To review evidence and provide updated guidelines on intravitreal (IVT) injection technique and monitoring.
A review of the published literature on IVT injection from 2004 to 2014 formed the basis ...for round table deliberations by an expert panel of ophthalmologists.
The dramatic increase in the number of IVT injections has been accompanied by a comparable increase in evidence surrounding IVT practice patterns and techniques. The expert panel identified a number of areas that have evolved since publication of the original IVT injection guidelines in 2004, the most notable of which were a lack of evidence to support the routine use of pre-, peri-, and postinjection antibiotics to reduce the risk of endophthalmitis, and the role of aerosolized droplets containing oral contaminants from the patient and/or providers as a potential source of infection. The panel emphasized the continued importance of applying povidone-iodine to and avoiding eyelid contact with the intended injection site and needle.
Updated guidelines on IVT injection technique and monitoring are proposed based on a review of published literature and expert panel deliberations.
Lidocaine, mexiletine, tocainide, and flecainide are local anesthetics which give an analgesic effect when administered orally or parenterally. Early reports described the use of intravenous ...lidocaine or procaine to relieve cancer and postoperative pain. Interest reappeared decades later when patient series and clinical trials reported that parenteral lidocaine and its oral analogs tocainide, mexiletine, and flecainide relieved neuropathic pain in some patients. With the recent publication of clinical trials with high quality standards, we have reviewed the use of systemic lidocaine and its oral analogs in neuropathic pain to update our knowledge, to measure their benefit and harm, and to better define their role in therapy.
To evaluate pain relief and adverse effect rates between systemic local anesthetic-type drugs and other control interventions.
We searched MEDLINE (1966 through 15 May 2004), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2002), Cancer Lit (through 15 December 2002), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2nd Quarter, 2004), System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE), and LILACS, from January 1966 through March 2001. We also hand searched conference proceedings, textbooks, original articles and reviews.
We included trials with random allocation, that were double blinded, with a parallel or crossover design. The control intervention was a placebo or an analgesic drug for neuropathic pain from any cause.
We collected efficacy and safety data from all published and unpublished trials. We calculated combined effect sizes using continuous and binary data for pain relief and adverse effects as primary and secondary outcome measurements, respectively.
Thirty-two controlled clinical trials met the selection criteria; two were duplicate articles. The treatment drugs were intravenous lidocaine (16 trials), mexiletine (12 trials), lidocaine plus mexiletine sequentially (one trial), and tocainide (one trial). Twenty-one trials were crossover studies, and nine were parallel. Lidocaine and mexiletine were superior to placebo weighted mean difference (WMD) = -11; 95% CI: -15 to -7; P < 0.00001, and limited data showed no difference in efficacy (WMD = -0.6; 95% CI: -7 to 6), or adverse effects versus carbamazepine, amantadine, gabapentin or morphine. In these trials, systemic local anesthetics were safe, with no deaths or life-threatening toxicities. Sensitivity analysis identified data distribution in three trials as a probable source of heterogeneity. There was no publication bias.
Lidocaine and oral analogs were safe drugs in controlled clinical trials for neuropathic pain, were better than placebo, and were as effective as other analgesics. Future trials should enroll specific diseases and test novel lidocaine analogs with better toxicity profiles. More emphasis is necessary on outcomes measuring patient satisfaction to assess if statistically significant pain relief is clinically meaningful.
"Using UAV for The Digitalisation of Public Administration. A Bibliometric Analysis. The new European financial framework for 2021-2027 indicates digitalisation investments as a priority for the ...residential spaces, especially the urban ones. This is needed to increase the efficiency of the public administration and to optimize the relationships with the citizens (POR 2021-2027). In Romania, there are some recent good practice models in this regard, accelerated also by the current pandemic context. The scope of the paper consisted in highlighting the scientific production associated to the use of UAV technology in public administration by means of bibliometric analyses. Research included three stages: a). Selection of the documents in the Scopus database, b). Data extraction and visualization and c). Interpretation of bibliometric analyses conducted. The bibliometric analyses that were conducted highlighted that the interest for this topic was relatively recent (since 1988). It was strongly customized in the North-American and North-Western European research, but this type of approach is also necessary in the South-Eastern European countries. Keywords: UAV, Romania, VOSviewer, local administration. "
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Erector spinae block is an ultrasound-guided interfascial plane block first described in 2016. The objectives of this cadaveric dye injection and dissection study were to simulate an erector spinae ...block to determine if dye would spread anteriorly to the involve origins of the ventral and dorsal branches of the spinal nerves.
In 10 unembalmed human cadavers, 20 mL of 0.25% methylene blue dye was injected bilaterally into the plane between the fifth thoracic transverse process and erector spinae muscle. An in-plane ultrasound-guided technique with the transducer orientated longitudinally was used. During dissection, superficial and deep muscles were identified, and extent of dye spread was documented in cephalocaudal and lateral directions. The ventral and dorsal rami of spinal nerves and dorsal root ganglion at each level were examined to determine if they were stained by dye.
There was extensive cephalocaudad and lateral spread of dye deep and superficial to the erector spinae muscles. Except for 1 injection (from 20), the ventral rami were not stained by the dye. In only 2 injections did the dye track posteriorly through the costotransverse foramen to the dorsal root ganglion. In all other cases, the dorsal root ganglia were not involved in the dye injection. The dye stained the dorsal rami posterior to the costotransverse foramen.
There was no spread of dye anteriorly to the paravertebral space to involve origins of the ventral and dorsal branches of the thoracic spinal nerves. Dorsal ramus involvement was posterior to the costotransverse foramen.
The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects including ...nausea and constipation. These adverse effects prevent smooth postoperative recovery. On the other hand not all patients may be suited to, and take benefit from, epidural analgesia used to enhance postoperative recovery. The non-opioid lidocaine was investigated in several studies for its use in multi-modal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery.
The aim of this review was to assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 5 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), and reference lists of articles. We searched the trial registry database ClinicalTrials.gov, contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions.
We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with epidural analgesia in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The intravenous lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively prior to incision and continued at least until the end of surgery.
Trial quality was independently assessed by two authors according to the methodological procedures specified by the Cochrane Collaboration. Data were extracted by two independent authors. We collected trial data on postoperative pain, recovery of gastrointestinal function, length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, surgical complication rates, and adverse effects of the intervention.
We included 45 trials involving 2802 participants. Two trials compared intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia. In all the remaining trials placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (12), laparoscopic abdominal (13), or various other surgical procedures (20).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.We found evidence of effect for intravenous lidocaine on the reduction of postoperative pain (visual analogue scale, 0 to 10 cm) compared to placebo or no treatment at 'early time points (one to four hours)' (mean difference (MD) -0.84 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.10 to -0.59; low-quality evidence) and at 'intermediate time points (24 hours)' (MD -0.34 cm, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; low-quality evidence) after surgery. However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain at 'late time points (48 hours)' (MD -0.22 cm, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.03; low-quality evidence). Pain reduction was most obvious at 'early time points' in participants undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.78; low-quality evidence) and open abdominal surgery (MD -0.72, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.47; moderate-quality evidence). No evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain in participants undergoing all other surgeries (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.28; low-quality evidence). Quality of evidence is limited due to inconsistency and indirectness (small trial sizes).Evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on gastrointestinal recovery regarding the reduction of the time to first flatus (MD -5.49 hours, 95% CI -7.97 to -3.00; low-quality evidence), time to first bowel movement (MD -6.12 hours, 95% CI -7.36 to -4.89; low-quality evidence), and the risk of paralytic ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.99; low-quality evidence). However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on shortening the time to first defaecation (MD -9.52 hours, 95% CI -23.24 to 4.19; very low-quality evidence).Furthermore, we found evidence of positive effects for lidocaine administration on secondary outcomes such as reduction of length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea, intraoperative and postoperative opioid requirements. There was limited data on the effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects (e.g. death, arrhythmias, other heart rate disorders or signs of lidocaine toxicity) compared to placebo treatment as only a limited number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects of the lidocaine intervention.The comparison of intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia revealed no evidence of effect for lidocaine on relevant outcomes. However, the results have to be considered with caution due to imprecision of the effect estimates.
There is low to moderate evidence that this intervention, when compared to placebo, has an impact on pain scores, especially in the early postoperative phase, and on postoperative nausea. There is limited evidence that this has further impact on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as gastrointestinal recovery, length of hospital stay, and opioid requirements. So far there is a scarcity of studies that have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects; the optimal dose; timing (including the duration of the administration); and the effects when compared with epidural anaesthesia.
Thoracic neuropathic pain is a debilitating condition that is often poorly responsive to oral and topical pharmacotherapy. The benefit of interventional nerve block procedures is unclear due to a ...paucity of evidence and the invasiveness of the described techniques. In this report, we describe a novel interfascial plane block, the erector spinae plane (ESP) block, and its successful application in 2 cases of severe neuropathic pain (the first resulting from metastatic disease of the ribs, and the second from malunion of multiple rib fractures). In both cases, the ESP block also produced an extensive multidermatomal sensory block. Anatomical and radiological investigation in fresh cadavers indicates that its likely site of action is at the dorsal and ventral rami of the thoracic spinal nerves. The ESP block holds promise as a simple and safe technique for thoracic analgesia in both chronic neuropathic pain as well as acute postsurgical or posttraumatic pain.
Fascia iliaca block or femoral nerve block is used frequently in hip fracture patients because of their opioid-sparing effects and reduction in opioid-related adverse effects. A recent anatomical ...study on hip innervation led to the identification of relevant landmarks to target the hip articular branches of femoral nerve and accessory obturator nerve. Using this information, we developed a novel ultrasound-guided approach for blockade of these articular branches to the hip, the PENG (PEricapsular Nerve Group) block. In this report, we describe the technique and its application in 5 consecutive patients.
Background
The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with ...adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non‐opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017.
Objectives
To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.
Search methods
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review.
Selection criteria
We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery.
Data collection and analysis
We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.
Main results
We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).
The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.
IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment
We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.72 to −0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low‐quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD −0.14, 95% CI −0.25 to −0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate‐quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD −0.11, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate‐quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.
We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) −7.92 hours, 95% CI −12.71 to −3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD −4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI −6.25 to −2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.
The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low‐quality evidence).
IV Lidocaine compared to TEA
The effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI −0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI −1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD −1.66, 95% CI −10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low‐quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low‐quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low‐quality evidence).
Authors' conclusions
We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.
PDF
