Dataset Information

Acute pain management after thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and explorative meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Pain after thoracoscopic surgery may increase the incidence of postoperative complications and impair recovery. Guidelines lack consensus regarding postoperative analgesia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the mean pain scores of different analgesic techniques (thoracic epidural analgesia, continuous or single-shot unilateral regional analgesia and only systemic analgesia) after thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection.

Methods

Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched until 1 October 2022. Patients undergoing at least >70% anatomical resections through thoracoscopy reporting postoperative pain scores were included. Due to a high inter-study variability an explorative meta-analysis next to an analytic meta-analysis was performed. The quality of evidence has been evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.

Results

A total of 51 studies comprising 5573 patients were included. Mean 24, 48 and 72 h pain scores with 95% confidence interval on a 0-10 scale were calculated. Length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, additional opioids and the use of rescue analgesia were analysed as secondary outcomes. A common-effect size was estimated with an extreme high heterogeneity for which pooling of the studies was not appropriate. An exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated acceptable mean pain scores of Numeric Rating Scale <4 for all analgesic techniques.

Conclusions

This extensive literature review and attempt to pool mean pain scores for meta-analysis demonstrates that unilateral regional analgesia is gaining popularity over thoracic epidural analgesia in thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection, despite great heterogeneity and limitations of current studies precluding such recommendations.

Prospero registration

ID number 205311.

SUBMITTER: Spaans LN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9931052 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Acute pain management after thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and explorative meta-analysis.

Spaans Louisa N LN Bousema Jelle E JE Meijer Patrick P Bouwman R A Arthur RAA van den Broek Renee R Mourisse Jo J Dijkgraaf Marcel G W MGW Verhagen Ad F T M AFTM van den Broek Frank J C FJC

Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery 20230101 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>Pain after thoracoscopic surgery may increase the incidence of postoperative complications and impair recovery. Guidelines lack consensus regarding postoperative analgesia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the mean pain scores of different analgesic techniques (thoracic epidural analgesia, continuous or single-shot unilateral regional analgesia and only systemic analgesia) after thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection.<h4>Methods</h4>Medline, Emb ...[more]

PMID: 36802255

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.

Project description:BackgroundAcutely painful procedures are commonplace. Current approaches to pain most often involve pharmacotherapy, however, there is interest in virtual reality (VR) as a non-pharmacological alternative. A methodologically rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis is lacking.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, NIHR Centre for Review and Dissemination, Proquest, the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 5 November 2017. Included studies were randomised with an experimental trial design, included a non-VR control group and examined the efficacy of VR with regards to an acutely painful clinical intervention. Bias was assessed along Cochrane guidelines, with performance bias not assessed due to the non-blindable nature of VR. We extracted summary data for maximal pain score and used standard mean difference DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis (RevMan 5.3). This review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42017058204).FindingsOf the 12,450 studies identified, 20 studies were eligible for the systematic review. No trials reported in sufficient detail to judge their risk of bias, and 10 studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. 16 studies (9 randomised controlled trials, 7 crossover studies) examining 656 individuals were included in quantitative synthesis. Pain scales were heterogenous, but mostly employed 100-point scales. Across all trials, meta-analysis was suggestive of a -0.49 (95%CI -0.83 to -0.41, p = 0.006) standardised mean difference reduction in pain score with VR. However there was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity (χ2 p<0.001, I2 81%, 95%CI for I2 70-88%), driven by randomised studies, with substantial clinical heterogeneity.ConclusionThese data suggest that VR may have a role in acutely painful procedures, however included studies were clinically and statistically heterogenous. Further research is required to validate findings, establish cost efficacy and optimal clinical settings for usage. Future trials should report in accordance with established guidelines.

Dataset Information

Acute pain management after thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and explorative meta-analysis.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Prospero registration

Publications

Acute pain management after thoracoscopic lung resection: a systematic review and explorative meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets