Outcomes of Arthroscopic Decompression of the Anterior Inferior Iliac Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
pp. 036354652110629
Author(s):  
Andrew L. Schaver ◽  
Steven M. Leary ◽  
Jacob L. Henrichsen ◽  
Christopher M. Larson ◽  
Robert W. Westermann
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Anterior Inferior Iliac Spine ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
The Mean

Background: Anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) impingement has been increasingly recognized as a source of extra-articular impingement and hip pain. However, no aggregate data analysis of patient outcomes after AIIS decompression has been performed. Purpose: To evaluate outcomes after arthroscopic AIIS decompression. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried for all English-language studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic AIIS decompression performed in isolation or in conjunction with hip impingement correction surgery. After screening, 10 articles were included. The indications for AIIS decompression were recorded, and weighted mean improvements in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, complication rates, and revision rates were calculated. Results: A total of 547 patients (311 women; 57%) were identified, with a total of 620 operative hips. The mean age was 28.42 ± 5.6 years, and the mean follow-up was 25.22 ± 11.1 months. A total of 529 hips (85%) underwent AIIS decompression, 530 hips (85%) underwent femoral osteochondroplasty, and 458 hips (74%) underwent labral repair. Of the patients, 13% underwent bilateral AIIS decompression. The mean modified Harris Hip Score improved from 61.3 ± 6.9 to 88.7 ± 4.7 postoperatively (change, 27.4 ± 5.7 points; P < .001), the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living improved from 67.2 ± 10.6 to 91.1 ± 3.2 postoperatively (change, 24.0 ± 8.0 points; P = .001), and the Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale improved from 36.8 ± 19.2 to 82.8 ± 3.8 postoperatively (change, 46.0 ± 18.2 points; P = .002). The pooled risk of postoperative complications was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.1%), and the pooled risk of needing revision surgery was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.0%). No complication was directly attributed to the AIIS decompression portion of the procedure. Conclusion: PROs improved significantly after hip arthroscopy with AIIS decompression, with a low risk of postoperative complications and subsequent revision surgeries. Failure to identify extra-articular sources of hip pain in outcomes of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, including from the AIIS, could lead to poorer outcomes and future revision surgery.

Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2780-2788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela O’Connor ◽  
Anas A. Minkara ◽  
Robert W. Westermann ◽  
James Rosneck ◽  
T. Sean Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Rehabilitation Protocols ◽  
The Mean

Background: The use of arthroscopic treatment for intra-articular hip pathology has demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a lower rate of complications, reoperation, and patient morbidity as compared with traditional methods. Although the use of this minimally invasive approach has increased in prevalence, no evidence-based return-to-play (RTP) criteria have been developed to ensure an athlete’s preparedness for sporting activities. Purpose: To determine if there exists sufficient evidence in the literature to support an RTP protocol and functional assessment after hip arthroscopy, as well as to assess the mean rate and duration of RTP. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The search terms “hip arthroscopy,” “return to play,” and 10 related terms were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, yielding 263 articles. After screening, 22 articles were included. RTP timeline, rehabilitation protocols, and conditional criteria measures were assessed with previously established criteria. Pooled estimates were calculated for RTP rate and duration, and weighted mean scores were determined for PROs. Results: A total of 1296 patients with 1442 total hips were identified. Although 54.5% (12 of 22) of studies did not provide a guideline for RTP duration after hip arthroscopy, 36.4% (8 of 22) recommended a duration of 4 months, while 9.1% (2 of 22) recommended 3 months. The most frequently described postoperative rehabilitation protocols were weightbearing guidelines (15 studies) and passive motion exercises (9 studies). Only 2 studies satisfied the criteria for a sufficient RTP protocol, and 3 provided a specific replicable test for RTP. The mean RTP duration was 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1-8.8 months), and the return rate was 84.6% (95% CI, 80.4%-88.8%; P = .008) at a mean ± SD follow-up of 25.8 ± 2.4 months. Mean modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) improved from 63.1 to 84.1 postoperatively (+33.3%), while Non-arthritic Hip Score improved from 61.7 to 86.8 (+40.7%). A lower preoperative mHHS was significantly associated with a higher postoperative improvement ( r = −0.95, P = .0003). Conclusion: Significant variability exists in RTP protocols among institutions owing to a lack of standardization. Despite a high overall rate of RTP and improvement in PROs after hip arthroscopy, the majority of rehabilitation protocols are not evidence based and rely on expert opinion. No validated functional test currently exists to assess RTP.

Repaired or unrepaired capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yipeng Lin ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Xinghao Deng ◽  
Xihao Huang ◽  
KaiBo Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Published Evidence

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, rates of revision and conversion to arthroplasty and complications between a repaired and unrepaired capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy. Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify comparative articles published prior to 10 July 2019 that reported the capsule management strategy and clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. A narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed to integrate and compare the results of the 2 groups. Results: 12 comparative studies ( n = 1185 hips) with an average (methodological index for non-randomized studies) MINORS score of 17.45 ± 2.02 were identified for analysis, of which 5 were included in the meta-analysis. The pre- to postoperative improvements in the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SS), and Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) revealed no significant differences between the repaired and unrepaired groups ( p = 0.40, 0.26 and 0.61, respectively). The risk ratio of the revision rate for the 2 groups was 0.66 ( p = 0.21). Evaluation of the MRI scans and the rate of heterotopic ossification also showed no significant differences. The most preferred capsulotomy techniques were interportal and T-shape. No postoperative hip instability was reported in any of the 12 studies. Conclusion: The currently published evidence is still not strong enough to confirm the superiority of repairing the capsule after hip arthroscopy; hence, routine repair of the capsule during surgery cannot be suggested.

Early Outcomes and Perioperative Complications of the Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (9) ◽  
pp. 2232-2241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Cerciello ◽  
Katia Corona ◽  
Brent Joseph Morris ◽  
Domenico Alessandro Santagada ◽  
Giulio Maccauro
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Latarjet Procedure ◽  
Open Procedure ◽  
Arthroscopic Latarjet ◽  
Arthroscopic Latarjet Procedure ◽  
The Mean

Background: The arthroscopic Latarjet-Bristow procedure is emerging as a reliable alternative to the open procedure. The reduced soft tissue damage with potential advantages of early pain control and functional recovery is attractive. However, the operation is technically more demanding, and there are concerns regarding the potential for increased recurrence and complication rates. Purpose: To evaluate the available literature focusing on the reported functional outcomes and complications of the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure and compare them with the open procedure. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A comprehensive systematic review was performed with the keywords “arthroscopy,” “arthroscopic,” “Latarjet,” and “Bristow,” with no limit regarding the year of publication. The review was limited to the English-language articles, and each article was evaluated with a modified MINORS (methodological index for nonrandomized studies) scoring system. Results: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Overall, 813 patients met inclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up of 24.5 months. The mean Walch-Duplay and Rowe scores were 89.6 and 90.2, respectively. The overall complication rate was 16.5%; intraoperative conversion to open surgery, 2%; recurrence, 2.5%; and revision surgery, 5.6%. When only comparative studies were considered, the overall complication rates were 23.7% (arthroscopically) and 15.3% (open). The recurrence and revision surgery rates were 6.5% and 5.7% in the study group, while the corresponding values in the control group were 4% and 2.9%. The mean MINORS score was 14.5 (11.6 for noncomparative studies and 19 for comparative studies). Conclusion: The arthroscopic Latarjet-Bristow procedure is reliable. Outcomes are satisfactory, with less pain and faster recovery in the first postoperative week. However, the procedure is technically demanding, and higher rates of complications and reoperations should be expected. Finally, the arthroscopic operation is much more expensive in terms of implanted materials than the open procedure.

scholarly journals Role of arthroscopy for the diagnosis and management of post-traumatic hip pain: a prospective study

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 377-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arafat Alfikey ◽  
Ahmed El-Bakoury ◽  
Mahmoud Abdel Karim ◽  
Hazem Farouk ◽  
Mohamed Abdelhalem Kaddah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prospective Study ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Womac Score ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Diagnosis And Management ◽  
Post Traumatic ◽  
The Mean

Abstract The current published literature regarding the role of hip arthroscopy in the diagnosis and management of post-traumatic hip pain is still limited. Therefore, we conducted the present prospective study to determine the value of hip arthroscopy in the diagnosis and management of various causes of hip pain after traumatic conditions. The present study included a prospective cohort of 17 patients with symptomatic post-traumatic hip pain. It was conducted between July 2013 and May 2018. The mean age was 22 (19–29) years and the mean follow-up was 24 (r: 7–36) months. Prior to surgery, every eligible patient underwent assessment of functional status using the Modified Harris Hip Score, Oxford hip score (OHS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score. All patients underwent arthroscopic management for their diagnosed pathologies. The most commonly encountered diagnosis was labral tear (58.8%), followed by ligamentum teres tear (35.3%) and loose intra-articular fragments (29.4%). In addition, 52.9% of the patients had associated CAM lesion and 11.8% had associated Pincer lesion. The mHSS, OHS and WOMAC score showed significant improvement in the post-operative period (P &lt; 0.001), all the 17 patients had 100% Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State; only one patient did not achieve minimal clinical importance difference. One case underwent labral debridement for failed labral repair (5.8%), another patient developed maralgia paraesthetica (5.8%). In conclusion, hip arthroscopy is a useful and effective minimally invasive procedure for the diagnosis and management of selected patients with post-traumatic hip pain. Moreover, hip arthroscopy was safe technique with no reported serious adverse events.

scholarly journals Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822097914
Author(s):  
Lei Zhu ◽  
Jun-Wu Wang ◽  
Liang Zhang ◽  
Xin-Min Feng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Objectives: To evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes, and perioperative complications of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of related studies reporting outcomes of OLIF for ASD. The clinical outcomes were assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The radiographic parameters were evaluated by sagittal vertical axis (SVA), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL), Cobb angle and fusion rate. A random effects model and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were performed to investigate the results. Results: A total of 16 studies involving 519 patients were included in the present study. The mean difference of VAS-back score, VAS-leg score and ODI score before and after surgery was 5.1, 5.0 and 32.3 respectively. The mean correction of LL was 20.6°, with an average of 6.9° per level and the mean correction of Cobb was 16.4°, with an average of 4.7° per level. The mean correction of SVA, PT, SS, TK and PI-LL was 59.3 mm, 11.7°, 6.9°, 9.4° and 20.6° respectively. The mean fusion rate was 94.1%. The incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 4.9% and 29.6% respectively. Conclusions: OLIF is an effective and safe surgery method in the treatment of mild or moderate ASD and it has advantages in less intraoperative blood loss and lower perioperative complications.

The analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride for the prevention of postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. rapm-2020-102427
Author(s):  
Hanns-Christian Dinges ◽  
Thomas Wiesmann ◽  
Berit Otremba ◽  
Hinnerk Wulf ◽  
Leopold H Eberhart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
End Points ◽  
Liposomal Bupivacaine ◽  
Bupivacaine Hydrochloride ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Score Difference ◽  
The Mean

Background/ImportanceLiposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a prolonged release formulation of conventional bupivacaine designed for prolonging local or peripheral regional single injection anesthesia. To this day, the benefit of the new substance on relevant end points is discussed controversial.ObjectiveThe objective was to determine whether there is a difference in postoperative pain scores and morphine consumption between patients treated with LB and bupivacaine hydrochloride in a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence reviewRandomized controlled trials (RCT) were identified in Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science up to May 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methodology. Primary end points were the mean pain score difference and the relative morphine equivalent (MEQ) consumption expressed as the ratio of means (ROM) 24 and 72 hours postoperatively.Findings23 RCTs including 1867 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. The mean pain score difference at 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the LB group, at −0.37 (95% CI −0.56 to −0.19). The relative MEQ consumption after 24 hours was also significantly lower in the LB group, at 0.85 (0.82 to 0.89). At 72 hours, the pain score difference was not significant at −0.25 (−0.71 to 0.20) and the MEQ ratio was 0.85 (0.77 to 0.95).ConclusionThe beneficial effect on pain scores and opioid consumption was small but not clinically relevant, despite statistical significance. The effect was stable among all studies, indicating that it is independent of the application modality.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Endoscopic vs Microscopic Stapes Surgery for Stapes Fixation

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982199066
Author(s):  
Sandra Ho ◽  
Prayag Patel ◽  
Daniel Ballard ◽  
Richard Rosenfeld ◽  
Sujana Chandrasekhar
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stapes Surgery ◽  
Chorda Tympani Nerve ◽  
Stapes Fixation ◽  
Operative Outcomes ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Postoperative Vertigo ◽  
Hearing Outcomes

Objective To systematically review the current literature regarding the operative outcomes of stapes surgery for stapes fixation via the endoscopic and microscopic approaches. Data Sources PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Review Methods An electronic search was conducted with the keywords “endoscop* or microscop*” and “stapes surgery or stapedectomy or stapedotomy or otosclerosis or stapes fixation.” Studies were included if they compared endoscopy with microscopy for stapes surgery performed for stapes fixation and evaluated hearing outcomes and postoperative complications. Articles focusing on stapes surgery other than for stapes fixation were excluded. Results The database search yielded 1317 studies; 12 remained after dual-investigator screening for quantitative analysis. The mean MINORS score was 18 of 24, indicating a low risk of bias. A meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the groups with regard to operative time, chorda tympani nerve manipulation or sacrifice, or postoperative vertigo. There was a 2.6-dB mean improvement in the change in air-bone gap in favor of endoscopic stapes surgery and a 15.2% increased incidence in postoperative dysgeusia in the microscopic group, but the studies are heterogeneous. Conclusions Endoscopic stapes surgery appears to be a reasonable alternative to microscopic stapes surgery, with similar operative times, complications, and hearing outcomes. Superior visibility with the endoscope was consistently reported in all the studies. Future studies should have standardized methods of reporting visibility, hearing outcomes, and postoperative complications to truly establish if endoscopic stapes surgery is equivalent or superior to microscopic stapes surgery.

scholarly journals Sporting participation following the operative management of chondral defects of the knee at mid-term follow up: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
P. G. Robinson ◽  
T. Williamson ◽  
I. R. Murray ◽  
K. Al-Hourani ◽  
T. O. White
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Osteochondral Allograft ◽  
Chondral Defects ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Autologous Chondrocyte

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the reparticipation in sport at mid-term follow up in athletes who underwent biologic treatment of chondral defects in the knee and compare the rates amongst different biologic procedures. Methods A search of PubMed/Medline and Embase was performed in May 2020 in keeping with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The criteria for inclusion were observational, published research articles studying the outcomes and rates of participation in sport following biologic treatments of the knee with a minimum mean/median follow up of 5 years. Interventions included microfracture, osteochondral autograft transfer (OAT), autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI), osteochondral allograft, or platelet rich plasma (PRP) and peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC). A random effects model of head-to-head evidence was used to determine rates of sporting participation following each intervention. Results There were twenty-nine studies which met the inclusion criteria with a total of 1276 patients (67% male, 33% female). The mean age was 32.8 years (13–69, SD 5.7) and the mean follow up was 89 months (SD 42.4). The number of studies reporting OAT was 8 (27.6%), ACI was 6 (20.7%), MACI was 7 (24.1%), microfracture was 5 (17.2%), osteochondral allograft was 4 (13.8%), and one study (3.4%) reported on PRP and PBSC. The overall return to any level of sport was 80%, with 58.6% returning to preinjury levels. PRP and PBSC (100%) and OAT (84.4%) had the highest rates of sporting participation, followed by allograft (83.9%) and ACI (80.7%). The lowest rates of participation were seen following MACI (74%) and microfracture (64.2%). Conclusions High rates of re-participation in sport are sustained for at least 5 years following biologic intervention for chondral injuries in the knee. Where possible, OAT should be considered as the treatment of choice when prolonged participation in sport is a priority for patients. However, MACI may achieve the highest probability of returning to the same pre-injury sporting level. Level of evidence IV

A systematic review of short metaphyseal loading cementless stems in hip arthroplasty

2019 ◽  
Vol 101-B (5) ◽  
pp. 502-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Lidder ◽  
D. J. Epstein ◽  
G. Scott
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Review Reports ◽  
Femoral Implants ◽  
Hip Arthroplasties

Aims Short-stemmed femoral implants have been used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young and active patients to conserve bone, provide physiological loading, and reduce the incidence of thigh pain. Only short- to mid-term results have been presented and there have been concerns regarding component malalignment, incorrect sizing, and subsidence. This systematic review reports clinical and radiological outcomes, complications, revision rates, and implant survival in THA using short-stemmed femoral components. Materials and Methods A literature review was performed using the EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify studies reporting clinical and radiological follow-up for short-stemmed hip arthroplasties. Results A total of 28 studies were eligible for inclusion. This included 5322 hips in 4657 patients with a mean age of 59 years (13 to 94). The mean follow-up was 6.1 years (0.5 to 20). The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 46 (0 to 100) to 92 (39 to 100). The mean Oxford Hip Score improved from 25 (2 to 42.5) to 35 (12.4 to 48). The mean Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index improved from 54 (2 to 95) to 22 (0 to 98). Components were aligned in a neutral coronal alignment in up to 90.9% of cases. A total of 15 studies reported component survivorship, which was 98.6% (92% to 100%) at a mean follow-up of 12.1 years. Conclusion Short-stemmed femoral implants show similar improvement in clinical and radiological outcomes compared with conventional length implants. Only mid-term survivorship, however, is known. An abundance of short components have been developed and used commercially without staged clinical trials. Long-term survival is still unknown for many of these components. There remains tension between innovation and the moral duty to ensure that the introduction of new implants is controlled until safety and patient benefit are demonstrated. Implant innovation and subsequent use should be driven by proven clinical outcomes, rather than market and financial forces, and ethical practice must be ensured. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:502–511.

scholarly journals The Prevalence and Severity of Chronic Pain in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 205435812199399
Author(s):  
Sara N. Davison ◽  
Sarah Rathwell ◽  
Sunita Ghosh ◽  
Chelsy George ◽  
Ted Pfister ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Chronic Pain Management ◽  
Dialysis Patients ◽  
Severity Scores ◽  
The Mean

Background: Chronic pain is a common and distressing symptom reported by patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical practice and research in this area do not appear to be advancing sufficiently to address the issue of chronic pain management in patients with CKD. Objectives: To determine the prevalence and severity of chronic pain in patients with CKD. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Setting: Interventional and observational studies presenting data from 2000 or later. Exclusion criteria included acute kidney injury or studies that limited the study population to a specific cause, symptom, and/or comorbidity. Patients: Adults with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) category 3 to 5 CKD including dialysis patients and those managed conservatively without dialysis. Measurements: Data extracted included title, first author, design, country, year of data collection, publication year, mean age, stage of CKD, prevalence of pain, and severity of pain. Methods: Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library, last searched on February 3, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts, assessed potentially relevant articles, and extracted data. We estimated pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain, musculoskeletal pain, bone/joint pain, muscle pain/soreness, and neuropathic pain and the I2 statistic was computed to measure heterogeneity. Random effects models were used to account for variations in study design and sample populations and a double arcsine transformation was used in the model calculations to account for potential overweighting of studies reporting either very high or very low prevalence measurements. Pain severity scores were calibrated to a score out of 10, to compare across studies. Weighted mean severity scores and 95% confidence intervals were reported. Results: Sixty-eight studies representing 16 558 patients from 26 countries were included. The mean prevalence of chronic pain in hemodialysis patients was 60.5%, and the mean prevalence of moderate or severe pain was 43.6%. Although limited, pain prevalence data for peritoneal dialysis patients (35.9%), those managed conservatively without dialysis (59.8%), those following withdrawal of dialysis (39.2%), and patients with earlier GFR category of CKD (61.2%) suggest similarly high prevalence rates. Limitations: Studies lacked a consistent approach to defining the chronicity and nature of pain. There was also variability in the measures used to determine pain severity, limiting the ability to compare findings across populations. Furthermore, most studies reported mean severity scores for the entire cohort, rather than reporting the prevalence (numerator and denominator) for each of the pain severity categories (mild, moderate, and severe). Mean severity scores for a population do not allow for “responder analyses” nor allow for an understanding of clinically relevant pain. Conclusions: Chronic pain is common and often severe across diverse CKD populations providing a strong imperative to establish chronic pain management as a clinical and research priority. Future research needs to move toward a better understanding of the determinants of chronic pain and to evaluating the effectiveness of pain management strategies with particular attention to the patient outcomes such as overall symptom burden, physical function, and quality of life. The current variability in the outcome measures used to assess pain limits the ability to pool data or make comparisons among studies, which will hinder future evaluations of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments. Recommendations for measuring and reporting pain in future CKD studies are provided. Trial registration: PROSPERO Registration number CRD42020166965

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document