Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of the preoperative use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of acute postoperative pain following spinal surgery.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Gabapentinoid drugs, which include gabapentin and pregabalin, play an established role in the management of neuropathic pain. However, whether preoperative administration of gabapentinoids has a beneficial role in controlling acute pain after spinal surgery is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of the preoperative use of gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) for the treatment of acute postoperative pain following spinal surgery.

Methods

In March 2017, a systematic computer-based search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google databases. RCTs comparing gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) with placebo in patients undergoing spine surgery were retrieved. The primary endpoint was the visual analogue scale (VAS) score with rest or mobilization at 6, 12, 24, and 48?hours and cumulative morphine consumption at 24 and 48?hours. The secondary outcomes were complications of nausea, vomiting, sedation, dizziness, headache, urine retention, pruritus, and visual disturbances. After tests for publication bias and heterogeneity among studies were performed, data were aggregated for random-effects models when necessary.

Results

Sixteen clinical studies (gabapentin group n?=?8 and pregabalin group n?=?8) were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. Gabapentinoids were associated with reduced pain scores at 6, 12, 24, and 48?hours. Similarly, gabapentinoids were associated with a reduction in cumulative morphine consumption at 24 and 48?hours. Furthermore, gabapentinoids can significantly reduce the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of sedation, dizziness, headache, visual disturbances, somnolence, or urine retention.

Conclusions

Preoperative use of gabapentinoids was able to reduce postoperative pain, total morphine consumption, and morphine-related complications following spine surgery. Further studies should determine the optimal dose and whether pregabalin is superior to gabapentin in controlling acute pain after spine surgery.

SUBMITTER: Liu B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5604660 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A meta-analysis of the preoperative use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of acute postoperative pain following spinal surgery.

Liu Bo B Liu Ruihe R Wang Lifeng L

Medicine 20170901 37

<h4>Background</h4>Gabapentinoid drugs, which include gabapentin and pregabalin, play an established role in the management of neuropathic pain. However, whether preoperative administration of gabapentinoids has a beneficial role in controlling acute pain after spinal surgery is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of the preoperative use of gabapentinoids (gabapentin and pregabalin) for the treatm ...[more]

PMID: 28906391

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pregabalin for pain management following spine surgery.MethodsIn September 2016, a systematic computer-based search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RCTs of patients prepared for spine surgery that compared pregabalin with placebo were retrieved. The primary endpoint was the VAS score with rest or mobilization at 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours and cumulative morphine consumption at 24 hours and 48 hours. The secondary outcomes were complications of nausea, sedation, dizziness, headache, and visual disturbances. After testing for publication bias and heterogeneity between studies, data were aggregated for random-effects models when necessary.ResultsTen clinical studies with 535 patients (pregabalin group = 294, control group = 241) were included in the meta-analysis. Pregabalin was associated with reduced pain scores at 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours, corresponding to a reduction of 1.91 points (95% CI, -4.07 to 0.24 point) at 12 hours, 2.66 points (95% CI, -4.51 to -0.81 point) at 24 hours, and 4.33 points (95% confidence interval, -6.38 to -2.99 point) at 48 hours on a 100-point numeric rating scale. There was no significant difference between VAS scores with mobilization at 12 hours, 24 hours, or 48 hours. Similarly, pregabalin was associated with a reduction in cumulative morphine consumption at 24 hours (-7.07, 95% CI -9.84, -4.30) and 48 hours (-6.52, 95% CI -7.78, -5.25, P = 0.000). Furthermore, pregabalin can reduce the occurrence of nausea (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.41, 0.79, P = 0.001, number needed to treat = 8.4). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of sedation, dizziness, headache, or visual disturbances.ConclusionsPreoperative use of pregabalin was efficacious in reduction of postoperative pain, total morphine consumption, and the occurrence of nausea following spine surgery. Because the sample size and the number of included studies were limited, a multicenter RCT is needed to identify the effects and optimal dose of pregabalin for reducing acute pain after spine surgery.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Inadequate postoperative pain control is common and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. This study aimed to identify preoperative predictors of poor postoperative pain control in adults undergoing inpatient surgery. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched through October 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Studies in any language were included if they evaluated postoperative pain using a validated instrument in adults (≥18 years) and reported a measure of association between poor postoperative pain control (defined by study authors) and at least one preoperative predictor during the hospital stay. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two reviewers screened articles, extracted data and assessed study quality. Measures of association for each preoperative predictor were pooled using random effects models. RESULTS:Thirty-three studies representing 53 362 patients were included in this review. Significant preoperative predictors of poor postoperative pain control included younger age (OR 1.18 [95% CI 1.05 to 1.32], number of studies, n=14), female sex (OR 1.29 [95% CI 1.17 to 1.43], n=20), smoking (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.61], n=9), history of depressive symptoms (OR 1.71 [95% CI 1.32 to 2.22], n=8), history of anxiety symptoms (OR 1.22 [95% CI 1.09 to 1.36], n=10), sleep difficulties (OR 2.32 [95% CI 1.46 to 3.69], n=2), higher body mass index (OR 1.02 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.03], n=2), presence of preoperative pain (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.32], n=13) and use of preoperative analgesia (OR 1.54 [95% CI 1.18 to 2.03], n=6). Pain catastrophising, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, chronic pain, marital status, socioeconomic status, education, surgical history, preoperative pressure pain tolerance and orthopaedic surgery (vs abdominal surgery) were not associated with increased odds of poor pain control. Study quality was generally high, although appropriate blinding of predictor during outcome ascertainment was often limited. CONCLUSIONS:Nine predictors of poor postoperative pain control were identified. These should be recognised as potentially important factors when developing discipline-specific clinical care pathways to improve pain outcomes and to guide future surgical pain research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017080682.

