ReviewCureus2024
Analgesic Efficacy of EMLA Cream Among Patients Undergoing Hemorrhoidectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-hemorrhoidectomy pain is a concerning complication for patients and doctors, mainly due to perianal skin dissection and the complex innervation of the area. Therefore, our aim is to explore the analgesic efficacy and safety of EMLA cream among patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy. We conducted a comprehensive search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane) from inception until July 6, 2024. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Risk of Bias Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Our outcomes of interest were pain assessment using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, patient satisfaction, meperidine dosage, frequency of meperidine requests, and single urinary catheterization. We used RevMan software to conduct the statistical analysis. Dichotomous data were pooled as relative risk (RR), while continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD). Four RCTs were included in our review. Two RCTs showed a low overall risk of bias, while one RCT showed a high risk, and the last one showed some concerns. Our analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups, favoring the EMLA group over the control group, upon arrival at the recovery room and at night on the day of the operation (MD=-1.76, 95% CI (-3.17, -0.36), p=0.01 and MD=-1.65, 95% CI (-2.48, -0.81), p=0.0001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the morning on the day after the operation (MD=-0.9, 95% CI (-2.02, 0.21), p=0.11). Moreover, patients who used EMLA cream reported increased patient satisfaction compared to those who did not. However, there was no significant difference between both groups in terms of the use of urinary catheterizations. In conclusion, our study showed that applying EMLA cream over the perianal area after hemorrhoidectomy can effectively reduce postoperative pain and decrease the required opioid dosage and patient requests. This ultimately leads to increased patient satisfaction. However, further studies are still required to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.