Analgesia for emergency laparotomy: a systematic review

Author:

Passi Neha N1,Gupta Aayushi2,Lusby Eimear3,Scott Sara4,Sehmbi Herman5,Hare Sarah6,Oliver Charles M78

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anaesthesia, Whipps Cross Hospital, London, UK

2. Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK

3. Department of Anaesthesia, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK

4. Department of Anaesthesia, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK

5. London Health Sciences Centre, Western University, London, Canada

6. Department of Anaesthesia, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, Kent, UK

7. Centre for Perioperative Medicine, University College London, London, UK

8. Department of Anaesthesia, University College London Hospital, London, UK

Abstract

Aims/Background Poorly controlled pain is common after emergency laparotomy. It causes distress, hinders rehabilitation, and predisposes to complications: prolonged hospitalisation, persistent pain, and reduced quality of life. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the relative efficacies of pre-emptive analgesia for emergency laparotomy to inform practice. Methods We performed a search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and SCOPUS for comparator studies of preoperative/intraoperative interventions to control/reduce postoperative pain in adults undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) for general surgical pathologies. Exclusion criteria: surgery including non-abdominal sites; postoperative sedation and/or intubation; non-formal assessment of pain; non-English manuscripts. All manuscripts were screened by two investigators. Results We identified 2389 papers. Following handsearching and removal of duplicates, 1147 were screened. None were eligible for inclusion, with many looking at elective and/or laparoscopic surgeries. Conclusion Our findings indicate there is no evidence base for pre-emptive analgesic strategies in emergency laparotomy. This contrasts substantially with elective cohorts. Potential reasons include variation in practice, management of physiological derangement taking priority, and perceived contraindications to neuraxial techniques. We urge a review of contemporary practice, with analysis of clinical data, to generate expert consensus.

Publisher

Mark Allen Group

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3