Skip to main content
Download PDF

Duloxetine reduces opioid consumption and pain after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research volume 19, Article number: 181 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

There is no consensus in the current literature on the analgesic role of duloxetine after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Thus, we designed this meta-analysis to reveal the analgesic effectiveness and safety of duloxetine in TKA or THA.

Methods

As of October 2022, two authors (L.C. and W.Q.J.) independently searched five main databases (EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) to find relevant studies. Duloxetine vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for THA or TKA were included. We set perioperative total opioid consumption as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included resting or dynamic pain scores over time, gastrointestinal adverse events, neurological adverse events, and other adverse reactions.

Results

Eight RCTs with 695 patients were incorporated in our study. This meta-analysis showed high evidence that duloxetine was effective in reducing perioperative opioid consumption (Standard mean difference [SMD] = − 0.50, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: −0.70 to − 0.31, P < 0.00001) and low to moderate evidence that duloxetine could reduce pain within three weeks after surgery. Low to high evidence showed no differences between the two groups for most adverse events. Substantial evidence suggests that duloxetine can reduce nausea and vomiting after surgery (Risk ratio [RR] = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95, P = 0.02, I2 = 4%). However, moderate evidence suggested that duloxetine might be associated with increased postoperative drowsiness (RR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.08 to 3.09, P = 0.02, I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

Duloxetine reduced overall opioid consumption in the perioperative period and relieved pain within three weeks after surgery without increasing the risk of adverse drug events. Duloxetine can be part of a multimodal management regimen in patients with THA and TKA.

Introduction

The primary treatment options for patients with end-stage degenerative arthritis are total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which can effectively reduce chronic pain and enhance joint function. Given the incredible trauma of these two types of procedures, many patients are dissatisfied with postoperative pain [1, 2]. Inadequate pain control delays recovery, prolongs hospital stays, and increases the risk of postoperative complications. At present, opioid drugs are still widely used in perioperative and postoperative pain control [3]. Opioids relieve pain but can cause nausea, vomiting, constipation, drowsiness, and other adverse effects [4]. Furthermore, overdependence on opioid drugs for pain management is related to opioid dependence and hyperalgesia [5]. These all bring great troubles to patients’ postoperative lives. Multimodal analgesia is designed to use combinations of multiple drugs or techniques to lower the dose of each drug, thereby reducing the side effects of each drug while maintaining overall efficacy [6, 7]. In theory, it could reduce opioid consumption, reduce pain, and reduce opioid-related adverse reactions [8].

Duloxetine was initially used to treat major depressive disorder and was later expanded to treat fibromyalgia, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy [9,10,11,12]. The downward inhibitory pain pathway in the central nervous system can be suppressed by duloxetine, which inhibits the uptake of serotonin and norepinephrine [13,14,15]. Recent evidence suggests that duloxetine may help mitigate the acute central sensitization associated with post-surgical tissue injury [16]. In individuals with centrally mediated musculoskeletal pain, duloxetine is effective as an analgesic [17, 18]. Therefore, duloxetine can theoretically relieve pain after various surgical procedures.

There is no consensus in the current literature on the analgesic role of duloxetine after TKA or THA. Some studies suggest that although duloxetine has an opioid-sparing effect in the perioperative period of TKA, it does not bring an additional analgesic effect [19, 20]. However, studies also support its analgesic advantage over a placebo in TKA or THA [21, 22]. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis were designed to validate the analgesic curative effect and security of duloxetine in TKA and THA.

Materials and methods

This study was structured to adhere to the AMSTAR and PRISMA, which consist of mandatory specifications for open data reporting [23]. We followed a standard technique already registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42023403471). Since this meta-analysis relied only on already-published papers, no ethical clearance was required.

Search strategy

As of October 2022, two authors (L.C. and W.Q.J.) independently searched EMBASE, Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science using the following keywords: (TKR or total knee replacement TKA or total knee arthroplasty or THR or total hip replacement or THA or total hip arthroplasty) and (duloxetine or cymbalta) to find the relevant material. Further omissions were prevented by hand-checking references and citations of potentially relevant material.

Eligibility criteria for study selection

According to the PICOS concept, the following inclusion criteria were established for the pertinent research in this paper: (1) patients who received THA or TKA; (2) the intervention group received duloxetine before and after surgery; (3) the control group received placebo before and after surgery; (4) there are indicators related to analgesia in the results, such as opioid consumption, pain score, and adverse event; (5) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in English journals. Exclusion criteria included: (1) exclusion of non-English articles, reviews, editorials, letters, case reports, duplicate publications, conference abstracts, and guidelines; (2) studies using duloxetine and placebo only before or after surgery; (3) studies with no analgesic-related indicators or no extractable data in the results; (4) patients with trauma, cognitive impairment, alcoholism, and drug abuse. All references included in this study were rigorously screened by the inclusion and exclusion criteria established above. Negotiation or consultation with third authors was used to resolve differences between two independent authors in literature screening. The Kappa value was utilized to determine the degree to which the two authors agreed throughout the article screening process.

Quality assessment

All included studies were independently evaluated for bias by two of our authors (L.C. and W.Q.J.) using Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and the criteria specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [24]. The writers (L.C., J.M.Y., and W.Q.J.) discussed and reached a consensus on how to handle disagreements. The risk of bias for each item was categorized as low, high, or uncertain (deficiency of data or unidentified risk of bias) based on the information supplied by the included studies. The following are the calculated Kappa values that assess the level of consensus amongst authors (L.C. and W.Q.J.): fair (0.40 to 0.59), good (0.60 to 0.74), and excellent (0.75 or more).

Data collection

Applying standardized data extraction documents, two writers (L.C. and J.M.Y.) independently completed the data extraction task. The subsequent information was taken from the included studies: first author, publication year, sample size, sex ratio, average age, intervention, operation type, dosage, and timing of duloxetine, outcome measures, follow-up time, etc. The corresponding authors of the papers that lacked necessary data for meta-analysis or had just visual data presentation were contacted via email. If that wasn’t the case, we followed the protocols outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. If it became essential, we would stop extracting partial data. Disagreements arising from data collecting were settled via open dialogue.

Primary and secondary outcomes

Considering the subjectivity of pain scores, we set perioperative total opioid consumption as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes include resting or dynamic pain scores over time, gastrointestinal adverse events, neurological adverse events, and other adverse effects.

Quality of evidence

The GRADE method was utilized to evaluate the strength of evidence for pooled results [25]. We downgraded the outcomes based on the risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, impreciseness, and publication bias of the contained literature.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by RevMan (version 5.4.0) and Stata (version 14.0). Risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI were utilized to assess dichotomous or continuous consequences, respectively. Heterogeneity was evaluated using Begg’s and Egger’s tests and the I2 statistic. I2 < 25% was chosen to indicate low heterogeneity and I2 > 75% was selected to indicate high heterogeneity. The fixed effect model was used when the I2 value was < 50%, while the random effect model was used when I2 was > 50%. Significance was set at P < 0.05. Sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the stability of meta-analysis results. Considering the possible causes for heterogeneity, subgroup analyses were performed for the prospective outcomes depending on the anesthesia strategy, type of surgery, dosage of duloxetine, and risk of bias.

Results

Search results and study characteristics

The PRISMA Flowchart illustrates the steps used to appraise appropriate studies included in the literature (Fig. 1). After eliminating duplicate studies, 86 articles were included in the screening. According to screening the title and abstract, 18 articles were included in this study. Finally, 8 full-text publications passed the first screening and were ultimately analyzed [19,20,21,22, 26,27,28,29].

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA Flow diagram

Full size image

The 8 RCTs investigated a total of 695 people (Table 1). The sample size of the included studies ranged from 39 to 160, with a distribution of 347 in the duloxetine group and 348 in the control group. Regarding the surgical type, 6 involved TKA [19, 20, 22, 27,28,29], and 2 involved THA [21, 26].

Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Risk of bias

All included research represented the approach of randomization and allocation concealment. The vast majority of studies emphasized blinding of patients, implementers, and data collectors. A standardized assessment of the risk of bias in the 8 studies was summarized in Table 2. The evaluation findings of the RoB2 tool are displayed in Fig. 2, where two studies indicate low risk and the remaining studies indicate some concerns [20, 22]. Overall, there was an outstanding level of agreement between the two reviewers (kappa = 0.714) when it came to assessing the risk of bias (Table A.2).

Table 2 Assessment of methodological quality of included studies
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Results of Cochrane’s risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2)

Full size image

Primary outcome (total opioid consumption)

Total opioid consumption is shown in four studies [19, 21, 22, 29]. A total of 400 patients (experimental group = 201 and control group = 199) were involved in evaluating total opioid consumption. The evidence quality was highly certain for total opioid consumption (Table 3). The total opioid consumption of the duloxetine group was significantly lower (SMD = − 0.50, 95% CI: −0.70 to − 0.31, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 3).

Table 3 The result of Begg’s and Egger’s test for outcomes
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plots of the total opioid consumption using the fixed model

Full size image

Secondary outcomes

Pain score at rest

The pain score at rest is shown in the results of five articles [21, 22, 27,28,29]. The evidence quality was of moderate or low certainty for pain score at rest (Table 3). Meta-analysis of included studies suggested a significant pain improvement at rest in duloxetine groups vs. controls (SMD = − 0.49, 95% CI: −0.80 to − 0.18; P = 0.002, I2 = 44%) on the pain score at postoperative 1 week (including 315 patients), (SMD = − 0.54, 95% CI: −1.02 to − 0.07, P = 0.02, I2 = 78%) on the pain score at postoperative 2–3 week (including 363 patients) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plots of the pain score at rest using the fixed model

Full size image

Pain score during movement

The pain score during movement is shown in the results of five articles [21, 22, 27,28,29]. We found that the quality of evidence was of moderate certainty for pain score during movement (Table 3). Meta-analysis of included studies suggested a significant pain improvement during movement in duloxetine groups vs. controls, (SMD = − 0.64, 95% CI: −0.94 to − 0.34, P < 0.0001, I2 = 40%) on the pain score at postoperative 1 week (including 315 patients), (SMD = − 0.62, 95% CI: −1.04 to − 0.19, P = 0.004, I2 = 79%) on the pain score at postoperative 2–3 week (including 363 patients) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plots of the pain score during movement using the fixed model

Full size image

Gastrointestinal side effects (nausea and vomiting, constipation, and appetite loss)

Eight articles reported nausea and vomiting [19,20,21,22, 26,27,28,29]. 692 people participated in the experiment, wherein 347 were classified to the duloxetine group, and 345 were classified to the control group. There is a significant difference in duloxetine groups vs. controls (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.95, P = 0.02, I2 = 4%) on nausea and vomiting (Fig. 6). The quality of evidence is highly certain for nausea and vomiting (Table 3).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plots of the gastrointestinal side effects using the fixed model

Full size image

Constipation is shown in the results of five articles [21, 26,27,28,29]. In the aggregate, 44 out of 191 patients in the duloxetine group suffered constipation. In the meantime, 53 out of 191 patients in the control group suffered constipation. Meta-analysis showed no difference in postoperative constipation between the duloxetine and control groups (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.23, P = 0.50, I2 = 22%) (Fig. 7). The quality of evidence was of moderate certainty for constipation (Table 3). The consequence of the dosage subgroup revealed that duloxetine did not significantly reduce constipation compared to the control group when duloxetine was used in 30 and 60 mg doses (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.39, P = 0.618, I2 = 0%; RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.34 to 1.29, P = 0.146, I2 = 48%) (Figure A.1.A).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plots of the nervous system side effects using the fixed model

Full size image

Two articles reported appetite loss [27, 28]. In brief, 42 out of 59 patients in the duloxetine group underwent appetite loss. In the meanwhile, 45 out of 60 patients in the control group underwent appetite loss. Meta-analysis of included studies suggested a nonsignificant appetite loss in duloxetine groups vs. controls (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.07, P = 0.23, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 6). The quality of evidence was of moderate certainty for appetite loss (Table 3).

Nervous system side effects (dizziness, drowsiness, and insomnia)

Six articles reported dizziness [19, 21, 26,27,28,29]. 429 people participated in the evaluation, 214 were designated as the duloxetine group, and 215 were assigned as the control group. We found that the quality of evidence was highly certain for dizziness (Table 3). There was no significant difference in dizziness (RR = 0.99. 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.75; P = 0.98; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 7). The result of the dosage subgroup revealed that duloxetine did not significantly reduce dizziness when duloxetine was used in 30 and 60 mg doses (RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.62 to 3.87, P = 0.341, I2 = 0%; RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.54, P = 0.967, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 9, Figure A.1.B).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Forest plots of the fatigue and dry mouth using the fixed model

Full size image

Drowsiness is shown in the results of five articles [19, 21, 26, 29]. 310 people participated in the evaluation, 155 were assigned to the duloxetine group, and 155 were assigned to the control group. The quality of evidence was of low certainty for drowsiness (Table 3). Meta-analysis of 5 studies showed a higher proportion of drowsiness in the duloxetine group vs. control (RR = 1.83, 95% CI: 1.08 to 3.09, P = 0.02, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 7).

Insomnia is shown in the results of three articles [21, 27, 28]. 215 people participated in the evaluation, 107 were assigned to the duloxetine group, and 108 were assigned to the control group. There was no significant difference in insomnia (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.32, P = 0.07, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 7). The quality of evidence was of moderate certainty for insomnia (Table 3).

Other adverse effects (dry mouth, fatigue)

Five articles reported dry mouth [21, 26,27,28,29]. 392 people participated in the evaluation, 191 were assigned as the duloxetine group, and 191 were designated as the control group. There is no significant difference in the dry mouth (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.34; P = 0.87; I2 = 0%) (Fig. 8). The quality of evidence was of moderate certainty for dry mouth (Table 3).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Result of subgroup analysis

Full size image

Subgroup analysis was implemented based on the dosage of duloxetine. The consequence of the dosage subgroup revealed that duloxetine did not significantly reduce dry mouth when duloxetine was used in 30 and 60 mg doses (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.31, P = 0.207, I2 = 37.3%; RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.87, P = 0.742, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 9, Figure A.1.C).

The consequence of the operation type subgroup revealed that duloxetine did not significantly reduce dry mouth when undergoing THA and TKA (RR = 1.72, 95% CI: 0.52 to 5.66, P = 0.794, I2 = 0%; RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.30, P = 0.376, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 9, Figure A.1.D).

Meta-analysis of 5 studies [21, 26,27,28,29] revealed no significant difference in fatigue with moderate certainty quality of evidence (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.08; P = 0.30, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 8) (Table 3). The consequences of the dosage subgroup revealed that duloxetine did not significantly reduce fatigue when duloxetine was used in 30 and 60 mg doses (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.11, P = 0.201, I2 = 38.8%; RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.27, P = 0.816, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 9, Figure A.1.E).

Publication bias and sensitivity analysis

Publication bias in all outcomes was assessed according to Begg’s and Egger’s tests. The results show no significant publication bias for all outcomes (Table 4). Sensitivity analysis showed that the outcome of appetite loss was unstable. After removing the study by Koh et al. [28], the RR value of appetite loss fluctuated significantly. Other outcomes have good stability (Figure A.2.)

Table 4 GRADE evidence profile for outcomes
Full size table

Discussion

This meta-analysis revealed strong evidence that duloxetine effectively reduced perioperative opioid consumption and low to moderate evidence that duloxetine could improve pain levels within three weeks after surgery. There was low to high evidence that for most adverse events, such as constipation, dizziness, and fatigue, no differences were found between the two groups. Furthermore, high-level evidence showed that duloxetine could reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, low-level evidence suggested that duloxetine might be associated with increased postoperative drowsiness.

There is a consensus in the pain community that tissue damage caused by surgery results in central and peripheral sensitization, and subsequent changes in neuroplasticity can lead to hyperalgesia in postoperative patients. The analgesic mechanism of duloxetine is through the modulation of serotonin and norepinephrine, thereby enhancing the descending inhibitory pain pathways in the brain and spinal cord and activating parts of the prefrontal lobe of the brain [13, 15, 30]. Some studies have also suggested that duloxetine has an antinociceptive effect by blocking Na+ channels and inhibiting neuronal cell firing caused by peripheral injury [31, 32]. Since TKA and THA are types of joint surgery with significant tissue trauma, many patients will experience mood changes after surgery, such as depression and insomnia. Therefore, it is essential to assess the effect of antidepressants such as duloxetine on the quality of recovery after TKA and THA.

Our results indicated that duloxetine had a significant advantage over the placebo. Pooling the primary outcome from four high-quality studies showed a significant opioid-sparing advantage for duloxetine, with no heterogeneity in the pooling outcome. In addition, duloxetine showed a sustained advantage within three weeks on pain scores at rest or during movement. Therefore, consistency in pain scores and opioid consumption reflects the stability of duloxetine analgesia after THA and TKA.

The optimal dose of duloxetine in lower extremity arthroplasty remains unclear. Of the studies we included, 6 studies used 60 mg daily [19,20,21,22, 26, 29], and 2 studies used 30 mg daily [27, 28]. Hetta et al. compared the analgesic effects of three preoperative doses (30, 60, and 90 mg) of duloxetine undergoing modified radical mastectomy [33]. We found that the overall quality of recovery was better for duloxetine 60 and 90 mg than for placebo and duloxetine 30 mg. However, no differences were observed on duloxetine 90 mg compared with those on 60 mg. By subgroup analysis of the secondary outcome, we found that 30 and 60 mg had no advantage over the placebo, and there was no statistical significance. In addition, we lack a dose grouping analysis of the main results. To sum up, the evidence found in this paper cannot infer the most effective dose of duloxetine. However, the use of 30 mg or 60 mg duloxetine has no adverse effect on the occurrence of postoperative complications. The best effective dose of duloxetine needs additional prospective studies to verify.

Regarding the safety of duloxetine, we selected several common adverse events as measurement indicators. The pooled outcomes found that the duloxetine group had a higher rate of drowsiness, while the incidence of nausea and vomiting was lower. However, no differences were found in other adverse events. It is a rather exciting finding since sleepiness, especially at night, may not be strictly a side effect. After all, proper sleepiness at night can effectively relieve anxiety and insomnia caused by surgery. From another perspective, improving sleep may improve postoperative pain. The view that serotonin is involved in vomiting has been inferred from its molecular biological function before the discovery of the serotonin selective regulation tool [34]. Thus, the inhibitory effect of duloxetine on 5-hydroxytryptamine reabsorption can well explain the outcome of duloxetine reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting. It is essential to recognize that duloxetine and opioids have a lot of overlapping effects. Thus, our pooled outcomes are superimposed on each other. In other words, reduced opioid consumption due to duloxetine can offset its adverse events. Therefore, we believe that duloxetine has a fairly solid safety profile.

Solving pain after total knee and hip arthroplasty remains a challenge. Recently, pregabalin has been considered an adjunctive medication for the treatment of neuropathic and postoperative pain. It has been used for postoperative analgesia in TKA and THA. Pregabalin is an antiepileptic drug that is structurally similar to GABA. It selectively affects the transmission pathway of pain in nociceptors by inhibiting calcium channels [35]. A meta-analysis report indicates that pregabalin has the effects of postoperative acute phase analgesia and reducing opioid consumption [36]. A double-blind clinical comparative trial has demonstrated that oral administration of pregabalin and duloxetine during the perioperative period can alleviate postoperative pain and reduce postoperative analgesic consumption [37]. According to the mechanisms of action of the two drugs, duloxetine has a central nervous system desensitization effect and is more suitable for patients with neuropathic pain. For cases other than central sensitization, pregabalin may be more appropriate. However, postoperative pain after TKA is both neurotic and nociceptive, and a multimodal analgesic regimen combining the two drugs may be more effective than using them alone. However, this hypothesis still needs to be studied. Unfortunately, there are no clear reports comparing the adverse reactions of these two drugs.

This study’s main strength is its strict inclusion and exclusion criteria; that is, only RCTs using duloxetine before and after surgery are included, and the overall quality of the studies is high. Secondary strengths are as follows: this is the first paper to date to perform a meta-analysis on this topic; we conducted adequate subgroup analyses and sensitive analysis to clarify the robustness of the primary outcome; reliable validation tools also assessed the quality of evidence for all outcomes.

Some limitations should be clarified before interpreting our findings. First, in addition to differences in duloxetine dose, the timing of preoperative and postoperative duloxetine use was not entirely consistent across studies, which is one of the sources of heterogeneity in outcomes. Second, postoperative analgesia and intraoperative analgesia (e.g., peripheral nerve blocks, periarticular injections) also varied widely among studies, but subgroup analyses were difficult to perform. Third, the Ho et al. study did not directly show the dispersion of effects, which we attempted to address by contacting the authors but never received a response [19]. Therefore, we can only estimate the data through relevant statistical analysis. Finally, our included studies and sample size still need to be improved, and more multicenter RCTs are required to confirm our findings. Furthermore, future research could assess the length of stay and patient satisfaction. Of course, the dose-response effect of duloxetine also deserves more attention.

Conclusion

In the present study, duloxetine reduced overall opioid consumption in the perioperative period and relieved pain levels within three weeks after surgery without increasing the risk of adverse drug events. Duloxetine can be part of a multimodal pain management regimen in patients with THA and TKA.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary data; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

THA:

Total hip arthroplasty

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

RR:

Risk ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

SMD:

Standardized mean difference

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

References

  1. Pepper AM, Mercuri JJ, Behery OA, Vigdorchik JM. Total hip and knee arthroplasty Perioperative Pain Management: what should be in the Cocktail. JBJS Rev. 2018;6(12):e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Winther SB, Foss OA, Klaksvik J, Husby VS. Pain and load progression following an early maximal strength training program in total hip- and knee arthroplasty patients. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2020;28(2):2309499020916392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ladha KS, Patorno E, Huybrechts KF, Liu J, Rathmell JP, Bateman BT. Variations in the Use of Perioperative Multimodal Analgesic Therapy. Anesthesiology. 2016;124(4):837–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stein C. Opioid analgesia: recent developments. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2020;14(2):112–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. O’Neill A, Lirk P. Multimodal Analgesia. Anesthesiol Clin. 2022;40(3):455–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buvanendran A, Kroin JS. Multimodal analgesia for controlling acute postoperative pain. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009;22(5):588–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Manworren RC. Multimodal pain management and the future of a personalized medicine approach to pain. Aorn j. 2015;101(3):308–14. quiz 15 – 8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Buvanendran A, Kroin JS. Useful adjuvants for postoperative pain management. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2007;21(1):31–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gartlehner G, Thaler K, Hansen RA, Gaynes BN. The general and comparative efficacy and safety of duloxetine in major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Saf. 2009;32(12):1159–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Eschweiler J, Baroncini A, Bell A, Colarossi G. Duloxetine for Fibromyalgia syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023;18(1):504.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Eschweiler J, Betsch M, Catalano G, Driessen A, et al. The pharmacological management of chronic lower back pain. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2021;22(1):109–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Migliorini F, Maffulli N, Eschweiler J, Knobe M, Tingart M, Colarossi G. Pharmacological management of fibromyalgia: a bayesian network meta-analysis. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2022;15(2):205–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chappell JC, Eisenhofer G, Owens MJ, Haber H, Lachno DR, Dean RA, et al. Effects of duloxetine on norepinephrine and serotonin transporter activity in healthy subjects. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014;34(1):9–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Knadler MP, Lobo E, Chappell J, Bergstrom R. Duloxetine: clinical pharmacokinetics and drug interactions. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50(5):281–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Trivedi MH, Desaiah D, Ossanna MJ, Pritchett YL, Brannan SK, Detke MJ. Clinical evidence for serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition of duloxetine. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2008;23(3):161–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bardin L, Gregoire S, Aliaga M, Malfetes N, Vitton O, Ladure P, et al. Comparison of milnacipran, duloxetine and Pregabalin in the formalin pain test and in a model of stress-induced ultrasonic vocalizations in rats. Neurosci Res. 2010;66(2):135–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Itomi Y, Tsukimi Y, Kawamura T. Impaired diffuse noxious inhibitory controls in specific alternation of rhythm in temperature-stressed rats. Eur J Pharmacol. 2016;784:61–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Murai N, Fushiki H, Honda S, Murakami Y, Iwashita A, Irie M, et al. Relationship between serotonin transporter occupancies and analgesic effects of AS1069562, the (+)-isomer of indeloxazine, and duloxetine in reserpine-induced myalgia rats. Neuroscience. 2015;289:262–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ho KY, Tay W, Yeo MC, Liu H, Yeo SJ, Chia SL, et al. Duloxetine reduces morphine requirements after knee replacement surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105(3):371–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. YaDeau JT, Brummett CM, Mayman DJ, Lin Y, Goytizolo EA, Padgett DE, et al. Duloxetine and Subacute Pain after knee arthroplasty when added to a Multimodal Analgesic Regimen: a Randomized, Placebo-controlled, triple-blinded trial. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(3):561–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Li H, Zeng WN, Ding ZC, Yuan MC, Cai YR, Zhou ZK. Duloxetine reduces pain after total hip arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021;22(1):492.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. YaDeau JT, Mayman DJ, Jules-Elysee KM, Lin Y, Padgett DE, DeMeo DA, et al. Effect of Duloxetine on Opioid Use and Pain after total knee arthroplasty: a triple-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(6s):147–s54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ding ZC, Li H, Huang C, Yuan MC, Cao J, Wang HY, et al. Significant analgesic benefits of Perioperative Duloxetine in patients who have depressive symptoms undergoing total hip arthroplasty: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(3):519–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim MS, Koh IJ, Sung YG, Park DC, Na JW. In Y. Preemptive Duloxetine relieves Postoperative Pain and lowers Wound temperature in centrally sensitized patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: a Randomized, Double-Blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Med 2021;10(13).

  28. Koh IJ, Kim MS, Sohn S, Song KY, Choi NY, In Y. Duloxetine reduces Pain and improves Quality of Recovery following total knee arthroplasty in centrally sensitized patients: a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(1):64–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yuan M, Tang T, Ding Z, Li H, Zhou Z. Analgesic effect of perioperative duloxetine in patients after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):242.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Fava GA, Benasi G, Lucente M, Offidani E, Cosci F, Guidi J. Withdrawal symptoms after serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor discontinuation: systematic review. Psychother Psychosom. 2018;87(4):195–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stoetzer C, Papenberg B, Doll T, Völker M, Heineke J, Stoetzer M, et al. Differential inhibition of cardiac and neuronal na(+) channels by the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors duloxetine and venlafaxine. Eur J Pharmacol. 2016;783:1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang SY, Calderon J, Kuo Wang G. Block of neuronal na + channels by antidepressant duloxetine in a state-dependent manner. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(3):655–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hetta DF, Elgalaly NA, Hetta HF, Fattah Mohammad MA. Preoperative duloxetine to improve acute pain and quality of recovery in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy: a dose-ranging randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2020;67:110007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Johnston KD, Lu Z, Rudd JA. Looking beyond 5-HT(3) receptors: a review of the wider role of serotonin in the pharmacology of nausea and vomiting. Eur J Pharmacol. 2014;722:13–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mishriky BM, Waldron NH, Habib AS. Impact of Pregabalin on acute and persistent postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114(1):10–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dong J, Li W, Wang Y. The effect of Pregabalin on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2016;34:148–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Imani F, Emami A, Alimian M, Nikoubakht N, Khosravi N, Rajabi M, et al. Comparison of Perioperative Pregabalin and Duloxetine for Pain Management after total knee arthroplasty: a double-blind clinical trial. Anesth Pain Med. 2023;13(1):e127017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from any departmental funding institutions.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yicai Lin and Mingyang Jiang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China

    Yicai Lin & Mingyang Jiang

  2. Collaborative Innovation Centre of Regenerative Medicine and Medical BioResource Development and Application Co-constructed by the Province and Ministry, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530021, China

    Chun Liao, Qingjian Wu & Jinmin Zhao

  3. Department of Trauma Orthopedic and Hand Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China

    Jinmin Zhao

Authors
  1. Yicai Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mingyang Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chun Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qingjian Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jinmin Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.Y.C. and Z.J.M. designed the research study. J.M.Y., L.C. and W.Q.J. performed the research and acquired the data. L.C. and W.Q.J. analyzed and interpreted the data. L.Y.C. and J.M.Y. wrote the manuscript and/or critical revision. All authors contributed to editorial changes in the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jinmin Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, Y., Jiang, M., Liao, C. et al. Duloxetine reduces opioid consumption and pain after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 19, 181 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04648-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-04648-5

Keywords

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X