Diclofenac and/or Propacetamol for Postoperative Pain Management After Cesarean Delivery in Patients Receiving Patient Controlled Analgesia Morphine:

Comparison of different nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for cesarean section: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cesarean section is associated with moderate to severe pain and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly employed. The optimal NSAID, however, has not been elucidated. In this network meta-analysis and systematic review, we compared the influence of control and individual NSAIDs on the indices of analgesia, side effects, and quality of recovery.

METHODS

CDSR, CINAHL, CRCT, Embase, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing a specific NSAID to either control or another NSAID in elective or emergency cesarean section under general or neuraxial anesthesia. Network plots and league tables were constructed, and the quality of evidence was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis.

RESULTS

We included 47 trials. Cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h, the primary outcome, was examined in 1,228 patients and 18 trials, and control was found to be inferior to diclofenac, indomethacin, ketorolac, and tenoxicam (very low quality evidence owing to serious limitations, imprecision, and publication bias). Indomethacin was superior to celecoxib for pain score at rest at 8-12 h and celecoxib + parecoxib, diclofenac, and ketorolac for pain score on movement at 48 h. In regard to the need for and time to rescue analgesia COX-2 inhibitors such as celecoxib were inferior to other NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests the presence of minimal differences among the NSAIDs studied. Nonselective NSAIDs may be more effective than selective NSAIDs, and some NSAIDs such as indomethacin might be preferable to other NSAIDs.

The Current Consideration, Approach, and Management in Postcesarean Delivery Pain Control: A Narrative Review

Optimal postoperative analgesia has a significant impact on patient recovery and outcomes after cesarean delivery. Multimodal analgesia is the core principle for cesarean delivery and pain management. For a standard analgesic regimen, the use of long-acting neuraxial opioids (e.g., morphine) and adjunct drugs, such as scheduled acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, is recommended unless contraindicated. Oral or intravenous opioids should be reserved for breakthrough pain. In addition to the aforementioned use of multimodal analgesia, preoperative evaluation is critical to individualize the analgesic regimen according to the patient requirements. Risk factors for severe postoperative pain or analgesia-related adverse effects will require modifications to the standard analgesic regimen (e.g., the use of ketamine, gabapentinoids, or regional anesthetic techniques). Further investigation is required to determine analgesic drugs or dose alterations based on preoperative predictions for patients at risk of severe pain. Outcomes beyond pain and analgesic use, such as functional recovery, should be determined to evaluate analgesic treatment protocols.

Systemic adjunct analgesics for cesarean delivery: a narrative review

It is critical to adequately treat postoperative cesarean delivery pain. The use of parenteral or neuraxial opioids has been a mainstay, but opioids have side effects that can be troubling and the opioid crisis in the United States has highlighted the necessity to utilize analgesics other than opioids. Other analgesic options include neuraxial analgesics, nerve blocks such as the transversus abdominis plane block, and non-opioid parenteral and oral medications. The goal of this article is to review non-opioid systemic analgesic adjuncts following cesarean delivery, focusing on their efficacy and side effects as well as their impact on reduction of opioid requirements after surgery.

Disparity between High Satisfaction and Severe Pain in Patients after Caesarean Section: A Prospective Observational-Controlled Investigation

Objectives

Recent advances in the treatment of postoperative pain (POP) have increased the quality of life in surgical patients. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of POP management in patients after CS in comparison with patients after comparable surgical procedures.

Methods

This was a prospective observational analysis in patients after CS in comparison with the patients of the same age, who underwent comparable abdominal gynaecological surgeries (GS group) at the university hospital. A standardised questionnaire including pain intensity on the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS-11), incidence of analgesia-related side effects, and incidence of pain interference with the items of quality of life and patients' satisfaction with the treatment of POP was used.

Results

Sixty-four patients after CS reported more pain on movement than the patients after GS (N=63): mean 6.1 versus 3.6 (VRS-11; P < 0.001). The patients after CS reported less nausea (8 versus 41%) and vomiting (3 versus 21%; P < 0.001) and demonstrated better satisfaction with POP treatment than the patients after GS: 1.4 (0.7) versus 1.7 (0.7) (mean (SD); VRS-5; P=0.02).

Conclusion

The disparity between the high level of pain and excellent satisfaction with POP treatment raises the ethical and biomedical considerations of restrictive pharmacological therapy of post-CS pain.

The Analgesic Efficacy of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Agents (NSAIDs) in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Deliveries: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Postoperative pain after cesarean delivery, which accounts for approximately 1 in 3 live births in the United States, can be severe in many patients. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) are potent analgesics that are effective in the treatment of postoperative pain. In this meta-analysis, we assessed the analgesic efficacy of NSAIDs in postoperative cesarean delivery patients.

METHODS

An electronic literature search of the Library of Medicine's PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was conducted in May 2013 and updated in January 2015 (Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/AAP/A174). Searches were limited to randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome variable was visual analog scale or numerical rating scale pain scores. Secondary outcomes included cumulative postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects (drowsiness/sedation, nausea, and vomiting). Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Extracted data were input into Review Manager.

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomized controlled trials compared a NSAID (n = 639) to a control (n = 674). Patients in the NSAID group versus control reported lower pain scores at 12 hours (P = 0.003) and at 24 hours (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in pain scores at 24 hours, with patients receiving NSAIDs via intravenous/intramuscular (P < 0.001) route, but not the oral (P = 0.39) or rectal routes (P = 0.99). Significantly lower average pain scores were reported for pain with movement at 24 hours in the NSAID group (P = 0.001). Patients in the NSAID group versus controls consumed significantly less opioids (P < 0.001) and had significantly less drowsiness/sedation (P = 0.03), but there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to nausea or vomiting (P = 0.48 and P = 0.17, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative use of NSAIDs in cesarean delivery patients will result in a significantly lower pain scores, less opioid consumption, and less drowsiness/sedation but no difference in nausea or vomiting compared to those who did not receive NSAIDs. Further research should address the optimal NSAID regimen and examine the effect of improved analgesia on patient-centered outcomes such as patient satisfaction and quality of breastfeeding.

Preoperative cesarean delivery intravenous acetaminophen treatment for postoperative pain control: a randomized double-blinded placebo control trial

BACKGROUND

The United States currently has an opioid use disorder epidemic and research evaluating ways to minimize the use of opioids postsurgery are needed. One of these options is intravenous acetaminophen. If the use of preoperative intravenous acetaminophen was found to be effective for cesarean delivery, this would be beneficial for both the mother and breast-feeding neonate.

OBJECTIVE

The primary study objective was to see if maternal opioid use was significantly less in the postoperative period for the study group that received 1 g of intravenous acetaminophen preoperatively compared with a control group that received placebo. The secondary objectives were to evaluate maternal length of stay and pain scores postoperatively, and assess the acetaminophen level in cord blood at delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a prospective double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled trial. All pregnant patients who entered labor and delivery for a scheduled cesarean from November 2015 through April 2017 were eligible. Once consented, the medication was supplied by the pharmacy department, which performed the blinded randomization. Both the study drug of 1000 mg (1 g) of acetaminophen and placebo of normal saline were distributed as unmarked 100-mL bags administered over 15 minutes just prior to incision. No study personnel from the obstetric or anesthesia departments had any access to the randomization. Based on a power analysis using the published surgical data results, the goal was to obtain a minimum of 100 patients (50 patients in each arm). Primary data collection included demographics, number of opioid doses and morphine milligram equivalents administered to the patient postoperatively, length of stay postdelivery, pain scores, and newborn cord blood acetaminophen levels. Exclusions were maternal acetaminophen allergy, receipt of acetaminophen in the prior 24 hours, opioid use disorder, and hepatitis/liver impairment. Statistics involved χ², Fisher exact, and the Student t test where appropriate and a P value <.05 was considered significant with all tests considered against a 2-sided alternative hypothesis.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients were evaluated with 51 who received intravenous acetaminophen and 54 who received placebo. The number of postoperative opioid medication doses administered to the study group was 11.1 (±8.9) compared with the number received by the control group of 10.5 (±8.5), P = .72. The morphine milligram equivalents in the study group was 94.2 (±40.4) compared with the control group of 90.7 (±42.1), P = .67. The length of stay and pain scores were not different between the groups. All of the umbilical cord blood values for acetaminophen were subtherapeutic.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate that for cesarean delivery, the use of a preoperative 1-g intravenous dose of acetaminophen does not decrease the number of opioid medication doses or the morphine milligram equivalents administered postoperatively, nor does it decrease length of stay postcesarean. The administration of 1-g intravenous acetaminophen preoperatively does not result in elevated newborn cord blood levels (ClinicalTrials.govNCT02694653).

