PAIN OUT: The making of an international acute pain registry

Chronic postsurgical pain: A European survey

BACKGROUND

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is a clinical problem, and large prospective studies are needed to determine its incidence, characteristics, and risk factors.

OBJECTIVE

To find predictive factors for CPSP in an international survey.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Multicentre European prospective observational trial.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, sternotomy, endometriosis surgery, or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHOD

Standardised questionnaires were completed by the patients at 1, 3, and 7 days, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, with follow-up via E-mail, telephone, or interview.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary goal of NIT-1 was to propose a scoring system to predict those patient likely to have CPSP at 6 months after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 3297 patients were included from 18 hospitals across Europe and 2494 patients were followed-up for 6 months. The mean incidence of CPSP at 6 months was 10.5%, with variations depending on the type of surgery: sternotomy 6.9%, breast surgery 7.4%, TKA 12.9%, endometriosis 16.2%. At 6 months, neuropathic characteristics were frequent for all types of surgery: sternotomy 33.3%, breast surgery 67.6%, TKA 42.4%, endometriosis 41.4%. One-third of patients experienced CPSP at both 3 and 6 months. Pre-operative pain was frequent for TKA (leg pain) and endometriosis (abdomen) and its frequency and intensity were reduced after surgery. Severe CPSP and a neuropathic pain component decreased psychological and functional wellbeing as well as quality of life. No overarching CPSP risk factors were identified.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, our findings do not offer a new CPSP predictive score. However, we present reliable new data on the incidence, characteristics, and consequences of CPSP from a large European survey. Interesting new data on the time course of CPSP, its neuropathic pain component, and CPSP after endometriosis surgery generate new hypotheses but need to be confirmed by further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03834922.

Intravenous injection of dexamethasone is non-inferior to perineural administration for popliteal sciatic nerve and saphenous nerve blocks: A randomized, controlled, triple-blind study

Background

The aim of this study was to assess whether intravenous dexamethasone was noninferior to perineural dexamethasone as an adjuvant to ropivacaine for a combination of saphenous and sciatic nerve blocks in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery.

Methods

This was a prospective, blinded, randomized noninferiority study. Seventy-five patients, aged 18-75 years, with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III who underwent foot and ankle surgery were involved. Patients scheduled for ultrasound-guided popliteal sciatic nerve block and saphenous nerve block were randomized to receive 0.375% ropivacaine with 7.5 mg of dexamethasone perineurally (Dex-PN), 10 mg of dexamethasone intravenously (Dex-IV) or neither (Placebo). The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia. The major secondary outcomes were the composite pain intensity and opioid consumption score at 0-48 h intervals after anesthesia.

Results

The mean analgesic duration was 26.2 h in the Dex-IV group and 27.9 h in the Dex-PN group (duration difference, -1.7; 95% CI, -3.8 to 0.43; P = 0.117), and both durations were significantly longer than that in the placebo group (17.6 h, P < 0.001). Conditions for establishing non-inferiority were met.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that a single 10-mg intravenous dose of dexamethasone was noninferior to the combined dose of ropivacaine plus deaxmethasone in terms of duration of analgesia for foot and ankle surgery.

Quality of analgesic care in labor: A cross-sectional study of the first national register-based benchmarking system

OBJECTIVE

Unlike other types of acute pain, labor pain is considered physiological. Due to the heterogeneous management during labor, there is a lack of intention to define quality of care of peripartal analgesia. This study presents the first results of the national register for this evaluation.

METHODS

This prospective cross-sectional study, conducted in five different German level-three hospitals, included women after vaginal childbirth between January 2020 and January 2022. A validated questionnaire was completed 24 h postpartum, including information about labor pain, satisfaction, and expectations regarding analgesia. Data were centrally recorded with obstetric records using the database of the QUIPS (Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management) Project.

RESULTS

A total of 514 women were included. On an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale, pain intensity during labor was severe (8.68 ± 1.8) while postpartal pain was 3.9 (±2.1). The second stage of labor was considered the most painful period. Only 62.6% of the parturients obtained pharmacological support, with epidural being the most effective (reduction of 3.8 ± 2.8 points). Only epidural (odds ratio [OR] 0.22) and inhalation of nitrous oxide (OR 0.33) were protective for severe pain. In benchmarking, a relation between satisfaction, pain intensity, and the use of epidural was found; 40.7% of the women wished they had received more analgesic support during labor.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights deficiencies in analgesic management in high-level perinatal centers, with more than 40% of parturients considering actual practices as insufficient and wishing they had received more analgesic support, despite the availability of analgesic options. Using patient-reported outcomes can guarantee qualitative tailored analgesic care in women.

