RESUMO
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) often necessitates spinal fusion surgery in pediatric patients, posing significant challenges in postoperative pain management. Standard care involves the administration of intravenous opioids perioperatively, often requiring high doses to achieve adequate analgesia following an operation. This increases the risk of adverse events, may delay recovery and prolong hospital stay, and increases the likelihood of future abuse and dependence. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess the safety and effectiveness of intrathecal morphine (ITM) in pediatric patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion. Ovid Embase and MEDLINE were searched in October 2023 for articles that directly compared ITM use with standard pain management approaches for pediatric patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion. Our primary outcome was postoperative pain scores. Secondary outcomes included opioid usage details, adverse events, and blood loss. Of the 384 unique studies identified, nine studies (one randomized control trial, one prospective review, and seven retrospective reviews) met the inclusion criteria. The total number of patients within the ITM and control groups were 1384 and 676, respectively. Meta-analysis revealed significantly lower pain scores in the ITM group (standardized mean difference (SMD): -1.30 (-2.29, -0.31); p = 0.01). Similarly, ITM patients had significantly lower opioid usage, both intraoperatively (mean difference (MD): -0.71 mg/kg (-0.99, -0.44); p < 0.00001) as well as postoperatively (SMD: -2.10 (-3.48, -0.73); p = 0.003), and significantly lower blood loss (MD: -0.88 L (-1.34, -0.43); p = 0.0001). The occurrence of adverse events was similar across both groups. Our analysis of the available data demonstrates that a low to moderate dose of ITM is a safe and effective adjunct to improve standard postoperative care without increasing the risk of respiratory depression. When compared to control, ITM patients had superior analgesia while using fewer opioids had significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss when ITM was administered before spinal fusion, and had a similar complication profile. While further studies are warranted to establish optimal dosing, these findings underscore the potential of ITM as a valuable addition to multimodal pain management.
RESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the existing literature in order to compare the clinical outcomes and complications associated with the kidner procedure and simple excision procedure. Furthermore, this review will help determine if one procedure is advantageous over the other in treating accessory navicular among patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Previous research on this topic has seen a low success rate in treating patients with symptomatic accessory navicular using conservative treatment options such as shoe-wear modification, braces, and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. Surgical treatment such as simple excision and kidner procedure has shown to have minor complications including scarring and wound irritation with a generally high satisfaction rate from patients. However, cases where patients that had planovalgus or hindfoot valgus accompanying the accessory navicular were required to undergo revision surgery to treat the recurrent pain following the kidner procedure. Similarly, patients that underwent simple excision procedure with having flat foot were unable to complete the heel test postoperatively despite not reporting feelings of pain. Both simple excision and the Kidner procedure appear to be efficacious procedures with low complication profiles and high rates of patient satisfaction. Moreover, it has appeared that the female demographic is more likely to present symptomatic accessory navicular and undergo surgical treatment. To further explore the ideal indication for each, more prospective comparative studies are needed as well as radiological assessments pre- and post-operatively to evaluate anatomical changes in the posterior tibialis tendon area between both procedures.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Metastatic bone disease occurs in 20% to 40% of patients with lung cancer, and these patients often present with pain or skeletal-related events (SREs) that are associated with decreased survival. Bone-modifying agents such as denosumab or bisphosphonates are routinely used; however, to our knowledge, there has been no quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trial data to determine the most effective pharmacologic treatment of metastatic bone disease because of lung cancer. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis of randomized trials to identify the bone-modifying agent that is associated with the (1) highest overall survival, (2) longest time to SRE, (3) lowest SRE incidence, and (4) greatest likelihood of pain resolution. METHODS: We conducted our study according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol and pre-registered the analysis on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019124364). We performed a librarian-assisted search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang Data. We included randomized controlled trials reporting outcomes specifically for patients with lung cancer treated with a bisphosphonate or denosumab. SREs included pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression, hypercalcemia of malignancy, or pain resulting in surgical intervention or radiation therapy. We excluded trials exclusively reporting surrogate outcomes such as changes in bone turnover markers. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias evaluation, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation evaluations were performed in duplicate. We included 131 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 11,105 patients with skeletal metastases from lung cancer. The network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist model and the R statistical software. Results are reported as relative risks or mean differences, and the I2 value is reported for heterogeneity. The P-score, a measure of ranking certainty that accounts for standard error, is reported for each outcome. Heterogeneity in the network was considered moderate for overall survival and time to SRE, mild for the incidence of SRE, and low for pain resolution. RESULTS: For overall survival, denosumab was ranked above zoledronic acid and estimated to confer a mean of 3.3 months (95% CI 0.3-6.3) of increased overall survival compared with untreated patients (P-score = 89%). For the time to SRE, denosumab was ranked first with a mean of 9.1 additional SRE-free months (95% CI 6.7-11.5) compared with untreated patients (P-score = 99%), while zoledronic acid conferred an additional 4.8 SRE-free months (95% CI 3.6-6.1). Reduction in the incidence of SREs was not different between patients treated with denosumab (relative risk 0.54; 95% CI 0.33-0.87) and those treated with zoledronic acid (relative risk 0.56; 95% CI 0.46-0.67). Patients treated with the combination of ibandronate and systemic therapy were more likely to experience successful pain resolution than untreated patients (relative risk 2.4; 95% CI 1.8-3.2). CONCLUSION: In this comprehensive synthesis of all available randomized controlled trial evidence guiding the pharmacologic treatment of bone metastases from lung cancer, denosumab was ranked above zoledronic acid for overall survival and time to SRE and was not different for reducing the incidence of SRE. Both were superior to no treatment for each of these outcomes. Given this, we encourage physicians to consider the use of denosumab or zoledronic acid in treating this patient population. The combination of ibandronate and systemic therapy was the most effective at reducing pain because of metastases. No cost-effectiveness analysis has yet been performed for denosumab and zoledronic acid on patients with metastatic lung cancer, and this represents an avenue for future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.
