1.
Influence of Ketorolac Supplementation on Pain Control for Knee Arthroscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Wan, RJ, Liu, SF, Kuang, ZP, Ran, Q, Zhao, C, Huang, W
Orthopaedic surgery. 2020;(1):31-37
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The efficacy of ketorolac supplementation on pain control for knee arthroscopy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the impact of ketorolac supplementation on pain intensity after knee arthroscopy. METHODS We search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through September 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of ketorolac supplementation vs placebo on pain management after knee arthroscopy. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model. RESULTS Ten RCTs involving 402 patients are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group for knee arthroscopy, ketorolac supplementation is associated with notably reduced pain scores at 1 h (MD = -0.66; 95% CI = -1.12 to -0.21; P = 0.004) and 2 h (MD = -0.90; 95% CI = -1.74 to -0.07; P = 0.03), prolonged time for first analgesic requirement (MD = 1.94; 95% CI = 0.33 to 3.55; P = 0.02) and decreased number of analgesic requirement (RR = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.75; P = 0.003), but has no obvious impact on analgesic consumption (MD = -0.56; 95% CI = -1.14 to 0.02; P = 0.06), as well as nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.21; P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS Ketorolac supplementation is effective to produce pain relief for knee arthroscopy.
2.
Analgesic Effects of Locally Administered Ketorolac-based Analgesics After Breast Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Chen, JY, Feng, IJ, Loh, EW, Wang, LK, Lin, CC, Tam, KW
The Clinical journal of pain. 2018;(6):577-584
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Reducing postoperative pain following breast surgery is crucial for rapid recovery and shortening hospital stay. Ketorolac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, has been used as a postoperative analgesic in many surgical procedures. We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of locally administered ketorolac-based analgesics in managing pain after breast surgery. METHODS We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry for randomized control trials (RCTs) published up to September 2016. The primary outcome was pain level assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) at 1 and 6 hours following breast surgery. RESULTS We reviewed 4 RCTs with 255 patients. For meta-analysis, VAS at 1 and 6 hours of 3 similar RCTs were compared. At 1 hour, VAS scores were significantly lower in patients administered a ketorolac solution [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-2.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.08 to -1.00] or ketorolac-bupivacaine solution (WMD=-2.30; 95% CI, -4.07 to -0.54) than in controls. At 6 hours, the ketorolac-bupivacaine solution reduced VAS scores significantly (WMD=-1.40; 95% CI, -2.48 to -0.32) compared with controls. However, at 1 hour, the ketorolac solution was significantly more effective than the bupivacaine solution was (WMD=-1.70; 95% CI, -2.81 to -0.59). DISCUSSION The effects of ketorolac-based analgesics vary as per the surgery and disease type. Locally administered ketorolac-based analgesics decreased postoperative pain in breast surgery patients, and the effect of local ketorolac was better than local bupivacaine. Therefore, ketorolac-based analgesics demonstrate considerable local infiltration during pain management after breast surgery.
3.
Single-dose ketorolac and pethidine in acute postoperative pain: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Smith, LA, Carroll, D, Edwards, JE, Moore, RA, McQuay, HJ
British journal of anaesthesia. 2000;(1):48-58
Abstract
For a systematic review of postoperative analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single doses, injected or oral, of pethidine and ketorolac compared with placebo, we sought published randomized studies in moderate to severe postoperative pain. Information on summed pain intensity or pain relief outcomes over 4-6 h was extracted and converted to dichotomous information to produce the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. This was used to calculate the relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief. Minor and major adverse effect data were extracted and summarized. For pethidine 100 mg i.m., eight randomized, controlled studies met the inclusion criteria, with 203 patients given pethidine and 161 placebo. The NNT to produce at least 50% pain relief was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 2.3-3.9). At this dose, pethidine produced significantly more drowsiness and dizziness than placebo, with numbers-needed-to-harm (NNH) of 2.9 (2.2-4.4) and 7.2 (4.8-14), respectively. For ketorolac, 14 reports met the inclusion criteria (six i.m. and eight oral). Most i.m. information (176 patients) was available for the 30 mg dose, which had an NNT of 3.4 (2.5-4.9). Most oral information was available for the 10 mg dose, which had an NNT of 2.6 (2.3-3.1). Oral ketorolac 10 mg was consistently at least as effective as ketorolac 30 mg i.m. Only with oral ketorolac 10 mg were there significantly more adverse effects than with placebo, with an NNH for any adverse effect of 7.3 (4.7-17).