4.5 Review

The efficacy of pregabalin for the management of postoperative pain in primary total knee and hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-017-0540-0

关键词

Pregabalin; Arthroplasty; Meta-analysis; Pain

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81572154]
  2. Tianjin Municipal Health Bureau of Science and Technology Research Projects [15KG123]
  3. Ministry of Medical Health and Health Technology Development Research Center [W2013ZT058]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of pregabalin for the management of postoperative pain in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Method: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases were searched for related articles using search strategy. RevMan 5.3 software was selected to conduct the meta-analysis. Results: Seven RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. There were significant differences in visual analogue scale (VAS) at 24 and 48 h with rest, knee flexion degree, mean morphine consumption, and postoperative side effects (nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and dizziness) when comparing the pregabalin group to the placebo group after TKA and THA. However, the differences in VAS at 72 h with rest and at 24 h on movement were not significant between the two groups. Conclusions: Pregabalin was found to improve pain control at 24 and 48 h with rest, reduce morphine consumption, improve the knee flexion degree, decrease the incident rate of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus, and increase the incident rate of dizziness after TKA and THA but could not improve the pain control at 72 h with rest. In summary, the use of pregabalin may be a valuable asset in pain management within the first 48 h after TKA and THA. However, future studies regarding doses and pregabalin medication are required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据