Comparison of Three Analgesic Regimens for Pain Control during Shockwave Lithotripsy Using Dornier Delta Compact Lithotripter: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Erector spinae plane block prior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy decreases fluoroscopy time and promise a comfortable procedure for renal stones: A prospective randomized study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) and intramuscular (i.m.) diclofenac sodium in regard to pain management and impact on stone-free status in patients undergoing SWL.

PATIENTS AND MATERIALS

The study included patients who underwent SWL for kidney stones in our institution. The patients were randomly assigned to the ESPB (Group 1: n = 31) and i.m. 75 mg diclofenac sodium (Group 2: n = 30) groups. The demographic data of the patients, fluoroscopy time during SWL, number of need of targeting, total shocks given, voltage, stone free rates (SFR), analgesy method, number of SWL sessions, VAS score, stone location, maximum stone size, stone volume and Hounsfield unit (HU) were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 61 patients were included the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups according to stone size, volume and density, SWL duration, total shocks given, voltage, BMI, stone-free status and stone location. Fluoroscopy time and number of need for stone targeting were significantly lower in group 1 than group 2 (p = 0.002, p = 0.021, respectively). The VAS score was significantly lower for group 1 compared to group 2 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that the VAS score was lower in the ESPB group compared to i.m. diclofenac sodium group and although it was not statistically significant, we achieved a higher rate of stone-free status in the first session in ESPB group. Most importantly, the patients in the ESPB group were exposed to less fluoroscopy and radiation.

Virtual reality for pain control during shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized controlled study

PURPOSE

Although external shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is an outpatient procedure generally not requiring anesthesia or sedation, patients may experience pain during the procedure. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a virtual reality device is effective in reducing patient-reported pain during the procedure, consequently leading to exposure to higher energy levels and better clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria for SWL were according to the latest EAU guidelines on urolithiasis. Patients were randomized 1:1 in two groups (SWL with VR and SWL without VR). The primary outcome of this randomized, controlled study (RCT) was an overall difference in pain levels determined by VAS-scores. Secondary outcomes were differences in comfort levels, determined by Likert-scale scores, clinical success and total delivered energy.

RESULTS

Between January 2019 and September 2021, we enrolled 166 patients; 84 were randomized to the control arm and 82 to the VR arm. Patients without VR experienced significantly more pain compared to the VR group (mean VAS-score = 4.94 vs 4.01; p = 0.011). The mean total delivered energy was significantly higher in the VR group compared to the control group (55.2 J vs. 48.8 J; p = 0'037). No significant differences in comfort levels and clinical success were found.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the use of VR as a method of pain relief during shock wave lithotripsy. Higher energy levels can be achieved during the treatment while comfort levels remained equal; this however did not lead to improved clinical success.

REGISTRATION NUMBER AND NAME OF TRIAL REGISTRY

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05183269. Virtual reality for pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: prospective, comparative, randomized study at a single institution. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05183269?term=shock+wave+lithotripsy&cond=virtual+reality&cntry=BE&draw=2&rank=1 .

Effect of media distraction (audio-visual and music) for pain and anxiety control in patients undergoing shock-wave lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Audio-visual (AV) or music distraction may be used to reduce pain during several healthcare procedures. The present manuscript is a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of media distraction in reducing pain and anxiety in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) patients. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, BioMed Central, Ovoid and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases were screened for studies assessing the role of media distraction (music/AV media) in reducing pain and anxiety of ESWL patients. Data were summarized using the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 11 randomized controlled trials were included. Pooled analysis indicated a statistically significant difference in pain outcomes with media distraction [mean difference (MD): -1.18; 95% CI: -2.35, -0.01; I²=96.8%)]. Subgroup analysis indicated that both AV media (MD: -2.94; 95% CI: -4.70, -1.17; I²=79.2%) and music (MD: -0.86; 95% CI: -1.37, -0.35; I²=62.5%), led to significant reduction in pain outcomes. Pooled analysis indicated a statistically significant reduction of anxiety scores with the use of media distraction (MD: -3.91; 95% CI: -6.44, -1.38; I²=77.7%). To conclude, the present review suggests that media distraction in the form of AV media or music may be beneficial in reducing the pain and anxiety of patients undergoing ESWL. Evidence is, however, weak considering the small effect size, confidence intervals being close to zero, and instability of the results on sensitivity analysis. In clinical practice, media distraction may be used during ESWL as a nursing intervention, but a clinically important reduction of pain and anxiety may not be expected.

Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics for pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore the effect of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) on pain reduction during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases (updated March 2020) were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of EMLA for patients that underwent ESWL. The search strategy and study selection process were managed according to the PRISMA statement. Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the results indicated that EMLA significantly reduced pain compared to the control group (RR = -2.98, 95% CI = -5.82 to -0.13, P = 0.04) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 57% (P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis showed that EMLA did not significantly reduce pain when the patients took an analgesic premedication (RR = -1.46, 95% CI = -5.89 to 2.98, P = 0.52) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 38% (P = 0.52). Conversely, studies without premedication showed a significant pain relief effect (RR = -4.08, 95% CI = -7.36 to -0.65, P = -0.80) with a heterogeneity of I2 = 48% (P = 0.14). Most studies showed there was no difference in the patient's need for analgesics. EMLA was effective for reducing pain during EWSL. However, this analgesic effect was limited and did not reduce the need for analgesics.

Efficacy of Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetics on Pain Control During Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The efficacy of a eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) for pain control in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of EMLA cream on pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Material/Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify relevant randomized controlled trials that compared the pain control efficacies of EMLA vs. placebo.

Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: Randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of EMLA with placebo cream for patients underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Two review authors extracted data independently using a designed data extraction form and risk of bias by Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.

Results

Nine studies, including 10 randomized controlled trials with 1167 patients, were eligible. The EMLA group experienced less pain (mean difference, −0.47; 95% confidence interval, −0.78 to −0.16; p=0.003) and shorter duration of lithotripsy (mean difference, −1.70, 95% confidence interval: −2.31 to −1.10, p<0.0001) than the placebo group. There were no significant differences in the number of patients who needed extra intravenous medication (p=0.610), number of patients with insufficient extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy pain control (p=0.530), and number of patients with opioid adverse effects (p=0.320). Limitations: Long interval between the studies, different kinds of lithotripters.

Conclusions

EMLA can reduce pain during the ESWL procedure.

[Evaluation of protocols on the use of analgesics for pain management in patients with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL)]

La douleur ressentie au cours d'une séance de lithotritie extracorporelle (LEC) est le facteur limitant le plus important de cette technique. Le but de notre travail était de comparer l'efficacité des différents types d'analgésiques utilisés pour le contrôle de la douleur pendant les séances de LEC. Nous avons mené une étude prospective colligeant 300 patients présentant une lithiase urinaire justifiant un traitement par LEC. Les patients ont été répartis de façon randomisée en trois groupes: le groupe I, incluant 100 patients ayant reçu 2cc de sérum physiologique en IM (intra musculaire) (placebo), le groupe II regroupant 100 patients ayant reçu 100mg de kétoprofène en IM tandis que le groupe III colligeant 100 patients ayant eu une application locale d'une crème contenant la lidocaïne et la prilocaïne. L'échelle visuelle analogique (EVA) a servi à évaluer la douleur à 10 minutes et à la fin de la séance. L'EVA moyenne à 10 minutes et à la fin de la LEC étaient respectivement de 3,7 et 4,91. Aucune différence significative n'a été trouvée entre les trois groupes concernant: les données épidémiologiques (âge, sexe, IMC, antécédents pathologies) et les caractéristiques du calcul (côté, taille, localisation, présence ou non de sonde double J). L'interruption précoce de la séance de LEC a été notée chez 11 patients du groupe I, avec une différence significative par rapport aux autres groupes (p=0,003). L'EVA à 10 minutes et à la fin de séance de LEC, était statistiquement plus élevée dans le groupe I par rapport aux groupes II et III (p < 0,001). Aussi, la LEC était nettement plus efficace dans les groupes (II et III) comparativement au groupe I (p<0,001). L'utilisation d'un traitement antalgique est nécessaire lors de la séance de lithotritie extracorporelle. Les deux molécules antalgiques évaluées ont montré un bon contrôle de la douleur ainsi qu'une augmentation de l'efficacité du traitement par lithotritie.

Comparison of Different Analgesia Drug Regimens for Pain Control During Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones: A Randomized Control Study

INTRODUCTION

With the increased use of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), the management of urolithiasis has become much convenient for the patients and the health care professionals alike. However, associated with the procedure is the common complaint of pain. No agreed upon pain management strategy has yet been developed for the procedure. We compared the effect of different analgesia drug regiments for pain control.

