intensity (Numerical Pain Rate Scale) and Related-Function (Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire) in Women With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To calculate the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for hand pain intensity and the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) in a sample of women with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A Hospital Rehabilitation Unit.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty women with clinical and electromyographic diagnosis of CTS who were randomly assigned into 2 groups (N=120).

INTERVENTIONS

One group received 3 sessions of manual physical therapy (n=60) and the other group received surgery (n=60).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean and the worst pain intensity (numerical pain rate scale, 0-10 points) and functional status and symptoms' severity subscales of the BCTQ questionnaire were assessed before and 1 month after treatment. The Global Rating of Change (GROC) was used as the anchor variable for determining the MCID.

RESULTS

A change of 1.5 and 2.5 points in mean and the worst pain intensity represents the MCID for Numerical Pain Rating Scale, whereas a change of 0.23 and 0.64 points in functional status and symptoms' severity represents the MCID for each subscale of the BCTQ. All variables showed acceptable discrimination between patients classified as "improved" and those classified as "stable/not improved" (area under the curve≥0.72). Mean pain intensity (Youden index, 0.53; sensitivity: 73.3%; specificity: 80%) and symptoms' severity (Youden index, 0.69; sensitivity: 90%; specificity: 77.8%) showed the best discriminative ability expressed as a percentage of prediction. Participants classified as "improved" had significantly greater improvements in pain intensity, functional status, and symptoms' severity compared with those classified as "stable/not improved".

CONCLUSION

A change of 1.5 and 2.5 points in mean and the worst pain and a change of 0.23 and 0.64 points in functional status and symptoms' severity represents the MCID for pain intensity and BCTQ in women with CTS 1 month after treatment.

Gabapentin and postoperative pain and opioid consumption: A double-blind randomized controlled trial of perioperative pain management for sinus surgery

BACKGROUND

The link between post-operative narcotic prescription and opioid misuse has spurred a nationwide effort to reduce perioperative opioid use. Previous work has suggested that perioperative gabapentin may reduce post-operative pain and opioid consumption across different procedures, although the optimal regimen remains to be defined.

METHODS

Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) with or without septoplasty were randomized to receive a 7-day pre- and post-operative course of placebo or gabapentin, starting at 300 mg daily and titrated to 300 mg three times daily, in a double-blind fashion. Primary endpoint was pain level using a validated visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints included post-operative opioid consumption and side effects, as well as modified Lund-Kennedy endoscopy, Lund-Mackay, and SNOT-22 scores.

RESULTS

Analysis of 35 patients (20 gabapentin, 15 control) showed no significant difference in mean postoperative VAS (p = 0.18) or postoperative opioid consumption between the placebo and gabapentin groups (2.3 and 4.8 oxycodone tablets respectively, p = 0.18). 15 of 35 patients did not require any post-operative oxycodone tablets, and only two patients required more than six tablets.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary results show no significant change in pain after FESS with or without septoplasty in patients taking 7-day pre- and post-operative gabapentin versus placebo. Results also showed no significant difference in opioid consumption between the treatment and placebo groups. Post-operative pain scores and opioid requirements are both quite low following FESS. Many patients do not need opioids at all, suggesting that routine initial post-operative opioid prescriptions can be limited accordingly.

Liposomal and Nonliposomal Bupivacaine for Mohs Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Lidocaine is the most commonly used local anesthetic for Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), but given its limited half-life, postoperative pain remains a significant concern for patients. Bupivacaine is used in various surgical subspecialty procedures and has demonstrated improved pain control compared with lidocaine. However, its role in MMS is insufficiently explored.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the current literature for reports on use of bupivacaine, traditional nonliposomal and newer liposomal formulations, for MMS.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. The MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were queried for articles presenting original data on the use of bupivacaine for MMS.

RESULTS

Of 483 potentially relevant articles, 3 studies met final inclusion criteria, capturing a total of 253 patients involved in primary investigations comparing bupivacaine to traditional local anesthesia for MMS. Bupivacaine was well-tolerated and associated with comparable or modestly reduced intraoperative and postoperative pain and opioid use.

CONCLUSION

Bupivacaine may have a role in prolonging intraoperative anesthesia, reducing acute postoperative pain, and reducing postoperative opioid use after MMS. However, large, prospective studies are needed to solidify the generalizability and clinical utility of these findings.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for acute neck pain: A 4-arm clinical placebo randomized controlled trial. A prospective study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain poses enormous individual and societal costs worldwide. Spinal manipulative therapy and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug treatment are frequently used despite a lack of compelling efficacy data. This protocol describes a multicentre 4-arm, clinical placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) versus sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine for acute neck pain. This superiority study will employ parallel groups, featuring a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We will randomize 320 participants equally into four groups: CSMT, sham CSMT, ibuprofen, or placebo medicine. CSMT groups are single-blinded, while the medicine groups are double-blinded. Data will be collected at baseline (Day 0), during treatment and post-treatment. The primary endpoint will assess the difference in mean pain intensity from Day 0 to Day 14 on a numeric rating scale 0-10; the CSMT group is compared to sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine groups, respectively. Secondary endpoints will assess mean pain intensity and mean duration at different time points, and adverse events, blinding success, and treatment satisfaction, including comparison between ibuprofen and placebo medicine. Power calculation is based on a mean neck pain rating of 5 at Day 0, with standard deviation of 1 in all groups. Mean pain reduction at Day 14 is expected to be 60% in the CSMT group, 40% in sham CSMT and ibuprofen groups, and 20% in the placebo medicine group. A linear mixed model will compare the mean values for groups with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P values below 0.017 will be considered statistically significant. All analyses will be conducted blinded from group allocation.

DISCUSSION

This RCT aims towards the highest research standards possible for manual-therapy RCTs owing to its two placebo arms. If CSMT and/or ibuprofen proves to be effective, it will provide evidence-based support for CSMT and/or ibuprofen for acute neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05374057. EU Clinical Trials Register: EudraCT number: 2021-005483-21.

Patient-controlled analgesia for the management of adults with acute trauma in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has potential as a form of analgesia for trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCA for the management of adults with acute traumatic pain in the ED. The hypothesis was that PCA can effectively treat acute trauma pain in adults in the ED, with minimal adverse outcomes and better patient satisfaction compared with non-PCA modalities.

METHODS

MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov , and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from inception date to December 13, 2022. Randomized controlled trials involving adults presenting to the ED with acute traumatic pain who received intravenous (IV) analgesia via PCA compared with other modalities were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to assess the quality of included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 1,368 publications were screened, with 3 studies involving 382 patients meeting the eligibility criteria. All three studies compared PCA IV morphine with clinician-titrated IV morphine boluses. For the primary outcome of pain relief, the pooled estimate was in favor of PCA with a standard mean difference of -0.36 (95% confidence interval, -0.87 to 0.16). There were mixed results concerning patient satisfaction. Adverse event rates were low overall. The evidence from all three studies was graded as low-quality because of a high risk of bias from lack of blinding.

CONCLUSION

This study did not demonstrate a significant improvement in pain relief or patient satisfaction using PCA for trauma in the ED. Clinicians wishing to use PCA to treat acute trauma pain in adult patients in the ED are advised to consider the available resources in their own practice settings and to implement protocols for monitoring and responding to potential adverse events.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review/Meta-Analyses; Level III.

The Optimal Learning Cocktail for Placebo Analgesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Individual and Combined Techniques

This study investigated for the first time the effects of individual and combined application of 3 learning techniques (verbal suggestions, classical conditioning, and observational learning) on placebo analgesia and extinction. Healthy participants (N = 206) were assigned to 8 different groups in which they were taught through either a verbal suggestion, a conditioning paradigm, a video observing someone, or any combination thereof that a placebo device (inactive transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation [TENS]) was capable of alleviating heat pain, whereas one group did not (control). Placebo analgesia was quantified as the within-group difference in experienced pain when the placebo device was (sham) 'activated' or 'inactivated' during equal pain stimuli, and compared between groups. Placebo analgesia was induced in groups with 2 or 3 learning techniques. Significantly stronger placebo analgesia was induced in the combination of all 3 learning techniques as compared to the individual learning techniques or control condition, underlining the additional contribution of 3 combined techniques. Extinction did not differ between groups. Furthermore, pain expectancies, but not state anxiety or trust, mediated placebo analgesia. Our findings emphasize the added value of combining 3 learning techniques to optimally shape expectancies that lead to placebo analgesia, which can be used in experimental and clinical settings. PERSPECTIVE: This unique experimental study compared the individual versus combined effects of 3 important ways of learning (verbal suggestions, classical conditioning, and observational learning) on expectation-based pain relief. The findings indicate that placebo effects occurring in clinical practice could be optimally strengthened if healthcare providers apply these techniques in combination.

Surgical opioid-avoidance protocol: a postoperative pharmacological multimodal analgesic intervention in diverse patient populations

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the effect of a surgical opioid-avoidance protocol (SOAP) on postoperative pain scores. The primary goal was to demonstrate that the SOAP was as effective as the pre-existing non-SOAP (without opioid restriction) protocol by measuring postoperative pain in a diverse, opioid-naive patient population undergoing inpatient surgery across multiple surgical services.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was divided into SOAP and non-SOAP groups based on surgery date. The non-SOAP group had no opioid restrictions (n=382), while the SOAP group (n=449) used a rigorous, opioid-avoidance order set with patient and staff education regarding multimodal analgesia. A non-inferiority analysis assessed the SOAP impact on postoperative pain scores.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain scores in the SOAP group compared with the non-SOAP group were non-inferior (95% CI: -0.58, 0.10; non-inferiority margin=-1). The SOAP group consumed fewer postoperative opioids (median=0.67 (IQR=15) vs 8.17 morphine milliequivalents (MMEs) (IQR=40.33); p<0.01) and had fewer discharge prescription opioids (median=0 (IQR=60) vs 86.4 MMEs (IQR=140.4); p<0.01).

DISCUSSION

The SOAP was as effective as the non-SOAP group in postoperative pain scores across a diverse patient population and associated with lower postoperative opioid consumption and discharge prescription opioids.

The safety and effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in older patients undergoing orthopedic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To systematically review and analyze the safety and effectiveness of ERAS in older patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and other databases to identify all randomized controlled studies and cohorts. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale to assess the study quality. A meta-analysis was performed using the inverse variance weighting method.

RESULTS

This study included 15 studies involving a total of 2591 older patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries with 1480 in the ERAS group. The ERAS group had a lower incidence of postoperative complications than the control group (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.42-0.65). Length of stay was 3.37 days lower in the ERAS group than in the control group (P < 0.01). And the ERAS protocol reduced the patient's postoperative VAS score (P < 0.01). Meanwhile, there was a lack of evidence of significant differences between the ERAS group and the control group in total bleeding and 30-day readmission rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the ERAS program in older patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries is safe and effective. However, there is still a lack of standardization of protocols across institutions and centers for orthopedic surgery for older patients. Identifying ERAS components that are beneficial to older patients and developing ERAS protocols that are appropriate for older adults may further improve outcomes.

Superior Trunk Block Is an Effective Phrenic-Sparing Alternative to Interscalene Block for Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The interscalene block (ISB) is the standard regional anesthesia for shoulder arthroscopy. However, the superior trunk block (STB) is an alternative with a potentially safer profile. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the incidence and degree of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis and block efficacy of these techniques. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The main outcome was total hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. We used the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. Four RCTs and 359 patients were included. The STB group showed lower total hemidiaphragmatic paralysis (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14; p<0.0001). The incidence of subjective dyspnea (p = 0.002) and Horner's syndrome (p<0.001) was significantly lower with STB relative to ISB. There was no significant difference between groups in block duration (p = 0.67). There was a high certainty of evidence in the main outcome as per the GRADE framework. Our findings suggest that STB has a better safety profile than ISB, resulting in lower rates of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis and dyspnea while providing a similar block. Therefore, STB could be preferred to ISB, especially in patients susceptible to phrenic nerve paralysis complications.

Analgesic agents administered by ambulance personnel to mountain bikers and hikers on trails in Western Australia

Objective

To describe the types of analgesic medications administered to patients who were attended by ambulance on recreational trails while mountain biking or hiking and report on the reduction in pain by these agents.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients attended by ambulance (2015-2021) after mountain biking or hiking, on Western Australia (WA) trails. All data were extracted from electronic patient care records created by ambulance personnel who attended the patient. We compared patient and case characteristics between mountain bikers and hikers and the reduction in pain scores achieved by different analgesics.

Results

A total of 717 patients were included. Paramedics reported traumatic aetiology for mountain bikers in 92 % of cases and hikers in 58 % of cases. A pain score out of 10 was recorded for 538 (75 %) patients. The median (inter-quartile range) initial pain score was 6 (2-8) and the median final pain score was 3 (1-5). Around 48 % of these 538 patients reported ≥25 % reduction in their pain score. A reduction of ≥25 % in their pain score was greatest in those patients who received intravenous fentanyl (81 %), followed by patients administered multiple analgesics (72 %) and methoxyflurane only (52 %). Even 37 % of 134 patients who received no analgesia still reported ≥25 % reduction in their pain score by hospital arrival.

Conclusion

Trauma was the most common reason mountain bikers and hikers on trails called an ambulance and a large proportion of these patients were in pain on ambulance arrival. Further work assessing the effectiveness of safe, non-opioid analgesics, additional to methoxyflurane, is needed to ensure non-registered practitioners such as first aid providers and event medical teams can offer suitable safe analgesics to these patients. Additionally, among patients given no pharmacological analgesic agent, almost half still achieved a >25 % reduction in their pain scores which reiterates the importance of non-pharmacological pain reduction strategies.

Pudendal Nerve Block Analgesia at the Time of Vaginal Surgery: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Sham-Controlled Trial

IMPORTANCE

Effective opioid-sparing postoperative analgesia requires a multimodal approach. Regional nerve blocks augment pain control in many surgical fields and may be applied to pelvic floor reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of pudendal nerve block on postoperative pain control and opioid consumption after vaginal surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial, we enrolled women undergoing pelvic reconstruction, excluding patients with chronic pelvic pain or contraindications to nonnarcotic analgesia. Patients were randomized to transvaginal pudendal nerve block (9 mL 0.25% bupivacaine and 1 mL 40 mg/mL triamcinolone) or sham injection (10 mL normal saline). Primary outcomes were pain scores and opioid requirements. Sixty patients were required to show a 20-mm difference on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

We randomized 71 patients: 36 pudendal block and 35 sham. Groups were well matched in baseline characteristics and surgery type. Prolapse repairs were most common (n = 63 [87.5%]), and there was no difference in anesthetic dose or operative time. Pain scores were equivalent in the postanesthesia care unit (mean VAS, 53.1 [block] vs 56.4 [sham]; P = 0.517) and on postoperative day 4 (mean VAS, 26.7 [block] vs 35.5 [sham]; P = 0.131). On postoperative day 1, the intervention group reported less pain, but this did not meet our 20 mm goal for clinical significance (mean VAS, 29.2 vs 42.5; P = 0.047). A pudendal block was associated with lower opioid consumption at all time points, but this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon-administered pudendal nerve block at the time of vaginal surgery may not significantly improve postoperative pain control or decrease opioid use.

Effectiveness of non-immersive virtual reality in the management of procedure-related pain in preschool children: a randomized clinical trial

The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of non-immersive virtual reality as a pain-distraction measure in children between the ages of 3 and 5 years undergoing painful injection procedures in an outpatient setting. We carried out a randomized, unmasked clinical trial in children undergoing venipuncture or intramuscular injection procedures. Patients were randomized to a distraction virtual reality video or standard care. After the procedure, three independent observers (parents, researchers, nursing staff) rated pain on the LLANTO pain scale. We recruited 122 subjects, half of which were randomized to virtual reality. The median age was of approximately 60 months (IQR: 15 months), and the sample was balanced with regard to sex. There were significant differences in LLANTO scales scores between the VR subjects and controls of - 3.34 (95% CI - 4.15; - 2.54), - 3.02 (95% CI - 3.90; - 2.14), and - 2.98 (95% CI - 3.87; - 2.09), as rated by parents, researchers, and nursing staff, respectively. Agreement between raters was high for all three types of observers, with Cohen Kappas over 0.79 in all cases. Bivariate analysis showed reductions in the risk of obtaining higher scores in the LLANTO scale. Linear regression models showed a reduction of approximately 3 points in the scale, regardless of the type of observer. These models were adjusted for sex, age, kind of procedure, use of prior analgesia, and recruitment center.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-immersive virtual reality is an effective adjunctive therapy for the reduction of pain in children undergoing painful injection procedures in an outpatient setting. This strategy may be used to improve the quality of care in pediatric outpatient services.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03985930 (Registered June 14, 2019).

WHAT IS KNOWN

•The use of immersive virtual reality (VR) has been described as an effective adjunctive distraction method during painful procedures in children over 5 years.

WHAT IS NEW

•The utility of non-immersive VR in children below that age is not yet clear. This randomized clinical trial comparing non-immersive VR vs. standard care showed an average reduction of three points in the LLANTO pain scale favoring non-immersive VR. Non-immersive VR is an effective and inexpensive non-pharmacological technique that reduces fear and pain in pediatric patients.

Patient-reported outcomes following guided bone regeneration: Correlation with clinical parameters

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative oral health-related quality of life is procedure-dependent and may vary during early healing. There is scarce evidence on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after extraction and guided bone regeneration (GBR) or on the clinical parameters influencing PROMs. This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate PROMs during the first 2 weeks following extraction and GBR and correlate them with clinical parameters.

METHODS

Patients undergoing extraction and GBR (bone graft and resorbable membrane) at a single tooth-bound site were recruited. PROMs (pain, swelling, difficulty of mouth opening, and OHIP-14) were recorded immediately preoperatively, and at 2, 7, and 14 days postoperatively. Flap advancement, gingival and mucosal thickness, duration of surgery, and wound opening were the clinical parameters assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were included. All PROMs peaked on postoperative day 2, decreased subsequently and were significantly correlated with each other. Although 41-56% of patients reported moderate to severe pain, swelling, or mouth opening difficulty on day 2, most patients experienced mild or no symptoms throughout the postoperative period. Pain, swelling and difficulty of mouth opening were determinants of OHIP-14 and were correlated with all OHIP-14 domains during different time points. Wound opening peaked on day 7. Flap advancement, soft tissue thickness, wound opening, duration of surgery and preoperative PROMs affected postoperative PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present study, postoperative symptoms after guided bone regeneration are worst on day 2 and oral health-related quality of life is significantly impacted by pain, swelling, difficulty of mouth opening, surgery duration and flap advancement.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This is the first study to report PROMs following extraction and GBR with particulate bone graft and resorbable membrane in preparation for implant placement. It will help guide both practitioners and patients on what should be the anticipated experiences following such a routinely performed surgery.