Evaluating a targeted person-centred pain management intervention programme in lumbar spine surgery - a controlled segment-specific before-and-after interventional design

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain management in lumbar spine surgery care remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a person-centred postoperative pain management intervention programme on lumbar spine surgery patients on postoperative pain, shared decision-making, and satisfaction with postoperative pain management.

METHODS

The study was performed with a controlled before-and-after interventional design in an orthopaedic unit at a university hospital. Person-centred pain management for patients undergoing spine surgery was developed in co-creation by a multi-professional team and implemented throughout the care pathway. The usual care group (pre-intervention) served as a comparison to the intervention group. Pain intensity, shared decision-making in pain management, and patient satisfaction with results of pain management, served as patient-reported measures, collected using the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire and analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The intervention showed no benefit for patients' pain and satisfaction, while shared decision-making in pain management was significant lower in the intervention group than in the conventional group. The per-protocol analysis showed no significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

The initial assumption of the study, that the implementation of a co-created structured person-centred care pathway would improve patient-reported outcomes, was not confirmed. The periodically low fidelity to the intervention due to organizational constraints (due to sub-optimal organizational conditions and managerial support) may have affected the results.

Cancer pain assessment and management: does an institutional approach individualise and reduce cost of care?

OBJECTIVES

To understand individual prescribing and associated costs in patients managed with the Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool (EPAT).

METHODS

The EPAT study was a two-arm parallel group cluster randomised (1:1) trial, including 19 UK cancer centres. Study outcome assessments, including pain levels, analgesia and non-pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions, collected at baseline, 3-5 days and, if applicable, 7-10 days after admission. Costs calculated for inpatient length of stay (LoS), medications and complex pain interventions. Analysis accounted for the clustered nature of the trial design. In this post-hoc analysis, healthcare utilisation and costs are presented descriptively.

PARTICIPANTS

10 centres randomised to EPAT (487 patients) and 9 (449 patients) to usual care (UC).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, complex pain interventions, length of hospital stay and costs related to these outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean per patient hospital cost was £3866 with EPAT and £4194 with UC, reflecting a mean LoS of 2.9 days and 3.1 days, respectively. Costs were lower for non-opioids, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and opioids but slightly higher for adjuvants with EPAT than with UC. The mean per-patient opioid costs were £17.90 (EPAT) and £25.80 (UC). Mean per patient costs of all medication were £36 (EPAT) and £40 (UC).Complex pain intervention costs were £117 with EPAT per patient and £90 with UC. Overall mean cost per patient was £4018.3 (95% CI 3698.9 to 4337.8) with EPAT and £4323.8 (95% CI 4060.0 to 4587.7) with UC.

CONCLUSIONS

EPAT facilitated personalised medicine and may result in less opioids, more specific treatments, improved pain outcomes and cost savings.

Evaluating patient outcomes in postoperative pain management according to the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R)

BACKGROUND

In the first 24 h after surgery, it is necessary to evaluate the patient responses to pain, analgesia and patient satisfaction to prevent complications related to the pain management process.

AIM

To evaluate patients' outcomes (pain qualities, side effects of the pain management, pain treatment satisfaction, non-pharmacological pain treatment methods, predictors of pain management satisfaction and percentage of pain relief) according to the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R) in the first 24 h.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

The study sample was comprised of 700 patients, who were surgically treated at the surgical clinics of a university hospital and completed the first postoperative 24 h. The data was collected through the "Patient Information Form" and the "Turkish version of the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R)".

RESULTS

The medians of the lowest and the worst postoperative pain severity level were 3.0 and 7.0, respectively. Patients experienced severe pain in 60 % of the first postoperative 24 h and reported that 70 % of their pain eventually decreased. A positive and significant correlation was found between pain interference, pain-affected mood/emotions, the severity of pain-related side effects, the least and worst pain severity levels and severe pain, and the percentage of time experienced with severe pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the patients experienced severe pain, which restricted their daily life activities and led to negative emotions. Acute postoperative pain may negatively affect patient outcomes and delay postoperative recovery during the early period. Therefore, pain should be managed in the early period to prevent physical and psychological side effects.

Efficacy and safety of sufentanil sublingual tablet system in postoperative pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) is a recently approved formulation for postoperative pain management that has become popular due to its pharmacokinetic properties such as good bioavailability, rapid attainment of equilibrium and elimination without any metabolites, along with its pharmacodynamic properties such as rapid onset and effective pain reduction. It is also relatively well tolerated by patients.

OBJECTIVE

This is a quantitative analysis of the efficacy and safety of SSTS in patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain.

DESIGN

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. Databases such as Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for eligible articles.

SETTINGS

Randomised controlled trials published after 2000 in English language and which assessed at least one of the outcome measures of interest with pain intensity difference between 12 hours and a maximum of 96 hours.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with moderate to severe postoperative pain and taking SSTS for pain management.

METHODS

Data were analysed using Review Manager (RevMan) V.5.3. Risk of bias (RoB) assessment was done using RoB-2 scale, and overall grading of evidence of each outcome was done using GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool.

RESULTS

Analysis of SSTS versus control indicates a statistically significant reduction in summed pain intensity difference at 12 hours (mean difference (MD)=-12.33 (95% CI -15.5 to -9.17), p<0.00001), summed pain intensity difference at 48 hours (MD=-43.57 (95% CI -58.65 to -28.48), p<0.00001), time-weighted total pain relief over 12 hours (MD=-4.77 (95% CI -6.28 to -3.27), p<0.00001) and pain intensity difference (MD=-0.73 (95% CI -1.00 to -0.46), p<0.00001) with SSTS, alongside high quality of evidence. Success of treatment as assessed by Patient Global Assessment (OR=4.01 (95% CI 2.74 to 5.89), p<0.00001) and Healthcare Professional Global Assessment (OR=4.46 (95% CI 3.03 to 6.56), p<0.00001) scoring at 72 hours was observed in a significantly high number of individuals using SSTS, with high quality of evidence. There was no difference in adverse events except for dizziness (RR=1.90, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.52). There was a significantly higher number of total adverse events in orthopaedic surgery in the SSTS group than in the comparator.

CONCLUSION

SSTS is effective in postoperative pain management in patients with moderate to severe pain. It also has good tolerability and high patient satisfaction.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018115458.

Postoperative pain-related outcomes and perioperative pain management in China: a population-based study

Background

Postoperative pain poses a significant challenge to the healthcare system and patient satisfaction and is associated with chronic pain and long-term narcotic use. However, systemic assessment of the quality of postoperative pain management in China remains unavailable.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data collected from a nationwide registry, China Acute Postoperative Pain Study (CAPOPS), between September 2019 and August 2021. Patients aged 18 years or above were required to complete a self-reported pain outcome questionnaire on the first postoperative day (POD1). Perioperative pain management and pain-related outcomes, including the severity of pain, adverse events caused by pain or pain management, and perception of care and satisfaction with pain management were analyzed.

Findings

A total of 26,193 adult patients were enrolled. There were 48.7% of patients who had moderate-to-severe pain on the first day after surgery, and pain severity was associated with poor recovery and patient satisfaction. The systemic opioid use was 68% on the first day after surgery, and 89% of them were used with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, while the rate of postoperative nerve blocks was low.

Interpretation

Currently, almost half of patients still suffer from moderate-to-severe pain after surgery in China. The relatively high rate of systemic opioid use and low rate of nerve blocks used after surgery suggests that more effort is needed to improve the management of acute postoperative pain in China.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2018YFC2001905).

The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle is Feasible: Findings From the PAIN OUT Registry

OBJECTIVES

The quality of postoperative pain management is often poor. A "bundle," a small set of evidence-based interventions, is associated with improved outcomes in different settings. We assessed whether staff caring for surgical patients could implement a "Perioperative Pain Management Bundle" and whether this would be associated with improved multidimensional pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

"PAIN OUT," a perioperative pain registry, offers tools for auditing pain-related PROs and obtaining information about perioperative pain management during the first 24 hours after surgery. Staff from 10 hospitals in Serbia used this methodology to collect data at baseline. They then implemented the "Perioperative Pain Management Bundle" into the clinical routine and collected another round of data. The bundle consists of 4 treatment elements: (1) a full daily dose of 1 to 2 nonopioid analgesics (eg, paracetamol and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), (2) at least 1 type of local/regional anesthesia, (3) pain assessment by staff, and (4) offering patients information about pain management. The primary endpoint was a multidimensional pain composite score (PCS), evaluating pain intensity, interference, and side effects that was compared between patients who received the full bundle versus not.

RESULTS

Implementation of the complete bundle was associated with a significant reduction in the PCS ( P < 0.001, small-medium effect size [ES]). When each treatment element was evaluated independently, nonopioid analgesics were associated with a higher PCS (ie, poorer outcome, and negligible ES), and the other elements were associated with a lower PCS (all negligible small ES). Individual PROs were consistently better in patients receiving the full bundle compared with 0 to 3 elements. The PCS was not associated with the surgical discipline.

DISCUSSION

We report findings from using a bundle approach for perioperative pain management in patients undergoing mixed surgical procedures. Future work will seek strategies to improve the effect.

Cost-effectiveness of the Perioperative Pain Management Bundle a registry-based study

Introduction

The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle was introduced in 10 Serbian PAIN OUT network hospitals to improve the quality of postoperative pain management. The Bundle consists of 4 elements: informing patients about postoperative pain treatment options; administering a full daily dose of 1-2 non-opioid analgesics; administering regional blocks and/or surgical wound infiltration; and assessing pain after surgery. In this study, we aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Bundle during the initial 24 h after surgery.

Materials and methods

The assessment of cost-effectiveness was carried out by comparing patients before and after Bundle implementation and by comparing patients who received all Bundle elements to those with no Bundle element. Costs of postoperative pain management included costs of the analgesic medications, costs of labor for administering these medications, and related disposable materials. A multidimensional Pain Composite Score (PCS), the effectiveness measurement, was obtained by averaging variables from the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire evaluating pain intensity, interference of pain with activities and emotions, and side effects of analgesic medications. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the incremental change in costs divided by the incremental change in PCS and plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane along with the economic preference analysis.

Results

The ICER value calculated when comparing patients before and after Bundle implementation was 181.89 RSD (1.55 EUR) with plotted ICERs located in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. However, when comparing patients with no Bundle elements and those with all four Bundle elements, the calculated ICER was -800.63 RSD (-6.82 EUR) with plotted ICERs located in the southeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane. ICER values differ across surgical disciplines.

Conclusion

The proposed perioperative pain management Bundle is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness varies depending on the number of implemented Bundle elements and fluctuates across surgical disciplines.

Management of acute postoperative pain: Conditions to guarantee the safety and effectiveness of analgesic treatments

The evidence on postoperative pain management is of low or insufficient quality. The SEDAR Acute Pain Working Group has prepared this guideline-document to apply the best available scientific evidence to clinical practice, individualizing it based on factors specific to the patient and the procedure, and encompassing different organizational options, attempting to individualize it based on specific factors of the patient and the procedure, and encompassing the different organizational options for pain control. The document updates concepts and minimum requirements necessary for optimal postoperative analgesia, a multidisciplinary approach and the management of Acute Postoperative Pain. Strategic lines and different management models are defined. A general perioperative action plan is established based on collaboration with the surgical departments involved, on the joint review of the evidence and on preparation of protocols by the procedure. Finally, a follow-up plan and a series of minimum indicators necessary for quality control of postoperative pain are presented.

Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are being increasingly introduced in clinical registries, providing a personal perspective on the expectations and impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to describe response rates (RR) to PROMs in clinical registries and databases and to examine the trends over time, and how they change with the registry type, region and disease or condition captured.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. All English studies on clinical registries capturing PROMs at one or more time points were included. Follow up time points were defined as follows: baseline (if available), < 1 year, 1 to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, 5 to < 10 years and 10 + years. Registries were grouped according to regions of the world and health conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify trends in RRs over time. These included calculating average RRs, standard deviation and change in RRs according to total follow up time.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1,767 publications. Combined with 20 reports and four websites, a total of 141 sources were used in the data extraction and analysis process. Following the data extraction, 121 registries capturing PROMs were identified. The overall average RR at baseline started at 71% and decreased to 56% at 10 + year at follow up. The highest average baseline RR of 99% was observed in Asian registries and in registries capturing data on chronic conditions (85%). Overall, the average RR declined as follow up time increased.

CONCLUSION

A large variation and downward trend in PROMs RRs was observed in most of the registries identified in our review. Formal recommendations are required for consistent collection, follow up and reporting of PROMs data in a registry setting to improve patient care and clinical practice. Further research studies are needed to determine acceptable RRs for PROMs captured in clinical registries.

