Dataset Information

Impact of intraoperative intravenous magnesium on spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The effectiveness and safety of intraoperative intravenous magnesium (IIM) on spine surgery remain uncertain, as recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of IIM on spine surgery.

Methods

A literature search was performed on multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrial.gov and Google Scholar on July 12th 2021, and reference lists were examined. We selected RCTs comparing the effects of IIM with placebo treatment on spine surgery. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confident interval (CI) under a random-effect model. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score was applied to assess the quality of each included trial. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by omitting each included study one by one from the pooled analysis. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021266170.

Findings

Fourteen trials of 781 participants were included. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that IIM reduces postoperative morphine consumption at 24 h (SMD: -1·61 mg, 95% CI: -2·63 to -0·58) and intraoperative remifentanil requirement (SMD: -2·09 ug/h, 95% CI: -3·38 to -0·81). High-quality evidence suggested that IIM reduces the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with placebo (RR: 0·43, 95% CI: 0·26 to 0·71). Besides, moderate-quality evidence suggested that recovery orientation time in the IIM group is longer than control group (SMD: 1·13 min, 95% CI: 0·83 to 1·43).

Interpretation

IIM as adjuvant analgesics showed overall benefits on spine surgery in terms of reducing analgesic requirement and postoperative nausea and vomiting; however, potential risks of IIM, such as delayed anesthetic awakening, should not be ignored. Future evidence will inform the optimal strategy of IIM administration for patients undergoing spine surgery.

Funding

This study was funded by Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (Grant No :7212117).

SUBMITTER: Yue L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8741475 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:Background: Intravenous paracetamol, as an adjunct to multimodal analgesia, has been shown to successfully reduce opioid consumption after joint arthroplasty, abdominal surgery, and caesarean delivery. However, there are limited data on the opioid-sparing effect of intravenous paracetamol on lumbar disc surgery. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of intravenous paracetamol for reducing opioid consumption in lumbar disc surgery. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption within 24 h postoperatively. Method: We followed the PRISMA-P guidelines and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. The review was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42021288168. Two reviewers conducted electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the postoperative opioid consumption of intravenous paracetamol with placebo in lumbar discectomy were included. Results: Five trials comprising a total of 271 patients were included. The overall opioid consumption within 24 h postoperatively was reduced [mean difference (MD), -10.61 (95% CI, -16.00 to -5.22) mg, p = 0.0001, I2 = 90%] in patients with intravenous paracetamol. Intravenous paracetamol significantly reduced the postoperative pain scores at 1 h [MD, -2.37 (95%CI, -3.81 to -0.94), p = 0.001, I2 = 82%], 2 h [MD, -3.17 (95%CI, -3.85 to -2.48), p < 0.00001, I2 = 38%], 6 h [MD, -1.75 (95%CI, -3.10 to -0.40), p = 0.01], 12 h [MD, -0.96 (95%CI, -1.77 to -0.15), p = 0.02], and 24 h [MD, -0.97 (95%CI, -1.67 to -0.27), p = 0.006] compared with the placebo. There were no differences in postoperative adverse effects. Conclusion: Intravenous paracetamol reduced postoperative opioid consumption and decreased postoperative pain scores without increasing adverse effects. The overall GRADE quality of the evidence was rated as low to moderate. Intravenous paracetamol appears to be an applicable option as an important part of multimodal analgesia for postoperative analgesia after lumbar disc surgery. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, CRD42021288168.

Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated differences in accuracy, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and freehand techniques for pedicle screw insertion. Two investigators independently searched for articles on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2012 to 2019. The final meta-analysis included seven RCTs. We compared the accuracy of pedicle screw placement, operation time, and radiation exposure time between robot-assisted and conventional freehand groups. Seven RCTs included 540 patients and placement of 2,476 pedicle screws, of which 1,220 were inserted using the robot-assisted technique and 1,256 were inserted using the conventional freehand technique. The pedicle screw positions were classified using the Gertzbein and Robbins classification (grade A-E). The combined results of Grade A [odds ratio (OR) =1.68; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.82-3.44; P=0.16), Grade A+B (OR =1.70; 95% CI: 0.47-6.13; P=0.42), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.59; 95% CI: 0.16-2.12; P=0.42) for the accuracy rate revealed no significant difference between the two groups. Subgroup analysis results revealed that the TiRobot-assisted technique presented a significantly improved pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. The SpineAssist-assisted technique presented an inferior pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate compared with that of the conventional freehand technique, based on Grade A, Grade A+B, and Grade C+D+E classifications. No difference between the Renaissance-assisted and conventional freehand techniques was noted for pedicle screw insertion accuracy rates, based on both Grade A (OR =1.58; 95% CI: 0.85-2.96; P=0.15), Grade A+B (OR =2.20; 95% CI: 0.39-12.43; P=0.37), and Grade C+D+E (OR =0.45; 95% CI: 0.08-2.56; P=0.37) classifications. Regarding operation time, robot-assisted surgery had significantly longer operation time than conventional freehand surgery. The robot-assisted group had significantly shorter radiation exposure time. Regarding the pedicle screw insertion accuracy rate, the TiRobot-assisted technique was superior, the SpineAssist-assisted technique was inferior, and Renaissance was similar to the conventional freehand technique.