Jonathan Branney

Bio: Jonathan Branney is an academic researcher from Bournemouth University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Spinal manipulation & Neck pain. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 16 publications receiving 148 citations. Previous affiliations of Jonathan Branney include University of Glasgow & Anglo-European College of Chiropractic.

Liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain.

Abstract: statement The mission of the Cochrane Nursing Care Field (CNCF) is to improve health outcomes by increasing the use of the Cochrane Library and supporting Cochrane's role by providing an evidence base for nurses and healthcare professionals who deliver, lead or research nursing care. The CNCF produces Cochrane Corner columns, summaries of recent nursing-care-relevant Cochrane Reviews that are regularly published in collaborating nursing-related journals. Information on the processes CNCF has developed can be accessed at: nursingcare.cochrane.org/evidence-transfer-program-review-summaries. This is a Cochrane review summary of: Hamilton TW, Athanassoglou V, Trivella M et al ( 2016 ) Liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Issue 8. CD011476. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011476.pub2.

Does inter-vertebral range of motion increase after spinal manipulation? A prospective cohort study

Abstract: Background: Spinal manipulation for nonspecific neck pain is thought to work in part by improving inter-vertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), but it is difficult to measure this or determine whether it is related to clinical outcomes. Objectives: This study undertook to determine whether cervical spine flexion and extension IV-RoM increases after a course of spinal manipulation, to explore relationships between any IV-RoM increases and clinical outcomes and to compare palpation with objective measurement in the detection of hypo-mobile segments. Method: Thirty patients with nonspecific neck pain and 30 healthy controls matched for age and gender received quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) screenings to measure flexion and extension IV-RoM (C1-C6) at baseline and 4-week follow-up between September 2012-13. Patients received up to 12 neck manipulations and completed NRS, NDI and Euroqol 5D-5L at baseline, plus PGIC and satisfaction questionnaires at follow-up. IV-RoM accuracy, repeatability and hypo-mobility cut-offs were determined. Minimal detectable changes (MDC) over 4 weeks were calculated from controls. Patients and control IV-RoMs were compared at baseline as well as changes in patients over 4 weeks. Correlations between outcomes and the number of manipulations received and the agreement (Kappa) between palpated and QF-detected of hypo-mobile segments were calculated. Results: QF had high accuracy (worst RMS error 0.5o) and repeatability (highest SEM 1.1o, lowest ICC 0.90) for IV-RoM measurement. Hypo-mobility cut offs ranged from 0.8o to 3.5o. No outcome was significantly correlated with increased IV-RoM above MDC and there was no significant difference between the number of hypo-mobile segments in patients and controls at baseline or significant increases in IV-RoMs in patients. However, there was a modest and significant correlation between the number of manipulations received and the number of levels and directions whose IV-RoM increased beyond MDC (Rho=0.39, p=0.043). There was also no agreement between palpation and QF in identifying hypo-mobile segments (Kappa 0.04-0.06). Conclusions: This study found no differences in cervical sagittal IV-RoM between patients with non-specific neck pain and matched controls. There was a modest dose-response relationship between the number of manipulations given and number of levels increasing IV-RoM - providing evidence that neck manipulation has a mechanical effect at segmental levels. However, patient-reported outcomes were not related to this.

Does cervical lordosis change after spinal manipulation for non-specific neck pain? A prospective cohort study

Abstract: The association between cervical lordosis (sagittal alignment) and neck pain is controversial. Further, it is unclear whether spinal manipulative therapy can change cervical lordosis. This study aimed to determine whether cervical lordosis changes after a course of spinal manipulation for non-specific neck pain. Posterior tangents of C2 and C6 were drawn on the lateral cervical fluoroscopic images of 29 patients with subacute/chronic non-specific neck pain and 30 healthy volunteers matched for age and gender, recruited August 2011 to April 2013. The resultant angle was measured using ‘Image J’ digital geometric software. The intra-observer repeatability (measurement error and reliability) and intra-subject repeatability (minimum detectable change (MDC) over 4 weeks) were determined in healthy volunteers. A comparison of cervical lordosis was made between patients and healthy volunteers at baseline. Change in lordosis between baseline and 4-week follow-up was determined in patients receiving spinal manipulation. Intra-observer measurement error for cervical lordosis was acceptable (SEM 3.6°) and reliability was substantial ICC 0.98, 95 % CI 0.962–0991). The intra-subject MDC however, was large (13.5°). There was no significant difference between lordotic angles in patients and healthy volunteers (p = 0.16). The mean cervical lordotic increase over 4 weeks in patients was 2.1° (9.2) which was not significant (p = 0.12). This study found no difference in cervical lordosis (sagittal alignment) between patients with mild non-specific neck pain and matched healthy volunteers. Furthermore, there was no significant change in cervical lordosis in patients after 4 weeks of cervical spinal manipulation.

The adult learner.

Abstract: 3. Do I use effective communication strategies? Is there always “time just to talk”? Do I seek family observations/information in assessment? In monitoring? Do family members have opportunities to ask questions or seek clarification? Do I present information at a time and in a format preferred by the family members? Do I keep my work with family members respectful, yet informal, and free of professionally precious jargon?

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Enhanced Recovery After Colon and Rectal Surgery From the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons.

Abstract: This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). The ASCRS Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are c

Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain

Abstract: Background Despite multi-modal analgesic techniques, acute postoperative pain remains an unmet health need, with up to three quarters of people undergoing surgery reporting significant pain. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, non-concentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained-release analgesia. Objectives To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain. Search methods On 13 January 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, ISI Web of Science and reference lists of retrieved articles. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials. Selection criteria Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials in people aged 18 years or over undergoing elective surgery, at any surgical site, were included if they compared liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site with placebo or other type of analgesia. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed data analysis using standard statistical techniques as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using Review Manager 5.3. We planned to perform a meta-analysis and produce a 'Summary of findings' table for each comparison however there were insufficient data to ensure a clinically meaningful answer. As such we have produced two 'Summary of findings' tables in a narrative format. Where possible we assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. Main results We identified nine studies (10 reports, 1377 participants) that met inclusion criteria. Four Phase II dose-escalating/de-escalating trials, designed to evaluate and demonstrate efficacy and safety, presented pooled data that we could not use. Of the remaining five parallel-arm studies (965 participants), two were placebo controlled and three used bupivacaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic infiltration as a control. Using the Cochrane tool, we judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall; however, two studies were at high risk of selective reporting bias and four studies were at high risk of bias due to size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Three studies (551 participants) reported the primary outcome cumulative pain intensity over 72 hours following surgery. Compared to placebo, liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a lower cumulative pain score between the end of the operation (0 hours) and 72 hours (one study, very low quality). Compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, two studies showed no difference for this outcome (very low quality evidence), however due to differences in the surgical population and surgical procedure (breast augmentation versus knee arthroplasty) we did not perform a meta-analysis. No serious adverse events were reported to be associated with the use of liposomal bupivacaine and none of the five studies reported withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events (moderate quality evidence). One study reported a lower mean pain score at 12 hours associated with liposomal bupivacaine compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, but not at 24, 48 or 72 hours postoperatively (very low quality evidence). Two studies (382 participants) reported a longer time to first postoperative opioid dose compared to placebo (low quality evidence). Two studies (325 participants) reported the total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 72 hours: one study reported a lower cumulative opioid consumption for liposomal bupivacaine compared to placebo (very low quality evidence); one study reported no difference compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride (very low quality evidence). Three studies (492 participants) reported the percentage of participants not requiring postoperative opioids over initial 72 hours following surgery. One of the two studies comparing liposomal bupivacaine to placebo demonstrated a higher number of participants receiving liposomal bupivacaine did not require postoperative opioids (very low quality evidence). The other two studies, one versus placebo and one versus bupivacaine hydrochloride, found no difference in opioid requirement (very low quality evidence). Due to significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 92%) we did not pool the results. All the included studies reported adverse events within 30 days of surgery, with nausea, constipation and vomiting being the most common. Of the five parallel-arm studies, none performed or reported health economic assessments or patient-reported outcomes other than pain. Using GRADE, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The major limitation was the sparseness of data for outcomes of interest. In addition, a number of studies had a high risk of bias resulting in further downgrading. Authors' conclusions Liposomal bupivacaine at the surgical site does appear to reduce postoperative pain compared to placebo, however, at present the limited evidence does not demonstrate superiority to bupivacaine hydrochloride. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events and no study withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events. Overall due to the low quality and volume of evidence our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and the true effect may be substantially different from our estimate.

The Science of Local Anesthesia: Basic Research, Clinical Application, and Future Directions.

Abstract: Local anesthetics have been used clinically for more than a century, but new insights into their mechanisms of action and their interaction with biological systems continue to surprise researchers and clinicians alike. Next to their classic action on voltage-gated sodium channels, local anesthetics interact with calcium, potassium, and hyperpolarization-gated ion channels, ligand-gated channels, and G protein-coupled receptors. They activate numerous downstream pathways in neurons, and affect the structure and function of many types of membranes. Local anesthetics must traverse several tissue barriers to reach their site of action on neuronal membranes. In particular, the perineurium is a major rate-limiting step. Allergy to local anesthetics is rare, while the variation in individual patient's response to local anesthetics is probably larger than previously assumed. Several adjuncts are available to prolong sensory block, but these typically also prolong motor block. The 2 main research avenues being followed to improve action of local anesthetics are to prolong duration of block, by slow-release formulations and on-demand release, and to develop compounds and combinations that elicit a nociception-selective blockade.