Multimodal analgesia did not improve post-operative pain scores, reduce opioid consumption or reduce length of stay following hip arthroscopy

PURPOSE

To determine whether different regimens of multimodal analgesia will reduce postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, costs and hospital length-of-stay following hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

From 2018 to 2021, 132 patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) were included in this prospective, single-center randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized into four treatment groups: (1) Group 1-Control: opioid medication (oxycodone-acetaminophen 5 mg/325 mg, 1-2 tabs q6H as needed), Heterotopic ossification prophylaxis-Naprosyn 500 mg twice daily × 3 weeks); (2) Group 2-Control + postoperative sleeping aid (Zopiclone 7.5 mg nightly × 7 days); (3) Group 3-Control + preoperative and postoperative Gabapentin (600 mg orally, 1 h preoperatively; 600 mg postoperatively, 8 h following pre-op dose); (4) Group 4-Control + pre-medicate with Celecoxib (400 mg orally, 1 h preoperatively) The primary outcome was pain measured with a visual analog scale, monitored daily for the first week and every other day for 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, healthcare resource use, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in pain scores between groups at any timepoint after adjusting for intra-operative traction time, intra-operative opioid administration and preoperative pain scores (p > 0.05). There were also no significant differences in the number of days that opioids were taken (n.s.) and the average daily morphine milligram equivalents consumed (n.s.). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in length of stay in the experimental groups, compared with the control group (n.s.). Finally, there were no differences in cost between groups (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

The routine use of Zopiclone, Celecoxib and Gabapentin did not improve postoperative pain control or reduce length-of-stay following hip arthroscopy. Therefore, these medications are not recommended for routine postoperative pain control following hip arthroscopy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

l.

Tramadol for chronic pain in adults: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain in adults is a frequent clinical symptom with a significant impact on patient well-being. Therefore, sufficient pain management is of utmost importance. While tramadol is a commonly used pain medication, the quality of evidence supporting its use has been questioned considering the observed adverse events. Our objective will be to assess the benefits and harms of tramadol compared with placebo or no intervention for chronic pain.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of tramadol in any dose, formulation, or duration. We will accept placebo or no intervention as control interventions. We will include adult participants with any type of chronic pain, including cancer-related pain. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by Cochrane and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors ('bias') and random errors ('play of chance') will be assessed. The certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

Although tramadol is often being used to manage chronic pain conditions, the beneficial and harmful effects of this intervention are unknown. The present review will systematically assess the current evidence on the benefits and harms of tramadol versus placebo or no intervention to inform clinical practice and future research.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019140334.

Do age, gender, BMI and disease duration influence the clinical outcomes in patients of knee osteoarthritis treated with serial injections of autologous platelet rich plasma?

Purpose

To study whether age, gender, body mass index(BMI) and disease duration influence the clinical outcomes in kellgren-Lawrence(K-L) grade II,III knee osteoarthritis(KOA) patients treated with serial injections of platelet rich plasma(PRP).

Patients and methods

65 patients were given three monthly intra-articular injections of PRP in this prospective interventional study. The patients were divided into subgroups depending on the factor studied: by age(in years) into young <45(n = 7), middle age 45-60(n = 35), and elderly >60(n = 23): by BMI(in kg/m2) into; normal <25(n = 25), overweight 25-30(n = 27) and obese >30(n = 13) and disease duration; less(n = 32) or more than 1 year(n = 33) symptom duration. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) were used as outcome measures and assessed before each injection and then at 6 and 9 months post injection. Groups were homogenous with respect to baseline characteristics.

Results

Mean VAS and WOMAC scores showed a statistically significant improvement (P < 0.0001) across all groups and subgroups (age,gender,BMI,disease duration) at follow up. On intra-subgroup comparison, we found no significant differences(P > 0.05) among age, BMI or gender subgroups, however the scores were significantly better in patients with disease duration of less than 1 year than those with more than 1 year duration at both 6 and 9 months[P < 0.001(RC = 9.630,95% CI = 4.037-15.222,P = 0.001)].

Conclusion

PRP injections if given serially can improve the short term subjective scores of VAS and WOMAC scores in patients with K-L grade II and III KOA irrespective of age, gender, BMI or disease duration, however, clinical benefits can be maximized if given early in the disease course.

Efficacy of Continuous Intrathecal Infusion Trialing with a Mixture of Fentanyl and Bupivacaine in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients

Intrathecal trialing is used as a screening prognostic measure prior to intrathecal drug delivery system implant. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a continuous intrathecal infusion of an admixture of bupivacaine and fentanyl in patients with chronic low back pain. Patients with refractory chronic low back pain in the setting of previous lumbar spine surgery and/or chronic vertebral compression fracture(s) were enrolled in a randomized double blind cross-over study comparing saline infusion to infusion of a solution containing bupivacaine combined with low-dose fentanyl over a 14-18 hour period. The primary outcome measure was the change in pain intensity at the end of the screening trial. Patients who experienced significant pain reduction from either infusion relative to baseline pain were offered a permanent implant. In total, 36 patients were enrolled, with 31 patients trialed and 25 implanted. At the end of the screening trial, pain scores, at rest or with activity, decreased appreciably in both groups; however, significantly better improvements occurred in the fentanyl/bupivacaine group compared to saline both with activity and at rest (P = .016 and .006, respectively). Treatment order appeared to affect outcome with saline demonstrating a placebo response. At 12 months following implant, primary and secondary outcome measures continued to be significantly reduced from baseline. Continuous intrathecal delivery of a combination of zlow-dose fentanyl with bupivacaine is superior to saline in screening intrathecal trialing for back pain reduction. With longer term delivery, a sustained reduction of chronic low back pain was also observed.

Comparison of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) to intravenously or intramuscularly administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids for patients presenting with moderate to severe acute pain conditions to the ED: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opiates/opioids, administered parenterally via intravenous or intramuscular route, are widely used to provide analgesia for patients with moderate to severe pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the level of analgesia provided by intravenous paracetamol (IVP) alone compared with NSAIDs (intravenous or intramuscular), or opioids (intravenous) alone in adults attending the ED with acute pain.

METHODS

Two authors independently searched PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library, SCOPUS and Google Scholar (3 March 2021-20 May 2022) for randomised trials without any language or date restriction. Clinical trials were evaluated using the Risk of Bias V.2 tool. The primary outcome was mean difference (MD) for pain reduction at 30 min (T30) post analgesia delivery. The secondary outcomes were MD in pain reduction at 60, 90 and 120 min; the need for rescue analgesia; and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven trials (5427 patients) were included in the systematic review and 25 trials (5006 patients) in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in pain reduction at T30 between the IVP group and opioids (MD -0.13, 95% CI -1.49 to 1.22) or IVP and NSAIDs (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.0 to 1.54. There was also no difference at 60 min, IVP group versus opioid group (MD -0.09, 95% CI -2.69 to 2.52) or IVP versus NSAIDs (MD 0.51, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.91). The quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluations methodology was low for MD in pain scores.The need for rescue analgesia at T30 was significantly higher in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (risk ratio (RR): 1.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.83), with no difference found between the IVP group and the opioid group (RR: 1.07, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.70). AEs were 50% lower in the IVP group compared with the opioid group (RR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.62), whereas no difference was observed in the IVP group compared with the NSAID group (RR: 1.30, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.15).

CONCLUSION

In patients presenting to the ED with a diverse range of pain conditions, IVP provides similar levels of pain relief compared with opiates/opioids or NSAIDs at T30 post administration. Patients treated with NSAIDs had lower risk of rescue analgesia, and opioids cause more AEs, suggesting NSAIDs as the first-choice analgesia and IVP as a suitable alternative.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021240099.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials for Scalp Block in Craniotomy

BACKGROUND

Scalp block is regional anesthetic injection along nerves innervating the cranium. Scalp blocks for craniotomy may decrease postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Benefits may extend beyond the anesthetic period.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze evidence for scalp block on postoperative pain and opioid use.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis, Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration (CRD42022308048), included Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials inception through February 9, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials were included. We excluded studies not reporting either main outcome. Duplicate reviewers performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and evidence certainty Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation appraisal. Main outcomes were postoperative pain by visual analog scale within 72 hours and opioid consumption as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) within 48 hours.

RESULTS

Screening filtered 955 studies to 23 trials containing 1532 patients. Risk of bias was overall low. Scalp block reduced postoperative pain at 2 through 72 hours, visual analog scale mean differences of 0.79 to 1.40. Opioid requirements were reduced at 24 hours by 16.52 MME and 48 hours by 15.63 MME.

CONCLUSION

Scalp block reduces postoperative pain at 2 through 48 hours and may reduce pain at 72 hours. Scalp block likely reduces opioid consumption within 24 hours and may reduce opioid consumption to 48 hours. The clinical utility of these differences should be interpreted within the context of modest absolute reductions, overall care optimization, and patient populations. This is the first level 1A evidence to evaluate scalp block efficacy in craniotomy.

Effectiveness of Different Electrical Stimulation Modalities for Pain and Masticatory Function in Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Temporomandibular disorders comprise a set of conditions that include alterations of the temporomandibular joint and masticatory muscles. Although different modalities of electric currents are widely used for treating temporomandibular disorders, previous reviews have suggested these are ineffective. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of different electrical stimulation modalities in patients with temporomandibular disorders for reducing musculoskeletal pain, increasing the range of movement, and improving muscle activity. An electronic search was conducted of randomized controlled trials published until March of 2022 that compared the application of an electrical stimulation therapy versus a sham or control group. The main outcome measure was pain intensity. Seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis and in the quantitative analysis (n = 184 subjects). The overall effect of electrical stimulation on pain reduction was statistically superior to sham/control (MD = -1.12 cm; CI 95%: -1.5 to -0.8), showing moderate heterogeneity of results (I2 = 57%, P = .04). The overall effect on range of movement of the joint (MD = 0.97 mm; CI 95%: -0.3 to 2.2) and muscle activity (SMD = -2.9; CI 95%: -8.1 to 2.3) were not significant. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and high-voltage current stimulation reduces pain intensity clinically in people with temporomandibular disorders with a moderate quality of evidence. On the other hand, there is no evidence of the effect of different electrical stimulation modalities on range of movement and muscle activity in people with temporomandibular disorders with a moderate and low quality of evidence respectively. PERSPECTIVE: TENS and high voltage currents are valid options for the control of pain intensity in patients suffering from temporomandibular disorder. Data suggest clinically relevant changes compared to sham. Healthcare professionals should take this into account as it is inexpensive therapy, has no adverse effects and can be self-administered by patients.

Simple Aspiration versus Drainage for Complete Pneumothorax: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

Rationale: Management of first episodes of primary spontaneous pneumothorax remains the subject of debate. Objectives: To determine whether first-line simple aspiration is noninferior to first-line chest tube drainage for lung expansion in patients with complete primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Methods: We conducted a prospective, open-label, randomized noninferiority trial. Adults aged 18-50 years with complete primary spontaneous pneumothorax (total separation of the lung from the chest wall), recruited at 31 French hospitals from 2009 to 2015, received simple aspiration (n = 200) or chest tube drainage (n = 202) as first-line treatment. The primary outcome was pulmonary expansion 24 hours after the procedure. Secondary outcomes were tolerance of treatment, occurrence of adverse events, and recurrence of pneumothorax within 1 year. Substantial discordance in the numerical inputs used for trial planning and the actual trial rates of the primary outcome resulted in a reevaluation of the trial analysis plan. Measurement and Main Results: Treatment failure occurred in 29% in the aspiration group and 18% in the chest tube drainage group (difference in failure rate, 0.113; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.026-0.200). The aspiration group experienced less pain overall (mean difference, -1.4; 95% CI, -1.89, -0.91), less pain limiting breathing (frequency difference, -0.18; 95% CI, -0.27, -0.09), and less kinking of the device (frequency difference, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.09, -0.01). Recurrence of pneumothorax was 20% in this group versus 27% in the drainage group (frequency difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.16, +0.02). Conclusions: First-line management of complete primary spontaneous pneumothorax with simple aspiration had a higher failure rate than chest tube drainage but was better tolerated with fewer adverse events. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01008228).

The Efficacy of Graded Motor Imagery and Its Components on Phantom Limb Pain and Disability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) is a non-invasive and inexpensive therapy used to treat Phantom Limb Pain (PLP) by sequentially activating motor networks in such a way that movement and pain are unpaired. The objective of this systematic review was to critically appraise relevant data on the efficacy of GMI and its components for reducing PLP and disability in amputees.

Methods

We searched 11 electronic databases for controlled trials investigating GMI and its components in amputees with PLP from inception until February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted relevant data. Study-level data were entered using the inverse variance function of the Review Manager 5 and pooled with the random effects model.

Results

Eleven studies with varying risk of bias were eligible. No eligible study considered left/right judgement tasks in isolation. Studies showed no effect for imagined movements, but positive effects were seen for GMI [weighted mean difference: -21.29 (95%CI: -31.55, -11.02), I2= 0%] and mirror therapy [weighted mean difference: -8.55 (95%CI: -14.74, -2.35, I2= 61%]. A comparison of mirror therapy versus sham showed no difference [weighted mean difference: -4.43 (95%CI: -16.03, 7.16), I2= 51%].

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that GMI and mirror therapy may be effective for reducing PLP. However, this conclusion was drawn from a limited body of evidence, and the certainty of the evidence was very low. Therefore, rigorous, high-quality trials are needed to address the gap in the literature and inform practice.

Increasing movement during office work at sit-stand workstations: A novel seating device to facilitate transitions

A novel active office chair (Movably Pro) was designed to facilitate frequent sit-stand movement 1) through auditory and tactile prompts and 2) with minimal-to-no work surface adjustment when transitioning. The purpose of this study was to compare lumbopelvic kinematics, discomfort, and task performance between the novel chair and traditional sitting/standing. Sixteen participants completed three separate 2-h sedentary exposures. Although participants transitioned every 3 min between sitting and standing with the novel chair, productivity was not affected. When standing in the novel chair, the lumbopelvic angles fell in between traditional sitting and standing (p < 0.01). Movement and/or postural changes that occurred with the novel chair reduced low back and leg discomfort for pain developers (PDs) (p < 0.01). All participants classified as PDs in traditional standing were non-PDs with the novel chair. This intervention was effective in reducing sedentary time without the time loss associated with desk movement.

Outcomes of Surgical Treatment of Migraines: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

Background: Migraine surgery at 1 of 6 identified "trigger sites" of a target cranial sensory nerve has rapidly grown in popularity since 2000. This study summarizes the effect of migraine surgery on headache severity, headache frequency, and the migraine headache index score which is derived by multiplying migraine severity, frequency, and duration. Materials and Methods: This is a PRISMA-compliant systematic review of 5 databases searched from inception through May 2020 and is registered under the PROSPERO ID: CRD42020197085. Clinical trials treating headaches with surgery were included. Risk of bias was assessed in randomized controlled trials. Meta-analyses were performed on outcomes using a random effects model to determine the pooled mean change from baseline and when possible, to compare treatment to control. Results: 18 studies met criteria including 6 randomized controlled trials, 1 controlled clinical trial, and 11 uncontrolled clinical trials treated 1143 patients with pathologies including migraine, occipital migraine, frontal migraine, occipital nerve triggered headache, frontal headache, occipital neuralgia, and cervicogenic headache. Migraine surgery reduced headache frequency at 1 year postoperative by 13.0 days per month as compared to baseline (I2 = 0%), reduced headache severity at 8 weeks to 5 years postoperative by 4.16 points on a 0 to 10 scale as compared to baseline (I2 = 53%), and reduced migraine headache index at 1 to 5 years postoperative by 83.1 points as compared to baseline (I2 = 2%). These meta-analyses are limited by a small number of studies that could be analyzed, including studies with high risk of bias. Conclusion: Migraine surgery provided a clinically and statistically significant reduction in headache frequency, severity, and migraine headache index scores. Additional studies, including randomized controlled trials with low risk-of-bias should be performed to improve the precision of the outcome improvements.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty vs. high tibial osteotomy for medial knee osteoarthritis (UNIKORN): a study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common health problem resulting in knee pain and limiting patients' physical activity. After failed conservative treatment, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) are possible surgical treatment options for this condition. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence in the literature comparing objective and subjective outcomes of these procedures. Also, there is no common agreement on whether these procedures provide comparable results in late-stage medial knee OA patients.

METHODS

We will perform a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing HTO and UKA in patients with late-stage medial knee OA. 100 patients with isolated medial knee OA (KL III-IV) are assigned to either UKA (n = 50) or HTO (n = 50) procedure in patients 45-65 years of age. Our primary outcome will be KOOS₅ at one year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include OARSI physical assessment, length of stay, wearable activity watch, radiographs (OA progression according to Kellgren-Lawrence classification), patient-reported outcomes (KOOS subscales, pain visual analog scale [VAS], Lysholm, and Oxford knee scores), and adverse events (conversion to total knee arthroplasty, surgery-related complications, need for revision surgery) outcomes. Our hypothesis is that neither of the interventions is superior as measured with KOOS₅ at 12 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District has approved the protocol. We will disseminate the findings through peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov/TooloH NCT05442242. Registered on 7/1/2022.

Centering Group Treatment for Women With Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome: A Prospective, Parallel-Group Cohort Study

IMPORTANCE

Women with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (ICBPS) face isolation and treatment challenges. Group medical visits using Centering models have successfully treated other conditions but have not been explored in ICBPS.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe ICBPS pain and symptom control comparing standard treatment alone versus standard treatment augmented with Centering visits.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective cohort study recruited women with ICBPS receiving standard care (control) or standard care augmented with group Centering. We administered validated questionnaires at baseline and monthly for 12 months. The primary outcome was change in the pain numerical rating scale, with Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Scale and Bladder Pain/Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Score change as secondary measures.

RESULTS

We enrolled 45 women (20 Centering, 25 controls). Centering had significantly better numerical rating scale pain scores at 1 month (mean difference [diff], -3.45) and 2 months (mean diff, -3.58), better Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference Scale scores at 1 month (mean diff, -10.62) and 2 months (mean diff, -9.63), and better Bladder Pain/Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Score scores at 2 months (mean diff, -13.19), and 3 months (mean diff, -12.3) compared with controls. In modeling, treatment group (Centering or control) and educational levels were both associated with all the outcomes of interest. Beyond 6 months, there were too few participants for meaningful analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with ICBPS participating in a Centering group have, in the short term, less pain, pain interference, and ICBPS-specific symptoms than patients with usual care alone. Larger studies with more follow-up are needed to determine if this treatment effect extends over time.

Efficacy and Safety of Gabapentin on Postoperative Pain Management After Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Examine the efficacy and safety of perioperative gabapentin in bariatric surgical patients.

DESIGN

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

METHODS

An exhaustive search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and other gray literature. Only randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of gabapentin in bariatric surgery were included. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used to estimate outcomes with suitable effect models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias and GRADE system.

FINDINGS

Four trials consisting of 283 patients were analyzed. The use of gabapentin significantly lowered the cumulative pain score in the first 24 hours after surgery by an average of 1.04 (MD, -1.04; 95% CI, -1.45 to -0.63; P < .00001). Gabapentin also reduced the overall morphine equivalent consumption by 7.89 mg (MD, -7.89; 95% CI, -13.56 to -2.2; P = .006). However, gabapentin did not affect the incidence of PONV (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-1.00; P = .05), somnolence (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.57-2.73; P = .57), dizziness (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.40-2.54; P = .99), and headache (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.25-2.30; P = .62). Substantial heterogeneity, imprecision of the effect size, and potential publication bias were limitations of this review.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of gabapentin is effective in the management of postoperative pain in bariatric surgery. However, there is limited data regarding the opioid-sparing effect and adverse effect profiles of gabapentin in the bariatric surgical population.

Effect of transauricular nerve stimulation on perioperative pain: a single-blind, analyser-masked, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Activation of central autonomic pathways, including those regulating the arterial baroreflex, might reduce acute pain. We tested the hypothesis that transcutaneous auricular nerve stimulation (TAN) reduces pain after orthopaedic trauma surgery through autonomic modulation.

METHODS

A total of 86 participants aged >18 yr were randomly assigned to 50 min of either sham or active bilateral TAN, undertaken before, and again 24 h after, surgery for orthopaedic trauma. The primary outcome was absolute change in pain 24 h postoperatively, comparing the 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after TAN. Secondary outcomes included the minimal clinically important difference in pain (>10 mm increase or reduction in VAS) before/after surgery, using intention-to-treat analysis. Holter monitoring, the analysis of which was masked to allocation, quantified autonomic modulation of heart rate.

RESULTS

From June 22, 2021 to July 7, 2022, 79/86 participants (49 yr; 45% female) completed TAN before and after surgery. For the primary outcome, the mean reduction in VAS was 19 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12-26) after active TAN (n=40), vs 10 mm (95% CI: 3-17) after sham TAN (n=39; P=0.023). A minimally clinically important reduction in postoperative pain occurred in 31/40 (78%) participants after active TAN, compared with 15/39 (38%) allocated to sham TAN (odds ratio 5.51 [95% CI: 2.06-14.73]; P=0.001). Only active TAN increased heart rate variability (log low-frequency power increased by 0.19 ms2 [0.01-0.37 ms2]). Prespecified adverse events (auricular skin irritation) occurred in six participants receiving active TAN, compared with two receiving sham TAN.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral TAN reduces perioperative pain through autonomic modulation. These proof-of-concept data support a non-pharmacological, generalisable approach to improve perioperative analgesia.

Implementation of Multimodal Pain Protocol Associated With Opioid Use Reduction in Trauma Patients

INTRODUCTION

Many trauma centers have adopted multimodal pain protocols (MMPPs) to provide safe and effective pain control. The objective was to evaluate the association of a protocol on opioid use in trauma patients and patient-reported pain scores.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of adult trauma patients admitted from 7/1-9/30/2018 to 7/1-9/30/2019 at an urban academic level 1 trauma center. The MMPP consisted of scheduled nonopioid medications implemented on July 1, 2019. Patients were stratified by level of care upon admission, intensive care unit (ICU) or floor, and by injury severity score (ISS) (ISS < 16 or ISS ≥ 16). Pain scores, opioid, and nonopioid analgesic medication use were compared for the hospital stay or first 30 d.

RESULTS

Seven hundred ninety eight patients were included with a mean age of 54 ± 22 y and 511 (64.0%) were men. Demographic and clinical characteristics between those in the pre-MMP (n = 404) and post-MMPP (n = 394) groups were not different. The average pain scores were not different between the two groups (3.7 versus 3.8, P = 0.44), but patients in the post-MMPP group received 36% less morphine milliequivalents (109.6 versus 70; P < 0.0001). The MMPP had the largest effect on patients admitted to the ICU regardless of injury severity. ICU patients with ISS ≥ 16 had the greatest reduction in morphine milliequivalents (174.6 versus 84.4; P < 0.0001). The use of nonopioid analgesics was significantly increased in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A MMPP is associated with a reduction of opioids and increase in nonopioid analgesics with no difference in patient-reported pain scores.

Use of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Hysterectomy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To examine the effectiveness of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in hysterectomy.

DESIGN

Systematic review METHODS: This review followed the guidelines of the PRISMA statement. PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Collaboration, Google Scholar, and other gray literature databases were searched for eligible studies. The evidence level and quality ratings were assessed using the guidelines proposed by the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Model.

FINDINGS

Six randomized controlled trials and three systematic reviews with meta-analysis consisting of 2,164 patients were analyzed. The use of TAP block reduced the pain scores in the early part of the postoperative period with diminishing effect late in the postoperative phase. In addition, TAP block lowered the overall opioid consumption, reduced the incidence of PONV, and prolonged the time for rescue medication. All studies included in the review were categorized as Level I and rated Grade A implying strong confidence in the true effects of TAP block in all outcome measures in the review.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of TAP block for pain control in hysterectomy patients can improve postoperative pain management. This review found that TAP block has opioid-sparing effects and is safe and effective in reducing pain scores postoperatively in hysterectomy patients.

Systemic glucocorticoids as an adjunct to treatment of postoperative pain after total hip and knee arthroplasty: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative analgesic effects of systemic glucocorticoids given as an adjunct to treatment are largely undetermined in alloplastic procedures.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the beneficial and harmful effects of peri-operative systemic glucocorticoid treatment for pain after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

DESIGN

A systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses and GRADE. Primary outcome was 24 h intravenous (i.v.) morphine (or equivalent) consumption with a predefined minimal important difference (MID) of 5 mg. Secondary outcomes included pain at rest and during mobilisation (MID, VAS 10 mm), adverse and serious adverse events (SAEs).

DATA SOURCES

We searched EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed and Google Scholar up to October 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs investigating peri-operative systemic glucocorticoid versus placebo or no intervention, for analgesic pain management of patients at least 18 years undergoing planned THA or TKA, irrespective of publication date and language.

RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs with 3521 patients. Nine trials were at a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed evidence of a reduction in 24 h cumulative morphine consumption with glucocorticoids by 5.0 mg (95% CI 2.2 to 7.7; P  = 0.0004). Pain at rest was reduced at 6 h by 7.8 mm (95% CI 5.5 to 10.2; P  < 0.00001), and at 24 h by 6.3 mm (95% CI 3.8 to 8.8; P  < 0.00001). Pain during mobilisation was reduced at 6 h by 9.8 mm (95% CI 6.9 to 12.8; P  < 0.00001), and at 24 h by 9.0 mm (95% CI 5.5 to 12.4, P  < 0.00001). Incidence of adverse events was generally lower in the glucocorticoid treatment group. SAEs were rarely reported. The GRADE rated quality of evidence was low to very low.

CONCLUSION

Peri-operative systemic glucocorticoid treatment reduced postoperative morphine consumption to an individually relevant level following hip and knee arthroplasty. Pain levels were reduced but were below the predefined MID. The quality of evidence was generally low.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42019135034.

Pain Reduction With AbobotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Hallux Valgus in Adult Participants: Results of a Randomized and Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Trial

AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A, Dysport® [Ipsen, Paris, France]) inhibits acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction and may modulate pain signaling in hallux valgus (HV). This randomized study (NCT03569098) included a double-blind phase (aboBoNT-A 300U, 500U or placebo injections into forefoot muscles) and an open-label aboBoNT-A treatment period in participants with an HV diagnosis and no HV surgery. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) score at week 8. Secondary endpoints included change in NPRS (other time points) and proportion of participants with ≥20% reduction from baseline NPRS (responders). Post-hoc analyses assessed number of days in a 7-day evaluation period that participants spent in a lower pain state than at baseline. Participants received aboBoNT-A 300U (n = 63), 500U (n = 60) or placebo (n = 63). Superiority to placebo was not observed with either aboBoNT-A dose at week 8, thus the primary endpoint was unmet. At week 12, a trend toward efficacy was observed with aboBoNT-A 500U versus placebo and the proportion of participants with ≥20% reduction from baseline NPRS was greater with aboBoNT-A 500U versus placebo (p = .006). Participants in the aboBoNT-A 500U group spent more days with lower NPRS than their lowest baseline score, and with NPRS ≥2 points lower than their mean baseline NPRS at weeks 8 and 12 versus placebo (all p < .05; post-hoc). AboBoNT-A was well tolerated. Although the primary endpoint was unmet, other endpoints showed a nominal advantage for aboBoNT versus placebo for treatment of HV-related pain, particularly at week 12. Further clinical evaluation is needed to establish whether botulinum toxins represent a viable non-operative treatment option for HV-associated pain. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Hallux valgus is the medical name for a bunion, a foot deformity that can worsen over time. Patients with bunions experience pain and walking can become difficult, which can affect their quality of life. Foot support aids (e.g., braces, splints and inserts) are available, but surgery is the standard treatment. This study looked at how injections of a specific type of botulinum toxin, called abobotulinumtoxinA or "aboBoNT-A", into the foot may help to reduce pain in patients with bunions. The study included 186 patients aged 18 to 75 years who had not had surgery on their bunion. The researchers looked at how well the injections worked using scales that measure the pain levels the patient experienced. The main outcome was whether patients who had aboBoNT-A injections had less pain after 8 weeks than they did before treatment. The study included patients who were injected with saltwater (no treatment) to check that any treatment effect was real. Researchers also looked at the results after 12 weeks, as well as how many patients had less pain after treatment than before and how many days in a given week patients experienced less pain after treatment than they did before. There was no reduction in pain levels with aboBoNT-A injections after 8 weeks compared with no treatment. However, the other study outcomes suggested that aboBoNT-A resulted in a small benefit compared with no treatment, especially after 12 weeks. Further medical research is needed to establish whether botulinum toxins represent an alternative treatment to surgery for the pain associated with bunions.

Bicentre, randomized, parallel-arm, sham-controlled trial of transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in the treatment of palliative care patients with refractory cancer pain

BACKGROUND

Pain is a common symptom in palliative care cancer patients and is often insufficiently relieved. In recent years, transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) of the motor cortex has been shown to be effective to treat chronic pain, essentially neuropathic pain. We propose to test the efficacy of tDCS in patients experiencing cancer pain in the palliative care setting.

METHOD/DESIGN

This article describes the protocol of a bicentre, randomized, parallel-arm, sham-controlled clinical trial evaluating tDCS in the treatment of palliative care patients with refractory cancer pain. Seventy patients between the ages of 18 and 80 years experiencing refractory pain with a pain score of 4/10 on a numerical rating scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10 will be enrolled in this trial. The main exclusion criteria are patients unable to fill in the various rating scales and life expectancy less than 3 weeks. Treatment consists of 5 consecutive tDCS sessions targeting the motor cortex (one daily session for 5 days) on the contralateral side to the pain. After randomization (1:1 ratio), 35 patients will receive active stimulation and 35 patients will receive sham stimulation. The primary endpoint is the NRS score and the primary objective is a significant improvement of this score between the baseline score recorded between D-3 and D-1 and the score recorded 4 days after stopping treatment (D8). The secondary objectives are to evaluate whether this improvement is maintained 16 days after stopping treatment (D21) and whether the following scores are improved on D14 and D21: Brief Pain Inventory, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Medication Quantification Scale.

DISCUSSION

Positive results of this trial would indicate that tDCS can improve pain and quality of life of cancer patients in the palliative care setting. Reduction of analgesic consumption and improvement of activities of daily living should allow many patients to return home with a decreased workload for caregivers.

Factors associated with clinically relevant pain reduction after a self-management program including education and exercise for people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis: Data from the BOA register

AIM

To examine the associations between individual- and disease-related factors and the odds of reaching a clinically relevant pain reduction in people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent a first-line self-management program.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational registry-based study including people with knee (n = 18,871) and hip (n = 7,767) OA who participated in a self-management program including education and exercise and had data recorded in the Better Management of patients with Osteoarthritis (BOA) register. We used multivariable logistic regression models to study the association between sex, age, body mass index (BMI), education, comorbidity, pain frequency, walking difficulties, willingness to undergo surgery and the odds of reaching a clinically relevant pain reduction (decrease of >33% on a 0-10 NRS scale) 3 and 12 months after the intervention. All analyses were stratified by joint (knee/hip).

RESULTS

Both in the short- and long-term follow-up, a younger age (18-65 years), a lower BMI (< 25), a higher level of education (university), the absence of comorbidities impacting the ability to walk, less frequent pain and not being willing to undergo surgery were associated with higher odds of reaching a clinically relevant pain reduction in people with knee OA. We found similar results for people with hip OA, but with larger uncertainty in the estimates (wider 95% CI).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that early fist line self-management interventions delivered when people have unilateral hip or knee OA with less frequent pain and are unwilling to undergo surgery, may be important for reaching a clinically relevant pain reduction after participation. Providing the most appropriate treatment to the right patient at the right time is a step in reducing the burden of OA for society and the patient.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain in adults: overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of antidepressants for pain according to condition.

DESIGN

Overview of systematic reviews.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to 20 June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews comparing any antidepressant with placebo for any pain condition in adults.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data. The main outcome measure was pain; for headache disorders it was frequency of headaches. Continuous pain outcomes were converted into a scale of 0 (no pain) to 100 (worst pain) and were presented as mean differences (95% confidence intervals). Dichotomous outcomes were presented as risk ratios (95% confidence intervals). Data were extracted from the time point closest to the end of treatment. When end of treatment was too variable across trials in a review, data were extracted from the outcome or time point with the largest number of trials and participants. Secondary outcomes were safety and tolerability (withdrawals because of adverse events). Findings were classified from each comparison as efficacious, not efficacious, or inconclusive. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation framework.

RESULTS

26 reviews (156 unique trials and >25 000 participants) were included. These reviews reported on the efficacy of eight antidepressant classes covering 22 pain conditions (42 distinct comparisons). No review provided high certainty evidence on the efficacy of antidepressants for pain for any condition. 11 comparisons (nine conditions) were found where antidepressants were efficacious, four with moderate certainty evidence: serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for back pain (mean difference -5.3, 95% confidence interval -7.3 to -3.3), postoperative pain (-7.3, -12.9 to -1.7), neuropathic pain (-6.8, -8.7 to -4.8), and fibromyalgia (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 1.6). For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either not efficacious (five comparisons) or the evidence was inconclusive (26 comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of efficacy of antidepressants was found in 11 of the 42 comparisons included in this overview of systematic reviews-seven of the 11 comparisons investigated the efficacy of SNRIs. For the other 31 comparisons, antidepressants were either inefficacious or evidence on efficacy was inconclusive. The findings suggest that a more nuanced approach is needed when prescribing antidepressants for pain conditions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022311073.

Cannabinoids versus placebo for pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of cannabinoids in participants with pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, and BIOSIS.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials comparing cannabinoids versus placebo in participants with any type of pain.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality, pain, adverse events, quality of life, cannabinoid dependence, psychosis, and quality of sleep.

RESULTS

We included 65 randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials enrolling 7017 participants. Fifty-nine of the trials and all outcome results were at high risk of bias. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis showed no evidence of a difference between cannabinoids versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 1.20; 98% CI 0.85 to 1.67; P = 0.22). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids neither reduced acute pain (mean difference numerical rating scale (NRS) 0.52; 98% CI -0.40 to 1.43; P = 0.19) or cancer pain (mean difference NRS -0.13; 98% CI -0.33 to 0.06; P = 0.1) nor improved quality of life (mean difference -1.38; 98% CI -11.81 to 9.04; P = 0.33). Meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analysis showed that cannabinoids reduced chronic pain (mean difference NRS -0.43; 98% CI -0.72 to -0.15; P = 0.0004) and improved quality of sleep (mean difference -0.42; 95% CI -0.65 to -0.20; P = 0.0003). However, both effect sizes were below our predefined minimal important differences. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis indicated that cannabinoids increased the risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.25; P < 0.001) but not serious adverse events (RR 1.18; 98% CI 0.95 to 1.45; P = 0.07). None of the included trials reported on cannabinoid dependence or psychosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Cannabinoids reduced chronic pain and improved quality of sleep, but the effect sizes are of questionable importance. Cannabinoids had no effects on acute pain or cancer pain and increased the risks of non-serious adverse events. The harmful effects of cannabinoids for pain seem to outweigh the potential benefits.

Acute pain management after thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and explorative meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Pain after thoracoscopic surgery may increase the incidence of postoperative complications and impair recovery. Guidelines lack consensus regarding postoperative analgesia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the mean pain scores of different analgesic techniques (thoracic epidural analgesia, continuous or single-shot unilateral regional analgesia and only systemic analgesia) after thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched until 1 October 2022. Patients undergoing at least >70% anatomical resections through thoracoscopy reporting postoperative pain scores were included. Due to a high inter-study variability an explorative meta-analysis next to an analytic meta-analysis was performed. The quality of evidence has been evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

RESULTS

A total of 51 studies comprising 5573 patients were included. Mean 24, 48 and 72 h pain scores with 95% confidence interval on a 0-10 scale were calculated. Length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, additional opioids and the use of rescue analgesia were analysed as secondary outcomes. A common-effect size was estimated with an extreme high heterogeneity for which pooling of the studies was not appropriate. An exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated acceptable mean pain scores of Numeric Rating Scale <4 for all analgesic techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

This extensive literature review and attempt to pool mean pain scores for meta-analysis demonstrates that unilateral regional analgesia is gaining popularity over thoracic epidural analgesia in thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection, despite great heterogeneity and limitations of current studies precluding such recommendations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

ID number 205311.

