Preoperative preemptive drug administration for acute postoperative pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Preoperative administration of pharmacological substances, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids, has been gaining acclaim as a preemptive measure to minimize postoperative pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of this approach in adults undergoing surgical procedures. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register were searched from inception through January 2015. Data from randomized placebo-controlled trials were screened, extracted and assessed for risk of bias according to The Cochrane Collaboration's Tool by two independent authors. The primary outcome measure was reduction in postoperative analgesic consumption during 24 h post surgery; effects were described as mean differences between the drug and placebo arms with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and were pooled using random-effects models. Potential publication bias was tested using funnel plots and Egger's regression test for funnel plot asymmetry. Screened were 511 records, of which 39 were included in the final synthesis with data from 3172 patients. A significant reduction in postoperative analgesic consumption was observed using preoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.14; 31 comparisons), chiefly by the COX-2 inhibitors class (95% CI, -0.95 to -0.33; 13 comparisons). Significant reduction was also observed for gabapentin (95% CI, -1.60 to -0.38; 6 comparisons). No significant effects were observed using opioids, propionic acids or oxicam derivatives. WHAT DOES THIS REVIEW ADD?: Current analyses endorse the effectiveness of COX-2 inhibitors and gabapentin in reducing acute postoperative pain when administered preemptively presurgery. Such corroboration is not found for opioids and other NSAID classes.

A novel electroencephalography-based tool for objective assessment of network dynamics activated by nociceptive stimuli.

BACKGROUND: Pain perception is typically assessed using subjective measures; an objective measure of the response to pain would be valuable. In this study, Brain Network Activation (BNA), a novel multivariate pattern analysis and scoring algorithm, was applied to event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by cortical responses to brief heat stimuli. Objectives of this study were to evaluate the utility of BNA as a quantitative and qualitative measure of cortical response to pain. METHODS: Contact Heat Evoked Potentials (CHEPs) data were collected from 17 healthy, right-handed volunteers (10 M, 7F) using 5 different temperatures (35, 41, 46, 49 and 52 °C). A set of spatio-temporal activity patterns common to all the subjects in the group (Reference Brain Network Model; RBNM) was generated using the BNA algorithm, based on evoked responses at 52 °C. RESULTS: Frame by frame 'unfolding' of the brain network across time showed qualitative differences between responses to painful and non-painful stimuli. Brain network activation scores were shown to be a better indicator of the individual's sensitivity to pain when compared to subjective pain ratings. Additionally, BNA scores correlated significantly with temperature, demonstrated good test-retest reliability, as well as a high degree of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in correctly categorizing subjects who reported stimuli as painful. CONCLUSIONS: These results may provide evidence that the multivariate analysis performed with BNA may be useful as a quantitative, temporally sensitive tool for assessment of pain perception.

Comparison of VivaSight double-lumen tube with a conventional double-lumen tube in adult patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

The efficiency of a double-lumen tube depends on its position in the airways, which can be verified by fibreoptic bronchoscopy. The VivaSight DL is a single-use double-lumen tube with a camera embedded in the tube's right side. The view from the camera appears continuously on a monitor. In this prospective study of 71 adult patients, we compared intubation times using either the VivaSight DL or a conventional double-lumen tube. Median (IQR [range]) duration of intubation with visual confirmation of tube position was significantly reduced using the VivaSight DL compared with the conventional double-lumen tube (51 (42-60 [35-118]) s vs 264 (233-325 [160-490]) s, respectively, p < 0.0001). None of the patients allocated to the VivaSight DL required fibreoptic bronchoscopy during intubation or surgery. The VivaSight DL enables significantly more rapid intubation compared with the conventional double-lumen tube.