Systematic review shows pregabalin reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption in tonsillectomy patients, indicating effective pain management strategies.
Background: Tonsillectomy is a common procedure performed for conditions like recurrent tonsillitis, obstructive sleep apnoea and peritonsillar abscesses. Despite its benefits, post-tonsillectomy pain remains a significant issue, leading to delayed recovery, poor oral intake and increased opioid consumption. Pregabalin, a neuromodulator that acts on voltage-gated calcium channels, has been studied for its potential in reducing postoperative pain. Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pregabalin in reducing post-tonsillectomy pain, opioid consumption and side effects. Materials and Methods: Following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pregabalin to a control group for post-tonsillectomy pain management. The primary outcomes were visual analogue scale pain scores and total fentanyl consumption, while secondary outcomes included operation time, drowsiness and vomiting. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: Five RCTs with 310 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pregabalin significantly reduced postoperative pain (mean difference [MD]: −1.94, 95% CI: −2.36–−1.51, P < 0.00001) and opioid consumption (MD: −43.69 μg, 95% CI: −51.43–−35.95, P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in operation time (MD: −0.62 min, P = 0.68), drowsiness (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38, P = 0.37) or vomiting (OR: 0.85, P = 0.69). Conclusion: Pregabalin is effective in reducing post-tonsillectomy pain and opioid consumption without increasing adverse effects. Further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings and optimise dosing strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ebnalameer et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: