Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
2.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 46(5): 398-403, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503798

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The femoral nerve block (FNB) may be used for analgesia in hip fracture surgery. The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a novel regional technique and may provide better pain reduction while preserving motor function, but these blocks have not been directly compared. METHODS: In a single-center double-blinded randomized comparative trial, patients presenting for hip fracture surgery received analgesia with either FNB or PENG block. The primary outcome measure was pain scores (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) 0 to 10). Secondary outcomes were postoperative quadriceps strength, opiate use, complications, length of hospital stay, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized and equally allocated between groups. Baseline demographics were similar. Postoperatively in recovery (day 0), the PENG group experienced less pain compared with the FNB group. (In the PENG group, 63% experienced no pain, 27% mild pain, and 10% moderate to severe pain. In comparison, 30% of the FNB group reported no pain, 27% mild pain, and 36% moderate to severe pain; p=0.04). This was assessed using an 11-point Likert NRS. Quadriceps strength was better preserved in the PENG group in the recovery unit (assessed using Oxford muscle strength grading, 60% intact in the PENG group vs none intact in the FNB group; p<0.001) and on day 1 (90% intact vs 50%, respectively; p=0.004). There was no difference in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving a PENG block for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia during hip fracture surgery experience less postoperative pain in the recovery room with no difference detected by postoperative day 1. Quadriceps strength was better preserved with the PENG block. Despite the short-term analgesic benefit and improved quadriceps strength, there were no differences detected in the quality of recovery.


Subject(s)
Analgesia , Nerve Block , Femoral Nerve , Humans , Pain Management , Pain, Postoperative/diagnosis , Pain, Postoperative/etiology , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control
4.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 5189, 2020 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454803

ABSTRACT

Stapled hemorrhoidopexy has a few advantages such as less postoperative pain and faster recovery compared with conventional hemorrhoidectomy. There are two major devices used for stapled hemorrhoidopexy, PPH stapler (Ethicon EndoSurgery) and DST stapler (Covidien). This study was conducted to investigate the postoperative outcomes among patients with grade III and IV hemorrhoids who underwent hemorrhoidopexy with either of these two devices. A total of 242 consecutive patients underwent stapled hemorrhoidopexy with either PPH stapler (110 patients) or DST stapler (132 patients) at a single center in 2017. We performed a retrospective case-control study to compare the short-term postoperative outcomes and the complications between these two groups. After matching the cases in terms of age, gender, and the grade of hemorrhoids, there were 100 patients in each group (PPH versus DST). There were no significant differences in the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score and analgesic usage. Among complications, the incidence of anorectal stricture was significantly higher in the DST group (p = 0.02). Evaluation of the mucosal specimen showed that the total surface area, the muscle/mucosa ratio and the surface area of the muscle were also significantly higher in the DST group (p = 0.03). Further analysis of the DST group demonstrated that patients with anorectal stricture after surgery are younger than patients without anorectal stricture, and higher muscle/mucosa ratio (p = 0.03) and a higher surface area of the muscle (p = 0.03) also measured in the surgical specimen. The two devices provide similar outcomes of postoperative recovery. Patients who underwent DST stapled hemorrhoidopexy had a higher incidence rate of stricture, larger area of muscle excision, and higher muscle/mucosa ratio in the surgical specimen. Further investigation is warranted for a better understanding of the correlation between muscle excision and anorectal stricture.


Subject(s)
Hemorrhoidectomy/instrumentation , Hemorrhoids/surgery , Surgical Staplers , Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Anal Canal/pathology , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Anus Diseases/etiology , Constriction, Pathologic/etiology , Equipment Design , Female , Hemorrhage/etiology , Humans , Intestinal Mucosa/pathology , Isoxazoles/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Size , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Pain, Postoperative/etiology , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Urinary Retention/etiology
5.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 225(5): 556.e1-556.e10, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377644