Opioid versus non-opioid analgesia for spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Opioids are the primary analgesics used in patients undergoing spine surgery. Postoperative pain is common despite their liberal use and so are opioid-associated side effects. Non-opioid analgesics are gaining popularity as alternative to opioids in spine surgery.

METHODS

This systematic review evaluated current evidence regarding opioid and non-opioid intraoperative analgesia and their influence on immediate postoperative pain and adverse events in spine surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 10,459 records were obtained by searching Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases and six randomized controlled trials were included. Differences in postoperative pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups were not significant at 1 h: 4 studies, mean difference (MD) = 0.65 units, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [-0.12 to 1.41], p = 0.10, but favored non-opioid at 24 h after surgery: 3 studies, MD = 0.75 units, 95%CI [0.03 to 1.46], p = 0.04. The time for first postoperative analgesic requirement was shorter (MD = -45.06 min, 95%CI [-72.50 to -17.62], p = 0.001), and morphine consumption during first 24 h after surgery was higher in opioid compared to non-opioid group (MD = 4.54 mg, 95%CI [3.26 to 5.82], p < 0.00001). Adverse effects of postoperative nausea and vomiting (Relative risk (RR) = 2.15, 95%CI [1.37 to 3.38], p = 0.0009) and shivering (RR = 2.52, 95%CI [1.08 to 5.89], p = 0.03) were higher and bradycardia was lower (RR = 0.35, 95%CI [0.17 to 0.71], p = 0.004) with opioid analgesia.

CONCLUSION

The certainty of evidence on GRADE assessment is low for studied outcomes. Available evidence supports intraoperative non-opioid analgesia for overall postoperative pain outcomes in spine surgery. More research is needed to find the best drug combination and dosing regimen. Prospero Registration: CRD42020209042.

Opioid-Free Anesthesia for Craniotomy

BACKGROUND

Perioperative opioids are problematic following craniotomy as they can impede neurological examination because of excessive sedation and mask surgical complications. Multimodal anesthetic techniques including nerve blocks have been used successfully to deliver opioid-free anesthesia in other surgical populations; however, no clinical data evaluating opioid-free anesthesia for craniotomy exists within the current body of literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six prospectively identified patients underwent supratentorial craniotomy at Emory University Hospital using a multimodal opioid-free anesthetic (OFA) technique consisting of preoperative scalp block, dexmedetomidine and intravenous acetaminophen. These opioid-free patients were matched by age, sex, incision length, and incision location to 18 retrospectively identified control patients who underwent craniotomy using conventional, opioid-based anesthetic techniques. Postoperative opioid consumption and pain scores were compared and analyzed for noninferiority.

RESULTS

Noninferiority of the OFA technique was demonstrated for opioid consumption at all measured intervals from postanesthesia care unit arrival to 24 hours postoperatively. Noninferiority was also demonstrated with respect to average postoperative pain scores from 0 to 12 hours, 0 to 24 hours, as well as length of postanesthesia care unit stay. Noninferiority was not shown for time to first rescue opioid postoperatively, pain scores for the 12 to 24 hours postoperative period, or time to emergence from anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an OFA technique for patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy and suggests that larger prospective randomized controlled trials are indicated to examine the role of multimodal anesthetic techniques for craniotomy.

Oral ibuprofen versus oral ketorolac for children with moderate and severe acute traumatic pain: a randomized comparative study

This study is to compare ibuprofen and ketorolac for children with trauma-related acute pain. We conducted a multicentre randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in the Paediatric Emergency Department setting. We enrolled patients aged 8 to 17 who accessed the emergency department for pain related to a limb trauma that occurred in the previous 48 h. At the admission, patients were classified based on numeric rating scale-11 (NRS-11) in moderate (NRS 4-6) and severe (NRS 7-10) pain groups. Each patient was randomized to receive either ibuprofen (10 mg/kg) or ketorolac (0.5 mg/kg) and the placebo of the not given drug in a double dummies design. NRS-11 was asked every 30 min until 2 h after drug and placebo administration. The primary outcome was NRS-11 reduction at 60 min. Among 125 patients with severe pain, NRS-11 reduction after 60 min from drug administration was 2.0 (IQR 1.0-4.0) for ibuprofen and 1.0 (IQR 1.0-3.0) for ketorolac (p = 0.36). Ibuprofen was significantly better, considering secondary outcomes, at 90 min with a lower median of NRS-11 (p 0.008), more patients with NRS-11 less than 4 (p 0.01) and a reduction of pain score of more than 3 NRS-11 points (p 0.01). Among 87 patients with moderate pain, the NRS-11 reduction after 60 min from drug administration was 1.63 (± 1.8) for ibuprofen and 1.8 (± 1.6) for ketorolac, with no statistically significant difference.Conclusions: Oral ibuprofen and ketorolac are similarly effective in children and adolescents with acute traumatic musculoskeletal pain.Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov registration number: NCT04133623.

The effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on biomechanical factors and perceived transient pain during prolonged sitting: a laboratory-controlled cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Spinal manipulation has been shown to affect muscle activity, posture, and pain. To date, no studies have examined the effect of manipulation on biomechanical factors during sitting. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on trunk muscle activation, spine posture and movements, and perceived ratings of transient pain in asymptomatic adults during prolonged office sitting.

METHODS

Twenty healthy adults were recruited for a single laboratory session that included a standardized office sitting/data entry protocol (120 min total, 3 blocks of 40 min). Data were collected between July and August 2012. The first block (baseline) was immediately followed by two experimental blocks. Prior to the start of each experimental block, participants were transferred to a therapy plinth and placed side lying (right side down), and a random presentation of either a control or high velocity low amplitude thrust directed at L4/L5 was delivered. Continuous measures of muscle activity, spine posture, and spine movements were recorded throughout the sitting trials. Perceived transient pain was measured by visual analogue scale at 10-min intervals (including immediately before and after the randomized maneuvers).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in spine or pelvic posture or perceived back pain following either the manipulation or control maneuvers. Significantly reduced muscle activity and increased shifts of the lumbar spine angle were identified in the block following manipulation compared to both baseline and post control blocks.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal manipulation does not appear to have an immediate impact on spine or pelvic posture in healthy adults but does appear to reduce muscle activity and increase spine movement during sitting. Future work should replicate this study with a larger population in a field setting. It may be worthwhile to explore the implication of reduced muscle activation and increased spine movements during prolonged sitting for office workers that receive manipulations or mobilizations during their workday.

Double-center observational study of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: one-year results

BACKGROUND

For a substantial part of patients with chronic low back pain, the origin is located in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is increasingly being implemented as a treatment option in SIJ dysfunction. Despite remaining controversy, evidence continues to increase. This study evaluates the clinical results and safety of MISJF in a double-center consecutive case series in patients with SIJ dysfunction over a one-year observation period.

METHODS

SIJ complaints were diagnosed after history taking, physical examination and least a 50% reduction of SIJ pain 30-60 min following image-guided injection. Primary outcome measures were patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs), consisting of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score and EuroQol 5-dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L). Patients' perspectives on the effects of surgery were collected through questionnaires. Secondary outcome measures were implant positioning and (serious) adverse events ((S)AE's).

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients were included. In 44.8% of patients, SIJ dysfunction was of postpartum origin. The mean VAS-pain score improved from 7.83 (± 1.71) to 4.97 (± 2.63) postoperatively (p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L score improved from 0.266 (± 0.129) to 0.499 (± 0.260) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Opioid consumption decreased from 44.8 to 24.1% postoperatively (p = 0.026). In 13.7% of patients, an (S)AE occurred.

CONCLUSION

MISJF appears to be an effective and safe procedure in this cohort. Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and quality of life were observed one-year postoperatively. Future studies should focus on the long-term outcomes to further evaluate the safety and effectiveness of MISJF.

Ultrasound guidance versus landmark method for peripheral venous cannulation in adults

BACKGROUND

Peripheral intravenous cannulation is one of the most fundamental and common procedures in medicine. Securing a peripheral line is occasionally difficult with the landmark method. Ultrasound guidance has become a standard procedure for central venous cannulation, but its efficacy in achieving peripheral venous cannulation is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ultrasound guidance compared to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults.  SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 29 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which participants are systematically allocated based on data such as date of birth or recruitment) comparing the effects of ultrasound guidance to the landmark method for peripheral intravenous cannulation in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were first-pass success of cannulation, overall success of cannulation, and pain. Our secondary outcomes were procedure time for first-pass cannulation, procedure time for overall cannulation, number of attempts, patient satisfaction, and overall complications. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.  Placing a peripheral intravenous line in individuals can be classed as 'difficult', 'moderate', or 'easy'. We use the terms 'difficult participants', 'moderate/moderately difficult participants' and 'easy participants' as shorthand to characterise the difficulty level in placing a peripheral line using the landmark method. We used the original studies' definitions of difficulty levels of peripheral intravenous cannulation with the landmark method. We analysed the results in these subgroups: 'difficult participants', 'moderate participants', and 'easy participants'. We did this because we expected the effect of ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation to be largest in participants classed as 'difficult' and smaller in participants classed as 'moderate' and 'easy'.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs and two quasi-RCTs involving 2267 participants undergoing peripheral intravenous cannulation. Participants were classed as 'difficult' in 12 studies (880 participants), 'moderate' in one study (401 participants), and 'easy' in one study (596 participants). Two studies (390 participants) did not restrict by landmark method difficulty level. The overall risk of bias assessments ranged from low to high. We judged studies to be at high risk of bias mainly because of concerns about blinding for subjective outcomes. In difficult participants, ultrasound guidance increased the first-pass success of cannulation (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15 to 1.95; 10 studies, 815 participants; low-certainty evidence), and the overall success of cannulation (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77; 10 studies, 670 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in pain (mean difference (MD) -0.20, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.72; 4 studies, 323 participants; very low-certainty evidence; numerical rating scale (NRS) 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 119.9 seconds, 95% CI 88.6 to 151.1; 2 studies, 219 participants; low-certainty evidence), and patient satisfaction (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.92; 5 studies, 333 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum satisfaction). Ultrasound guidance decreased the number of cannulation attempts (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.02; 9 studies, 568 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in the procedure time for overall cannulation (MD -24.9 seconds, 95% CI -323.1 to 273.3; 8 studies, 413 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and overall complications (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.10; 5 studies, 431 participants; low-certainty evidence).  In moderate participants, ultrasound guidance increased the first-pass success of cannulation (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the overall success of cannulation. There was no clear difference in pain (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.67; 1 study, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 95.2 seconds, 95% CI 72.8 to 117.6; 1 study, 401 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in overall complications (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.82; 1 study, 401 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the procedure time for overall cannulation, number of cannulation attempts, or patient satisfaction.  In easy participants, ultrasound guidance decreased the first-pass success of cannulation (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 596 participants; high-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the overall success of cannulation. Ultrasound guidance increased pain (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.03; 1 study, 596 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; NRS 0 to 10 where 10 is maximum pain). Ultrasound guidance increased the procedure time for first-pass cannulation (MD 94.8 seconds, 95% CI 81.2 to 108.5; 1 study, 596 participants; high-certainty evidence). Ultrasound guidance showed no clear difference in overall complications (RR 2.48, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.87; 1 study, 596 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies assessed the procedure time for overall cannulation, number of cannulation attempts, or patient satisfaction.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low- and low-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance may benefit difficult participants for increased first-pass and overall success of cannulation, with no difference detected in pain. There is moderate- and low-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance may benefit moderately difficult participants due to a small increased first-pass success of cannulation with no difference detected in pain. There is moderate- and high-certainty evidence that, compared to the landmark method, ultrasound guidance does not benefit easy participants: ultrasound guidance decreased the first-pass success of cannulation with no difference detected in overall success of cannulation and increased pain.

Relief of chronic pain associated with increase in midline frontal theta power

Unique electroencephalogram signatures of relief from chronic pain demonstrate theta power increase in the midline frontal cortex.

Introduction:

Objectives:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Minimal important change was on the lower spectrum of previous estimates and responsiveness was sufficient for core outcomes in chronic low back pain

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to estimate the minimal important change (MIC) and responsiveness of core patient reported outcome measures for chronic low back pain (LBP) and Modic changes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In the Antibiotics in Modic changes (AIM) trial we measured disability (RMDQ, ODI), LBP intensity (NRS) and health-related quality of life (EQ5D) electronically at baseline, three- and 12-month follow-up. MICs were estimated using Receiver Operating Curve (ROC) curve and Predictive modeling analyses against the global perceived effect. Credibility of the estimates was assessed by a standardized set of criteria. Responsiveness was assessed by a construct and criterion approach according to COSMIN guidelines.

RESULTS

The MIC estimates of RMDQ, ODI and NRS scores varied between a 15-40% reduction, depending on including "slightly improved" in the definition of MIC or not. The MIC estimates for EQ5D were lower. The credibility of the estimates was moderate. For responsiveness, five out of six hypotheses were confirmed and AUC was >0.7 for all PROMs.

CONCLUSION

When evaluated in a clinical trial of patients with chronic LBP and Modic changes, MIC thresholds for all PROMs were on the lower spectrum of previous estimates, varying depending on the definition of MIC. Responsiveness was sufficient.

Outcomes of Management of Recurrent Dupuytren Contracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With numerous treatment modalities available, it is unclear whether the treatment of recurrent Dupuytren disease is as effective as its initial treatment. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of management of recurrent Dupuytren contracture.

METHODS

Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from their inception to April 2020. Studies of patients aged above 18 years undergoing treatment for recurrent Dupuytren contractures were included. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool was used for quality assessment. The study was registered with Open Science Foundation.

RESULTS

A systematic review identified 12 studies: 311 patients with 224 affected digits-index (n = 5; 2.2%), long (n = 17; 7.6%), ring (n = 57; 25.4%), small (n = 112; 50%), and unspecified (n = 33; 14.7%); of these, there were 76 metacarpophalangeal joints (MCPJ; 45.5%), 90 proximal phalangeal joints (PIPJ; 53.9%), and 1 distal interphalangeal joint (0.6%). Previous treatment included the following: percutaneous needle aponeurotomy (n = 103 of 311 patients; 33.1%), collagenase clostridium histolyticum-injection (CCH; n = 75 of 311; 24.1%), limited fasciectomy (LF) ± skin graft (n = 83 of 311; 26.7%), fasciotomy (n = 1 of 311; 0.3%), and unspecified (n = 64 of 311; 20.6%). Recurrence was treated by percutaneous needle aponeurotomy (n = 68 of 311 patients; 21.9%); CCH injection (n = 53 of 311; 17.0%); aponeurotomy or dermofasciectomy or LF (n = 176 of 311; 56.6%); ray/digit amputation (n = 8 of 311; 2.6%); and PIPJ arthrodesis (n = 6 of 293; 2.0%). Range of motion was improved by 23.31° (95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.13°-33.50°; I2 = 67%; P = .05) and 15.49° (95% CI = 2.67°-28.31°; I2 = 76%; P = .01) for MCPJ and PIPJ, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low level of evidence that both surgical and nonsurgical treatments provide clinically important improvements for recurrent Dupuytren contracture.

Philosophies of Surgical Care Are Embedded in Outcome Studies: An Illustrative Reanalysis of the Cartiva MOTION Trial

BACKGROUND

Subjective assumptions on the definition of surgical success are inherent to the design of clinical trials with a categorial outcome. The current study used reasonable alternative assumptions about surgical care to reassess data for the randomized controlled Cartiva trial (MOTION).

METHODS

Data from the published study were augmented by publicly accessible internal US Food and Drug Administration documents. As in the published report, 1-sided lower bound 95% CIs (LBCI95) for the difference of proportions were calculated for a series of alternative scenarios in which the assumptions underlying what constitutes surgical success were altered.

RESULTS

Using a noninferiority margin of -15%, the MOTION trial reported success based on a 1-sided LBCI95 of -10.9%. Each of the 3 independent alternative scenarios analyzed yielded results that altered the primary outcome of the trial: (1) eliminating failures based solely upon radiographs findings, thereby considering a painless pseudarthrosis as a success (1-sided LBCI95 of -15.9%), (2) considering only major surgical revision as a failure and discounting isolated hardware removal (1-sided LBCI95 of -15.1%), and (3) using a visual analog scale (VAS) pain threshold of &lt;30 as the success criterion rather than a 30% reduction in VAS pain score (1-sided LBCI95 of -15.8%).

CONCLUSION

In this reanalysis, applying any of 3 reasonable alternative assumptions about the definition of surgical success to the data resulted in failure to prove noninferiority of Cartiva over arthrodesis, a reversal of the reported trial result. These results highlight the effect of subjective assumptions in the design of clinical trials with a categorical outcome and illustrate how differing philosophies about what constitutes surgical success can be pivotal in determining the final result.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Periosteal block versus intravenous regional anesthesia for reduction of distal radius fractures: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

We compare periosteal block and intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) as anesthetic techniques for reduction of distal radius fractures when performed by emergency department (ED) clinicians following brief training.

METHODS

This was a single-center, nonblinded randomized controlled trial of a convenience sample of patients presenting with distal radius fractures requiring closed reduction. Primary outcome measure was patient reported fracture reduction pain score, rated on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included adjunct pain medication use, ED length of stay, remanipulation rates, participant satisfaction, clinician assessed efficacy, and clinician-assessed ease of the procedure.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were randomized to receive IVRA (n = 41) or periosteal block (N = 40). Reduction pain scores were not normally distributed. Median (25th-75th percentile) pain scores in participants assigned to IVRA and periosteal block were 5 (1-27.5) and 26 (8.5-63) mm, respectively, (p = 0.007). Use of adjunct medications during reduction was higher for the periosteal block group compared with IVRA (57.5% vs. 22.5%, p = 0.003). Remanipulation rates were 17.5% for periosteal block versus 7.5% for IVRA (p = 0.31). There was no difference in length of stay, patient satisfaction, or clinician's assessed ease of the anesthetic technique. There was a difference in clinician's assessment of efficacy between groups, with IVRA described as "extremely effective" by 65% and periosteal block described as "extremely effective" by 25% (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

When performed by a diverse group of ED clinicians periosteal block provided inferior analgesia to IVRA but may provide an alternative when IVRA cannot be performed.