Dataset Information

A systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions used for pain relief after orthopedic surgical procedures.

ABSTRACT: The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of various non-pharmacological interventions to relieve pain after orthopedic surgical procedures. An electronic search of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases was performed to retrieve studies of all types assessing the role of non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief after orthopedic surgical procedures. The included studies were required to assess pain outcomes using a validated measurement index, such as the Visual Analog Scale. The quality of randomized control trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool, while the ROBINS-I tool was used for non-RCTs. A total of five studies were included, namely three RCTs and two non-RCTs. The included studies used relaxation therapy, guided imagery, music and audio-visual distraction for pain management. There was considerable heterogeneity concerning study participants and types of intervention, which precluded a meta-analysis. Overall, all studies reported a significant beneficial effect of non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief. To conclude, current evidence from a limited number of studies indicates there may be a potential role of non-pharmacological interventions, including relaxation therapy, guided imagery, music and audio-visual distraction, in pain management of patients after orthopedic surgery. Owing to considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias in the included studies, strong conclusions cannot be drawn. Further high-quality RCTs assessing the role of such non-pharmacological techniques of pain management are required to strengthen the current evidence.

SUBMITTER: Fan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7480131 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions used for pain relief after orthopedic surgical procedures.

Fan Meifen M Chen Zheying Z

Experimental and therapeutic medicine 20200901 5

The purpose of the present review was to evaluate the available evidence on the efficacy of various non-pharmacological interventions to relieve pain after orthopedic surgical procedures. An electronic search of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases was performed to retrieve studies of all types assessing the role of non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief after orthopedic surgical procedures. The included studies were required to assess pain outcomes using a validated meas ...[more]

PMID: 32952627

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPalliative care patients desire more symptom management interventions that are complementary to their medical treatment. Within the multi-professional team, nurses could help support pain management with non-pharmacological interventions feasible for their practice and adaptable to palliative care patients' needs.ObjectivesThe objective was to identify non-pharmacological interventions feasible in the nursing scope of practice affecting pain in palliative care patients.DesignA systematic review.Data sources and methodsA defined search strategy was used in PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase. Search results were screened double-blinded. Methodological quality was double-appraised with the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Data were extracted from selected studies and the findings were summarized. The methodological quality, quantity of studies evaluating the same intervention, and consistency in the findings were synthesized in a best-evidence synthesis to rank evidence as strong, moderate, limited, mixed, or insufficient.ResultsOut of 2385 articles, 22 studies highlighted non-pharmacological interventions in the nursing scope of practice. Interventions using massage therapy and virtual reality demonstrated most evidentiary support for pain management, while art therapy lacked sufficient evidence. Mindful breathing intervention showed no significant reduction in pain. Hypnosis, progressive muscle-relaxation-interactive-guided imagery, cognitive-behavioral audiotapes, wrapped warm footbath, reflexology, and music therapy exhibited promising results in pain reduction, whereas mindfulness-based stress reduction program, aromatherapy, and aroma-massage therapy did not.ConclusionDespite not all studies reaching significant changes in pain scores, non-pharmacological interventions can be clinically relevant to palliative care patients. Its use should be discussed for its potential value and nurses to be trained for safe practice. Methodologically rigorous research for non-pharmacological interventions in nursing scope of practice for pain relief in palliative care patients is necessary.Trial registrationThe protocol for this study is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020196781).

Project description:IntroductionOrthopedic procedures have been associated with increased pain, making perioperative analgesia a major clinical concern. We assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous parecoxib administration during the perioperative period for postoperative pain relief after orthopedic surgery in adults.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and clinicaltrial.gov were searched from inception to 23 August 2021 without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous parecoxib with placebo or another active treatment for acute postoperative pain in adults after orthopedic surgery were included. The primary outcomes were the pain scores and cumulative morphine consumption. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesics and the incidence of adverse events. The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration (PROSPERO).ResultsTwenty-seven trials (n = 2840) from more than 20 countries involving six types of orthopedic surgery met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, intravenous parecoxib administration led to reductions in postoperative resting pain scores at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h [mean difference (MD) -0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.71 to -0.03; MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.46; MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.31; MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11, respectively], postoperative movement pain scores at 24 and 48 h (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.19; MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.39, respectively), cumulative morphine consumption (MD -11.30 mg, 95% CI -14.79 to -7.81 mg), and the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesia (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.89). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups.ConclusionLow to moderate evidence indicates that parecoxib might be an effective and safe analgesic in perioperative orthopedic settings. It relieves postoperative orthopedic pain while sparing opioid analgesic consumption without increasing the incidence of adverse events.Prospero registrationCRD42021274939.