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pelvic reconstructive surgery may cause significant postoperative pain, especially with posterior colporrhaphy, contributing to a longer hospital stay and increased pain medication utilization. Regional blocks are being increasingly utilized in gynecologic surgery to improve postoperative pain and decrease opioid usage, yet preoperative pudendal blocks have not been used routinely during posterior colporrhaphy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effect of preoperative regional pudendal nerve block using a combination of 1.3% liposomal and 0.25% plain bupivacaine vs 0.25% plain bupivacaine alone on vaginal pain after posterior colporrhaphy on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. We hypothesized that there would be a reduction in vaginal pain scores for the study group vs the control group over the first 72 hours. STUDY DESIGN: This was a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial that included patients undergoing a posterior colporrhaphy, either independently or in conjunction with other vaginal or abdominal reconstructive procedures. Patients were block randomized to receive 20 mL of either a combination of 1.3% liposomal and 0.25% plain bupivacaine (study) or 20 mL of 0.25% plain bupivacaine (control) in a regional pudendal block before the start of surgery. Double blinding was achieved by covering four 5-mL syringes containing the randomized local anesthetic. After induction of anesthesia, a pudendal nerve block was performed per standard technique (5 mL superiorly and 5 mL inferiorly each ischial spine) using a pudendal kit. The primary outcome was to evaluate postoperative vaginal pain using a visual analog scale on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Secondary outcomes included total analgesic medication usage through postoperative day 3, postoperative voiding and defecatory dysfunction, and impact of vaginal pain on quality of life factors. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled (60 in each group). There were no significant differences in demographic data, including baseline vaginal pain (P=.88). Postoperative vaginal pain scores were significantly lower in the combined liposomal and bupivacaine group at all time points vs the plain bupivacaine group. Median pain scores for the study and control groups, respectively, were 0 (0-2) and 2 (0-4) for postoperative day 1 (P=.03), 2 (1-4) and 3 (2-5) for postoperative day 2 (P=.05), and 2 (1-4) and 3 (2-5) for postoperative day 3 (P=.02). Vaginal pain scores increased from postoperative day 1 to postoperative days 2 and 3 in both groups. There was a significant decrease in ibuprofen (P=.01) and acetaminophen (P=.03) usage in the study group; however, there was no difference between groups in total opioid consumption through postoperative day 3 (P=.82). There was no difference in successful voiding trials (study 72%, control 82%, P=.30), return of bowel function (P>.99), or quality of life factors (sleep, stress, mood, and activity). CONCLUSION: Preoperative regional pudendal block with a combination of liposomal and plain bupivacaine provided more effective vaginal pain control than plain bupivacaine alone for reconstructive surgery that included posterior colporrhaphy. Given the statistically significant decrease in vaginal pain in the study group, this block may be considered as a potential adjunct for multimodal pain reduction in this patient population.


Subject(s)
Bupivacaine/administration & dosage , Nerve Block/methods , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/methods , Vagina/surgery , Adult , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Liposomes , Middle Aged , Pelvis/surgery
6.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e049676, 2021 08 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1356947

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Patients with either surgery-related or patient-related risk factors are at an increased risk of acute and chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and long-term opioid use. To improve recovery, prevent CPSP and decrease opioid use, we need to identify these patients before surgery and provide a multidisciplinary pain management strategy throughout hospital admission and follow-up in the postdischarge period. We hypothesise that a multidisciplinary transitional pain service (TPS) improves quality of recovery and reduce the incidence of CPSP and opioid consumption. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to investigate the effectiveness of implementation of a TPS for patients at risk of developing CPSP. The trial design is a pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial (RCT). After stratification for sex, patients are randomly assigned to the TPS or standard of care (SOC) group. Our primary outcome is the quality of recovery, measured at the morning of the third postoperative day, employing the quality of recovery (QoR)-15 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are the incidence of CPSP, opioid consumption and patient-reported outcome measures at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. We need to enrol 176 patients to detect a minimal clinical important difference of 8 points on the QoR-15 score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained by the accredited medical research ethics committee of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam (2020_211) on 15 October 2020. Protocol version 3.2 was approved on 25 January 2020. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NL9115. The results will be disseminated by open access publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration number NL9115.