Acute Pain Management

Acute pain management is improving steadily over the past few years, but training and professional education are still lacking in many professions. Untreated or undertreated acute pain could have detrimental effects on the patient in terms of comfort and recovery from trauma or surgery. Acute undertreated pain can decrease a patient's vascular perfusion, increase oxygen demand, suppress the immune system, and possibly risk increased incidence of venous thrombosis. Although acute postoperative pain needs to be managed aggressively, patients are most vulnerable during this period for developing adverse effects, and therefore, patient assessment and careful drug therapy evaluation are necessary processes in therapeutic planning. Acute pain management requires careful and thorough initial assessment and follow-up reassessment in addition to frequent dosage adjustments, and managing analgesic induced side effects. Analgesic selection and dosing must be based on the patient's past and recent analgesic exposure. There is no single acute pain management regimen that is suitable for all patients. Analgesics must be tailored to the individual patient.

Single dose intravenous paracetamol or intravenous propacetamol for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 10, 2011. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. It may be administered orally, rectally, or intravenously. The efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) formulations of paracetamol, IV paracetamol, and IV propacetamol (a prodrug that is metabolized to paracetamol), compared with placebo and other analgesics, is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of IV formulations of paracetamol for the treatment of postoperative pain in both adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search for the previous review in May 2010. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), EMBASE (May 2010 to 16 February 2016), LILACS (2010 to 2016), a clinical trials registry, and reference lists of reviews for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language and we retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled single dose clinical trials of IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We contacted study authors for additional information. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 75 studies (36 from the original review and 39 from our updated review) enrolling a total of 7200 participants.Among primary outcomes, 36% of participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared with 16% of those receiving placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7 to 5.6, high quality evidence). The proportion of participants in IV paracetamol/propacetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over six hours, as reflected in a higher NNT of 6 (4.6 to 7.1, moderate quality evidence). Mean pain intensity at four hours was similar when comparing IV paracetamol and placebo, but was seven points lower on a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (0 = no pain, 100 = worst pain imaginable, 95% CI -9 to -6, low quality evidence) in those receiving paracetamol at six hours.For secondary outcomes, participants receiving IV paracetamol/propacetamol required 26% less opioid over four hours and 16% less over six hours (moderate quality evidence) than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a clinically meaningful reduction in opioid-induced adverse events.Meta-analysis of efficacy comparisons between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators (e.g., opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both.Adverse events occurred at similar rates with IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving IV propacetamol versus placebo (23% versus 1%). Meta-analysis did not demonstrate clinically meaningful differences between IV paracetamol/propacetamol and active comparators for any adverse event.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, we have found 39 new studies providing additional information. Most included studies evaluated adults only. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides high quality evidence that a single dose of either IV paracetamol or IV propacetamol provides around four hours of effective analgesia for about 36% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Low to very low quality evidence demonstrates that both formulations are associated with few adverse events, although patients receiving IV propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion than both placebo and IV paracetamol.

Acupuncture for pain control after Caesarean section: a prospective observational pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Options for pharmacological analgesia in patients who have undergone Caesarean section (CS) are often restricted. Acupuncture is a promising tool for treating postoperative pain. We aimed to study the feasibility and acceptability of acupuncture as an additional method of analgesia in CS patients in a prospective observational pilot investigation.

METHODS

Twenty-two patients scheduled for elective CS under spinal anaesthesia were enrolled according to set inclusion criteria. Each patient received auricular and body acupuncture with 20 indwelling fixed needles according to previously validated protocols of acupuncture for postoperative analgesia. Pain intensity on an 11-point verbal rating scale (VRS-11, where 0=no pain and 10=maximal pain), analgesia-related side effects, time to mobilisation and Foley catheter removal after CS, and patients' compliance and satisfaction with treatment of pain on a 5-point VRS (VRS-5, where 1=excellent; 5=bad) were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included in the final analysis. One patient was disturbed by paraesthesia at the site of needling. All other patients tolerated acupuncture well. Pain intensity on movement on the first postoperative day was 4.3±2.4 (mean±SD; VRS-11) and decreased to 2.2±1.2 on the day of discharge. Patient satisfaction was 1.9±0.8 (mean±SD; VRS-5) and compliance (rated by their nurses) was 1.5±0.5 (mean±SD; VRS-5).

CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture for additional analgesia after CS was well accepted. The primary outcome measurement was feasible and allowed the sample size to be calculated for a future randomised controlled trial.

