Ovarian hormones play an important role in pain perception, and are responsible, at least in part, for the pain threshold differences between the sexes. Modulation of pain and its perception are mediated by neurochemical changes in several pathways, affecting both the central and peripheral nervous systems. One of the most studied neurotransmitters related to pain disorders is serotonin. Estrogen can modify serotonin synthesis and metabolism, promoting a general increase in its tonic effects. Studies evaluating the relationship between serotonin and disorders such as irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, migraine, and other types of headache suggest a clear impact of this neurotransmitter, thereby increasing the interest in serotonin as a possible future therapeutic target. This literature review describes the importance of substances such as serotonin and ovarian hormones in pain perception and illustrates the relationship between those two, and their direct influence on the presentation of the aforementioned pain-related conditions. Additionally, we review the pathways and receptors implicated in each disorder. Finally, the objective was to stimulate future pharmacological research to experimentally evaluate the potential of serotonin modulators and ovarian hormones as therapeutic agents to regulate pain in specific subpopulations.
BackgroundMultimodal analgesia is a fundamental part of modern surgery and enhanced recovery pathways. Duloxetine, a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, has been validated for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. The evidence for duloxetine as an adjunct for the treatment of acute postoperative pain remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of duloxetine in the acute perioperative setting.MethodsA literature search was conducted in the major databases (PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating duloxetine compared with placebo control for acute postoperative pain. The primary outcome was postoperative pain assessed at 2, 4, 6, 24 and 48 hours time frames. Secondary outcomes included postoperative opioid administration, as well as side effects, such as postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV), pruritus, dizziness and headache.Results574 patients (n=9 RCTs) were included in the analysis, divided between duloxetine (n=285 patients) and placebo (n=289 patients). Duloxetine use was associated with a significant reduction in pain scores as early as 4 (mean difference (MD) −0.9, 95% CI −1.33 to −0.47) and as late as 48 (MD −0.94, 95% CI −1.56 to −0.33) hours postoperatively compared with placebo. In addition, duloxetine was associated with a significant reduction in opioid administration at 24 (standardized MD (SMD) −2.24, 95% CI −4.28 to −0.19) and 48 (SMD −2.21, 95% CI −4.13 to −0.28) hours as well as a significant reduction in PONV (risk ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.95, p=0.03) compared with placebo. There was no difference between groups in other side effects.ConclusionDuloxetine, a non-opioid neuromodulator, may provide efficacy for the treatment of acute perioperative pain. Additional prospective studies are required to establish optimal perioperative dosing regimens, role in the setting of a comprehensive multimodal analgesic plan and impact on chronic postsurgical pain.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019121416
Purpose While sugammadex (SGX) is not approved for use in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), its administration in this patient population has been reported. We designed the current study to review all instances of patients with ESRD receiving SGX and to describe their clinical outcomes. Methods This is a historical cohort study of 219 patients with chronic kidney disease stage 5 who received SGX in one of three hospital locations within the same academic health system. Data were collected between 7 March 2016 and 1 August 2019 and included demographics, notable events from the anesthesia records, and postoperative complications. The primary outcome included any complication possibly related to SGX such as hypersensitivity reactions, need for reintubation, hypoxemia, pneumonia, and residual neuromuscular blockade. Secondary outcomes included any other complication not included in the primary outcome and/or patient mortality within 30 days after the procedure. Results No patient experienced a hypersensitivity reaction. Three patients required reintubation while two patients developed hypoxemia that did not require reintubation. One patient developed hospital-acquired pneumonia. Fifty (23%) patients developed other
Millions of people are affected by pain-related conditions worldwide. Literature has consistently shown that each individual experiences and perceives pain in a unique manner due to biological, environmental, and cultural factors in which they have been raised. It has been established that biological males and females perceive pain differently and that it may be partially explained by their distinct hormonal profiles since birth, which are only further magnified during puberty. For biological males, high levels of testosterone have shown to increase their pain threshold; and for biological females, estrogen fluctuations have shown to increase pain intensity and perception. However, sex hormones have not been studied in the context of pain treatment or their impact on biochemical pathways involved in pain perception. For this purpose, the transgender community serves as a unique population to investigate the impact of hormone replacement therapy on molecular pathways involved in the perception of pain. The purpose of this review is to explore the biochemistry of hormone replacement in transgender patients who also have other pain-related conditions such as headaches, fibromyalgia, temporomandibular myalgia, and visceral pain.
Background: Epidural steroid injection (ESI) has proven benefits in controlling chronic low back pain and can be performed via the midline interlaminar (MIL) or transforaminal (TF) approach. A modified interlaminar approach, the parasagittal interlaminar (PIL), has surfaced as a more reliable, safe, and suitable approach to minimize complications related to MIL and TF.Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess and compare the effectiveness and safety of PIL with both MIL and TF approaches in adult patients with a history of chronic low back pain.Methods: A literature search was conducted using major electronic databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Selected studies included patients with unilateral radicular symptoms, secondary to lumbar intervertebral disc hernias or degenerative lumbar disc disease, that, additionally, received ESIs via PIL or either MIL or TF under fluoroscopic guidance. Randomized and observational studies with pain relief score and/or functional disability assessment and at least a 2-week follow-up were included.Results: The search led to the initial identification of 174 studies. Following the screening, eight studies were included in the qualitative analysis and seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the statistical analysis. PIL showed statistically significantly more pain relief and functional improvement than MIL at 1-, 3-, and 6-month post-procedure. Compared to TF, PIL showed statistically significantly more pain relief at 3- and 6-month after the procedure. Additionally, PIL showed benefits in terms of lower mean fluoroscopy time, less radiation exposure, zero adverse events in all the included studies, no cases of intravascular spread compared with the TF approach, and a higher anterior epidural spread (AES) of PIL compared with TF.Conclusions: Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the PIL approach is an effective and safe alternative to the MIL and TF approaches in patients presenting with chronic low back pain when epidural injections are indicated, demonstrating a higher level of pain relief and a stronger improvement in functionality post-procedure.
The purpose of this paper is to report a rare case of a pediatric pineal gliosarcoma. Gliomas on the pineal region are uncommon, representing 0.4%-1% of all brain tumors. Furthermore, pediatric gliosarcomas are a very rare entity. We present a case of a 5-year-old girl, with a history of headache, vomiting, diplopia, and gait disturbances. A pineal tumor was found with pathology results consistent with a gliosarcoma. A total of 25 cases of pediatric gliosarcomas have been reported, none of them in pineal topography. Only 3 gliosarcomas were found in the pineal region, but these were found in adults. To our knowledge, this is the first pediatric pineal gliosarcoma reported in the literature.
BACKGROUND:The pattern of perioperative use of personal electronic devices (PEDs) among anesthesia providers in the United States is unknown. METHODS: We developed a 31-question anonymous survey of perioperative PED use that was sent to 813 anesthesiologists, anesthesiology residents, and certified registered nurse anesthetists at 3 sites within one health system. The electronic survey assessed patterns of PED use inside the operating room (OR), outside the OR, and observed in others. Questions were designed to explore the various purposes for PED use, the potential impact of specific hospital policies or awareness of medicolegal risk on PED use, and whether PED was a source of perioperative distraction. RESULTS:The overall survey response rate was 36.8% (n = 299). With regard to often/frequent PED activity inside the OR, 24% reported texting, 5% reported talking on the phone, and 11% reported browsing on the Internet. With regard to often/frequent PED activity outside the OR, 88% reported texting, 26% reported talking on the phone, and 63% reported browsing the Internet. With regard to often/frequent PED activity observed in others, 52% reported others texting, 14% reported others talking on the phone, and 34% reported others browsing the Internet. Two percent of respondents self-reported a distraction compared to 15% who had observed a distraction in others. Eighty percent of respondents recognized PED as a potential distraction for patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: Our data reinforce that PED use is prevalent among anesthesia providers. (Anesth Analg 2022;134:269-75) KEY POINTS• Question: What is the pattern of use and perceived risks of perioperative personal electronic device (PED) use among anesthesia providers? • Findings: PED use is common in the perioperative setting and more often observed in others than self-reported, and the perceived risk of distraction is high. • Meaning: Given the prevalence of perioperative PED use, further research is needed to quantify and determine the potential impact of perioperative PED use on patient safety.
Based on the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database, 3 329 patients underwent heart transplantation in the United States in 2021. The development of new surgical techniques and monitoring methods, along with new immunosuppressant drugs, has significantly increased the survival of heart transplant patients [1,2]. Thus, the number of patients who require non-cardiac surgery after heart transplantation is undoubtedly increasing [1,3].Heart transplant recipients present unique perioperative challenges, given their changes in anatomy, physiology, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics [4]. Specifically, sympathetic and parasympathetic denervation of the heart leads
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.