Subject(s)
Standard of Care , Trust , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Humans , Pain Management , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
7.
Agri ; 33(Suppl 1): 1-51, 2021 Jan.
Article in Turkish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1058652

ABSTRACT

Satisfactory pain relief is a fundamental right of every patient suffering from pain. Despite the developments on pharmachologic treatment modalities and interventions for pain control, inadequacy of postoperative pain management is still a major problem. After surgical intervention, 66% of patients experience moderate to severe pain during discharge, 9% after two weeks. Untreated postoperative pain may lead to prolonged hospital stay, increased intensive care needs, development of chronic pain, and reduced the patients quality of life. In the following guideline all aspects of postoperative pain briefly evaluated. The clinical practice of postoperative analgesia, recommendations, the diagnosis, assessment and pharmachologic treatment of acute postoperative pain with the current available agents in Turkey are discussed in this article. Our aim is to promote awareness of effective, and safe postoperative pain management strategies to meet the needs of the patients; minor patient groups, such as paediatric population, pregnant patients, elderly, patient with high body mass index and covid 19 diesease. Despite all the recommendations, any guidelines special cases where standard modalities fail to treat postoperative pain management as in patients with chronic pain who previously used opioids, drug addicts, the patient should be consulted with an pain specialist.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Pain Management/standards , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic
8.
Arthroscopy ; 36(11): 2840-2842, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1008018

ABSTRACT

Opioid pain medications continue to play a role in postoperative pain control following elective arthroscopic surgery. Recent evidence suggests that patients who consume opioids preoperatively are at risk for inferior patient-reported outcomes. They are also more likely to consume opioids for longer periods of time following surgery relative to their opioid-naïve counterparts. However, limited evidence currently exists regarding whether discontinuing opioid use in anticipation of surgery avoids these deleterious effects. Orthopaedic surgeons have an obligation to limit the number of opioids necessary to control postoperative pain.


Subject(s)
Arthroscopy , Opioid-Related Disorders , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Humans , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Opioid-Related Disorders/prevention & control , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies , Writing
9.
Minerva Chir ; 75(5): 320-327, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-934709

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic entire countries rapidly ran out of intensive care beds, occupied by critically ill infected patients. Elective surgery was initially halted and acute non-deferrable surgical care drastically limited. The presence of COVID-19 patients into intensive care units (ICU) is currently decreasing but their congestion have restricted our therapeutic strategies during the last months. METHODS: In the COVID-19 era eighteen patients (8 men, 10 women) with a mean age of 80 years, needing undelayable abdominal surgery underwent awake open surgery at our Department. Prior to surgery, all patients underwent COVID-19 investigation. In all cases locoregional anesthesia (LA) was performed. Intraoperative and postoperative pain has been monitored and regularly assessed. A distinct pathway has been set up to keep patients of uncertain COVID-19 diagnosis separated from all other patients. RESULTS: Mean operative time was 104 minutes. In only one case conversion to general anesthesia was necessary. Postoperative pain was always well controlled. None of them required postoperative intensive care support. Only one perioperative complication occurred. Early readmissions after surgery were never observed. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of our experience awake laparotomy under LA resulted feasible, safe, painless and, in specific cases, the only viable option. For patients presenting fragile cardiovascular and respiratory, reserves and in whom general anesthesia (GA) would presumably increase morbidity and mortality we encourage LA as an alternative to GA. In the COVID-19 era, it has become part of our ICU-preserving strategy allowing us to carry out undeferrable surgeries.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Frail Elderly , Laparotomy/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anesthesia, General , Anesthesia, Local/methods , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Emergencies/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Operative Time , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data
10.
J Perioper Pract ; 30(9): 277-282, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-737644

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 has changed the approach to operating on breast cancer for the benefit of patients, staff and the general population. One approach involves the switch from operating under general to local anaesthetic. We assess whether diluational local anaesthetic is as effective as the current standard approach. METHODS: Postoperative pain was recorded in prospective, consecutive patients undergoing wide local excision under dilutional local anaesthetic (concentration < 1mg/ml). Pain scores were documented at 0, 30 and 60 minutes and compared to a control group consisting of combined general with local anaesthetic. RESULTS: Pain significantly increased in the control group during the postoperative recovery. This was not seen in the dilutional local anaesthetic group that was non-inferior to the standard approach at 0, 30 and 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: Dilutional local anaesthetic provides a safe and effective alternative approach to operating on breast cancer patients whilst avoiding risky general anaesthetic in a COVID-19 pandemic environment.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Local/methods , Anesthetics, Local/therapeutic use , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Coronavirus Infections , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Case-Control Studies , Diffusion , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL