[Neostigmine added to bupivacaine in axillary plexus block: which benefit?]

Analgesia for Sheep in Commercial Production: Where to Next?

Simple Summary

Increasing societal and customer pressure to provide animals with ‘a life worth living’ continues to apply pressure on industry to alleviate pain associated with husbandry practices, injury and illness. Although a number of analgesic solutions are now available for sheep, providing some amelioration of the acute pain responses, this review has highlighted a number of potential areas for further research.

Abstract

Increasing societal and customer pressure to provide animals with ‘a life worth living’ continues to apply pressure on livestock production industries to alleviate pain associated with husbandry practices, injury and illness. Over the past 15–20 years, there has been considerable research effort to understand and develop mitigation strategies for painful husbandry procedures in sheep, leading to the successful launch of analgesic approaches specific to sheep in a number of countries. However, even with multi-modal approaches to analgesia, using both local anaesthetic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), pain is not obliterated, and the challenge of pain mitigation and phasing out of painful husbandry practices remains. It is timely to review and reflect on progress to date in order to strategically focus on the most important challenges, and the avenues which offer the greatest potential to be incorporated into industry practice in a process of continuous improvement. A structured, systematic literature search was carried out, incorporating peer-reviewed scientific literature in the period 2000–2019. An enormous volume of research is underway, testament to the fact that we have not solved the pain and analgesia challenge for any species, including our own. This review has highlighted a number of potential areas for further research.

WITHDRAWN: Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Comparative evaluation of different doses of intrathecal neostigmine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia

Objective:

To study the efficacy and safety of intrathecal neostigmine at dose of 50 μg and 150 μg as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia under spinal anesthesia.

Materials and Methods:

75 patients of either sex, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II in the age group of 30-65 years scheduled to undergo lower abdominal and lower limb surgeries were allocated randomly into 3 groups of 25 each. Spinal anesthesia was administered in Group I (control group) with 12.5 mg (2.5 ml) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, in Group II (50 μg group) with 12.5 mg (2.5 ml) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 50 μg (0.1 ml) of neostigmine methylsulphate and in Group III (150 μg group) with 12.5 mg (2.5 ml) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 150 μg (0.3 ml) of neostigmine methylsulphate. Hemodynamic parameters, onset and level of sensory block were recorded. Postoperative analgesic assessment was made in terms of total Visual Analogue Scale-Pain (VAS-P) scores in 24 hrs, duration of analgesia (time to requirement of first analgesic) and total number of rescue analgesic (diclofenac sodium 75 mg intramuscularly) consumption in 24 hours. Side effects were recorded.

Results:

The total VAS-P score in group I was 23.12 ± 3.21, which was higher than the VAS-P score in group II (18.4 ± 2.92) and group III (16.24 ± 1.85). The total duration of analgesia was significantly prolonged in neostigmine groups (224.40 ± 23.28 min in group I, 367.60 ± 42.15 min in group II and 625.60 ± 87.70 min in group III). In group I, the patients required 2.48 ± 0.51 number of analgesics in 24 hours, which was much higher than required in group II (1.92 ± 0.64) and group III (1.32 ± 0.47). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was more with 150 μg neostigmine group compared to 50 μg neostigmine.

Conclusions:

The administration of intrathecal neostigmine in dose of 50 μg as an adjuvant to bupivacaine produces hemodynamically stable analgesia with minimal side effects.

Additives to local anesthetics for peripheral nerve blocks or local anesthesia: a review of the literature

SUMMARY 

A multitude of studies have focused on individual additives to local anesthetics and their effect on quality, onset, duration, spread and selectivity, as well as the potential toxic effects of their use. This review aims to give a broad overview of the current evidence in this developing field, based on beneficial and adverse effects of these drugs. We discuss the limitations of the available data and hope to convey implications and future perspectives for clinicians and researchers alike.

Use of neostigmine in the management of acute postoperative pain and labour pain: a review

Neostigmine is a parasympathomimetic agent that has been recently investigated for use as an adjunct analgesic agent in the perioperative and peripartum period. A number of studies have investigated the intrathecal, epidural, caudal and intra-articular routes of administration of this agent, as well as the addition of neostigmine to local anaesthetics used for brachial plexus block and intravenous regional anaesthesia. While the intrathecal administration of neostigmine produced useful analgesic effects in the postoperative period in some studies, the high incidence of adverse events, mainly nausea and vomiting, limit the clinical usefulness of this route of administration. Several studies investigated the postoperative analgesic effects of epidural neostigmine using a number of different regimens. Overall, this route of administration appeared to improve postoperative analgesia in most studies without increasing the incidence of adverse events, and merits further research. Neuraxial administration of neostigmine appears to be safe in the obstetric population, with no reported adverse effects in the mother or fetus. While intrathecal administration is limited by a high incidence of nausea and vomiting in this patient population, the epidural route appears more promising and requires further investigation. The addition of neostigmine to caudal local anaesthetics was associated with improved postoperative analgesia in a number of studies. A dose of 2 microg/kg proved to be effective in several studies but was associated with an increased incidence of vomiting in some studies. Intra-articular administration of neostigmine 500microg produced a useful analgesic effect in the postoperative period in several studies and was not associated with an increase in the incidence of adverse effects. Studies investigating the efficacy of adding neostigmine to the local anaesthetics used for brachial plexus block and intravenous regional anaesthesia reported conflicting results. Further studies are required to determine the place of the administration of neostigmine by these routes.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Drugs can prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting, but their relative efficacies and side effects have not been compared within one systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by drugs and the development of any side effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2004), EMBASE (January 1985 to May 2004), CINAHL (1982 to May 2004), AMED (1985 to May 2004), SIGLE (to May 2004), ISI WOS (to May 2004), LILAC (to May 2004) and INGENTA bibliographies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared a drug with placebo or another drug, or compared doses or timing of administration, that reported postoperative nausea or vomiting as an outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted outcome data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 737 studies involving 103,237 people. Compared to placebo, eight drugs prevented postoperative nausea and vomiting: droperidol, metoclopramide, ondansetron, tropisetron, dolasetron, dexamethasone, cyclizine and granisetron. Publication bias makes evidence for differences among these drugs unreliable. The relative risks (RR) versus placebo varied between 0.60 and 0.80, depending upon the drug and outcome. Evidence for side effects was sparse: droperidol was sedative (RR 1.32) and headache was more common after ondansetron (RR 1.16).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Either nausea or vomiting is reported to affect, at most, 80 out of 100 people after surgery. If all 100 of these people are given one of the listed drugs, about 28 would benefit and 72 would not. Nausea and vomiting are usually less common and, therefore, drugs are less useful. For 100 people, of whom 30 would vomit or feel sick after surgery if given placebo, 10 people would benefit from a drug and 90 would not. Between one to five patients out of every 100 people may experience a mild side effect, such as sedation or headache, when given an antiemetic drug. Collaborative research should focus on determining whether antiemetic drugs cause more severe, probably rare, side effects. Further comparison of the antiemetic effect of one drug versus another is not a research priority.

Role of Analgesic Adjuncts in Postoperative Pain Management

Postoperative pain remains a major problem. A multi-modal analgesic approach is recommended to optimize pain management and reduce opiate-related adverse effects. Several analgesic adjuncts have been investigated, and many have proved to have a useful analgesic effect. This article reviews the literature regarding use of analgesic adjuncts in the perioperative period.