Impact of Postoperative Intravenous Acetaminophen on Opioid Requirements and Pain Scores Following Gynecologic Procedures

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the impact of postoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen on opioid requirements and pain scores in patients following gynecologic procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing gynecologic procedures was conducted to assess the impact of adding scheduled IV acetaminophen to postoperative analgesic regimens. The control group consisted of patients admitted prior to formulary addition of IV acetaminophen; the study group consisted of patients admitted after formulary addition of IV acetaminophen who received scheduled IV acetaminophen for at least the first 24 hours postoperatively. Opioid requirements 0 to 24 hours postoperatively served as the primary end point. Secondary end points included average pain score, cumulative acetaminophen dose, nonopioid analgesic requirements, and rate of adverse events 0 to 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients who underwent a gynecologic procedure from January 2009 to April 2013 were included in this study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. In the first 24 hours postoperatively, there was no difference in opioid requirements between the groups (21 mg [interquartile range, IQR, 15-39.8 mg] vs 32.6 mg [IQR, 16.75-41 mg], P = 0.150). The average pain score and incidence of adverse events did not differ between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative administration of IV acetaminophen did not provide a significant opioid-sparing effect in patients undergoing gynecologic procedures.

A randomised controlled trial of parecoxib, celecoxib and paracetamol as adjuncts to patient-controlled epidural analgesia after caesarean delivery

The benefit of combining non-opioid analgesics with neuraxial opioids for analgesia after caesarean delivery has not been clearly established. Larger doses of paracetamol or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have not been evaluated. A randomised, double blind, double-dummy, parallel group placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted among women having elective caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia, followed by pethidine patient-controlled epidural analgesia. Patients received placebos (group C); intravenous parecoxib 40 mg then oral celecoxib 400 mg at 12 hours (group PC); intravenous paracetamol 2 g then oral 1 g six-hourly (group PA); or these regimens combined (group PCPA). The primary outcome was 24-hour postoperative patient-controlled epidural pethidine use and the main secondary outcome was postoperative pain. One hundred and thirty-eight women were recruited but 27 subsequently met exclusion criteria, leaving 111 who were randomised, allocated and analysed by intention-to-treat (n=23, 30, 32 and 26 in groups C, PC, PA and PCPA respectively). There were no differences between groups for pethidine consumption, based on either intention-to-treat (median 365, 365, 405 and 360 mg in groups C, PC, PA and PCPA respectively, P=0.84) or per protocol analysis (17 major violations). Dynamic pain scores did not differ between groups but requirement for, and dose of, supplementary oral tramadol was least in group PCPA (incidence 23% versus 48%, 70% and 58% in groups C, PC and PA respectively, P=0.004). The addition of regular paracetamol, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors or both to pethidine patient-controlled epidural post-caesarean analgesia did not provide a pethidine dose-sparing effect during the first 24 hours.

Opioid-sparing effect of intravenous paracetamol after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate meperidine-sparing effect of intravenous (IV) paracetamol in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred patients who underwent PCNL were randomized to paracetamol (n=50) and placebo (n=50) groups. Patients received 100 mL of physiologic saline with or without 1 g IV paracetamol every 8 hours after PCNL up to 24 hours in the paracetamol and placebo groups, respectively. Patients in both groups received intramuscular meperidine in case of unrelieved pain. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain intensity scores in the postoperative period. Total meperidine consumption, mean VAS score in the first 6 and 24 hours, demographic variables, operative variables, and side effects were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean VAS pain intensity scores at 6 and 24 hours were 50.22 and 41.32 mm in the paracetamol and 75.29 or 65.5 mm in the placebo group (P<0.001). The mean consumed meperidine dose was 54.40 mg and 77.60 mg in the paracetamol and placebo groups, respectively (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this study, IV paracetamol significantly reduced total meperidine consumption and pain intensity scores compared with placebo. IV paracetamol can be an effective and safe part of multimodal analgesia regimes for postoperative pain management after PCNL.

Multimodal postcesarean delivery analgesia

Cesarean deliveries can be associated with moderate to severe postoperative pain. Appropriate management of pain is important because it results in better patient satisfaction, earlier mobilization, and improved maternal-infant bonding. There are many individual options for treatment of pain; however, multimodal analgesic therapy has become the mainstay of treatment. In this article, the epidemiology of postcesarean delivery pain, pain mechanisms, and the multiple options available to providers for treatment of postoperative pain are discussed.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during pregnancy and the initiation of lactation

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin, which are available as "over-the counter" medications in most countries, are widely used by both pregnant and lactating women. They are popular non-opioid analgesics for the treatment of pain after vaginal and operative delivery. In addition, NSAIDs are used for tocolysis in premature labor, and low-dose aspirin has a role in the prevention of preeclampsia and recurrent miscarriage in antiphospholipid syndrome. NSAIDs and aspirin may affect fertility and increase the risk of early pregnancy loss. In the second trimester their use is considered reasonably safe, but has been associated with fetal cryptorchism. In the third trimester, NSAIDs and aspirin are usually avoided because of significant fetal risks such as renal injury, oligohydramnios, constriction of the ductus arteriosus (with potential for persistent pulmonary hypertension in the newborn), necrotizing enterocolitis, and intracranial hemorrhage. Maternal administration or ingestion of most NSAIDs results in low infant exposure via breastmilk, such that both cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are generally considered safe, and preferable to aspirin, when breastfeeding.

Pre-incisional, post-incisional and combined pre- and post-incisional local wound infiltrations with lidocaine in elective caesarean section delivery: a randomised clinical trial

The objective of this study was to compare maternal and fetal outcomes in caesarean deliveries received pre-incisional, post-incisional or combined pre- and post-incisional local wound infiltrations with lidocaine. In a randomised, double-blind clinical trial, candidates of elective caesarean section received local wound infiltration with an anaesthetic mixture including 1% lidocaine pre-incisionally (n = 94), post-incisionally (n = 92) or both (n = 95). Postoperative pain, duration of analgesia, number of postoperative rescue analgesic demands, time to ambulation, time of first breast-feeding and neonatal Apgar score were compared. Main outcome variables were comparable between the pre- and post-incisional groups. Pain scores and duration of analgesia were significantly lower in the mixed group. Time of breast-feeding and number of analgesic demand were significantly lower in 'mixed' group than those in pre- and post-incisional groups, respectively. The other variables were comparable. Combined pre- and post-incisional local wound infiltration in post-caesarean pain relief is superior to each one alone.

Diclofenac-tramadol vs. diclofenac-acetaminophen combinations for pain relief after caesarean section

BACKGROUND

We compared the analgesic efficacy of diclofenac-acetaminophen combination with diclofenac-tramadol combination to optimize multimodal post-operative analgesia in women undergoing caesarean section.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group controlled trial, 204 women undergoing caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia with bupivacaine received rectal suppository diclofenac 100 mg (8 hourly till 24 h) plus either intravenous acetaminophen (1 g 6 hourly) or tramadol (75 mg 6 hourly) post-operatively. The primary outcome measure was the summed pain intensities during the entire observation period, calculated as the sum of time-weighted pain intensity scores as an area under the curve (AUC). Secondary outcome was the use of rescue analgesic, administered if the patient's numeric rating scale (NRS) scores ≥  4.

RESULTS

The overall pain score for the entire observation period measured as AUC was significantly lower in the diclofenac-tramadol group. However, diclofenac-tramadol combination produced Bonferroni-corrected statistically significant lower NRS pain scores only on movement at 24 h. Rescue analgesic consumption was comparable between the groups (13% vs. 12%, P = 0.872). Overall, the pain scores were low in both of the groups across various time intervals (median NRS scores 0-2 for pain both at rest and on movement), indicating satisfactory pain control in both groups. Side effects were few and comparable, except nausea (significantly more in tramadol group than acetaminophen group, 15% vs. 2%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Both diclofenac-tramadol and diclofenac-acetaminophen combinations can achieve satisfactory post-operative pain control in women undergoing caesarean section. The diclofenac-tramadol combination was overall more efficacious but associated with higher incidence of post-operative nausea.

Single dose intravenous propacetamol or intravenous paracetamol for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. It may be administered orally or intravenously. The efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) formulations of paracetamol, IV paracetamol and IV propacetamol, compared with placebo and other analgesics, is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of IV formulations of paracetamol for treatment of postoperative pain in both adults and children.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2010), EMBASE (1980 to 2010, Week 18), LILACS (1992 to May 2010) and reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled single dose clinical trials of IV propacetamol or IV paracetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse event information from the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-six studies (3896 participants) were included. Thirty-seven percent of participants receiving IV propacetamol/paracetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared with 16% of those receiving placebo (number needed to treat to benefit (NNT = 4.0; 95% confidence interval 3.5 to 4.8). The proportion of participants in IV propacetamol/paracetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over six hours, as reflected in a higher NNT of 5.3 (4.2 to 6.7). Participants receiving IV propacetamol/paracetamol required 30% less opioid over four hours than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a reduction in opioid-induced adverse events.Meta-analysis of efficacy comparisons between IV propacetamol/paracetamol and active comparators (opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs)) were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both.Adverse events occurred at similar rates with IV propacetamol or IV paracetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving IV propacetamol versus placebo (23% versus 1%).Meta-analysis did not demonstrate statistically significant differences between IV propacetamol/paracetamol and active comparators for any adverse event except a reduction in the rate of hypotension versus NSAIDs and a reduction in the rate of gastrointestinal disorders versus opioids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of both IV propacetamol and IV paracetamol provides around four hours of effective analgesia for about 37% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Both formulations are associated with few adverse events, although patients receiving IV propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion than both placebo and IV paracetamol.

Single-dose intravenous paracetamol or propacetamol for prevention or treatment of postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Paracetamol is the most commonly prescribed analgesic for the treatment of acute pain. The efficacy and safety of i.v. formulations of paracetamol is unclear. We performed a systematic search (multiple databases, bibliographies, any language, to May 2010) for single-dose, randomized, controlled clinical trials of propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol for acute postoperative pain in adults or children. Thirty-six studies involving 3896 patients were included. For the primary outcome, 37% of patients (240/367) receiving propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol experienced at least 50% pain relief over 4 h compared with 16% (68/527) receiving placebo (number needed to treat=4.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-4.8). The proportion of patients in propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol groups experiencing at least 50% pain relief diminished over 6 h. Patients receiving propacetamol or paracetamol required 30% less opioid over 4 h and 16% less opioid over 6 h than those receiving placebo. However, this did not translate to a reduction in opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). Similar comparisons between propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol and active comparators were either not statistically significant, not clinically significant, or both. AEs occurred at similar rates with propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol and placebo. However, pain on infusion occurred more frequently in those receiving propacetamol compared with placebo (23% vs 1%). A single dose of either propacetamol or i.v. paracetamol provides around 4 h of effective analgesia for about 37% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Both formulations are associated with few AEs, although patients receiving propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion.

[Postoperative multimodal pain management : Cost-minimisation analysis from a hospital's point of view]

BACKGROUND

Adequate pain management after major surgery is important to improve patients' quality of life and to support the healing process. Since the cost for pain management is included in the DRG system for hospital reimbursement, hospitals should aim to provide adequate postoperative pain management at the lowest possible cost. In this study we compare two multimodal pain management schemes for postoperative pain management in a cost-minimisation analysis.

METHODS

In a decision analytic model two treatment regimes for postoperative pain management are compared in a cost-minimisation analysis: diclofenac + morphine vs paracetamol vs morphine. The study is performed from the perspective of a public hospital. Due to the short time horizon costs are not discounted.

RESULTS

Assuming comparable effectiveness for adequate postoperative pain management, the expected value in the decision tree model for the combination diclofenac + morphine is 13.37 EUR and for the combination paracetamol + morphine 32.23 EUR, respectively. The results are robust under various one- and two-way sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

With no contraindications given the combination diclofenac + morphine is more cost-effective for postoperative pain management after major surgery compared to paracetamol + morphine.

Postoperative Pain After Cesarean Birth Affects Breastfeeding and Infant Care

OBJECTIVE

To study women's experience of postoperative pain and pain relief after cesarean birth and factors associated with pain assessment and the birth experience.

DESIGN

Descriptive patient survey. Data were collected through a questionnaire. The outcome variables were assessments of pain using a Visual Analog Scale and women's birth experience measured on a seven-point Likert scale.

SETTING

Central Swedish county hospital, maternity unit.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 60 women undergoing cesarean birth.

RESULTS

Women reported high levels of experienced pain during the first 24 hours. Seventy-eight percent of the women scored greater than or equal to 4 on the Visual Analog Scale, which can be seen as inadequately treated pain. There was no difference between elective and emergency cesarean births in the levels of pain. In spite of high levels of pain, women were pleased with the pain relief. The risk of a negative birth experience was 80% higher for women undergoing an emergency cesarean birth compared with elective cesarean birth. Postoperative pain negatively affected breastfeeding and infant care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for individual and adequate pain treatment for women undergoing cesarean birth, as high levels of pain interfere with early infant care and breastfeeding.