Project description:BackgroundEffective pain control is crucial to optimise the success of medical procedures. Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology could offer an effective non-invasive, non-pharmacological option to distract patients and reduce their experience of pain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology in reducing patient's pain perception during various medical procedures by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and SIGLE until December 2022 for all randomised clinical trials (RCT) evaluating any type of VR in patients undergoing any medical procedure. We conducted a random effect meta-analysis summarising standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated heterogeneity using I 2 and explored it using subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ResultsIn total, we included 92 RCTs (n = 7133 participants). There was a significant reduction in pain scores with VR across all medical procedures (n = 83, SMD - 0.78, 95% CI - 1.00 to - 0.57, I 2 = 93%, p = < 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed varied reduction in pain scores across trial designs [crossover (n = 13, SMD - 0.86, 95% CI - 1.23 to - 0.49, I 2 = 72%, p = < 0.01) vs parallel RCTs (n = 70, SMD - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.01 to - 0.52, I 2 = 90%, p = < 0.01)]; participant age groups [paediatric (n = 43, SMD - 0.91, 95% CI - 1.26 to - 0.56, I 2 = 87%, p = < 0.01) vs adults (n = 40, SMD - 0.66, 95% CI - 0.94 to - 0.39, I 2 = 89%, p = < 0.01)] or procedures [venepuncture (n = 32, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.52 to - 0.46, I 2 = 90%, p = < 0.01) vs childbirth (n = 7, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.59 to - 0.38, I 2 = 88%, p = < 0.01) vs minimally invasive medical procedures (n = 25, SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.23, I 2 = 85%, p = < 0.01) vs dressing changes in burn patients (n = 19, SMD - 0.8, 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.45, I 2 = 87%, p = < 0.01)]. We explored heterogeneity using meta-regression which showed no significant impact of different covariates including crossover trials (p = 0.53), minimally invasive procedures (p = 0.37), and among paediatric participants (p = 0.27). Cumulative meta-analysis showed no change in overall effect estimates with the additional RCTs since 2018.ConclusionsImmersive VR technology offers effective pain control across various medical procedures, albeit statistical heterogeneity. Further research is needed to inform the safe adoption of this technology across different medical disciplines.

Project description:IntroductionSystemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma) is a rare, chronic, autoimmune disease with a high level of burden, a significant impact on the ability to carry out daily activities, and a considerable negative impact on health-related quality of life. Non-pharmacological interventions could be provided to potentially improve mental and physical health outcomes. However, the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions on health and well-being among individuals with SSc has not been well established. The proposed living systematic review aims to identify and evaluate randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions on mental and physical health outcomes and on the delivery of such services in SSc.Methods and analysisEligible studies will be RCTs that examine non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions aimed at improving health outcomes among individuals with SSc or the delivery of services intended to improve healthcare or support of people with SSc (eg, support groups). All RCTs included in a previous systematic review that sought studies published between 1990 and March 2014 will be evaluated for inclusion. Additional trials will be sought from January 2014 onwards using a similar, augmented search strategy developed by a health sciences librarian. We will search the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases and will not restrict by language. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of identified RCTs and will extract data using a prespecified standardised form in DistillerSR. Meta-analyses will be considered if ≥2 eligible RCTs report similar non-pharmacological interventions and comparable health outcomes. We will conduct a qualitative synthesis for interventions that cannot be synthesised via meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationWe will post initial and ongoing results via a website, publish results periodically via peer-reviewed journal publication, and present results at patient-oriented events.Prospero registration numberCRD42020219914.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite the enormous financial and humanistic burden of chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is little consensus on what constitutes the best treatment options from a multitude of competing interventions. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to determine the relative efficacy and acceptability of primary care treatments for non-specific CLBP, with the overarching aim of providing a comprehensive evidence base for informing treatment decisions. METHODS:We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of interventions endorsed in primary care guidelines for the treatment of non-specific CLBP in adults. Information sources searched will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO and LILACS) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be patient-reported pain ratings and treatment acceptability (all-cause discontinuation), and secondary outcomes will be functional ability, quality of life and patient/physician ratings of overall improvement. A hierarchical Bayesian class-based NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different classes of pharmacological (NSAIDs, opioids, paracetamol, anti-depressants, muscle relaxants) and non-pharmacological (exercise, patient education, manual therapies, psychological therapy, multidisciplinary approaches, massage, acupuncture, mindfulness) interventions and individual treatments within a class (e.g. NSAIDs: diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen). We will conduct risk of bias assessments and threshold analysis to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. We will compute the effect of different interventions relative to placebo/no treatment for both short- and long-term efficacy and acceptability. DISCUSSION:While many factors are important in selecting an appropriate intervention for an individual patient, evidence for the analgesic effects and acceptability of a treatment are key factors in guiding this selection. Thus, this NMA will provide an important source of evidence to inform treatment decisions and future clinical guidelines. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registry number: CRD42019138115.

