Background: Gabapentin and pregabalin inhibit Ca 2+ currents via high-voltage-activated channels containing the 2 -1 subunit, reducing neurotransmitter release and attenuating the postsynaptic excitability. They are antiepileptic drugs successfully used also for the chronic pain treatment. A large number of clinical trials indicate that gabapentin and pregabalin could be effective as postoperative analgesics. This systematic-narrative review aims to analyse the most recent evidences regarding the effect of gabapentinoids on postoperative pain treatment.Methods: Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and CINHAL were searched for recent (2006)(2007)(2008)(2009) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of gabapentin-pregabalin for postoperative pain relief in adults. Quality of RCTs was evaluated according to Jadad method. Visual analogue scale (VAS), opioid consumption and side-effects (nausea, vomiting, dizziness and sedation) were considered the most important outcomes.Results: An overall of 22 gabapentin (1640 patients), 8 pregabalin (707 patients) RCTs and seven meta-analysis were involved in this review. Gabapentin provided better post-operative analgesia and rescue analgesics sparing than placebo in 6 of the 10 RCTs that administered only pre-emptive analgesia. Fourteen RCTs suggested that gabapentin did not reduce PONV when compared with placebo, clonidine or lornoxicam. Pregabalin provided better post-operative analgesia and rescue analgesics sparing than placebo in two of the three RCTs that evaluated the effects of pregabalin alone vs placebo. Four studies reported no pregabalin effects on preventing the PONV. Conclusion:Gabapentin and pregabalin reduce pain and opioid consumption after surgery in confront with placebo, but comparisons with other standard post-operative regimens are not sufficient. Gabapentin and pregabalin seem not to have any influence on the prevention of PONV.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

PurposeChronic pain has a high prevalence in the aging population. Strong opioids also should be considered in older people for the treatment of moderate to severe pain or for pain that impairs functioning and the quality of life. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the direct switch to low-dose strong opioids (World Health Organization-Step III drugs) in elderly, opioid-naive patients.Patients and methodsThis was a single-center, retrospective, observational study in opioid-naive patients aged ≥75 years, with moderate to severe chronic pain (>6-month duration) and constipation, who initiated treatment with prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN-PR). Patients were re-evaluated after 15, 30, and 60 days (T60, final observation). Response to treatment was defined as an improvement in pain of ≥30% after 30 days of therapy without worsening of constipation.ResultsOne-hundred and eighty-six patients (mean ± SD age 80.7±4.7 years; 64.5% women) with severe chronic pain (mean average pain intensity 7.1±1.0 on the 11-point numerical rating scale) and constipation (mean Bowel Function Index 64.1±24.4; 89.2% of patients on laxatives) were initiated treatment with OXN-PR (mean daily dose 11.3±3.5 mg). OXN-PR reduced pain intensity rapidly and was well tolerated; 63.4% of patients responded to treatment with OXN-PR. At T60 (mean daily OXN-PR dose, 21.5±9.7 mg), the pain intensity was reduced by 66.7%. In addition, bowel function improved (mean decrease of Bowel Function Index from baseline to T60, −28.2, P<0.0001) and the use of laxatives decreased. Already after 15 days and throughout treatment, ~70% of patients perceived their status as much/extremely improved. Only 1.6% of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events.ConclusionLow-dose OXN-PR in elderly patients naive to opioids proved to be an effective option for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain. Large-scale trials are needed to improve clinical guidance in the assessment and treatment of pain in older people.

Introduction A modified Delphi strategy was implemented for obtaining recommendations that could be useful in the management of percutaneous radiofrequency treatment of lumbar facet joint syndrome, as the literature on the argument was poor in quality. Methods An Italian research team conducted a comprehensive literature search, defined the investigation topics (diagnosis, treatment, and outcome evaluation), and developed an explorative semi-structured questionnaire. They also selected the members of the panel. After an online meeting with the participants, the board developed a structured questionnaire of 15 closed statements (round 1). A five-point Likert scale was used and the cut-off for consensus was established at a minimum of 70% of the number of respondents (level of agreement ≥ 4, agree or strongly agree). The statements without consensus were rephrased (round 2). Results Forty-one clinicians were included in the panel and responded in both rounds. After the first round, consensus (≥ 70%) was obtained in 9 out of 15 statements. In the second round, only one out of six statements reached the threshold. The lack of consensus was observed for statements concerning the use of imaging for a diagnosis [54%, median 4, interquartile range (IQR) 3–5], number of diagnostic blocks (37%, median 4, IQR 2–4), bilateral denervation (59%, median 4, IQR 2–4), technique and number of lesions (66%, median 4, IQR 3–5), and strategy after denervation failure (68%, median 4, IQR 3–4). Conclusion Results of the Delphi investigations suggest that there is a need to define standardized protocols to address this clinical problem. This step is essential for designing high-quality studies and filling current gaps in scientific evidence. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-023-00512-2.

Sponsorship for article processing charges was provided by Molteni Farmaceutici, Florence, Italy.

No abstract