Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Part II): Guidelines for Performing the Systematic Review

The Effectiveness of Virtual and Augmented Reality in Surgical Pain Management: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Satisfactory management of postoperative pain remains challenging. Nonpharmacological modalities such as virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) offer potential benefits and are becoming increasingly popular. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of VR/AR interventions on postoperative pain and recovery.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to July 27, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English, evaluating the use of VR/AR interventions for surgical pain relief. Study selection and data extraction were performed by pairs of reviewers independently and in duplicate, and potential risk of bias was determined using the Risk of Bias-version 2 (RoB 2) tool. Our outcomes included pain relief, reduction of anxiety, satisfaction, and adverse effects. Due to substantial heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis without meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

We included 35 trials among 2257 citations, categorized as surgery (n = 12), minor procedures (n = 15), and postoperative physiotherapy (n = 8). Surgical group included various surgeries, with 11 using immersive VR predominantly in the postoperative period, and most reporting no differences in pain, but potential for reduced anxiety and sedation requirements. In the minor procedures group, most studies reported decreased pain and anxiety during the procedural performance. Two studies reported increased heart rate, while 2 others reported better hemodynamic stability. Home-based AR physiotherapy achieved (n = 6) similar pain and functional outcomes after knee replacement, with 1 large study (n = 306) reporting reduction of mean costs by $2745 for provision of 12 weeks physiotherapy. There were some concerns around potential bias for most studies, as the nature of interventions make it challenging to blind assessors and participants. No important adverse effects were noted using VR/AR technology.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from RCTs indicates that the use of immersive VR during minor procedures may reduce procedural pain, decrease anxiety, and improve satisfaction. However, small studies, inconsistent effect, and variation in the application of interventions are important limitations. Evidence to support the application of AR/VR for major surgeries is limited and needs to be further investigated. Use of home-based physiotherapy with AR likely has economic advantages, and facilitates virtual care for appropriate patients who can access and use the technology safely.

Narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine: guidelines for producers, reviewers and consumers

Well-established guidelines and checklists for authors, reviewers, and readers of systematic reviews and scoping reviews are readily available. However, the availability of such for narrative reviews is lacking, including, but not limited to, field-specific guidelines in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. In this brief article, we review the differences between the major types of reviews, followed by a more detailed description of narrative reviews that clearly differentiates them from other types of reviews. We include a recommended checklist that will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews as well as examples specific to the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. It is the hope that the guidelines recommended here will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine, including Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine Adherence to such should help differentiate between narrative reviews and other types of reviews as well as provide consistency in what elements are necessary to include in a narrative review in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine.

Infectious complications following regional anesthesia: a narrative review and contemporary estimates of risk

INTRODUCTION

Infectious complications following regional anesthesia (RA) while rare, can be devastating. The objective of this review was to estimate the risk of infectious complications following central neuraxial blocks (CNB) such as epidural anesthesia (EA), spinal anesthesia (SA) and combined spinal epidural (CSE), and peripheral nerve blocks (PNB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify reference studies reporting infectious complications in the context of RA subtypes. Both prospective and retrospective studies providing incidence of infectious complications were included for review to provide pooled estimates (with 95% CI). Additionally, we explored incidences specifically associated with spinal anesthesia, incidences of central nervous system (CNS) infections and, the incidences of overall and CNS infections following CNB in obstetric population.

RESULTS

The pooled estimate of overall infectious complications following all CNB was 9/100 000 (95% CI: 5, 13/100 000). CNS infections following all CNB was estimated to be 2/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 3/100 000) and even rarer following SA (1/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 2/100 000)). Obstetric population had a lower rate of overall (1/100 000 (95% CI: 1, 3/100 000)) and CNS infections (4 per million (95% CI: 0.3, 1/100 000)) following all CNB. For PNB catheters, the reported rate of infectious complications was 1.8% (95% CI: 1.2, 2.5/100).

DISCUSSION

Our review suggests that the risk of overall infectious complications following neuraxial anesthesia is very rare and the rate of CNS infections is even rarer. The infectious complications following PNB catheters seems significantly higher compared with CNB. Standardizing nomenclature and better reporting methodologies are needed for the better estimation of the infectious complications.

Methodological and statistical characteristics of meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool.

FINDINGS

Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered "high" quality, three "low" quality, and 19 "critically low" quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI -0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β -0.168; 95% CI -0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320).According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%).

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023431155.