Friday, July 26, 2024

Iris Publishers- Open access Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology | A Review on Parasitic Causes of Acute Pancreatitis

 


Authored by Singh Yuvaraj*,

Introduction

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an important cause of hospitalization amongst gastrointestinal disorders in the United States. The diagnosis of the acute presentation is clinical, but the major challenge is predicting the disease course and outcome. This is critical to determine where the patient may be monitored [1- 3]. Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas that affects the pancreatic parenchyma. It may range from a mild self-limiting form, i.e., acute interstitial pancreatitis, to a more rapidly fatal condition, i.e., acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The inflammation may extend beyond pancreatic tissue to the peripancreatic region and is usually associated with a systemic inflammatory response. If left untreated, it may end up causing multi-organ dysfunction syndrome [4].

Common etiologies of acute pancreatitis are listed below [3-6].
Alcohol use disorder
Gallstones
Hypertriglyceridemia
Drug-induced pancreatitis
Post-procedural(endoscopicretrograde cholangiopancreatography or abdominal surgery)
Ampullary stenosis, formerly known as sphincter of Oddi dysfunction type I
Autoimmune pancreatitis, type I (systemic IgG4 diseaserelated), and type II
Viral infection (coxsackie, cytomegalovirus, echovirus, Epstein- Barr virus, hepatitis A/B/C, human immunodeficiency virus {HIV}, mumps, rubella, varicella)
Bacterial infections (campylobacter, legionella, leptospirosis, mycobacteria, and mycoplasma)
Trauma
Smoking
Congenital anomalies (annular pancreas, pancreatic divisum) Genetic disorders (hereditary pancreatitis, cystic fibrosis, alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency)
Hypercalcemia
Parasitic infections (Ascaris lumbricoides, Cryptosporidium, Clonorchis sinensis, Microsporidia)
Renal disease (Hemodialysis)
Toxins (Scorpion bites, organophosphate poisoning)
Vasculitis (Polyarteritis nodosa, Systemic lupus erythematosus)

Gallstone pancreatitis is the most usual type, which is caused by duct obstruction by gallstone migration. Obstruction of duct promotes pancreatitis by increasing duct pressure and subsequent unregulated activation of digestive enzymes [7-8]. Alcohol-induced pancreatitis is the second most common cause. In about 8% of cases of AP related to alcohol, mutations in the pancreatic secretory trypsin inhibitor gene (SPINK1) are seen [9]. Another cause of AP is hypertriglyceridemia and is estimated to make up 1%-4% of cases [9-11]. It is due to the hydrolysis of excessive triglyceriderich lipoproteins causing high concentrations of free fatty acids, leading to injury to the vascular endothelium and acinar cells of the pancreas [12]. Infectious causes of AP have been investigated widely for a long time. Parasites like Echinococcus, Plasmodium, Fasciola, Ascaris, Toxoplasmosis, and Cryptosporidium have been documented to be causes of AP as well [13]. About 15%-20% of patients with AP have a probability of developing severe disease and have an extended hospital stay with complications including death [13-16]. Several theories have been postulated to understand better and describe the mechanism by which AP occurs but are still inconclusive [17].

Clinical Presentation of Acute Pancreatitis

The cardinal symptom of acute pancreatitis is acute onset of persistent upper abdominal pain, usually with nausea and vomiting. The usual locations of the pain are the epigastric and periumbilical regions. The pain may radiate to the back, chest, flanks, and lower abdomen. Patients are usually restless and bend forward (the kneechest position) to relieve the pain because the supine position may exacerbate the intensity of symptoms [18]. Physical examination findings are variable but may include fever, hypotension, guarding/ rigidity on abdominal exam, respiratory distress, and abdominal distention [19].

Diagnosis of Acute Pancreatitis

The classical teaching is that a serum amylase level that is three to four times greater than the upper limit of normal along with typical signs and symptoms is diagnostic of acute pancreatitis. The biochemical measurement of trypsinogen activation peptide and trypsinogen-2 is more useful as a diagnostic marker due to their accuracy, but their use is limited by availability [20]. Lipase has higher diagnostic accuracy compared to amylase as the serum lipase levels are elevated for a more extended period [21]. During an attack of acute pancreatitis, the elevation of alanine aminotransferase to >150 IU/L is predictive for a biliary cause of acute pancreatitis [22]. A previous meta-analysis has indicated that this threefold elevation in alanine aminotransferase has a positive predictive value of 95% in diagnosing acute gallstone pancreatitis [23]. Early elevated levels of urinary trypsinogen activation peptides are associated with severe acute pancreatitis [24].

Review

Overview of Parasitic Causes of AP

Ascaris lumbricoides is the most common parasite implicated in AP, as mentioned by Parenti, et al. [19] in their extensive review. The mechanism of pancreatitis is due to the physical obstruction of the pancreatic duct due to the adult worm. It is more common in children due to the smaller size of their pancreatic-biliary tree [19]. In a prospective study carried out in India; ascariasis was the leading parasitic cause of pancreatitis in 59 of 256 patients (23%) compared to 112 patients (44%) with gallstone pancreatitis [20]. The Chinese liver fluke, Clonorchis sinensis, was also reported in some cases of AP due to the obstruction of the pancreatic duct [21]. Plasmodium falciparum, common protozoa implicated in malaria, has several case reports where patients with malaria complicated by multi-organ dysfunction syndrome had AP [22].

Although infrequently associated with AP, taeniasis has been reported as a possible helminthic cause of AP in a case published in 2005. In this instance, the patient presented with typical symptoms of AP and markedly elevated serum amylase and lipase, including a history of the passage of white worms with the stool for four years. The proglottids were extracted from the duodenal mucosa with ultrasound findings of a dilated common bile and pancreatic duct, which provided possible evidence of a tapeworm passing through the biliary tree. The patient responded to anti-helminthic drugs with clinical improvement [23] Other parasites implicated in AP include Opisthorchis species [24], Fasciola hepatica [25- 26], and Echinococcus granulous which may cause AP due to the compression of the pancreatic duct by the cyst [19]. The summary of parasitic infectious etiology of acute pancreatitis has been depicted in (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of the parasitic infectious etiology of acute pancreatitis.

irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology


Case Series on Parasitic Causes of AP

Ascaris Lumbricoides

Ascaris lumbricoides is one of the most common helminthic infections worldwide. With an overall prevalence of 25%, an estimated 1.4 billion people are infected, and 1.2 to 2 million cases of the clinical disease occur per year, spanning 20,000 deaths. This is particularly prevalent in areas with poor sanitation and humid climates of tropical regions. Children between the ages of 2 to 10 years are most commonly affected, and prevalence decreases after 15 years. The life cycle starts after ingesting the eggs from contaminated food, soil, vegetables, and water. After hatching, larvae emerge in the duodenum and then migrate through the portal, and systemic circulation reaches the liver. They migrate to the alveoli and ascend through the bronchial tree and throat. Here they are swallowed and mature into adult worms [27] As stated by Klimovskij, et al. [28], “The roundworms are actively motile, have wandering nature, and can migrate from their natural habitat in the duodenum and proximal jejunum into the ampulla of Vater entering the bile or pancreatic duct to cause cholangitis or pancreatitis.”

Hussain, et al. [29] reported a case of AP due to ascariasis wherein a twenty-five-year-old male patient presented with a chief complaint of acute epigastric pain radiating to the back associated with vomiting. Initial lab investigations revealed increased serum amylase and lipase. The computed tomography (CT) scan revealed edematous pancreas and significant peri-pancreatic fat stranding (Figure 1). He was managed symptomatically with intravenous fluids, analgesics, anti-emetics, and enteral nutrition. However, the cause remained undetermined as the authors ruled out the possible etiologies of AP until one day, the patient vomited a 15- cm roundworm (Figure 2). After that, his condition improved dramatically. Thus Hussain et al. highlighted ascariasis as a possible etiology of AP in regions where it is geographically endemic.

irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology

Phisalprapa, et al. [30] reported a case of a 33-year-old woman living in urban Thailand who presented with severe epigastric pain, later diagnosed with AP secondary to Ascaris lumbricoides. Her preliminary investigations showed no eosinophilia or Ascaris eggs in stool examination; however, her abdominal CT image showed common bile duct dilatation. The parasite was found when a diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was performed (Figure 3). The cholangiography revealed a roundworm in the common bile duct which was successfully removed using an extraction balloon catheter and a snare. Microbiological examination of the parasite revealed a 22 cm long adult form of Ascaris lumbricoides. Through the findings of this study, the authors delineated that Ascaris lumbricoides is an uncommon cause of biliary obstruction with complications. Endoscopic removal is the treatment of choice in addition to antihelminthic medications.

Carter, et al. [31] reported a case of Ascaris pancreatitis in an 18-year-old Hispanic man who presented with a 2-week history of continuous moderate to severe epigastric pain that was preceded by six months of intermittent burning epigastric pain worsened with eating. Prior episodes typically lasted 1-2 days and then resolved spontaneously. A complete blood cell count demonstrated mild leukocytosis (12.3 X 109/L), elevated amylase (539 U/L), and lipase (4671 U/L) levels. The patient’s abdominal CT image reportedly demonstrated a dilated pancreatic duct. The magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) showed mild peripancreatic edema and a diffusely dilated pancreatic duct containing a smooth linear filling defect. Biliary ducts were not dilated, and there was no evidence of an ampullary mass. ERCP was performed for further evaluation. At initial inspection, the major papilla appeared dilated and contained a tubular, mucus-appearing foreign body, which was extracted in its entirety with biopsy forceps measuring 10.5 cm in length (Figure 4). The pancreatic duct was then cannulated, and contrast material was injected. Fluoroscopic images from ERCP demonstrated a diffusely dilated main pancreatic duct containing a second tubular filling defect (Figure 4). After guidewire placement and balloon extraction, a second vermiform structure measuring 14 cm was also removed [31].

irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology

Fasciola Hepatica

Fascioliasis (liver fluke disease) is a disease of sheep, cattle, and other herbivorous animals observed virtually throughout the world. Humans are only accidental hosts for Fasciola hepatica. F. hepatica is a zoonotic liver fluke that can cause disease in humans. F. hepatica is known to cause bile duct inflammation and obstruction but is rarely reported to cause acute pancreatitis. ERCP shows distinct features in some patients with fascioliasis, but the condition might be overlooked in chronic cases. Parasite removal during ERCP is one therapeutic option in patients with acute obstructive biliary tree disease due to Fasciola hepatica. Echenique-Elizondo, et al. [32] reported a case of A 31-year-old female experiencing a sudden onset of nausea and upper abdominal pain. Abdominal ultrasonography (USG) and CT scan showed diffuse enlargement of the pancreas (Figure 5). A cholangiogram depicted dilatation and numerous filling defects images in the main bile duct (Figure 6). An endoscopic sphincterotomy was done to extract multiple elements of the parasite (Figure 7). Treatment with triclabendazole as a single oral dose of 10 mg/kg was initiated. Follow-up demonstrated normal laboratory values and no evidence of the disease two years later. Through the study, the authors demonstrated that fascioliasis must be considered on the differential diagnosis of abdominal pain, especially if associated with eosinophilia. Pancreatitis is an infrequent complication seen secondary to biliary involvement.

irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology

Sezgin, et al. [25] reported a case of a 51-year-old female admitted with complaints of sudden onset of nausea and upper abdominal pain. She cited no history of drug abuse or alcohol ingestion, gallstone disease, abdominal trauma, or surgery. Physical examination revealed severe tenderness in the epigastrium with hypoactive bowel sound and fever (38°C). Laboratory data on admission showed elevated serum amylase (1046 IU/L) and lipase (1538 IU/L). White blood cell count was 7,750 mm-3, and eosinophil count was 9.7%. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) 148 IU/L, bilirubin 1.3 mg/dl, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 325 IU/L, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) 612 IU/L, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) 904 IU/L; serum calcium was within reference ranges. Abdominal USG showed bile duct dilation and hyperechoic material filling the common bile duct and diffuse enlargement of the pancreas. A cholangiogram depicted dilation and numerous motile curvilinear filling defect images in the common bile duct and irregularities at the bile duct wall. An endoscopic sphincterotomy was done with the extraction of multiple Fasciola hepatica flukes (Figure 8).

irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology

Sezgin et al. reported another case of a 70-year-old male admitted with complaints of nausea, upper abdominal pain, and jaundice for three days later diagnosed with AP secondary to multiple liver flukes infestation of the pancreatic duct [25]. Summarily, case studies of Fasciola hepatica revealed that fascioliasis must be considered in the differential diagnosis of abdominal pain, especially if associated with eosinophilia. Pancreatitis is an extremely rare complication that can be associated with biliary involvement. A high index of suspicion and specific USG findings are helpful in the diagnosis. Serological studies and ERCP can confirm the diagnosis.

Echincoccosis Granulosus

Also known as hydatid disease, or hydatidosis, are alternative names of the zoonotic parasitic diseases caused by the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus. It is endemic in Mediterranean countries, the Middle East, South America, and the Indian subcontinent [33-36]. Four types of Echinococcus lead to infection in humans; Echinococcus granulosus is the most common parasite causing cystic echinococcosis with a larval stage that represents more than 95% of cases [37]. It can infest various organs, and the invasion of the liver and lungs accounts for 90% of cases [38]. Other involved sites are the muscles, bones, kidneys, brain, spleen, and pancreas. Pancreatic localization is a rare situation of hydatidosis, representing 0.2% of cases [39]. Alsaid, et al. [39] reported a case of pancreatic hydatid cyst causing AP in a 34-year-old man admitted with diffuse abdominal pain, dyspnea, and weakness. His abdominal USG revealed a 5 cm heterogeneous area in the body of the pancreas with peripancreatic fluid, gallstones with a thick gallbladder wall, and multiple cysts in the left kidney. Abdominal CT showed a heterogeneous collection of fluid with a thick wall of 12 × 4 cm in size along the body of the pancreas and left colic angle (often an abscess or a pseudocyst) with infiltration of adipose tissue around it and mild thickness at the wall of the colon. Laboratory investigations were within normal levels except for an elevation in C-reactive protein (18.1 mg/dl) and amylase (765 U/L). Hence, the patient was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis. A month later, the CT scan of the chest and abdomen was similar to the previous finding, and the pancreatic cyst measuring 13.5 × 7 cm stretched down through the peritoneal cavity in front of the mesenteric vessels. Laboratory values were normal, a primary diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocyst was probable, and surgery was planned.

Intraoperatively, there was edema in the pylorus, transverse mesocolon, the head and body of the pancreas, and hepatoduodenal ligament. After entering the lesser sac, a large mass 35 × 20 ×15 cm in size was found between the tail of the pancreas, spleen, left colic angle, left kidney, stomach, and diaphragm. The cyst was hard to dissect from the neighboring structures. Clear liquid was aspirated, proposing the probability of a hydatid cyst. On cyst fenestration, multiple daughter cysts were evacuated; the endocyst membrane was removed (Figure 9). A Foley catheter was placed in the residual cavity. The final diagnosis was pancreatic hydatid cyst. Through the experience of this rare case of pancreatic hydatid cyst causing AP, Alsaid, et al. [39] stated that despite pancreatic hydatid cyst being rare, it could be considered an etiology when common causes of AP are ruled out. Hydatid cysts should be counted as a significant differential diagnosis for cystic lesions of the pancreas and other organs, especially in endemic regions.

irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology

Plasmodium Falciparum

Malaria is one of the most common parasitic infections in humans, with a high incidence rate in India. 1.8 % of cumulative deaths before the age of 70 years are attributed to malaria [40]. Severe malaria can present with a wide spectrum of complications, including acute kidney injury, liver injury, cerebral involvement, coagulopathy, and anemia. Acute pancreatitis secondary to malaria is a very rare complication [41]. Roy, et al. [42] reported a case of AP due to falciparum malaria in a 45-year-old male. The case was presented with a history of high-grade fever of 4 days with chills and rigors, without any diurnal variation or any concomitant rash, joint pain, photophobia, or burning micturition. He also complained of abdominal pain in the epigastric region for two days radiating to the back and increasing on taking food, associated with nausea and vomiting. These symptoms were followed by confusion and decreased urine output. On examination, the patient was febrile with a Glasgow coma scale (GCS) of E3V2M5 (10 out of 15). Abdominal examination revealed tenderness in the epigastric region without guarding, rigidity, or organomegaly. The rest of the systemic examination was unremarkable. He was kept nil per oral (NPO), and a nasogastric tube was inserted. A bedside ultrasound abdomen was performed, revealing mild hepatomegaly, obscured pancreas, and no gall bladder stones. He was started with intravenous fluid (0.9 % normal saline), empirical antimicrobials (ceftriaxone), and opioid analgesics. Subsequent blood investigations revealed a deranged renal and hepatic function test consisting of raised lipase (1047 U/L) and amylase (533 U/L) levels.

Based on characteristic pain and elevated pancreatic enzymes, the patient was diagnosed with acute pancreatitis as per Atlanta criteria [43]. His acute febrile illness work-up turned positive for Plasmodium falciparum. In peripheral smear, multiple gametocytes and ring forms of P. falciparum were detected (Figure 10). He was started on intravenous artesunate as per standard guidelines. CT of the abdomen was performed where a bulky, edematous pancreas with few dilated bowel loops was noted (Figures 11-15). Hence a diagnosis of P. falciparum malaria with acute pancreatitis was made.

irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology
irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology

Taeniasis

Taeniasis is highly prevalent among the aborigines in Taiwan. Overall infection of taeniasis is 11% among Taiwanese aborigines [44]. They acquire infection Taenia by eating the meat or liver of pigs. Evidence suggested that the Asian Taenia is a subspecies of T. saginata and it has been renamed T. saginata asiatica [45]. The cysticerci of T. saginata are recovered mainly in the liver of pigs, which are the intermediate hosts. Most people with Taeniasis are asymptomatic and only become aware of the infection when they pass proglottids in their stools. However, some complain of pruritus ani (77%), nausea (46%), abdominal pain (43%), dizziness (42%), increased appetite (30%), and other mild gastrointestinal symptoms [46].

Fan, et al. [46] reported the case of a 52-year-old Taiwanese aboriginal woman with acute pancreatitis, a rare but potentially serious complication of tapeworm - T. saginata infection. The patient developed acute epigastric pain that radiated to her back. She also had nausea and vomiting; the vomitus included fragments of a strobila. She presented for evaluation after the pain had persisted for two days. She had noticed long white worms in her stools for four years, but she ignored the finding since Taeniasis is not uncommon on Lanyu Island. On examination, the patient was of medium build and did not appear malnourished or jaundiced. She had mild direct epigastric tenderness but no rebound tenderness or muscle guarding. There was no right upper quadrant tenderness. She had a white blood cell count of 11,000 /mm3, a serum amylase level of 3,045 U/L, a serum lipase level of 2,464 U/L, a serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level of 2,678 U/L, a serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level of 1,466 U/L, and a total bilirubin level of 0.9 mg/dL.

Abdominal sonography on the day of admission showed dilatation of the common bile duct and pancreatic duct and linear hyperechoic material in the gallbladder sac with an acoustic shadow. Cholelithiasis was the most likely diagnosis, although the possibility of worms in the gallbladder could not be excluded. Gastrointestinal endoscopy showed long strobilae of tapeworms in the duodenum involving the papilla. Two strobilae of tapeworm-like parasites measuring up to 15 cm in length and 2 mm in diameter within the papilla were extracted with forceps. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) performed three days after admission showed mild dilatation of the common bile duct but no worms in the biliary tract. Pancreatography was not performed at that time because the patient did not tolerate the endoscopy well. Treatment with 200 mg of mebendazole twice a day was started on the first day of admission and continued for 10 days. Three days after admission, dead proglottids of the tapeworm were still seen in the stool, but the patient’s symptoms had resolved. Her AST and ALT levels decreased to 110 U/L and 331 U/L, respectively. At followup three weeks later her amylase level was 228 U/L and the lipase level was 716 U/L; the AST and ALT levels were within normal limits. In addition, follow-up stool examinations were negative for eggs or proglottids of Taenia. Through the experience of this case, the authors demonstrated that pancreatitis secondary to tapeworm infection can be treated after the removal of tapeworm by endoscopy followed by anthelmintic treatment.

Trypanosoma Cruzi

Chagas disease formally called American trypanosomiasis is one of the most important endemic tropical afflictions. It is found from the southern United States to Argentina; according to the World Health Organization, there are 16 to 18 million infected people in Central and South America [47] This disease is caused by the protozoan Trypanosoma cruzi, which is transmitted to man by hematophagus triatomine insects (Hemiptera: Reduviidae) when infective trypomastigotes forms are discharged with the vector’s feces during feeding. When the affected person scratches the site of the bite, infection occurs. The trypomastigotes form circulates in the blood, and after penetrating host cells, transform into amastigote form, giving rise to pseudocysts.

Chagas’ disease presents an acute course with fever, malaise, and nonspecific signs of infection. The clinical course is usually discreet and may be unnoticed. It is difficult to identify it in the acute phase because the signs and symptoms are those of a nonspecific infection, and patients normally do not seek medical help. In general, the only symptom of infection is a local inflammatory reaction that occurs at the site of infection in 80% of the cases [47]. In a research study conducted by Corbett, et al. [48] aimed to evaluate the involvement of the pancreas in acute experimental Chagas’ disease in a mouse model by histopathological characterization, ten BALBc mice were injected with about 100000 forms of the Y strain of Trypanosoma cruzi. After 14 days of infection, fragments of the pancreas were processed by conventional paraffin embedding and hematoxylin-eosin staining. Results revealed ruptured pseudocysts and release of parasites to the extracellular medium caused by necrosis of acinar and duct cells with foci of fat. These were the most striking histopathological features of acute Chagasic pancreatitis.

Clonorchis Sinensis

Clonorchiasis is a parasitic disease that is often found in Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and countries in Southeast Asia [49-51]. The incidences of Clonorchiasis is around 38 million worldwide [52]. Clinical manifestations depend on the number of flukes in a patient, the period of infestation, and the complications. Patients with light infestation usually have neither signs nor symptoms. However, in patients with heavy infestation, the extrahepatic bile duct, the gallbladder, and the pancreas are involved, manifesting symptoms related to the involved organs. Literature reports show that Clonorchis sinensis infestation has been associated with pancreatitis [53].

An original research study conducted by Kim et al. described the CT characteristics in patients with Clonorchis sinensis pancreatitis. During a 6-year period, 1142 patients underwent CT of the abdomen for evaluation of symptoms related to the hepatobiliary pancreatic system. Of the 1142 patients. 92 (8.1%) were shown to have C. sinensis on the basis of operative findings, an analysis of stool, an intradermal test for Clonorchis, or any combination of the three. Of these 92 patients, seven (7.6%) were found to have C. sinensis pancreatitis. The diagnosis of C. sinensis pancreatitis was made in four patients on the basis of operative findings and in the remaining three patients on the basis of clinical findings such as abdominal pain and raised pancreatic enzymes in blood or urine [54].

All seven patients were male with a mean age of 52 years. CT scans of the seven patients were analyzed for the degree and pattern of dilatation of the intrahepatic bile ducts; degree of dilatation of the common bile duct and the gallbladder and their intraluminal pathologic change: degree and pattern of enlargement of the pancreas, dilatation of the pancreatic duct and gross morphologic change. The CT findings of all seven patients are summarized in (Table 2). Overall, based on the CT findings of patients with Clonorchis sinensis pancreatitis Kim et al. demonstrated that presence of diffuse mild intrahepatic bile duct dilatation, the enlargement of the body or tail (or both) of the pancreas with a cluster of small cystic changes within the pancreatic parenchyma was strong evidence for the possibility of C. sinensis pancreatitis [54].

Table 2: Summary of CT characteristics in patients with Clonorchis sinensis pancreatitis.

irispublishers-openaccess-gastroenterology-hepatology


Furthermore Lim, et al. reported that marked tortuous dilatation of the tributary ducts of the tail of the pancreas with atrophy of the pancreatic parenchyma was identified in patients with C. sinensis pancreatitis [50]. Balthazor and Lamb reported that the enlargement of the entire pancreas was depicted and was associated with peripancreatic fluid collection with the development of calcific pancreatitis on a follow-up examination 3 years later [55].

Furthermore Lim, et al. reported that marked tortuous dilatation of the tributary ducts of the tail of the pancreas with atrophy of the pancreatic parenchyma was identified in patients with C. sinensis pancreatitis [50]. Balthazor and Lamb reported that the enlargement of the entire pancreas was depicted and was associated with peripancreatic fluid collection with the development of calcific pancreatitis on a follow-up examination 3 years later [55].

Conclusion

Data on pathophysiology involved with various parasites causing AP is limited. The current review article was an attempt to summarize the isolated cases worldwide reported with regards to AP. Thus far, evidence in literature is limited to multiple case reports and retrospective studies. Advanced diagnostic techniques like a biopsy or fine-needle aspiration, along with tissue culture, PCR, or in-situ hybridization, are required to give us a better understanding of the role played by infectious agents in causing AP. Acute pancreatitis secondary to malaria is a very rare complication, both are life-threatening conditions and require critical care and close monitoring. When they occur simultaneously it poses a greater challenge for physicians. Hence, being vigilant to this rare but dreaded complication of falciparum malaria can help the clinician to detect, treat as well as prognosticate the patient efficiently.

To read more about this article...Open access Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology

Please follow the URL to access more information about this article


To know more about our Journals...Iris Publishers

Iris Publishers-Open access Journal of Otolaryngology and Rhinology | A Systematic Review of Sucralfate Role in Post Adenotonsillectomy Pain Control

 


Authored by Mohamed EL-Amin*,

Abstract

Background: Tonsillectomy is the procedure needed to remove the tonsils, usually due to recurrent tonsillitis. There is a specific criterion for children and adults to be eligible for tonsillectomy. Generally, these are episodes of severe sore throat that are preventing people from functioning normally. Most of the postoperative analgesia practice involves the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids analgesia. Still, their use can increase the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, bleeding, altered alertness and respiratory depression. Also, NSAIDs can increase the risk of nephrotoxicity with dehydration. Anti-emetics should be used if the patient complains of post-op nausea and vomiting.

Objectives: What is the role of sucralfate in post-tonsillectomy pain control and how can it be used to improve post-tonsillectomy pain management?

Search methods: This review was a result of extensive search among all available source of kinds of literature. Databases were assessed between March 2018 till September 2018 including all searching engines in relevance to health Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO and not missing the grey literature and general internet searching websites. Also, we accessed all the possible libraries and local hospital department to seek more information about the topic of the mentioned review.

Selection criteria: All identified randomised controlled trials discussed the role of sucralfate were included in this systematic review in relevance to post adenotonsillectomy pain control. Risk of bias monitored carefully.

Data collection and analysis: Two reviews managed to collect and assess the data. PRISMA platform, which is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, was followed carefully in reporting all the data in relevance to the mentioned topic. Data were collected from different parts of the word with a lot of variations in practice and heterogenicity. It is recommended by this review to run a multicentre randomised controlled trial with adjusted protocol to help in having one unity of data analysis to help in future in the meta-analysis. Sucralfate is not yet included as part of post adenotonsillectomy postoperative guidelines in pain management. This review established a future potential for sucralfate to be used as regular in everyday practice as part of postoperative pain management in patients going for adenotonsillectomy. Main results: The search identified seven trials (455 patients) that they were eligible to join the study. This review identified 18 outcomes were pool all from the papers. We concluded that any outcome was discussed by five or more papers to be included as Primary outcomes: Throat pain, otalgia, pain medication, bleeding, and vomiting. Vomiting was also included to measure the side effects of sucralfate which can cause nausea and vomiting.

All of the outcomes analysed in the study were: throat pain, otalgia, trismus, pain medication, type of diet, percentage of diet eaten, Percent of strength return, weight change, bleeding, temperature, ratio of mucosal coverage, per-tonsillar oedema, nausea, vomiting, changes in the teeth distance, odynophagia, nocturnal waking Halitosis. Most of the studies showed results of statistical significance of p-value <0.05 or less as early from day two up to day five to show a significant improvement. Only one study which was conducted under local anaesthesia showed insignificant result statistically of sucralfate of Value greater than 0.05.

Conclusion: Sucralfate application is beneficial adjuvant therapy to help in improving post adenotonsillectomy pain control. It helped patients’ post-op sore throat to enhance faster, and patients were able to go back to their baseline after the operation quicker. Also, it helped to a great extent to reduce the intercity of ear pain, and there is evidence in which it helps reducing the risks of post-tonsillectomy bleeding.

Background

Description of the condition

Tonsillectomy is the procedure needed to remove the tonsils, usually due to recurrent tonsillitis. There is a specific criterion for children and adults to be eligible for tonsillectomy. Generally, these are episode of severe sore throat that are preventing people from functioning normally. Specifically, if these were exceeded by seven in a year, five or more in two years or 3 episodes in 3 years [1]. There are also other medical conditions in which tonsillectomy has specific indications like in tumours, snoring, sleep apnoea and obesity. Adenoidectomy is a procedure commonly done among childhood period because the adenoid tissue will shrink to become more of small ruminant tissue during adulthood and advance age [1].

In the UK, according to The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, when the specific criteria are met, then a referral will be made from the primary health care to the secondary care under the regulations of the commission groups with the accepted funding process [1]. Thereafter, the patient will be listed for tonsillectomy. It is usually a day case in children and adults unless other comorbidities exist [1].

Cold steel dissection is the most common procedure used for removal of the tonsils. It separates it from its bed by blunt dissection after making a limited incision on the tonsil’s mucosa [2]. Bleeding control and haemostasis usually achieved through local pressure with a swab or pieces of gauze, and ligation of bleeding vessels with or without the use of diathermy [3]. In the 1990s, Coblation was introduced as a kind of electrosurgery with less heating effect on the tissues than the diathermy [3]. It utilises the advantages of the radiofrequency current, which is produced by a bipolar probe in a medium of sodium chloride. It is recognised for its less heating and pain effect after surgery. It carries better rates of pain control but a higher risk of primary and secondary bleeding than cold steel dissection [3].

Over the last recent years, laser technology has become more involved in Ear, Nose, and throat (ENT) practice along with CO2 and Potassium titanyl phosphate (KTP) laser are both used in tonsillectomies [4]. There are three main approaches: laser vaporisation, laser-assisted serial, and complete removal by laser tonsillectomy. All techniques have a high rate of bleeding than the cold steel dissection; with reported higher pain scores which often worsens gradually and can last up to 2 weeks [4].

In the UK tonsillectomy using ultrasonic scalpel had been approved for practice by the NICE guidelines [4] if proper training had been delivered to surgeons. Because it is not commonly practiced in the National Health Service (NHS) hospitals, clear considerations should be implemented regarding the clinical governance needed for establishing such a service, audit and monitor their practice to develop such a service. Tonsillectomy using ultrasonic scalpel works through the ultrasonic energy vibrations [4]. A disposable scalpel will be used with the advantage of cutting and coagulating at the same time to secure hemostasis. Vibration produces a temperature that varies between 55 to 100 C leading to less tissue damage than diathermy or laser devices. Pain scores have been re regarded as the same compared to the other methods. The bleeding rate was found to be less in other ways considering the primary bleeding (bleeding within the first 24 hours), but rates are variable regarding the secondary bleeding [4].

Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy are both very common among the procedures which are part of every ENT theatre list, especially in children. Taking into consideration its simple principles as a procedure, the pain which may result from tonsils’ removal can be very severe and can take up to 7 days till it starts to improve (Ericsson, et al. 2015). The complete resolution might take up to 2-3 weeks until patients begin to function normally in a good state of health. Thus, children, oral intake and recovery time will be delayed leading to a long postoperative hospital stay, bearing in mind the fact that it is usually a day case surgery unless associated with complications [5].

Postoperative pain control

Most of the postoperative analgesia practice involves the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids analgesia. Still, their use can increase the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, bleeding, altered alertness and respiratory depression [6]. Also, NSAIDs can increase the risk of nephrotoxicity with dehydration. Anti-emetics should be used if the patient complains of post-op nausea and vomiting [6].

Objectives

The question I want to find an answer for it is “What is the best medical intervention which can be practiced up to the most recent evidence to help in improving post-tonsillectomy pain management” Considering at the same time all the other factors of cost, training, research, and availability of the service to be an everyday practice under the umbrella of the NHS. Different studies had been conducted to improve the quality of post-tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy pain management, including using local anesthetic medication to be infiltrated in the tonsils area. Th e us e of the local an aesthesia found to have similar good control of pain post adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy when injected locally into the wound area [5, 7, 8]. But it is complex technical, and experience issues with the fact most on local analgesia infiltration works only for a short duration deemed this approach as not significant. Furthermore, studies result varied a lot in their recommendations between supporting and refusing this approach [5].

Different approaches had been tried i n both the medical and surgical fields. Fibrin glue was found of insignificance in pain control. Fusafungine also had been tried and results again were variable between supporters and those who had insignificant effects [9]. Local steroids injection [10], but all showed deferent variations in evidence of symptoms improvement and control with further consideration to the risk of bleeding and other systematics side effects of the steroid. However, no single treatment is claimed to be superior to others in controlling post-tonsillectomy pain. A recent meta-analysis showed a compelling, significant result in the reduction of postoperative pain score with honey [11]. But still, a multimodal approach in controlling the pain is usually suggested [12].

How the intervention might lead to desirable outcomes

Sucralfate action is based on the salts of aluminum ability to formulate a protective layer over the ulcer site. It is due to the biochemical advantages of sucralfate; it does not dissolve in water, and it forms a strong bond with the mucoproteins in the exposed muscle of mucosal layers. It is powerful in acidic PH [13]. Nevertheless, it does not lose its adhesive characteristics in a normal PH like in the mouth or duodenum. That will help the mucosal to generate and cover the muscle layers at the base of the ulcer [13].

Why trying to do this review

That raised the question of why not using sucralfate in tonsillectomies pain control as the pain is mainly related to the inflammation, irritation of nerves and muscle spasms at the bed of the tonsillar fossa. Therefore, the pain will be persistent for almost 14 days in some cause until the tonsillar fossa mucosal surface heal and cover the operation site completely [14]. If we think about the tonsillectomies operation: removal will result in two large ulcers at the back to the oral cavity which will take almost two weeks to heal.

Methods

Search methods and strategy

Data had been extracted with a wide range of word search terminology and usage of the thesaurus to make sure we gathered all the possible published research in relevance to post-tonsillectomy pain control. Words used were tonsillectomy, adenoidectomy, tonsillitis, adenoids, pain, management, sucralfate, analgesia, post, randomised, trial. This source of data had been collected from well-structured up to date website; MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Evidence, PubMed. Also, it was extending to include search in Google Scholar, and another grey source of data like local publications which is not part of the universal source for data and local medical libraries Universities database had also been included. Cochrane database included considering the ENT group at the same time to compare all the relevant previous systematic reviews and trials done before. This strategy was recommended by The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [15].

Data Collection and Analysis

Selection of studies

The two reviewers of the systematic review run a separate data search which ends up in 2 databanks. Then the selection of the studies was made through the voting process. If 2 agreed the paper would be added, and rejected documents were unable to meet the voting process. For the ones with partial agreement further assessment was conducted by gathering more details.

Assessment of risk of bias and quality in included studies

In this, a systematic review of all the RCT included with was evaluated and critically appraised according to the criteria established by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination published by the University of York January 2008 [15]. It highlighted the main steps, topics which is essential to be covered in a systematic review while assessing randomised control trials. Also, the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used when reporting the systematic evaluation of sucralfate role in pain control post tonsillectomies. The PRISMA contains 27 items through which critical appraisal of systematic reviews structure was carried out by a checklist including the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and funding of the study [16]. All the randomised control trials included in the systematic review had been critically appraised through the checklist of Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) [17], and by the guidelines of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) (CEBM, 2014) [18].

This study mainly evaluated quantitative data; therefore, confidence intervals of 95% confidence had been the reflection of an actual effect [19]. It was supposed to help us in analysing the impact of sucralfate and comment on the effectiveness of the methods used in each study [19]. But because of wide heterogeneity in the data meta-analysis was do not.

Dealing with difficult data to be obtained

Some of the data found to be missed from the papers final reporting. Efforts made to contact the authors for more clarification and to include the studies, but no success was achieved out of those trials. Because of that, these studies were excluded from the review. That will be mentioned in the exclusion criteria of papers.

Data synthesis

All the information included in this study was collected by another researcher and me. For all the studies considered for this study, the data had been collected will consist of; the source associated with its ID citation and contact details. Regarding the eligibility, all reason for exclusion was mentioned. Recording of study design, duration, sequence generation, allocation sequence, and concealment, blinding and bias were all discussed with the effect of drop out. Furthermore, authors had been investigated regarding the date of their studies, country, setting, diagnostic criteria, age, sex, comorbidity, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity (PRISMA 2017) [16].

In all studies, sucralfate was the main intervention group. All details about the dose, mode of administration and records of its effects had been analysed according to the scales pain utilized to evaluate the intensity of pain. Variations between the studies were considered including duration, time, and the dose of administration of sucralfate. Also, the interventions affected the outcomes of each study according to the way it had been administered. Analysis of the results was included in the form of sample size, the number of participants with proper measurement of effect P value and confidence interval (PRISMA, 2017) [16].

Then the assessment of the risk of bias was conducted, and that will be included: section, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting bias [20]. Therefore, each study risks were categorized into the low, high, or unclear risk of bias.

After gathering all the relevant results, factors affecting the publication bias were analysed. In the review done by Hopewell in 2008; it concluded that studies with positive results were more likely to be published than negative results with odds of publication of 4 times greater than others if the statistical significance of OR = 3.90, 95% 2.68-5.68).

Results

This systematic review was conducted electronically using Review Manager 5.3 software (RevMan) and the software Mendeley. It is recommended by the Cochrane website as part of the software needed for proper analysis of such reviews and results gathering [21].

Reporting of all the outcomes was monitored according to the PICO criteria and the statistical significance of the result was check and documented [21].

The effect of the sample size and all the other factors affected the conduction of all the studies included. Tables were formulated by the end including all the essential characteristics of each study; author-date; country, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, interventions are done, comparisons were conducted, loss of follow up and outcomes. As part of the quality assessment, the strength, limitations, and weakness of each individual study in the analyses was mentioned if it was documented in the view [21].

Ethical approval will not be needed. There will be no direct contact with any patients. All data will be extracted from the previous studies and analysed electronically. Then, all outcomes will be discussed to address the review question and the possible benefits of using sucralfate in post-tonsillectomy pain control. Each study will be challenged for its ethical approval and if the authors managed to seek proper consent regionally or internationally according to each study conditions.

This study will be registered with the international database for systematic reviews of the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The Centre developed it for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) University of York. It is funded by the National Institute for Health Research of UK (NIHR) [20]. It was launched in February 2011, and since that time, it had been on continues upgrade and continued contribution to the international database [22]. This was the first systematic review considering the use of sucralfate in post-tonsillectomy pain control. I believe publishing THE results of this is study will add more to our understanding of sucralfate role and measure are in place to guard against any publication bias like citation, duplication, location, language, and outcomes biases.

This is the first systematic review of the sucralfate role in posttonsillectomy pain control. I hope it will expand our understating about the post-tonsillectomy pain mechanisms and help us to improve our practice in postoperative pain management and control. Description of included studies (Figure 1).

irispublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-rhinology

Study Design and Setting

In total seven studies included in this systematic review. These studies took places in different part of the world. It exhibited diversity in its population but at the same time that was a source of heterogeneity [14, 23-27]. The power calculation was only done in two studies [25, 28]. Also, it was mentioned on Siupsinskiene, et al. [29] but the actual process not documented.

Participants

Particepents were from diffident age groups, and they had there only characterised which reflected by their demographics.

The total number of patients who took part in this study were 455 patients.
1. Two studies were conducted in adults: Fifty adult patients were included in (Freeman, Markwell and Markwell, 1992). Forty-three adults volunteers were part of [23].
2. Three studies in children groups: Sixty-nighen children aged 3 to 12 years were involved in the study, which was done by [24]. Then it was then until the study conducted by [25] with Eighty-two children of both sexes between four and 12 years. Then the study conducted by [26] which included 101 children aged 6 to 12 years.
3. Two studies included children and adults: Then it was [29] who studies sucralfate in fifty patients (age 6 to 58). The last study which was included had participants of 60 volunteer over eight years [28].

Interventions and comparisons

Studies included all discussed the role of sucralfate in posttonsillectomy symptoms management. The aim was to find the effective way of administering the drug orally, gargles, irrigation or swallow to act locally on the tonsillar bed area to help to improve post-tonsillectomy pain control and improve the postoperative pain management. It was supposed that it would help mucosal healing as the same principle for the way how sucralfate can act locally on peptic ulcer mucosal lining [29]. Lactulose was the placebo in all the studies whenever possible. Although some studies had only a control group without placebo, some studies added both placebo and control groups together. Others check commented on the outcomes with the effect of antibiotics.

Sucralfate vs placebo

• Freeman, Markwell, and Markwell, 1992: for a total ten days four times a day. Intervention: 60mls of solution contains 1g sucralfate Placebo: 60mls of solution contains 1g of lactose
• for the total of 7 days [24]
• Intervention: 60mls of solution contains 1g sucralfate Placebo: 60mls of solution contains 1g of lactose
• (Miura et al., 2009) for five days four times a day
• Intervention: 60mls of solution contains 1g sucralfate Placebo: 60mls of solution contains 1g of lactose

Sucralfate vs control

• for seven days [29]
• Intervention: 60mls of solution contains 1g sucralfate control: no intervention was done: only randomised to post-op pain killers
• for seven days: [27]
• Intervention: sucralfate
• Control: None

Sucralfate vs placebo vs control/

• Candan, et al. [23] for total five days four times a day Intervention: 50ml of solution contain 1g of sucralfate
Placebo: 50 ml of solution contain lactose 1g of sucralfate Sucralfate vs placebo vs clindamycin
• Jahanshahi, et al. [28]
Anaesthesia and perioperative peri-operative management Operative procedures
Cold steel dissection and stitches
• Furtado, et al. [24]
• Miura, et al. [25]
• Jahanshahi, et al. [26]

Cold steel dissection and the snare technique:

• It was the stander procedure used by Freeman, et al. [14], Candan, et al., [23] ad Özler, et al. [27]
1. cold dissection and electrocautery with or without packing and stitches [29].
Hemostasis Mechanisms
1. Local pressure and stitching:
• Furtado, et al. [24]
• Miura, et al. [25]
• Özler, et al. [27]
• Jahanshahi, et al. [28]

2. Local pressure, stitching, and electrocautery:
• Freeman, et al. [14] extent of cauterisation was recorded on a scale of 3 degrees from minimal, moderate to extensive.
• Siupsinskiene, et al. [29] Anaesthesia
1. Local: Not clearly mentioned the type of anaesthetic medication Candan, et al. [23]
2. General: Inhalation of sevoflurane or by an intravenous induction with tionembutal then maintained with inhalation of sevoflurane [24].

Anaesthetic induction room with midazolam 0.5 mg/kg orally was used [25].

Local/general: Most of the patients were in Freeman, et al. in 1992 [14] study were under general anaesthesia with infiltration of Xylocaine containing epinephrine. Three of the operations performed on the placebo group were done under local anaesthesia.
3. Others: Ketoprofen using intramuscular injections for the first two days; then orally for the next five days, they were when necessary. Children in both groups received 500 mg of oral paracetamol form all seven days [29].
4. Not clearly mentioned induction of anaesthesia methods: Siupsinskiene, et al. [29]

Özler, et al. [27] Jahanshahi, et al. [28] Outcomes

All outcomes included in all studies were listed in Table 1, to allow comparison between different studies:

Excluded studies
Studies were excluded according to deferent reasons:
1. Access not gained: authors had been contacted but no response: IRCT201303209014N16, no date, Hari, et al. [30], Sampaio and Oliveira [31], Karimi, et al. 2007 [32]
2. None English language papers [33] (in Spanish)
3. Non-randomised control trials (Ozcan, et al., 1998) [27]
4. Tonsillar interventions other than cold steel dissection like thermal welding [34]
5. (IRCT201303209014N16, no date; Ozcan, et al. [37]; Esteban, et al. [33], Hari, et al. [30]; Sampaio and Oliveira [31], Karimi, et al. 2007 [32].
Risk of bias in included studies
Randomization and allocation (selection bias)

The method of sequence generation was unclear in five studies [14, 23, 24, 27, 29]. For only two studies The methods of randomisation were mentioned clearly: randomised blocks [25] and balance block randomisation method [26]. It is essential to be clear about the randomisation methods and explain which type was used. It is not enough just to mention the process. Randomisation can be done through one of these methods: referring to a random number table; using a computer random number generator; coin-tossing; shuffling cards or envelopes; throwing dice; drawing of lots and minimisation. It is recommended by Cochrane to identify the risk of bias, and according to that, it is an unclear risk of bias in the above four papers and low risk of bias in the other two papers [25, 26] (Table 1).

Table 1:All outcomes included in the studies.

irispublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-rhinology

Two studies only clearly described a low-risk method of allocation concealment, which was conducted by a pharmacist to avoid the bias of making the clinicians aware of the process [29]. For this reason; this study had followed the category of low risk of bias during the allocation process. In Miura, et al. [25], study a clear inclusive flowchart of all the study phases was formulated with detailed information about the numbers of participated involved.

The other the five studies, there was no clear documentation of the allocation process mentioned and that put these studies in the category of the unclear risk of bias. Low-risk bias in concealing allocation could have been minimised if any of the recommended methods (telephone, web-based and pharmacy-controlled randomisation; sequentially numbered drug containers of identical appearance; sequentially numbered, opaque and sealed envelopes. (Cochrane Methods Bias, 2011) was followed correctly. Methods which can make the process of low risk of bias if followed correctly in conceal allocation: central allocation.

Blinding

Blinding means to make both groups: the intervention and the control/placebo group unaware of the intervention itself [35].

Only one studies out of the seven studies had detailed information about the blinding process, blinding the investigators and patients [25]. It was explained that sucralfate was made similar to the placebo (lactulose) with details about the preparation itself. That put this study in a low risk of performance and detection bias. In regards, to performance and detection bias there was an unclear risk of bias in all the rest of the studies [14, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31]; as blinding was only mentioned as part of describing the study but no exact details were mentioned to explain who were made blind, the intervention or the placebo group. In Jahanshahi, et al. [29], a pharmacist was involved in the area phases, but again no more details were mentioned.

Incomplete outcome data

According to Roshan, et al. [36] it is critical to report all the outcomes’ data that’s including the primary outcomes and the secondary outcomes. Any missed data or incomplete reporting of all data will affect the result of the study. Intention to Treat Analysis is vital to be done to avoid misleading results.

It was mentioned in [14] that nine candidates were eliminated for failure to complete the journal, 5 for lack of follow-up, and one due to the incorrect usage of the test drug. One patient in the placebo group had a delayed haemorrhage requiring cauterisation and was removed from the study. No patients were eliminated for intolerance of the test drug, and no intention to treat analysis was done. That put the study on high-risk category.

On the study carried out by [23] none of the participants were missed during the study time. So, no data was missed [31]. On their paper “Evaluation of early postoperative morbidity in paediatric tonsillectomy with the use of sucralfate,” five patients were excluded because of the lack of follow-up and four because of the incorrect use of the test drug. Two patients had delayed bleeding, requiring a haemostatic suture, and were excluded from the study. No evidence was found about any further analysis and tracking of the effect of the missed data. It is categorised as unclear risk of bias.

In Miura, et al. [25] study only two patients were reported as a drop of the study: in the sucralfate group, one patient was excluded due to high fever, and one patient was excluded because of loss to follow-up. Considering only two patients out of 82 is unlikely that have much effect considering the power calculation, which was done in this study. It was the only power calculation which was mentioned in all the studies. The percentage of loss was calculated as 15 per cent and for minimal involvement of each group of 35 participants. This detailed information will put this study on the low risk of bias group. These power calculations which were done by Minura, et al. [25] was the base for the power calculation for another study which was conducted by Jahanshahi, et al. [28]. He adopted the sample size selection technique to make study groups of a minimal of 35 candidates with anticipation of 5% of sample loss. Out of 110, only nine patients were excluded. On the discussion, it was mentioned that part of the limitation of the study was the sample size as that might have let to small sampling error. All these analyses had put this study in the low risk of bias concerning incomplete data of outcome recording.

In the study ‘’ Use of Topical Sucralfate in the Management of Postoperative Pain After Tonsillectomy which was conducted by [27] no data was reported as missed data, and all participants completed the study in both intervention and control group. Again, no data was reported as missed or incomplete for the study conducted by Siupsinskiene [29] and all patient of a count of 50 on both groups completed the full duration of the study for seven days. Also noted all outcome measures were recorded. Both studies are of low risk of bias concerning incomplete data recording.

Selective reporting

Study outcomes should be reported in a systematic way with appropriate outcome measures: primary and secondary. They should be written in text with supporting statistical evidence to show the significance of the outcomes measured. In randomised control trials outcomes reporting will be strong statistically when P values are recorded, the mean and the standard deviation are calculated. Also, data analysis of confidence intervals is critical to reflect on comparative and metanalysis of the results; especially when testing drugs or interventions for future use in humans (Reviews, 1992; US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, 2018).

It was concluded that [14] study had a high risk of bias as pain scores were not measured with standard pain scales [14]. It only graded the pain on a scale of 4 levels. Also, there was reporting of some data on graphs without supporting statistical evidence. Secondary outcomes were not reported in full details.

Considering the results and outcomes of Candan, et al. [23], it was built upon non-standardised pain scale, and hence results can’t be taken a statistically significant although P values and standard deviation were recorded. Here the procedure also was done under local anaesthesia, so the postoperative pain was severer than the other studies when the operations were conducted under general anaesthesia. This study was deemed as high-risk of bias study.

In the study which was conducted by [31] a comprehensive data outcomes reporting was done. That included a standardised scale of pain to measure results. Also, all primary and secondary outcomes with P- Values and Standard deviation were recorded. Data also was presented in tables and diagrams. For all these reasons, it was rated as low risk of bias.

The rest four studies were deemed of low risk of bias: all primary and secondary outcomes were reported in a standardised way. Pain measurement and scores were measured in a standardised way with a well-known wide used standard scale of pain: Revised Faces Pain Scale [25, 26], visual analogue scale (VAS) [27, 29].

Other potential sources of bias

The surgical practice of removing tonsil was very variable from place to another. Variations of technique had affected the results of the outcomes. According to this section of analysis factors affecting outcomes were: Types of anaesthesia conducted, measures of pain control, variations of outcomes, variations of outcome measures and duration of follow up. Also, it was noticeable that there were no standardised ways of applying the intervention plus placebo and control groups variations. The demographics of the population were variable. Age groups included were of wide range, and some studies had children and adults at the same time. Scales of monitoring the pain also were very variable; some were standardised, and others were locally adapted scales. These factors will be discussed in the coming sections with more inputs about the interventions and outcomes. In this study a comprehensive analysis for the bias was conducted. Please refer for Table 2 for more generalised view in relation to the bias analysis.

Table 2:Type of bias was found in the included studies.

irispublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-rhinology

Discussion of the Results and Outcomes

In this section, we discussed the result of all the including papers, according to the authors, as different methods and result were optioned. Please refer to the Figure 2 for a comparable view of the studies and their characteristics.

Sucralfate in Alleviating Post-Tonsillectomy Pain [14]:
Throat pain and otalgia showed significant result mainly by the 3rd day of with P-Value of < 0.05 including.
The use of pain medications posts operatively, and trismus results showed p < 0.05 by the first day.
Strength and power showed significant improvement in most of the days. Diet improved after the 5th day irrespective to the type of diet.

On the other hand, weight, bleeding, temperature, and Percent of mucosal coverage all were of insignificant result statistical result. Exclusion and elimination: 9 patients were eliminated for failure to complete the journal, 5 for lack of follow-up, and one due to the incorrect usage of the test drug. One patient in the placebo group had a delayed haemorrhage requiring cauterisation and was removed from the study. No patients were eliminated for intolerance of the test drug.

Sucralfate in Accelerating Post -Tonsillectomy wound Healing [14].

Throat pain, otalgia, and trismus all show results of P-value more than 0.05 of statistical significance. But it was statistically significant with a P value less than 0.05 in peritonsillar oedema and epithelisation rate. This is the only study which showed statistical insignificance in sucralfate role in post-tonsillectomy pain control. Also, we need to release those operations were done under local anaesthesia. Therefore, sucralfate is not expected to control the pain more than work as a useful adjuvant in pain control (Table 2) (Figure 2).

irispublishers-openaccess-otolaryngology-rhinology

Exclusion and Elimination:

Evaluation of early postoperative morbidity in paediatric tonsillectomy with the use of sucralfate [24]. Patients in the study group had significantly lower pain scores in the initial six postoperative hours (p < 0.05). The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant for the other periods following the procedure or on the evaluation of the other indices.

Exclusion and elimination:Five patients were excluded because of the lack of follow-up and four because of the incorrect use of the test drug. Two patients had delayed bleeding, requiring a haemostatic suture, and were excluded from the study.

Topical sucralfate in post-adenotonsillectomy analgesia in children:A double-blind randomised clinical trial [25]. Reduction of pain was significant during the five days of treatment when compared to the placebo group with the P value of P < 0.006. On the other hand, all other parament showed no significant difference.

Exclusion and elimination:In the sucralfate group, one patient was excluded due to high fever, and one patient was excluded because of loss to follow-up.

Effect of Topical Sucralfate vs Clindamycin on Post tonsillectomy Pain in Children Aged 6 to 12 Years A Triple-Blind RandomiSed Clinical Trial [29].

Effects of topical sucralfate and clindamycin vs. placebo on postoperative clinical signs and symptoms of a sore throat was statistically significant on the first four days after surgery (P =A .001). However, the result was not of clinical significance for the other parameters.

Exclusion and elimination:11 were ineligible, and six declined to participate.

From the 2nd to 7th postoperative days, patients using topical sucralfate had significantly lower average throat pain, odynophagia and otalgia scores than the control group (p < 0.05).

Exclusion and eliminationnone

Efficacy of sucralfate for the treatment of post-tonsillectomy symptoms [29]. From the 2nd to 7th postoperative days, patients using topical sucralfate had significantly lower average throat pain, odynophagia and otalgia scores than the control group (p < 0.05).

Exclusion and elimination:none

Use of Topical Sucralfate in the Management of Postoperative Pain After Tonsillectomy [27].

Throat pain scores, odynophagia scores, otalgia scores from the first-day post-op and the time through the whole duration of the study were significantly lower than the control group (p<0.05). However, it took a mean return to normal diet and returned to regular daily activity more time but were of statistical significance later p (p=0.0001).

Summary of main results

On pooled data of results, sucralfate showed statistically significant effects of the P-value of 0.05 or less in all parameters measured. Although outcomes measure varies a lot though studies with different population demographics [14, 24, 25, 26, 27,29].

To be mentioned one study showed not much significance of sucralfate in pain control [23].

Conclusion

Implications for practice

In summary, it was an extensive systematic review which showed the possibilities of achieving good pain control after adenotonsillectomy with sucralfate application on the tonsillar bed after removal of the tonsils. The practice was very variable, with papers from different parts of the world. Methods and outcome reporting were inconsistent in terms of the outcomes and the outcomes measures. However, all showed good and encouraging results towards considering sucralfate in post-tonsillectomy pain control. Also, as noted, the side effects of the drug are very minimal and mild in most cases. Consider the simple way of applying sucralfate and its significant results in controlling the post- tonsillectomy pain; more studies are needed with more adjustment of the risks of bias to test is effect and role in post-tonsillectomy pain.

To read more about this article....Open access Journal of Otolaryngology and Rhinology

Please follow the URL to access more information about this article

To know more about our Journals...Iris Publishers

To know about Open Access Publishers

Iris Publishers- Open access Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology | A Review on Parasitic Causes of Acute Pancreatitis

  Authored by  Singh Yuvaraj*, Introduction Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an important cause of hospitalization amongst gastrointestinal disord...