Dataset Information

Preemptive analgesia for hemorrhoidectomy: study protocol for a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hemorrhoidectomy is associated with intense postoperative pain that requires multimodal analgesia. It includes nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, and local anesthetics to reach adequate pain control. There are data in literature preemptive analgesia could decrease postoperative pain after hemorrhoidectomy. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of preemptive analgesia with ketoprofen 100 mg 2 h before procedure per os with spinal anesthesia to decrease postoperative pain according to visual analog scale and to reduce the opioids and other analgesics consumption.

Methods

Patients of our clinic who meet the following inclusion criteria are included: hemorrhoids grade III-IV and the planned Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy. After signing the consent all participants are randomly divided into 2 groups: the first one gets a tablet with 100 mg ketoprofen, the second one gets a tablet containing starch per os 2 h before surgery (72 participants per arm). Patients of both arms receive spinal anesthesia and undergo open hemorrhoidectomy. Following the procedure the primary and secondary outcomes are evaluated: opioid administration intake, the pain at rest and during defecation, duration, and frequency of other analgesics intake, readmission rate, overall quality of life, time from the procedure to returning to work, and the complications rate.

Discussion

Multimodality pain management has been shown to improve pain control and decrease opioid intake in patients after hemorrhoidectomy in several studies. Gabapentin can be considered as an alternative approach to pain control as NSAIDs have limitative adverse effects. Systemic admission of ketorolac with local anesthetics also showed significant efficacy in patients undergoing anorectal surgery. We hope to prove the efficacy of multimodal analgesia including preemptive one for patients undergoing excisional hemorrhoidectomy that will help to hold postoperative pain levels no more than 3-4 points on VAS with minimal consumption of opioid analgesics.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04361695 . Registered on April 24, 2020, version 1.0.

SUBMITTER: Kazachenko E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9235219 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPoor postoperative pain control is frequently associated with complications and delayed discharge from a hospital. Preemptive analgesia is one of the methods suggested for reducing postoperative pain. Opioids are effective for pain control, but there known addictive properties make physicians cautious about using them. Parecoxib and ketorolac are potent non-opioid NSAIDs that are attractive alternative drugs to opioids to avoid opioid-related side effects. However, there are no good head-to-head comparisons between these two drugs in the aspect of preemptive analgesic effects in lumbar spinal fusion surgery. This study aimed to compare the efficacy in terms of postoperative pain control and safety of parecoxib with ketorolac as preemptive analgesia in posterior lumbar spinal fusion patients.MethodsA prospective, double-blinded randomized controlled trial was carried out in patients undergoing posterior lumbar spinal fusion, who were randomized into 3 groups (n = 32). Parecoxib, ketorolac or a placebo was given to each patient via injection around 30 minutes prior to incision. The efficacy of postoperative pain control was assessed by a verbal numerical rating score (0-10). And various postoperative things were monitored for analysis, such as total opioid consumption, complications, and estimated blood loss.ResultsBoth the ketorolac and parecoxib groups showed significantly better early postoperative pain reduction at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) than the control group (p < 0.05). There were no differences between the pain scores of ketorolac and parecoxib at any time points. Complications and bleeding were not significantly different between all three groups.ConclusionsPreemptive analgesia using both ketorolac and parecoxib showed a significantly better early postoperative pain control in the PACU than the control group in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01859585. Registered 15 May 2013.

Project description:BackgroundThoracic epidural anesthesia is no longer considered the gold standard for perioperative analgesia in laparoscopic colorectal procedures. In the search for alternatives, the efficacy of the transverse abdominal plane (TAP) block and other abdominal wall blocks such as the transmuscular quadratus lumborum (TQL) block continues to be investigated for postoperative pain management. Most of the initial studies on TAP blocks reported positive effects; however, the amount of studies with negative outcomes is increasing, most probably due to the fact that the majority of abdominal wall blocks fail to mitigate visceral pain. The TQL block could prove attractive in the search for better postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. In several cadaveric studies of the TQL, a spread of dye into the thoracic paravertebral space, the intercostal spaces, and even the thoracic sympathetic trunk was reported. Given the advantage of possibly reaching the thoracic paravertebral space, the potential to reach nerves transmitting visceral pain, and the possible coverage of dermatomes T4-L1, we hypothesize that the TQL provides superior postoperative analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery as compared to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine alone.Methods and designIn this prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial, 150 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery will be included. Patients will be randomly allocated to two different analgesic strategies: a bilateral TQL with 30 ml ropivacaine 0.375% each on both sides, administered before induction of anesthesia, plus postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine (TQL group, n = 75), or a bilateral TQL block with 30 ml saline each on both sides plus postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine (placebo group, n = 75). Our primary outcome parameter will be the morphine consumption during the first 24 h postsurgery. Secondary endpoints include pain intensity as assessed with the numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain, time to return of intestinal function (defined as the time to first flatus and the time to the first postoperative intake of solid food), time to first mobilization, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first 24 h, length of stay on the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) and in the hospital, the extent of sensory block at two time points (admission to and discharge from the PACU), the doses of morphine IV as requested by the patient from the PCA pump, the total dosage of morphine administered IV, the need for and dose of rescue analgesics (ketamine, clonidine), free plasma ropivacaine levels after induction and at discharge from the PACU, and the incidence of adverse events during treatment (in particular, signs of local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST)). Epidural analgesia is no longer the standard of care for postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Until now, the most effective analgesic strategy in these patients especially in an enhanced recovery program is still unknown. Several abdominal wall blocks (TAP, fascia transversalis plane block) are known to have an analgesic effect only on somatic pain. Recognizing the importance of procedure-specific pain management, we aim to investigate whether a transmuscular quadratus lumborum block delivers superior pain control in comparison to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine alone.Trial registrationEudraCT identifier 2019-002304-40. Registered on 17 September 2019.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen compared with its oral formulation for postoperative analgesia is unknown. We hypothesized that the addition of acetaminophen to a multimodal analgesia regimen would provide improved pain management in patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and that the effect of acetaminophen would be variable based on the route of delivery.MethodsThe study was a single-center, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of IV vs oral acetaminophen in patients undergoing unilateral TKA. One hundred seventy-four subjects were randomized to one of the 3 groups: IV acetaminophen group (IV group, n = 57) received 1 g IV acetaminophen and oral placebo before postanesthesia care unit (PACU) admission; oral acetaminophen group (PO group, n = 58) received 1 g oral acetaminophen and volume-matched IV normal saline; placebo group (Placebo group, n = 59) received oral placebo and volume-matched IV normal saline. Pain scores were obtained every 15 minutes during PACU stay. Average pain scores, maximum pain score, and pain scores before physical therapy were compared among the 3 groups. Secondary outcomes included total opiate consumption, time to PACU discharge, time to rescue analgesia, and time to breakthrough pain.ResultsThe average PACU pain score was similar in the IV group (0.56 ± 0.99 [mean ± standard deviation]) compared with the PO group (0.67 ± 1.20; P = .84) and Placebo group (0.58 ± 0.99; P = .71). Total opiate consumption at 6 hours (0.47 mg hydromorphone equivalents ± 0.56 vs 0.54 ± 0.53 vs 0.54 ± 0.61; P = .69) and at 24 hours (1.25 ± 1.30 vs 1.49 ± 1.34 vs 1.36 ± 1.31; P = .46) were also similar between the IV, PO, and Placebo groups. No significant differences were found between all groups for any other outcome.ConclusionNeither IV nor oral acetaminophen provides additional analgesia in the immediate postoperative period when administered as an adjunct to multimodal analgesia in patients undergoing TKA in the setting of a spinal anesthetic.