Project description:IntroductionSurgical site infection (SSI) following spinal surgery is a major source of postoperative morbidity. Although studies have demonstrated perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis (AMP) to be beneficial in the prevention of SSI among spinal surgery patients, consensus is lacking over whether preoperative or extended postoperative AMP is most efficacious. To date, no meta-analysis has investigated the comparative efficacy of these two temporally variable AMP protocols in spinal surgery. We undertook a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine whether extended postoperative AMP is associated with a difference in the rate of SSI occurrence among adult patients undergoing spinal surgery.MethodsEmbase and MEDLINE databases were systematically searched for clinical trials and cohort studies directly comparing SSI rates among adult spinal surgery patients receiving either preoperative or extended postoperative AMP. Quality of evidence of the overall study population was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach. Random effects meta-analyses were performed utilizing both pooled and stratified data based on instrumentation use.ResultsFive studies met inclusion criteria. No individual study demonstrated a significant difference in the rate of SSI occurrence between preoperative and extended postoperative AMP protocols. The GRADE quality of evidence was low. Among the overall cohort of 2824 patients, 96% underwent lumbar spinal surgery. Pooled SSI rates were 1.38% (26/1887) for patients receiving extended postoperative AMP and 1.28% (12/937) for patients only receiving preoperative AMP. The risk of SSI development among patients receiving extended postoperative AMP was not significantly different from the risk of SSI development among patients only receiving preoperative AMP [RR (risk ratio), 1.11; 95% CI (confidence interval) 0.53-2.36; p = 0.78]. The difference in risk of SSI development when comparing extended postoperative AMP to preoperative AMP was also not significant for both instrumented (RR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.15-5.75; p = 0.93) and non-instrumented spinal surgery (RR, 1.25; 95% CI 0.49-3.17; p = 0.65). There was no evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects for all meta-analyses.ConclusionPreoperative AMP appears to provide equivalent protection against SSI development when compared to extended postoperative AMP. Prudent antibiotic use is also known to decrease hospital length of stay, healthcare expenditure, and risk of complications. However, until higher-quality evidence becomes available regarding AMP in spinal surgery, surgeons should continue to exercise discretion and clinical judgment when weighing the effects of patient comorbidities and complications before determining the optimal duration of perioperative AMP.

Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of the preoperative use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of acute postoperative pain following spinal surgery.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A meta-analysis of the preoperative use of gabapentinoids for the treatment of acute postoperative pain following spinal surgery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure