| Literature DB >> 33485779 |
Maira Isis S Stangler1, João Pedro Neves Lubianca2, Jaqueline Neves Lubianca3, José Faibes Lubianca Neto4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Tonsillectomy is the 2nd most common outpatient surgery performed on children in the United States of America. Its main complication is pain, which varies in intensity from moderate to severe. Dipyrone is one of the most widely used painkillers in the postoperative period in children. Its use, however, is controversial in the literature, to the point that it is banned in many countries due to its potential severe adverse effects. Because of this controversy, reviewing the analgesic use of dipyrone in the postoperative period of tonsillectomy in children is essential.Entities:
Keywords: Agranulocytosis; Analgesics; Child; Dipyrone; Tonsillectomy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33485779 PMCID: PMC9422646 DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2020.12.005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Otorhinolaryngol ISSN: 1808-8686
(a and b) Analyses the studies according to ROB 2.
| (a) Analysis of the paper of Kocum AI et al. (Intravenous paracetamol and dipyrone for postoperative analgesia after day-case tonsillectomy in children: a prospective, randomized, double blind, placebo controlled study) according to Revised Cochrane risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Bias | Author’s judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation | Low risk of Bias | Quote: “…elegible patients were randomized… according to a pre-generated randomization scheme created by the web site Randomization.com. All study medications were prepared by a clinician unaware of the patient’s allocated study group in identical infusion pumps”. |
| Comment: a random component was used in the sequence generation process. There are no imbalances that indicate problems with the randomization process. There is no reason to suspect that the enrolling investigator or the participants has knowledge of the forthcoming allocation. | ||
| Deviations from intended interventions | Low risk of Bias | Quote: “Patients, all care givers and the clinical observers who scored were blinded to the allocated treatment of the individual patient. Infusions were administered by a blinded attending physician”. |
| Comment: the blinding process was well described. There are no cases of non-adherence to the assign intervention regimen also. | ||
| Missing outcome data | Low risk of Bias | Quote: “All randomized patients were taken into statistical analysis”. |
| Comment: The study population was ideal for analysis of the intention to treat effect since it was composed of 100% of randomized patients. | ||
| Measurement of the outcome | Low risk of Bias | Quote: “In case of CHEOPS score > 6 and/or PR score < 2, the patient received 0.25 mg/kg… as rescue analgesic medication until CHEOPS score was ≤6 and PR ≥ 2.” |
| Selective reporting | Low risk of BIAS | Quote: “The number of patients with nausea and vomits, and use of antiemetic medications was similar in the 3 groups” |
Figure 1PRISMA flowchart.
Characteristics of selected studies.
| Study | Investigational design | Follow-up | Inclusion criteria | Age | S (M/F) | Sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sener TG, et al. Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology | Randomised clinical trial | 24 h follow-up | 7–15 years ASA I tonsillectomy | 9.4 ± 2.2 | 20/20 | 143 (elect) |
| 8.8 ± 2.2 | 20/19 | 120 (randomised) | ||||
| 9.2 ± 2.3 | 20/17 | |||||
| Kocum AI, et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology | Randomised clinical trial | 6 h follow-up | 3–6 years tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy and/or grommets | 4.7 ± 10 | 29/11 | 138 (elect) |
| 4.6 ± 10 | 27/13 | 120 (randomised) | ||||
| 4.3 ± 10 | 19/21 |
Elect, elective surgeries patients; randomized, randomized through http://www.randomization.com.
Descriptions of the studies according to intervention groups, type of analgesia and form of administration of dipyrone.
| Study | Intervention groups | Type of analgesia | Form of administration of dipyrone |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sener TG, et al. Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology | Paracetamol – 40 | Postoperative | Paracetamol – 20 mg/mL IV |
| Dipyrone – 40 | Dipyrone – 20 mg/mL IV | ||
| Placebo – 40 | Placebo – 0,9% /1 mL saline IV | ||
| 120% – 100% | Paracetamol – 10 mg/kg IV – 4 h | ||
| IV PCA | Dipyrone 10 mg/kg – 4 h 15 mg/kg IV | ||
| PCA | |||
| Kocum AI, et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology | Paracetamol – 40 | Pre-emptive (before the induction of general anaesthesia) | Paracetamol – 15 mg/kg IV |
| Dipyrone – 40 | Dipyrone – 15 mg/kg IV | ||
| Placebo – 40 | 0,9% / 1 ml NaCl IV | ||
| 120%–100% | IV single dose | ||
| IV single doses after anaesthesia induction |
PCA, patient-controlled analgesia.
Primary and secondary outcomes and main results of the two analysed studies.
| Study | Strengths and weaknesses | Primary and secondary outcomes | Main results |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sener TG, et al. | Inclusion and exclusion criteria: OK | a) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS 0–100 mm ) in 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h | a) Both active groups significantly better than placebo at 6 h. Dipyrone was also better at 30 min. |
| Randomisation: OK | |||
| Double-blinded: OK | b) Pain relief scores (1–4) 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h | b) No difference between groups. | |
| No sample size calculation prior to allocation (power analysis based on the total pethidine requirement from the first 15 patients) | |||
| c) Total opioid requirements 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 12 h, 24 h | c) Significantly lower with paracetamol and dipyrone groups compared with placebo group (62%, 68.4%, vs. 90%, | ||
| d) Incidence of nausea, vomiting and need for antiemetic medication | d) No difference between groups | ||
| Two-tabled type I error of 0.05 and a power of 80% | |||
| Kocum AI, et al. | Inclusion and exclusion criteria: OK | a) Pain intensity: | a) No difference in CHEOPS score |
| Randomisation: OK | b) No difference between groups at 0.5; 1 h and 2 h | ||
| Double-blinded: OK | |||
| No sample size calculation prior to allocation (power analysis based on the total pethidine requirement from the first 15 patients) | |||
| b) Pain Relief: 5-point verbal scale rated by the investigator | |||
| c) Rescue analgesic medication (pethidine) | |||
| Statistically significant differences at | |||
| c) Cumulative pethidine use was not different among groups at 0.25; 0.5; 1 h; 2 h and 4 h follow-up. At 6 h follow-up both active groups needed lower rescue analgesic requirement ( | |||