Pre-operative diclofenac HPβCD for pain control of needle biopsy in musculoskeletal neoplasm: Preliminary results

Needle biopsy is the main standard method used for diagnosis of musculoskeletal tumors of the limbs and superficial trunk. Pain control during this procedure is through the use of Local Anaestetic (L.A.). In order to achieve a complete pain control in our cases, recently we started using diclofenac HPβCD 50 mg via s.c. preoperativly. We present the clinical results of a non-randomized study of two eterogeneous groups of patients: "Experimental" Group (1): diclofenac HPβCD 50 mg via s.c. one hour before surgical procedure, local anesthesia and ev. diclofenac HPβCD 50 mg via s.c. 12 hours postoperative; "Conventional" Group (2): local anesthesia and ev. postoperative tramadol 100 mg via oral for pain control. In October 2014, at the Department of Orthopedic Oncology and Reconstructive Surgery of Florence, 37 musculoskeletal biopsies for a bone or a soft tissue lesion were performed. Exclusion criteria for this study were: known allergies to lidocaine, diclofenac, tramadol; known gastric or duodenal ulcers; known gastrointestinal bleed or perforation; refusal of the patients to collaborate. For one or more of these reasons, 6 patients were excluded from this study. In the Group 1, 10 patients (59%) referred no pain during the surgical procedure (8/14 biopsies on soft tissue and 2/3 on bone). In 5 cases (29%) no exacerbation of previous chronic pain, and in 2 cases (12%) a progression of local pain after biopsy (average 1 points higher in the VAS). In Group 2, only 6 patients (42%) did not have any pain during the procedure, 4 (29%) no exacerbation of previous chronic pain and 4 (29%) a progression of local pain (average 2 points higher in the VAS). Despite similar results in both Groups, Group 1 seemed to have a mild better control of perioperative pain. The use of diclofenac HPβCD 50 mg preoperative seems to be a rational approach for minimizing perioperative pain and the preliminary data of our study seem encouraging. Obviously many bias are present in this study (small numbers of cases, heterogeneity of diseases, association with local anesthetic, non-randomized study, comparison between preoperative versus postoperative treatment) and this cannot absolutely be considerate as definitive conclusions.