Celecoxib Decreases the Need for Rescue Analgesics after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.7 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Clinics and Practice Pub Date : 2024-03-18 DOI:10.3390/clinpract14020035
Eduardo Gómez-Sánchez, Adriana Hernández-Gómez, Juan Manuel Guzmán-Flores, Angel Josabad Alonso-Castro, Nicolás Addiel Serafín-Higuera, Luz Ma-Adriana Balderas-Peña, Lorenzo Franco-de la Torre, Mario Alberto Isiordia-Espinoza
{"title":"Celecoxib Decreases the Need for Rescue Analgesics after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Eduardo Gómez-Sánchez, Adriana Hernández-Gómez, Juan Manuel Guzmán-Flores, Angel Josabad Alonso-Castro, Nicolás Addiel Serafín-Higuera, Luz Ma-Adriana Balderas-Peña, Lorenzo Franco-de la Torre, Mario Alberto Isiordia-Espinoza","doi":"10.3390/clinpract14020035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of celecoxib after total knee arthroplasty. Keywords in the PubMed and Scopus databases were used to find article abstracts. Each included clinical trial was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool, and we extracted data on postoperative pain assessment using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at rest, ambulation, and active range of motion, rescue analgesic intake, and adverse effects. Inverse variance tests with mean differences were used to analyze the numerical variables. The Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and the odds ratio were used to evaluate the dichotomous data. According to this qualitative assessment (<i>n</i> = 482), two studies presented conclusions in favor of celecoxib (<i>n</i> = 187), one showed similar results between celecoxib and the placebo (<i>n</i> = 44), and three clinical trials did not draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of celecoxib versus the placebo (<i>n</i> = 251). Moreover, the evaluation of the rescue analgesic intake showed that the patients receiving celecoxib had a lower intake compared to patients receiving a placebo (<i>n</i> = 278, I<sup>2</sup> = 82%, <i>p</i> = 0.006, mean difference = -6.89, 95% IC = -11.76 to -2.02). In conclusion, the pooled analysis shows that administration of celecoxib alone results in a decrease in rescue analgesic consumption compared to a placebo after total knee surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":45306,"journal":{"name":"Clinics and Practice","volume":"14 2","pages":"461-472"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10961807/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14020035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of celecoxib after total knee arthroplasty. Keywords in the PubMed and Scopus databases were used to find article abstracts. Each included clinical trial was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool, and we extracted data on postoperative pain assessment using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at rest, ambulation, and active range of motion, rescue analgesic intake, and adverse effects. Inverse variance tests with mean differences were used to analyze the numerical variables. The Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and the odds ratio were used to evaluate the dichotomous data. According to this qualitative assessment (n = 482), two studies presented conclusions in favor of celecoxib (n = 187), one showed similar results between celecoxib and the placebo (n = 44), and three clinical trials did not draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of celecoxib versus the placebo (n = 251). Moreover, the evaluation of the rescue analgesic intake showed that the patients receiving celecoxib had a lower intake compared to patients receiving a placebo (n = 278, I2 = 82%, p = 0.006, mean difference = -6.89, 95% IC = -11.76 to -2.02). In conclusion, the pooled analysis shows that administration of celecoxib alone results in a decrease in rescue analgesic consumption compared to a placebo after total knee surgery.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
塞来昔布可减少全膝关节置换术后对救援止痛药的需求:元分析。
本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估塞来昔布在全膝关节置换术后的镇痛效果和不良反应。我们使用 PubMed 和 Scopus 数据库中的关键词查找文章摘要。我们使用 Cochrane 协作组织的偏倚风险工具对纳入的每项临床试验进行了评估,并提取了术后疼痛评估数据(使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行静息、行走和活动范围评估)、抢救性镇痛药摄入量和不良反应。数值变量的分析采用了均值差异反方差检验。曼特尔-海恩泽尔统计法和几率比验用于评估二分法数据。根据这项定性评估(n = 482),两项研究得出了支持塞来昔布的结论(n = 187),一项研究显示塞来昔布与安慰剂的效果相似(n = 44),三项临床试验未得出塞来昔布与安慰剂的效果对比结论(n = 251)。此外,对抢救性镇痛药摄入量的评估显示,与服用安慰剂的患者相比,服用塞来昔布的患者摄入量较低(n = 278,I2 = 82%,p = 0.006,平均差 = -6.89,95% IC = -11.76 to -2.02)。总之,汇总分析表明,与安慰剂相比,单用塞来昔布可减少全膝关节手术后的解救镇痛药用量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinics and Practice
Clinics and Practice MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
4.30%
发文量
91
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Study of the Factors Impeding Proper Dietary Habits: An Investigation Using the Japanese Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions. Key Considerations for Frail Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery. The Effect of Isometric Exercise Position on the Effectiveness of Isolated Work of the Thigh Flexor Muscles Based on the Results of the sEMG Study. Three-Leaf-Clover Thyroid and Minimally Invasive Trans-Cervical Synchronous Thyroidectomy and Ectopic Mediastinal Thyroid Tissue Removal: Does the Age of the Patient Count amid a Multifaceted Strategy? Effect of a Physical Exercise Intervention on Physical Function Parameters and Blood Analytical Changes in Lung Cancer Survivors: A Feasibility Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1