METHODOLOGY

A randomised controlled trial was carried out in Shifa International Hospital from between July 2015 to January 2016. A total of 135 patients were divided into three groups; group A received 30 g lidocaine 2% gel applied locally on corresponding lumber area 30 minutes before the procedure, group B received oral naproxen sodium 550 mg 45 minutes before the procedure, and group C received both oral naproxen and lidocaine gel. Patients were supplemented with intravenous nalbuphine during the procedure. The pain was assessed with 0-10 visual analogue scale. Both pre-procedure and post-procedure pain score was measured.

RESULTS

Among 135 patients, 105 (77.8%) were male and 29 (21.5%) were female with mean age of 38.7 ± 1.31 years. There was no difference of mean pain score or need for supplemental intravenous nalbuphine between groups B and C but there was significantly decreased mean pain score and need for supplemental intravenous nalbuphine in groups B and C in comparison with group A.

CONCLUSION

The use of oral naproxen sodium with or without the addition of lidocaine gel during ESWL is a promising option for pain management during the procedure with significant improvement in comparison with lidocaine gel alone.

[Pain evaluation during extracorporeal lithotropsy]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of extracorporeal lithotripsy using lithotripter Sortz MODULITH SLK(®) without analgesics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymous self-administered questionnaire was sent to 854 patients post-shock wave lithotripsy for urinary lithiasis. No patient had pain medication. The questionnaire included seven questions to assess the pain symptoms due to treatment. After 15 days, a reminder letter was sent.

RESULTS

The response rate was 69% (591/854). The extracorporeal lithotripsy without analgesic treatment was generally well tolerated. About 70% of patients felt just a few or no pain and average pain assessment was 3.6/10 on VAS. The pain was often considered to be multifactorial, related to the treatment itself, the duration of the session and the position on the table. Anxiety seemed to play an equally important role in pain relief with an average VAS 4.5 against 2.9 for non-anxious patients. If a new session of extracorporeal lithotripsy was necessary, 53% of patients would require no pain medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The extracorporeal lithotripsy could easily be done without systematic analgesics allowing for outpatient care. In contrast, anxiety seemed to be an important predictor of poor tolerance of sessions so the idea of a prophylactic anxiolytic treatment based on psychological profile of the patient should allow less aggressive and less costly management of urolithiasis.

Comparison of three different analgesic protocols during shockwave lithotripsy

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is one of the most important treatment modalities for urinary stone disease. The procedure may cause pain, and patient relaxation and cooperation are crucial in maintaining stone localization for optimal fragmentation and patient comfort during the procedure. As yet, there is not a standard analgesic protocol for patients undergoing SWL. We aimed to use three different analgesic agents and compare their efficacy during SWL in this study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Written informed consents were obtained from 95 patients with kidney stones, and they were randomized to receive lornoxicam (group L, n=32 patients), paracetamol (group P, n=31 patients), and tramadol with a patient-controlled analgesia device (group T, n=32 patients). All groups received patient-controlled analgesia with tramadol during the SWL procedure. The intensity of pain was evaluated with a visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 41.87 ± 16.53 years, 44.07 ± 11.48 years, and 41.24 ± 14.82 years in group L, group P, and group T, respectively. No significant differences were found between the three groups concerning patient age, stone location, or session duration (P>0.05). The mean VAS scores and analgesic consumption were lower in group L compared with other groups (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that additional administration of analgesics was decreased with intravenous lornoxicam in comparison with paracetamol and only tramadol.

Drugs for pain management in shock wave lithotripsy

Objective. With this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the main aspects and currently used drugs for analgesia in shockwave lithotripsy. Evidence Acquisition. We reviewed current literature, concentrating on newer articles and high-quality reviews in international journals. Results. No standardized protocols for pain control in SWL exist, although it is crucial for treatment outcome. General and spinal anaesthesia show excellent pain control but are only recommended for selected cases. The newer opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are able to deliver good analgesia. Interest in inhalation anaesthesia with nitrous oxide, local anaesthesia with deep infiltration of the tissue, and dermal anaesthesia with EMLA or DMSO has recently rekindled, showing good results in terms of pain control and a favourable side effect profile. Tamsulosin and paracetamol are further well-known drugs being currently investigated. Conclusion. Apart from classically used drugs like opioids and NSARs, medicaments like nitrous oxide, paracetamol, DMSA, or refined administration techniques for infiltration anaesthesia show a good effectiveness in pain control for SWL.

Analgesia for pain control during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Current status

Purpose of Review

A cooperative patient is essential in maintaining stone targeting for optimal fragmentation during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). Therefore, it is important to choose an appropriate analgesic with minimal adverse effects. The guidelines for pain management during ESWL have not been established.

Current Status

Various analgesic agents including opioids (morphine, pethidine, and fentanyl), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS - diclofenac, propofol, ketorolac, and piroxicam), local anesthetic agents and a number of combinations have been used during ESWL by various techniques (general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, subcutaneous and intravenous injections, patient-controlled analgesia, and monitored anesthesia care). Cutaneous creams like eutectic mixture of local anesthesia (EMLA) whether used alone or in combination with oral NSAIDS have also been used and are able to reduce analgesic requirements. Topical application of a combination of dimethyl sulfoxide and lidocaine has also been found to be effective.

Conclusion

The ideal analgesic, offering optimal pain control, minimal side effects, and cost-effectiveness is still elusive. Opioids administered using various techniques, provide effective analgesia, but require active monitoring of patient for potential adverse effects. Combination therapy (oral NSAID and occlusive dressing of EMLA, DMSO with lidocaine) offers an effective alternative mode for achieving analgesia with minimal morbidity. This therapy avoids the need for general anesthesia, injectable analgesics, and opioids along with their side effects.

Efficacy of local subcutaneous anesthesia versus intramuscular opioid sedation in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: a randomized study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of local subcutaneous (SC) anesthesia compared with intramuscular (IM) opioid sedation during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in a randomized study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After informed consent was obtained, 125 patients with urolithiasis who were scheduled for SWL were included in the study. The patients in each treatment session were randomized to receive either IM meperidine (group A) or SC infiltration of 10 mL 2% lidocaine and 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine at the area of shockwave entry (group B). Degree of pain was rated by the patient using a five-point visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

The study included 88 (70.4%) men and 37 (29.6%) women with a mean age of 47.6 ± 12.5 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 28.16 ± 4.67 kg/m2. Of the patients, 89, 26, and 10 received a single, two, or more than two treatment sessions, respectively (176 sessions). Maximum stone length was 10.68 ± 5.12 mm. Pretreatment stent placement was performed in 17 (13.6%) patients (28 sessions). Group A comprised 89 treatment sessions while 87 were involved in group B. Both groups were similar. Supplemental intrvenous sedation was needed in two (2.5%) and four (4.6%) sessions in groups A and B, respectively. VAS was not different between both groups (P = 0.063). Patients with pretreatment stent placement had significantly lower VAS score compared with patients without stents (P = 0.012). Sex and BMI had no impact on the VAS score.

CONCLUSIONS

Local SC anesthesia alone is effective for analgesic purposes during extracorporeal SWL. Sex, age, and BMI have no relation to analgesia requirement.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs vs. opioids for SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters

PURPOSE

Clinical studies produce conflicting results on pain relief for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids in pain relief for SWL powered by an electromagnetic generator.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed and all randomized controlled trials comparing NSAIDs and opioids in pain relief for SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters were included in the analysis. Data from 3 trials (244 patients) were pooled. The primary outcome measure was adequate analgesia, defined as "if no additional pain relief was used". The difference in the proportion of patients with adequate anesthesia was compared between the NSAIDs and opioids groups as an odds ratio and odds ratio were pooled across the 3 trials with a fixed effects model.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between using NSAIDs and opioids for pain relief during SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters (odds ratio 0.886, 95% CI 0.446-1,760, p = 0.730).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that in relieving pain during SWL using modern electromagnetic lithotripters NSAIDs are as effective as opioids.

Pain perception during shock wave lithotripsy: does it correlate with patient and stone characteristics?

BACKGROUND

To investigate the correlation of various clinical parameters [number of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) sessions, body mass index, patient age, gender, and stone characteristics] with pain perception during the SWL procedure.

METHODS

A total of 88 patients who underwent 165 SWL sessions for renal or ureteral stones in our institution were included in the study. The degree of pain perception during the procedure was evaluated with a 10-point visual analog scale.

RESULTS

A significant p value was reached when the cut-off value for stone burden was taken as 100 mm(2). Mean pain scores during the SWL procedures were affected by gender and the number of SWL sessions. However, they were not affected by laterality, patient age, body mass index, and location of stones.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that patient comfort is better during the first SWL session than in the following sessions for renal or ureteral stones with a stone burden of less than 100 mm(2). In addition, severity of pain during SWL treatment may be better tolerated in males than in females.