The effect of preoperative intravenous use of tenoxicam: a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

In this study, we aimed to investigate the postoperative pain relief effect of preoperative tenoxicam usage in patients who undergo elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy or groin hernia repair. Eighty patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy or groin hernia repair procedures were randomized to receive either physiologic serum at 100 mL (group I, n = 40) or 20 mg iv tenoxicam (group II, n = 40) immediately before induction. Postoperative analgesic requirement, peroperative side effects and complications of drugs, operating time, post-operative mobilization time and pain score, hospitalization time, and patient pleasure were recorded. Postoperative pain was assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS) on the recovery unit (RU), at 4, 8, and 24 h and every day at the same times in the morning. The RU median VAS score was also not different when Group 1 was compared with Group 2 (p = .97). However, the postoperative 4-h and 8-h median VAS score was significantly less (p = .01 and p = .03, respectively); first postoperative mobilization time was earlier in group 2 (p = .32). The median pain score and intramuscular analgesic requirement of patients were also reduced in Group 2 in postoperative day 1 (p = .015). The median duration of intramuscular analgesic requirement and total amount of intramuscular analgesic used in patients were also significantly less in Group 2 (p = .0001 and p = .0001, respectively). Thus, this study showed that preoperative use of iv tenoxicam is safe, simple, and effective for postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair.

Effects of acetaminophen on morphine side-effects and consumption after major surgery: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials † †Presented in part at the Annual Meeting of the Société Française d’Anesthésie-Réanimation, Paris, April 2004

BACKGROUND

Acetaminophen is commonly used for the management of perioperative pain. However, there is a marked discrepancy between the extent to which acetaminophen is used and the available evidence for an analgesic effect after major surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the morphine-sparing effect of acetaminophen combined with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine and to evaluate its effects on opioid-related adverse effects.

METHODS

MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched to select randomized controlled trials which compared PCA morphine alone with PCA morphine plus acetaminophen administered orally or intravenously. Studies were evaluated for their quality based on the Oxford Quality Scale. Outcome measures were morphine consumption over the first 24 h after surgery, patient satisfaction and the incidence of morphine side-effects, including nausea and vomiting, sedation, urinary retention, pruritus and/or respiratory depression.

RESULTS

Seven prospective randomized controlled trials, including 265 patients in the group with PCA morphine plus acetaminophen and 226 patients in the group with PCA morphine alone, were selected. Acetaminophen administration was not associated with a decrease in the incidence of morphine-related adverse effects or an increase in patient satisfaction. Adding acetaminophen to PCA was associated with a morphine-sparing effect of 20% (mean, -9 mg; CI -15 to -3 mg; P=0.003) over the first postoperative 24 h.

CONCLUSION

Acetaminophen combined with PCA morphine induced a significant morphine-sparing effect but did not change the incidence of morphine-related adverse effects in the postoperative period.

Spinal anaesthesia for obstetrics

For a long time, epidural anaesthesia has been considered the method of choice for Caesarean delivery. The increased incidence of hypotension by the rapid onset of sympathetic blockade under spinal anaesthesia has been associated with a decline in uteroplacental blood flow and significant fetal acidosis, which may compromise neonatal well-being. Nevertheless, a decrease in fetal pH has not been shown to reduce neonatal Apgar or neurobehavioural assessment scores. Maternal blood pressure can be preserved with little side effects with low doses of vasopressors. On the other hand, spinal anaesthesia conveys significant advantages over epidural anaesthesia such as the simplicity of its use and the speed of onset, which allows neuraxial anaesthesia in urgent Caesarean sections and thus reduces the necessity for general anaesthesia. The small doses of local anaesthetics required to perform spinal anaesthesia reduce the risks of systemic toxicity to zero. Spinal anaesthesia is now considered the method of choice for urgent Caesarean section. The use of intrathecal opioids has profoundly changed the quality of spinal anaesthesia, with improved analgesia, a reduction in local anaesthetic requirements and shorter duration of motor blockade. Preliminary studies indicate that spinal anaesthesia may be safely performed in patients with severe pre-eclampsia, in whom spinal anaesthesia was previously considered contraindicated.