The analgesic effect of intravenous lidocaine versus intrawound or epidural bupivacaine for postoperative opioid reduction in spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 201 ◽  
pp. 106438
Author(s):  
Sung Huang Laurent Tsai ◽  
Yagiz Ugur Yolcu ◽  
Shao-Wen Hung ◽  
Shyam J. Kurian ◽  
Mohammed Ali Alvi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intravenous Lidocaine ◽  
Epidural Bupivacaine

scholarly journals Does the application of Robotics improve outcomes of pedicle screw insertion in spine surgery compared to conventional fluoroscopy guidance? A protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishal Kumar ◽  
Vishnu Baburaj ◽  
Prasoon Kumar ◽  
Sarvdeep Singh Dhatt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Screw Placement ◽  
Screw Insertion ◽  
Pedicle Screw Insertion ◽  
Fluoroscopy Guidance

AbstractBackgroundPedicle screw insertion is routinely carried out in spine surgery that has traditionally been performed under fluoroscopy guidance. Robotic guidance has recently gained popularity in order to improve the accuracy of screw placement. However, it is unclear whether the use of robotics alters the accuracy of screw placement or clinical outcomes.ObjectivesThis systematic review aims to compare the results of pedicle screws inserted under fluoroscopy guidance, with those inserted under robotic guidance, in terms of both short-term radiographic outcomes, as well as long-term clinical outcomes.MethodsThis systematic review will be conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A literature search will be conducted on the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Ovid with a pre-determined search strategy. A manual bibliography search of included studies will also be done. Original articles in English that directly compare pedicle screw insertion under robotic guidance to those inserted under fluoroscopy guidance will be included. Data on outcomes will be extracted from included studies and analysis carried out with the help of appropriate software.

Racial Disparities in Outcomes After Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imad S. Khan ◽  
Elijah Huang ◽  
Walker Maeder-York ◽  
Renata W. Yen ◽  
Nathan E. Simmons ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Wewege ◽  
◽  
Matthew K. Bagg ◽  
Matthew D. Jones ◽  
James H. McAuley
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Analgesic Effect ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Limited Evidence ◽  
Pain Duration ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Abstract Background There is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of analgesic medicines for adults with low back pain. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to determine the analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, effect on function, and relative rank according to analgesic effect, safety, acceptability, and effect on function of a single course of [an] analgesic medicine(s) or combination of these medicines for people with low back pain. Methods We will include published and unpublished randomised trials written in any language that compare an analgesic medicine to either another medicine, placebo/sham, or no intervention in adults with low back pain, grouped according to pain duration: acute (fewer than 6 weeks), sub-acute (6 to 12 weeks), and chronic (greater than 12 weeks). The co-primary outcomes are pain intensity following treatment and safety (adverse events). The secondary outcomes are function and acceptability (all-cause dropouts). We will perform a network meta-analysis to compare and rank analgesic medicines. We will form judgements of confidence in the results using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) methodology. Discussion This network meta-analysis will establish which medicine, or combination of medicines, is most effective for reducing pain and safest for adults with low back pain. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019145257

Does Epidural Bupivacaine with or Without Steroids Provide Long-Term Relief? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti ◽  
Nebojsa Nick Knezevic ◽  
Allan Parr ◽  
Alan D. Kaye ◽  
Mahendra Sanapati ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidural Bupivacaine

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document