Project description:ImportanceSurgeons must balance management of acute postoperative pain with opioid stewardship. Patient-centered methods that immediately evaluate pain and opioid consumption can be used to guide prescribing and shared decision-making.ObjectiveTo assess the difference between the number of opioid tablets prescribed and the self-reported number of tablets taken as well as self-reported pain intensity and ability to manage pain after orthopedic and urologic procedures with use of an automated text messaging system.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study was conducted at a large, urban academic health care system in Pennsylvania. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who underwent orthopedic and urologic procedures and received postoperative prescriptions for opioids were included. Data were collected prospectively using automated text messaging until postoperative day 28, from May 1 to December 31, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference between the number of opioid tablets prescribed and the patient-reported number of tablets taken (in oxycodone 5-mg tablet equivalents). Secondary outcomes were self-reported pain intensity (on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being the highest level of pain) and ability to manage pain (on a scale of 0-10, with 10 representing very able to control pain) after orthopedic and urologic procedures.ResultsOf the 919 study participants, 742 (80.7%) underwent orthopedic procedures and 177 (19.2%) underwent urologic procedures. Among those who underwent orthopedic procedures, 384 (51.8%) were women, 491 (66.7%) were White, and the median age was 48 years (interquartile range [IQR], 32-61 years); 514 (69.8%) had an outpatient procedure. Among those who underwent urologic procedures, 145 (84.8%) were men, 138 (80.7%) were White, and the median age was 56 years (IQR, 40-67 years); 106 (62%) had an outpatient procedure. The mean (SD) pain score on day 4 after orthopedic procedures was 4.72 (2.54), with a mean (SD) change by day 21 of -0.40 (1.91). The mean (SD) ability to manage pain score on day 4 was 7.32 (2.59), with a mean (SD) change of -0.80 (2.72) by day 21. The mean (SD) pain score on day 4 after urologic procedures was 3.48 (2.43), with a mean (SD) change by day 21 of -1.50 (2.12). The mean (SD) ability to manage pain score on day 4 was 7.34 (2.81), with a mean (SD) change of 0.80 (1.75) by day 14. The median quantity of opioids prescribed for patients who underwent orthopedic procedures was high compared with self-reported consumption (20 tablets [IQR, 15-30 tablets] vs 6 tablets used [IQR, 0-14 tablets]), similar to findings for patients who underwent urologic procedures (7 tablets [IQR, 5-10 tablets] vs 1 tablet used [IQR, 0-4 tablets]). Over the study period, 9452 of 15 581 total tablets prescribed (60.7%) were unused. A total of 589 patients (64.1%) used less than half of the amount prescribed, and 256 patients (27.8%) did not use any opioids (179 [24.1%] who underwent orthopedic procedures and 77 [43.5%] who underwent urologic procedures).Conclusions and relevanceIn this quality improvement study of adult patients reporting use of opioids after common orthopedic and urologic surgical procedures through a text messaging system, the quantities of opioids prescribed and the quantity consumed differed. Patient-reported data collected through text messaging may support clinicians in tailoring prescriptions and guide shared decision-making to limit excess quantities of prescribed opioids.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions used for pain relief after orthopedic surgical procedures.

Publications

A systematic review of non-pharmacological interventions used for pain relief after orthopedic surgical procedures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets