Whether preemptive analgesic interventions are more effective than conventional regimens in managing acute postoperative pain remains controversial. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that specifically compared preoperative analgesic interventions with similar postoperative analgesic interventions via the same route. The retrieved reports were stratified according to five types of analgesic interventions: epidural analgesia, local anesthetic wound infiltration, systemic N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonists, systemic nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and systemic opioids. The primary outcome measures analyzed were the pain intensity scores, supplemental analgesic consumption, and time to first analgesic consumption. Sixty-six studies with data from 3261 patients were analyzed. Data were combined by using a fixed-effect model, and the effect size index (ES) used was the standardized mean difference. When the data from all three outcome measures were combined, the ES was most pronounced for preemptive administration of epidural analgesia (ES, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.47), local anesthetic wound infiltration (ES, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.17-0.40), and NSAID administration (ES, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.48). Whereas preemptive epidural analgesia resulted in consistent improvements in all three outcome variables, preemptive local anesthetic wound infiltration and NSAID administration improved analgesic consumption and time to first rescue analgesic request, but not postoperative pain scores. The least proof of efficacy was found in the case of systemic NMDA antagonist (ES, 0.09; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.22) and opioid (ES, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.07) administration, and the results remain equivocal.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including both traditional nonselective NSAIDs and the selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, are widely used for their anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects. NSAIDs are a necessary choice in pain management because of the integrated role of the COX pathway in the generation of inflammation and in the biochemical recognition of pain. This group of drugs has recently come under scrutiny because of recent focus in the literature on the various adverse effects that can occur when applying NSAIDs.This review will provide an educational update on the current evidence of the efficacy and adverse effects of NSAIDs. It aims to answer the following questions: (1) are there clinically important differences in the efficacy and safety between the different NSAIDs, (2) if there are differences, which are the ones that are more effective and associated with fewer adverse effects, and (3) which are the effective therapeutic approaches that could reduce the adverse effects of NSAIDs. Finally, an algorithm is proposed which delineates a general decision-making tree to select the most appropriate analgesic for an individual patient based on the evidence reviewed. Keywords: Analgesics; COX-2 specific inhibitors; NSAIDs; Pain Nonst eroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most widely used medications in the world because of their demonstrated efficacy in reducing pain and inflammation. 1 Their efficacy has been documented in a number of clinical disorders, including osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, gout, dysmenorrhea, dental pain and headache. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The basic mode of action is inhibition of the pro-inflammatory enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX). NSAIDs as a class comprise both traditional nonselective NSAIDs (tNSAIDs) that nonspecifically inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. Although effective at relieving pain and inflammation, tNSAIDs are associated with a significant risk of serious gastrointestinal adverse events with chronic use. 9 Therefore, specific inhibitors of the COX-2 isoenzyme were developed, thus opening the possibility to provide antiinflammatory and analgesic benefits, while theoretically leaving the gastroprotective activity of the COX-1 isoenzyme intact. However, important concerns have recently been raised regarding the potential cardiovascular toxicity of COX-2 inhibitors. 10This review will provide an educational update of the scientific evidence for the efficacy and adverse effects of NSAIDs in view of the emerging new information for this class of drugs. It is composed deliberately to be a classic, pragmatic review and draws on the results of published systematic reviews and studies regarding the topic. It aims to answer the following questions: (1) are there clinically important differences in the efficacy and safety between the different NSAIDs, (2) if there are differences, which are the ones that are more effective and associated with fewer adverse effects, and (3) which are...

Current evidence suggests that a combination of paracetamol and an NSAID may offer superior analgesia compared with either drug alone.

No abstract

No abstract

In this observer blinded study, we found that i.v. midazolam treatment (0.09 mg/kg) has a pain-reducing effect after third molar surgery, thus improving postoperative pain management.

No abstract

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of intrauterine lignocaine as an anaesthetic during endometrial sampling.Design Prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Setting Outpatient gynaecological minor operation unit in a public hospital.Population Two hundred premenopausal women scheduled for endometrial sampling because of abnormal uterine bleeding.Methods Transcervical intrauterine instillation of 5 mL of 2% lignocaine or 5 mL of normal saline before performing endometrial sampling with vacuum aspirator.Main outcome measures Evaluation of pain associated with the procedure using a visual analogue scale.Results The use of intrauterine lignocaine reduced pain during suction curettage in endometrial sampling.Conclusions Transcervical instillation of lignocaine reduced pain during endometrial sampling.