Project description:We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study at a single center in South Africa, to ascertain whether amitriptyline is an effective analgesic for painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy of moderate to severe intensity in: i) antiretroviral drug naive individuals, and ii) antiretroviral drug users. 124 HIV-infected participants (antiretroviral drug naive = 62, antiretroviral drug users = 62) who met the study criteria for painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy were randomized to once-daily oral amitriptyline (titrated to a median: interquartile range of 50: 25-50 mg) or placebo for six weeks, followed by a three-week washout period and subsequent treatment crossover. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in worst pain intensity of the feet (measured by participant self-report using an 11-point numerical pain rating scale) after six weeks of treatment. 122 of 124 participants completed all study visits and were included in the analysis of the primary outcome. In the antiretroviral drug-naive group (n = 61) there was no significant difference in the mean change in pain score from baseline after six weeks of treatment with placebo or amitriptyline [amitriptyline: 2.8 (SD 3.3) vs. placebo: 2.8 (3.4)]. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the change in pain score after six weeks of treatment with placebo or amitriptyline in the antiretroviral drug-user group (n = 61) [amitriptyline: 2.7 (3.3) vs. placebo: 2.1 (2.8)]. Controlling for period effects and treatment order effects did not alter the outcome of the analyses. Nor did analyzing the intention-to-treat cohort (missing data interpolated using baseline observation carried forward) alter the outcome of the analyses. In summary, amitriptyline, at the doses used here, was no more effective than an inactive placebo at reducing pain intensity in individuals with painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy of moderate to severe intensity, irrespective of whether they were on antiretroviral therapy or not.ISRCTN 54452526.

Project description:BACKGROUND:People with allergic rhinitis (AR) often seek help from Chinese medicine due to dissatisfaction with conventional treatments. Lung-spleen qi deficiency syndrome (LSQDS) is the most common type of AR, and the Chinese herbal medicine formula bi min fang (BMF) is commonly prescribed for AR patients with LSQDS. However, direct evidence supporting its efficacy and safety is not available, and its potential mechanism of action remains unclear. METHODS/DESIGN:This paper presents a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled trial. After a 2-week run-in period, 80 AR patients with LSQDS will be recruited and randomly allocated to the BMF group or the control group in a 1:1 ratio. The patients in the BMF group will receive BMF and the placebo for levocetirizine hydrochloride orally, while the control group participants will receive levocetirizine hydrochloride and the placebo for BMF orally. All participants will receive 4 weeks of treatment and 12?weeks of follow-up. The primary outcome is a change in the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS). Secondary outcomes include changes in scores for the standard version of the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ(S)), and visual analog scale (VAS); changes in serum levels of the cytokines interleukin-4, interferon-?, transforming growth factor ?-1, and interleukin-17; and changes in the gut microbiota composition in the stool. The TNSS, RQLQ(S), and VAS will be recorded at the beginning of, middle of and after the treatment period and at the end of each month in the 3-month follow-up period. Blood and stool samples will be collected at baseline and the end of the treatment. The aforementioned four cytokines will be detected in the serum using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, and the stool gut microbiota will be detected using 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid sequencing. Any side effects of the treatment will be recorded. DISCUSSION:The results of this trial will provide consolidated evidence of the effect of BMF on AR and the potential mechanism by which BMF acts. This study will be the first to explore the mechanism of action of Chinese herbal medicine on the gut microbiota in AR. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IPR-17010970 . Registered on 23 March 2017.