Effectiveness of Perioperative Auricular Therapy on Postoperative Pain after Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials
Abstract:Auricular therapy (AT) is a conventional therapy in traditional Chinese medicine. However, the effectiveness of perioperative AT in pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is still controversial. Nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 605 patients who have undergone THA with or without AT from inception to March 2018 were collected and included in this study by searching more than 12 databases (e.g., PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, and Cochrane Library). A random-effects model that pool… Show more
“…Auricular therapy is a conventional therapy in traditional Chinese medicine, and its effect is gradually recognized. Since the 1980s, studies in auricular therapy for pain management have increased [8][9][10][11][12], such as for perioperative pain [11,13,14], dysmenorrheal [15][16][17], arthralgia [18], and cancer pain [19]. In order to gather and evaluate the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain, we conducted this systematic review and metaanalysis.…”
Objective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. Results. Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Compared with drug therapy, auricular therapy plus drug therapy has significant advantages both in the effective rate for pain relief (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; P<0.00001) and adverse effects rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; P<0.00001). And the result revealed that auricular acupuncture had superior pain-relieving effects as compared with sham auricular acupuncture (SMD = -1.45; 95% CI -2.80, -0.09; P=0.04). However, the analysis indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; P=0.46). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations; future large, rigor, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.
“…Auricular therapy is a conventional therapy in traditional Chinese medicine, and its effect is gradually recognized. Since the 1980s, studies in auricular therapy for pain management have increased [8][9][10][11][12], such as for perioperative pain [11,13,14], dysmenorrheal [15][16][17], arthralgia [18], and cancer pain [19]. In order to gather and evaluate the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain, we conducted this systematic review and metaanalysis.…”
Objective. This study aims to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of auricular therapy for cancer pain. Methods. A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, and CBM for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Review Manager 5.3 was used for meta-analysis. Results. Of the 275 screened studies, nine RCTs involving 783 patients with cancer pain were systematically reviewed. Compared with drug therapy, auricular therapy plus drug therapy has significant advantages both in the effective rate for pain relief (RR = 1.40; 95% CI 1.22, 1.60; P<0.00001) and adverse effects rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI 0.37, 0.58; P<0.00001). And the result revealed that auricular acupuncture had superior pain-relieving effects as compared with sham auricular acupuncture (SMD = -1.45; 95% CI -2.80, -0.09; P=0.04). However, the analysis indicated no difference on the effective rate for pain relief between auricular therapy and drug therapy (RR = 1.24; 95% CI 0.71, 2.16; P=0.46). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis indicated that auricular therapy is effective and safe for the treatment of cancer pain, and auricular therapy plus drug therapy is more effective than drug therapy alone, whether in terms of pain relief or adverse reactions. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations; future large, rigor, and high-quality RCTs are still needed to confirm the benefits of auricular therapy on cancer pain.
“…Because of its safety and effectiveness, as well as negligible side effects, it is receiving increasing acceptance by physicians and patients. Up till now, a great number of modern studies have indicated that AT is an effective therapy in the management of various types of painful conditions [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Nevertheless, the exact mechanisms underlying AT for treating pain remain inconclusive.…”
Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a common complaint among patients after amputation, while jumping residual limb is a rare post-amputation complication, they rarely happen at the same time and both remain difficult to manage. At present, there is a paucity of literature on this topic, and no treatment has been proven effective for treating both of them. In the present brief report, we described a patient who developed severe PLP accompanied by jumping residual limb after below-the-knee amputation and she was treated by auricular therapy (AT) with satisfactory effect.
“…Despite limited mention in best practice guidelines,10 CM therapies, when integrated with traditional techniques, have been shown to have added benefit in the treatment of perioperative pain (table 1). For example, perioperative acupuncture, including full-body, auricular, and transcutaneous electrical therapy, has been shown to reduce both intraoperative and postoperative opioid use 11–17. But less invasive techniques such as music therapy, aromatherapy, and therapeutic suggestion (eg, providers make positive statements such as ‘you will wake up feeling well’) also have evidence suggesting their ability to reduce perioperative pain and opioid use 18–23.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By reducing the doses of these agents, the associated side effects and the resources expended to treat these side effects may also be reduced. For example, studies of perioperative acupuncture have reported a reduced incidence of postoperative nausea and delirium, decreased frequency of postoperative antiemetic use, and shorter times to extubation and discharge from the recovery room 11–17 27–29. Furthermore, studies suggest that CM therapies may also mitigate the body’s overall response to the stress of surgery 26.…”
The current US opioid health-related crisis underscores the importance for perioperative physicians to optimize various approaches to pain management. Multimodal techniques and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are frequently cited as the most effective strategies for improving the experience of pain and reducing opioid exposure. Complementary medicine (CM) techniques, while frequently shown to be effective at reducing opioid and other pharmacologic agent use, are rarely discussed as part of these multimodal strategies. In general, CM therapies are low-cost with minimal associated risk, making them an ideal choice for incorporation into ERAS and other opioid-sparing protocols. In this Daring Discourse, we discuss the benefits and challenges of incorporating CM therapy into anesthetic practice. We hope that anesthesiologists can become more familiar with the current evidence regarding perioperative CM therapy, and begin incorporating these therapies as part of their comprehensive multimodal approach to perioperative pain management.
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.