Dataset Information

Postoperative Pain Relief after Pancreatic Resection: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Analgesic Modalities.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) and impact on perioperative outcomes.

Methods

MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases were searched using PRISMA framework. Primary outcomes included pain on postoperative day 2 and 4 and respiratory morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operation time, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatic fistula, length of stay, and opioid use.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials and seven retrospective cohort studies (1313 patients) were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EDA) (n = 845), patient controlled analgesia (PCA) (n = 425) and transabdominal wound catheters (TAWC) (n = 43). EDA versus PCA following PD was compared in eight studies (1004 patients) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pain scores on day 2 (p = 0.19) and 4 (p = 0.18) and respiratory morbidity (p = 0.42) were comparable between EDA and PCA. Operative times, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, opioid use, and length of stay also were comparable between EDA and PCA. Pain scores and perioperative outcomes were comparable between EDA and PCA following DP and EDA and TAWC following PD.

Conclusions

EDA, PCA and TAWC are the most frequently used analgesic modalities in pancreatic surgery. Pain relief and other perioperative outcomes are comparable between them. Further larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the relative merits of each analgesic modality on postoperative outcomes with emphasis on postoperative complications.

SUBMITTER: Akter N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8408074 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Early detection of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) may help to improve the outcome following pancreatic surgery, and exclusion of POPF may allow early drain removal which can accelerate recovery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of drain/plasma pancreatic amylase values on postoperative day 1?(DPA1/PPA1) in POPF by means of a systemic review and meta-analysis.Online journal databases and a manual search up to March 2015 were used. Studies clearly documenting DPA1 or PPA1 in predicting overall POPF (Grade 0 vs A+B+C) or clinically relevant POPF (Grade 0+A vs B+C) following pancreatic surgery were selected. Pooled predictive parameters were performed using STATA 12.0.Fifteen studies were finally identified with a total of 4331 patients. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of DPA1 were 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.96) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.64-0.86) for predicting overall POPF and 0.79 (95% CI 0.61-0.90) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.74-0.89) for predicting clinically relevant POPF. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of PPA1 were 0.74 (95% CI 0.63-0.82) and 0.62 (95% CI 0.55-0.70) for overall POPF. After the DPA1?at/over cutoff values for overall POPF or clinically relevant POPF, corresponding post-test probability (Post-test (+)) (if pretest probability was 50%) was 80% and 82% respectively, while, if values were below the cutoff values, the post-test probability (Post-test (-)) was 10% and 20% respectively. Post-test (+) and Post-test (-) of PPA1 for overall POPF were 66% and 30% respectively. In subgroup analysis, the summary sensitivities of cutoff <1000 group and cutoff >1000 group were 0.96 (0.92-0.98) and 0.85 (0.64-0.95), respectively; the summary specificities were 0.59 (0.44-0.72) and 0.86 (0.80-0.91) respectively. Positive LR were 2.3 (1.7-3.3) and 6.2 (3.7-10.2) respectively. Negative LR were 0.06 (0.03-0.14) and 0.18 (0.07-0.47) respectively.DPA1 is a useful predictive test for overall POPF and clinically relevant POPF which has good sensitivity and specificity based on the current studies. Meanwhile, it should be cautiously applied to clinical practice because cutoffs had a wide range between studies.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of central pancreatectomy (CP) with distal pancreatectomy (DP).MethodsA systematic literature search was performed on electronic databases from MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed from 1998 to 2018. Statistical analysis and meta-analysis were performed using statistics/data analysis (Stata®) software, version 12.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas 77845, USA). Dichotomous variables were analyzed by estimation of relative risk (RR) with a 95 percent (%) confidence interval (CI) and continuous variables were analyzed by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% CI.ResultsTwenty-four studies with 593 CP and 1226 DP were included in the meta-analysis. CP had significantly longer operation time (SMD: 1.03; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.44; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.001) and lengthier postoperative hospital stay (SMD: 0.63; 95% CI 0.20 to 1.05; P < 0.01). Estimated blood loss was significantly lower in CP (SMD: -0.34; 95% CI -0.58 to -0.09; P = 0.007). Overall postoperative morbidity (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.50; P < 0.001), overall pancreatic fistula (RR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.66; P < 0.001), clinically relevant fistula (RR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.25 to 2.16; P < 0.001), and postoperative hemorrhage (RR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.06; P < 0.05) were all significantly higher after CP. On long-term follow-up, DP patients were more likely to have postoperative exocrine (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.84; P < 0.05) and endocrine (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.40; P < 0.001) insufficiency. There was no statistically significant difference in transfusion requirement, postoperative mortality, reoperation, and tumor recurrence.ConclusionCP is associated with significantly higher morbidity and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula. CP should only be reserved for selected patients who require postoperative pancreatic function preservation.

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: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.