Effect of pregabalin and dexamethasone addition to multimodal analgesia on postoperative analgesia following rhinoplasty surgery

Opioid-Sparing Pain Control after Rhinoplasty: Updated Review of the Literature

Rhinoplasty is one of the most performed elective surgeries, and given the opioid crisis, increasing research and studies are focused on successful pain control with multimodality opioid-sparing techniques, such as acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and gabapentin. Although limiting overuse of opioids is critical, this cannot be at the expense of inadequate pain control, particularly as insufficient pain control can be correlated with patient dissatisfaction and the postoperative experience in elective surgery. There is likely significant opioid overprescription, as patients often report taking less than 50% of their prescribed opioids. Furthermore, excess opioids provide opportunities for misuse and opioid diversion if not disposed of properly. To optimize postoperative pain control and minimize opioid requirements, interventions must occur at the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative time points. Preoperative counseling is imperative to set expectations for pain and to screen for predisposing factors for opioid misuse. Intraoperatively, use of local nerve blocks and long-acting analgesia in conjunction with modified surgical techniques can lead to prolonged pain control. Postoperatively, pain should be managed with a multimodal approach, incorporating acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and potentially gabapentin with opioids reserved for rescue analgesia. Rhinoplasty represents a category of short-stay, low/medium pain, and elective procedures highly susceptible to overprescription and consequently, are readily amenable to opioid minimization through standardized perioperative interventions. Recent literature on regimens and interventions to help limit opioids after rhinoplasty are reviewed and discussed here.

The analgesic efficacy of pregabalin versus placebo for septorhinoplasty: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The analgesic efficacy of pregabalin supplementation for septorhinoplasty remains elusive. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare pregabalin supplementation with placebo for the postoperative pain control of septorhinoplasty.

METHODS

We systematically searched several databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, EBSCO and Cochrane library databases, and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effect of pregabalin supplementation versus placebo for pain control after septorhinoplasty. This meta-analysis was conducted by fixed or random-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. In comparison with control group for septorhinoplasty, pregabalin supplementation was associated with significantly decreased pain scores at 1 h (standard mean difference [SMD] = -1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.43 to -0.47; P = .004), pain scores at 2 hours (SMD = -1.01; 95% CI = -1.83 to -0.20; P = .02), pain scores at 6 hours (SMD = -1.00; 95% CI = -1.47 to -0.54; P < .0001), number of rescue analgesics (odd ratio [OR] = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.08-0.39; P < .0001) and analgesic consumption (SMD = -2.78; 95% CI = -5.05 to -0.51; P = .02), but unraveled no obvious impact on the incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.24-1.27; P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin supplementation was effective to improve pain relief after septorhinoplasty.

The Efficacy of Gabapentin + Dexamethasone for Postoperative Analgesia Following Septoplasty: A Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

AIMS

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of gabapentin, dexamethasone, and gabapentin + dexamethasone for pain control after septoplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized trial included 120 patients that underwent septoplasty and were randomly divided into 4 groups: group G (preoperative gabapentin 600 mg p.o.); group D (intraoperative dexamethasone 8 mg i.v.); group GD (preoperative gabapentin 600 mg p.o. + intraoperative dexamethasone 8 mg i.v.); group C (placebo control).

RESULTS

The median VAS score was significantly lower in groups G and GD at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours postsurgery than in group C (P < .008 for all). The median VAS score was significantly lower in group D than in group C at 1, 2, and 4 hours postsurgery (P < .008 for all). There weren't any significant differences in the VAS score between groups D, G, and GD at any time point. Groups G, D, and GD had a significantly lower frequency of rescue analgesic use than group C; however, there were no differences between groups G, GD, and C (P < .001 and P = .108, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Gabapentin, dexamethasone, and gabapentin + dexamethasone are equally more effective analgesics during the first 4 hours postsurgery than placebo. The addition of dexamethasone to gabapentin does not provide extra analgesia. Both gabapentin and gabapentin + dexamethasone have a more prolonged analgesic effect than dexamethasone alone.

Pregabalin supplementation for the pain relief of septorhinoplasty: a meta-analysis study

BACKGROUND

Pregabalin supplementation may have some potential in improving pain relief in patients with septorhinoplasty, and this meta-analysis aims to explore the impact of pregabalin supplementation on pain control for septorhinoplasty.

METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO and Cochrane library databases were systematically searched, and we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of pregabalin supplementation on pain control for septorhinoplasty.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were finally included in the meta-analysis. Overall, when compared with control intervention for septorhinoplasty, pregabalin intervention showed significantly reduced pain scores at 1 h (SMD - 1.05; 95% CI - 1.85 to - 0.24; P = 0.01), 2 h (SMD - 1.01; 95% CI - 1.83 to - 0.20; P = 0.02), 6 h (SMD - 1.00; 95% CI - 1.47 to - 0.54; P < 0.0001) and 12 h (SMD - 0.69; 95% CI - 1.35 to - 0.02; P = 0.04), as well as rescue analgesics (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.44; P = 0.0002), but had no notable influence on nausea and vomiting (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.30 to 1.46; P = 0.31), or drowsiness (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.35; P = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregabalin supplementation benefits to pain control after septorhinoplasty.

Effect of multimodal analgesia on perioperative insulin resistance in patients with colon cancer

Background

High risk of post-surgery complications have always been related with uncontrolled blood glucose, while the relationship between blood glucose and analgesia has not been compared on radical resection of colon cancer. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of multimodal analgesia on perioperative insulin resistance in patients undergoing radical resection of colon cancer.

Methods

Sixty patients with colon cancer scheduled for radical resection surgery were equally divided into two groups randomly, the control group (TAP group) received general anesthesia and the transversus abdominis plane block analgesia, and the experimental group (GEA group) received extra epidural anesthesia. The analgesic efficacy was evaluated with visual analog scale (VAS). Insulin resistance indicators like fasting plasma glucose (FPG), resistin (RESIS), fasting insulin (FINS), homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) levels, and inflammation indicator interleukin-6 (IL-6) were evaluated during the surgery.

Results

IL-6 increase was significant in the TAP group than that in GEA group (P < 0.01). The insulin resistance increased significantly in TAP group than that in GEA group including HOMA (P < 0.05) and FPG (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in RESIS levels and VAS scores in the two groups.

Conclusion

Epidural anesthesia leads to less inflammation in radical resection of colon cancer and the insulin level and insulin resistance increased after the surgeries based on FINS and HOMA..

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: rhinosinusitis 2021

I.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document.

METHODS

ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary.

RESULTS

ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided.

CONCLUSION

This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

No Opioids after Septorhinoplasty: A Multimodal Analgesic Protocol

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

From a public health perspective, nasal surgery accounts for many unused opioids. Patients undergoing septorhinoplasty require few opioids, and efforts to eliminate this need may benefit both patients and the public.

Methods:

A multimodal analgesic protocol consisting of 15 components encompassing all phases of care was implemented for 42 patients.

Results:

Median age and BMI were 34 years and 23, respectively. Most were women (79%), White (79%), primary surgeries (62%), and self-pay (52%). Comorbid conditions were present in 74% of the patients, with anxiety (33%) and depression (21%) being the most common. Septoplasties (67%) and osteotomies (45%) were common. The median operative time was 70 minutes. No patients required opioids in recovery, and median time in recovery was 63 minutes. Ten (24%) patients required an opioid prescription after discharge. In those patients, median time to requirement was 27 hours (range 3–81), and median total requirement was 20 mg morphine equivalents (range 7.5–85). Protocol compliance inversely correlated to opioid use (P = 0.007). Compliance with local and regional anesthetic (20% versus 63%, P = 0.030) as well as ketorolac (70% versus 100%, P = 0.011) was lower in patients who required opioids. Patients who required opioids were less likely to be administered a beta blocker (0% versus 34%, P = 0.041). Pain scores were higher in opioid users on postoperative days 1–5 (P < 0.05). No complications occurred in those requiring opioids, and satisfaction rates were equivalent between groups.

Conclusion:

This protocol allowed us to safely omit opioid prescriptions in 76% of patients following septorhinoplasty, without adverse effects on outcomes or patient satisfaction.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

A Single Preoperative Administration of Dexamethasone, Low-dose Pregabalin, or a Combination of the 2, in Spinal Surgery, Does Not Provide a Better Analgesia Than a Multimodal Analgesic Protocol Alone

OBJECTIVES

A single perioperative dose of glucocorticoid or gabapentinoid, or a combination of the 2, may improve postoperative analgesia, but data are still insufficient to be conclusive. In this single-center, randomized, double-blind, and double-dummy trial, we aimed to test whether the analgesic effect of adding preoperative pregabalin, at a dose unlikely to induce side effects, to preoperative dexamethasone improves early mobilization after spinal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 160 patients undergoing scheduled lumbar disk surgery (145 analyzed) comprised the study cohort. The patients received either 0.2 mg/kg intravenous dexamethasone before incision, or 150 mg oral pregabalin 1 hour before surgery, or a combination of the 2, or none of the above (control). Analgesia was supplemented by acetaminophen and ketoprofen, plus oxycodone ad libitum. The primary outcome was pain intensity during the first attempt to sit up, assessed the morning of the first postoperative day on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale. Pain at rest and when standing up, opioid consumption, and tolerance were also assessed.

RESULTS

None of the treatments tested differed from the control group in terms of efficacy or tolerance, even 6 months after surgery. The overall quality of analgesia was good, with only 10% and 30% of pain scores exceeding 3/10 for pain at rest and during movement, respectively.

DISCUSSION

In this surgical model with the given anesthetic and analgesic environment, there was no advantage gained by adding low-dose pregabalin or dexamethasone. The multimodal analgesic protocol applied to all patients may have reduced the size of the effect.

The effect of a single 75 mg preoperative dose of pregabalin on postoperative pain in rhinoplasty: A double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of a single preoperative dose of 75 mg of pregabalin on postoperative pain in rhinoplasty. Volunteers with a physical status of ASA I were included in our study after informed written consent. This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial. All pregabalin and placebo capsules were given to patients orally 1 h prior to surgery. A standard open rhinoplasty procedure was performed on all patients. All patients underwent the same general anesthesia and postoperative analgesic protocol, with the only difference between the two studied groups being the use of a single dose of pregabalin prior to surgery. Finally, pain intensity was measured at 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery, using a horizontal visual analogue scale (VAS), and was analyzed statistically. 128 volunteers - 33 men (25.8%) and 95 women (74.2%) - with a mean age of 26.23 ± 7.16 were included in this study. Pain intensity scores were consistently lower in patients who received pregabalin preoperatively (p = 0.002); however, the incidence of nausea, drowsiness, difficulty in concentrating, dry mouth, and constipation showed no differences between the two study groups (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the administration of pregabalin should be added to the perioperative protocol whenever appropriate.

Nonopioid Adjuncts and Alternatives

Multimodality nonopioid analgesia can be effective for pain control. Balancing risks and benefits of treatment should guide the appropriateness of opioid versus nonopioid pain control.

Reporting Outcomes and Outcome Measures in Open Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Comparative studies have shown little statistical difference in outcomes following rhinoplasty, demonstrating near equivalent results across all surgical techniques. Cross-study comparisons of these trials are difficult because variation in outcome reporting prevents statistical pooling and analysis.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to identify all outcomes and outcome measures used to evaluate postoperative results in rhinoplasty.

METHODS

An extensive computerized database search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed; all trials involving n ≥ 20 patients, aged 18 years and older undergoing a primary, open rhinoplasty procedure, were included for review.

RESULTS

Of the 3235 citations initially screened, 72 studies met the stated inclusion criteria. A total of 53 unique outcomes and 55 postoperative outcome measures were identified. Outcomes were divided into 6 unique domains: objective signs, subjective symptom severity, physical function related to activities of daily living, patient satisfaction, surgeon satisfaction, and quality of life. The identified outcome measures consisted of 5 nasal-specific, author-reported instruments; 5 nasal specific, patient-reported instruments; 5 patient-reported, generic instruments; and 40 author-generated instruments. Of the outcome measures identified, the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation, Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22, and FACE-Q were the only instruments to demonstrate adequate validity, reliability, and responsiveness to change in patients who underwent a rhinoplasty procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

There is heterogeneity in the outcomes and outcome measures employed to assess postsurgical outcomes following rhinoplasty. A standardized core outcome set is urgently needed to make it possible for future investigators to compare results of various techniques in rhinoplasty surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Low-dose preoperative pregabalin improves postoperative pain management in septorhinoplasty surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of single low dose (75 mg) preoperative pregabalin in reducing post-operative pain of septorhinoplasty.

METHODS

A double blind single center Randomized controlled trial based on block randomization. In the pregabalin group (PG) 34 participants received 75 mg pregabalin orally one hour before anesthesia induction while in control group (CG) 34 participants received a placebo. Pain and sedation were repeatedly measured with Visual Analouge Scale (VAS) and Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (RSAS) respectively, 0.5, 1, 2, 6, 24 hours postextubation. Cumulative doses of fentanyl and ibuprofen received in both groups were compared.

RESULTS

Thirty-two of the participants in PG and 33 of the participants in CG completed the study. The Mean VAS pain score was less in PG versus CG 30 min postoperatively (2.30 ± 1.30 vs. 4.85 ± 1.17), one hour (2.28 ± 0.92 vs. 4.27 ± 0.78), two hours (2.11 ± 0.88 vs. 3.60 ± 0.61) and six hours (1.47 0.62 vs. 2.76 ± 0.91) but not 24-hours postoperatively (0.84 ± 0.62 vs. 1.09 ± 0.92). Participants in the PG were less agitated during early post-extubation period (at 10 min: RSAS 3.93 ± 0.43 vs. 4.42 ± 0.50) and more alert during the first hour post-extubation (at 60 min: RSAS 3.90 ± 0.29 vs. 3.36 ± 0.69). The total dose of rescue fentanyl and ibuprofen was lower in the PG compared to the CG.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of 75 mg pregabalin is very effective for pain control after septorhinoplasty procedure when administered one hour before anesthesia induction. Side effects are rare and opioid sparing was noted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial number: IRCT2017043033706N1.

Perioperative Analgesia for Patients Undergoing Septoplasty and Rhinoplasty: An Evidence-Based Review

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Opioid misuse and diversion is a pressing topic in today's healthcare environment. The objective of this study was to conduct a review of non-opioid perioperative analgesic regimens following septoplasty, rhinoplasty, and septorhinoplasty.

STUDY DESIGN

Evidence-based systematic review.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were reviewed for articles related to perioperative analgesic use in septoplasty, rhinoplasty, and septorhinoplasty. Quality of studies were assessed via the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria, Jadad scores, and the Cochrane bias tool. Patient demographic data and clinical outcomes, including medication type, dose, administration time, pain scores, and adverse events, were obtained from included studies. Summary tables detailing the benefits and harms of each investigated regimen are included.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies met inclusion criteria for this evidence-based review. The quality of the studies was determined to be of moderate quality based off of GRADE standardized criteria with a mean Jadad score of 3.1. A preponderance of evidence showed reduced perioperative pain scores and rescue analgesic requirements, supporting the use of local anesthetics for analgesic control. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) demonstrated similar decreased visual analog scores and postoperative analgesic demand; however, increased adverse events in this class warrant caution.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary literature supports the use of NSAIDs, gabapentin, local anesthetics, and α-agonists as effective perioperative analgesic opioid alternatives for septoplasty and septorhinoplasty. Local anesthetic use is a cost-effective option resulting in decreased postoperative pain scores and rescue analgesic requirements. Further large-scale, multi-institutional, controlled studies are needed to provide definitive recommendations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 129:E200-E212, 2019.

Effects of a single dose of preoperative pregabalin and gabapentin for acute postoperative pain: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Pregabalin (PGB) and gabapentin (GBP) are current and emerging drugs in the field of pre-emptive preoperative analgesia. However, the role of PGB or GBP in acute postoperative pain management still remains elusive.

Materials and methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of articles published by December 3, 2017. A total of 79 randomized controlled trials with 6,201 patients receiving single-dose premedication were included. Through a network meta-analysis (NMA), we validated the analgesic effect and incidence of adverse events by using various doses of PGB or GBP administration.

Results

NMA results suggested that the analgesic effect may be dose related. For 24-hour opioid consumption, a consistent decrease was found with the increase in the dose of PGB or GBP. For 24-hour pain score at rest, a high dose (≥150 mg) of PGB was more effective in decreasing pain score than a dose of 75 mg, and a high dose (≥900 mg) of GBP reduced pain intensity than doses of 300 or 600 mg. Moreover, the incidence of adverse reactions varied with varying doses of PGB or GBP.

Conclusion

A dose-response relationship was detected in opioid consumption and postoperative pain for a single-dose preoperative administration of PGB and GBP. Making reasonable choice of drugs and dosage may prevent the occurrence of adverse reactions.

A Narrative Review of the Evidence on the Efficacy of Dexamethasone on Postoperative Analgesic Consumption

OBJECTIVES

The effect of dexamethasone on analgesic consumption has not been adequately studied. The aim of this review was to investigate recent literature regarding the possible effect of dexamethasone on postoperative analgesic consumption.

METHODS

Critical review of randomized trials and prospective consecutive studies investigating the postoperative analgesic effect of dexamethasone was performed. Only studies published during 2006 to 2015 were included.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies met the inclusion criteria; 33 in adults and 8 in children (9 in general surgery, 8 in gynecologic/breast surgery, 8 in orthopedic/spinal surgery, 8 in head/neck surgery, 7 in children's tonsillectomy, and 1 in children's orchiopexy). Literature review demonstrated that dexamethasone can decrease analgesic requirements in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomies, laparoscopic gynecologic and breast surgery; whereas there is no consensus regarding orthopedic procedures, with positive evidence mostly regarding spinal surgeries. The efficacy of dexamethasone during head and neck surgery is not conclusive; however, its use before thyroid surgery may be beneficial. In children a beneficial impact of dexamethasone administration was revealed on posttonsillectomy reduction of analgesic needs. Studies on other kinds of operations in children are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone administered at a dose of 8 mg before surgical incision may be beneficial in laparoscopic cholecystectomies, thyroid, laparoscopic gynecologic and breast surgery, and tonsillectomies in children. Dexamethasone's potential impact on reducing postoperative analgesic requirements should be investigated in more detail in a systematic manner, to support its use in other kinds of operations.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Improving Nasal Form and Function after Rhinoplasty

Objective Rhinoplasty, a surgical procedure that alters the shape or appearance of the nose while preserving or enhancing the nasal airway, ranks among the most commonly performed cosmetic procedures in the United States, with >200,000 procedures reported in 2014. While it is difficult to calculate the exact economic burden incurred by rhinoplasty patients following surgery with or without complications, the average rhinoplasty procedure typically exceeds $4000. The costs incurred due to complications, infections, or revision surgery may include the cost of long-term antibiotics, hospitalization, or lost revenue from hours/days of missed work. The resultant psychological impact of rhinoplasty can also be significant. Furthermore, the health care burden from psychological pressures of nasal deformities/aesthetic shortcomings, surgical infections, surgical pain, side effects from antibiotics, and nasal packing materials must also be considered for these patients. Prior to this guideline, limited literature existed on standard care considerations for pre- and postsurgical management and for standard surgical practice to ensure optimal outcomes for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. The impetus for this guideline is to utilize current evidence-based medicine practices and data to build unanimity regarding the peri- and postoperative strategies to maximize patient safety and to optimize surgical results for patients. Purpose The primary purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians who either perform rhinoplasty or are involved in the care of a rhinoplasty candidate, as well as to optimize patient care, promote effective diagnosis and therapy, and reduce harmful or unnecessary variations in care. The target audience is any clinician or individual, in any setting, involved in the management of these patients. The target patient population is all patients aged ≥15 years. The guideline is intended to focus on knowledge gaps, practice variations, and clinical concerns associated with this surgical procedure; it is not intended to be a comprehensive reference for improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Recommendations in this guideline concerning education and counseling to the patient are also intended to include the caregiver if the patient is <18 years of age. Action Statements The Guideline Development Group made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should ask all patients seeking rhinoplasty about their motivations for surgery and their expectations for outcomes, should provide feedback on whether those expectations are a realistic goal of surgery, and should document this discussion in the medical record. (2) Clinicians should assess rhinoplasty candidates for comorbid conditions that could modify or contraindicate surgery, including obstructive sleep apnea, body dysmorphic disorder, bleeding disorders, or chronic use of topical vasoconstrictive intranasal drugs. (3) The surgeon, or the surgeon's designee, should evaluate the rhinoplasty candidate for nasal airway obstruction during the preoperative assessment. (4) The surgeon, or the surgeon's designee, should educate rhinoplasty candidates regarding what to expect after surgery, how surgery might affect the ability to breathe through the nose, potential complications of surgery, and the possible need for future nasal surgery. (5) The clinician, or the clinician's designee, should counsel rhinoplasty candidates with documented obstructive sleep apnea about the impact of surgery on nasal airway obstruction and how obstructive sleep apnea might affect perioperative management. (6) The surgeon, or the surgeon's designee, should educate rhinoplasty patients before surgery about strategies to manage discomfort after surgery. (7) Clinicians should document patients' satisfaction with their nasal appearance and with their nasal function at a minimum of 12 months after rhinoplasty. The Guideline Development Group made recommendations against certain actions: (1) When a surgeon, or the surgeon's designee, chooses to administer perioperative antibiotics for rhinoplasty, he or she should not routinely prescribe antibiotic therapy for a duration >24 hours after surgery. (2) Surgeons should not routinely place packing in the nasal cavity of rhinoplasty patients (with or without septoplasty) at the conclusion of surgery. The panel group made the following statement an option: (1) The surgeon, or the surgeon's designee, may administer perioperative systemic steroids to the rhinoplasty patient.

The Effect of Preoperative Pregabalin on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nonopioid adjuvant medications are increasingly included among perioperative Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols. Preoperative pregabalin has been shown to improve postoperative pain and limit reliance on opioid analgesia. Our group investigated the ability of preoperative pregabalin to also prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Our group performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials that report outcomes on the effect of preoperative pregabalin on PONV endpoints in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

RESULTS

Among all included trials (23 trials; n = 1693), preoperative pregabalin was associated with a significant reduction in PONV (risk ratio [RR] = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.73; P = 0.0001), nausea (RR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.46-0.83; P = 0.002), and vomiting (RR = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P = 0.003) at 24 hours. Subgroup analysis designed to account for major PONV confounders, including the exclusion trials with repeat dosing, thiopental induction, nitrous oxide maintenance, and prophylactic antiemetics and including high-risk surgery, resulted in similar antiemetic efficacy. Preoperative pregabalin is also associated with significantly increased rates of postoperative visual disturbance (RR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.34-7.21; P = 0.008) compared with a control.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative pregabalin is associated with significant reduction of PONV and should not only be considered as part of a multimodal approach to postoperative analgesia but also for prevention of PONV.

Pharmacological advances in the multimodal management of perioperative analgesia

The concept of multimodal analgesia is currently widespread in our clinical practice. The aim of multimodal analgesia is to reduce the side effects derived from the drugs or techniques used for the control of pain together with greater effectiveness (combination of multiple mechanisms of action) with the maximum efficiency, that is, to combine different pharmacodynamics (synergistic or additive effects) and pharmacokinetics, in the context of a predictable acute pain model, thus allowing a prior strategy such as the model of acute postoperative pain. Pain is a complex physiological phenomenon. Postoperative pain involves multiple pathways including nociceptive, inflammatory, and neuropathic sources. In the transmission of pain therefore, different molecules participate, which means that there are multiple pharmacological targets on which to act, and therefore a wide range of drugs to be used following the physiology of pain.

A comparison of piezosurgery with conventional techniques for internal osteotomy

To compare conventional osteotomy with the piezosurgery medical device, in terms of postoperative edema, ecchymosis, pain, operation time, and mucosal integrity, in rhinoplasty patients. In this prospective study, 49 rhinoplasty patients were randomly divided into two groups according to osteotomy technique used, either conventional osteotomy or piezosurgery. For all patients, the total duration of the operation was recorded, and photographs were taken and scored for ecchymosis and edema on postoperative days 2, 4, and 7. In addition, pain level was evaluated on postoperative day 2, and mucosal integrity was assessed on day 4. All scoring and evaluation was conducted by a physician who was blinded to the osteotomy procedure. In the piezosurgery group, edema scores on postoperative day 2 and ecchymosis scores on postoperative days 2, 4, and 7 were significantly lower than in the conventional osteotomy group (p < 0.05). On postoperative day 2, the pain level was lower in the piezosurgery group than in the conventional osteotomy group (p < 0.05). In an endoscopic examination on postoperative day 4, while 24% of the patients in the conventional osteotomy group had mucosal damage, no such damage was observed in the piezosurgery group. When total operation duration was compared, there was no significant difference between the groups (p > 0.05). Piezosurgery is a safe osteotomy method, with less edema (in the early postoperative period) and ecchymosis compared with conventional osteotomy, as well as less pain, a similar operation duration, and no mucosal damage.

Efficacy of Pregabalin in Acute Postoperative Pain Under Different Surgical Categories: A Meta-Analysis

The efficacy of pregabalin in acute postsurgical pain has been demonstrated in numerous studies; however, the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of using pregabalin in various surgical procedures remain uncertain. We aim to assess the postsurgical analgesic efficacy and adverse events after pregabalin administration under different surgical categories using a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.A search of the literature was performed between August 2014 to April 2015, using PubMed, Ovid via EMBASE, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov with no limitation on publication year or language. Studies considered for inclusion were randomized controlled trials, reporting on relevant outcomes (2-, 24-hour pain scores, or 24 hour morphine-equivalent consumption) with treatment with perioperative pregabalin.Seventy-four studies were included. Pregabalin reduced pain scores at 2 hours in all categories: cardiothoracic (Hedge's g and 95%CI, -0.442 [-0.752 to -0.132], P = 0.005), ENT (Hedge g and 95%CI, -0.684 [-1.051 to -0.316], P < 0.0001), gynecologic (Hedge g, 95%CI, -0.792 [-1.235 to -0.350], P < 0.0001), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Hedge g, 95%CI, -0.600 [-0.989 to -0.210], P = 0.003), orthopedic (Hedge g, 95%CI, -0.507 [-0.812 to -0.202], P = 0.001), spine (Hedge g, 95%CI, -0.972 [-1.537 to -0.407], P = 0.001), and miscellaneous procedures (Hedge g, 95%CI, -1.976 [-2.654 to -1.297], P < 0.0001). Pregabalin reduced 24-hour morphine consumption in gynecologic (Hedge g, 95%CI, -1.085 [-1.582 to -0.441], P = 0.001), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (Hedge g, 95%CI, -0.886 [-1.652 to -0.120], P = 0.023), orthopedic (Hedge g, 95%CI, -0.720 [-1.118 to -0.323], P < 0.0001), spine (Hedge g, 95%CI, -1.016 [-1.732 to -0.300], P = 0.005), and miscellaneous procedures (Hedge g, 95%CI, -1.329 [-2.286 to -0.372], P = 0.006). Pregabalin resulted in significant sedation in all surgical categories except ENT, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and gynecologic procedures. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was only significant after pregabalin in miscellaneous procedures.Analgesic effects and incidence of adverse effects of using pregabalin are not equal in different surgical categories.

Effect of pregabalin and dexamethasone on postoperative analgesia after septoplasty

Objectives. The aim of this study was to explore effect of a combination of pregabalin and dexamethasone on pain control after septoplasty operations. Methods. In this study, 90 patients who were scheduled for septoplasty under general anesthesia were randomly assigned into groups that received either placebo (Group C), pregabalin (Group P), or pregabalin and dexamethasone (Group PD). Preoperatively, patients received either pregabalin 300 mg one hour before surgery, dexamethasone 8 mg intravenously during induction, or placebo according to their allocation. Postoperative pain treatment included tramadol and diclofenac sodium 30 minutes before the end of the operation. Numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain assessment, side effects, and consumption of tramadol, pethidine, and ondansetron were recorded. Results. The median NRS score at the postoperative 0 and the 2nd h was significantly higher in Group C than in Group P and Group PD (P ≤ 0.004 for both). The 24 h tramadol and pethidine, consumptions were significantly reduced in Groups P and PD compared to Group C (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). The incidence of blurred vision was significantly higher in Group PD compared to Group C within both 0–2 h and 0–24 h periods (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001, resp.). Conclusions. We conclude that administration of 300 mg pregabalin preoperatively may be an adequate choice for pain control after septoplasty. Addition of dexamethasone does not significantly reduce pain in these patients.