The evolution of Big Data in neuroscience and neurology

Neurological diseases are on the rise worldwide, leading to increased healthcare costs and diminished quality of life in patients. In recent years, Big Data has started to transform the fields of Neuroscience and Neurology. Scientists and clinicians are collaborating in global alliances, combining diverse datasets on a massive scale, and solving complex computational problems that demand the utilization of increasingly powerful computational resources. This Big Data revolution is opening new avenues for developing innovative treatments for neurological diseases. Our paper surveys Big Data's impact on neurological patient care, as exemplified through work done in a comprehensive selection of areas, including Connectomics, Alzheimer's Disease, Stroke, Depression, Parkinson's Disease, Pain, and Addiction (e.g., Opioid Use Disorder). We present an overview of research and the methodologies utilizing Big Data in each area, as well as their current limitations and technical challenges. Despite the potential benefits, the full potential of Big Data in these fields currently remains unrealized. We close with recommendations for future research aimed at optimizing the use of Big Data in Neuroscience and Neurology for improved patient outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40537-023-00751-2.

Intraoperative dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain in gastrointestinal surgery: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is widely used for adjuvant sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal surgeries. The authors aimed to reassess the effects of intraoperative DEX on acute pain by comprehensive analysis of the multiple dimensions of pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multicentre cohort study, patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgeries were prospectively enrolled in the China Acute Postoperative Pain Study. Patients were divided into DEX and non-DEX groups based on whether DEX was used during surgery. Patient satisfaction with pain treatment (rated on a numeric rating score, 0-10) and other pain-related outcomes were evaluated using the International Pain Outcome Questionnaire on the first postoperative day. The effects of intraoperative DEX were analyzed using logistic or linear regression for dichotomous or continuous variables, respectively. Propensity score matching and subgroup analyses were performed to appraise the correlation between intraoperative DEX and postoperative pain outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 1260 patients eligible for analysis, 711 (56.4%) received intraoperative DEX. Propensity score matching resulted in 415 patients in each group. Intraoperative DEX was associated with higher patient satisfaction (β: 0.556; 95% CI: 0.366-0.745), and a decrease in the percentage of time spent in severe pain (β: -0.081; 95% CI: -0.104- -0.058), anxiety (odds ratio: 0.394; 95% CI: 0.307-0.506), helplessness (odds ratio: 0.539; 95% CI: 0.411-0.707), and postoperative opioid consumption (β: -16.342; 95% CI: -27.528- -5.155).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative DEX was associated with the prognosis of acute postoperative pain in multiple aspects in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery, including increased patient satisfaction, and a reduction in the duration of severe pain, postoperative anxiety and helplessness, and postoperative opioid consumption. Future studies to determine the dose and timing of DEX administration on pain-related outcomes are warranted.

Following Evidence-Based Recommendations for Perioperative Pain Management after Cesarean Section Is Associated with Better Pain-Related Outcomes: Analysis of Registry Data

Women who have had a Cesarean Section (CS) frequently report severe pain and pain-related interference. One reason for insufficient pain treatment might be inconsistent implementation of evidence-based guidelines. We assessed the association between implementing three elements of care recommended by guidelines for postoperative pain management and pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in women after CS. The analysis relied on an anonymized dataset of women undergoing CS, retrieved from PAIN OUT. PAIN OUT, an international perioperative pain registry, provides clinicians with treatment assessment methodology and tools for patients to assess multi-dimensional pain-related PROs on the first postoperative day. We examined whether the care included [i] regional anesthesia with a neuraxial opioid OR general anesthesia with wound infiltration or a Transvesus Abdominis Plane block; [ii] at least one non-opioid analgesic at the full daily dose; and [iii] pain assessment and recording. Credit for care was given only if all three elements were administered (= “full”); otherwise, it was “incomplete”. A “Pain Composite Score-total” (PCStotal), evaluating outcomes of pain intensity, pain-related interference with function, and side-effects, was the primary endpoint in the total cohort (women receiving GA and/or RA) or a sub-group of women with RA only. Data from 5182 women was analyzed. “Full” care was administered to 20% of women in the total cohort and to 21% in the RA sub-group. In both groups, the PCStotal was significantly lower compared to “incomplete” care (p < 0.001); this was a small-to-moderate effect size. Administering all three elements of care was associated with better pain-related outcomes after CS. These should be straightforward and inexpensive for integration into routine care after CS. However, even in this group, a high proportion of women reported poor outcomes, indicating that additional work needs to be carried out to close the evidence-practice gap so that women who have undergone CS can be comfortable when caring for themselves and their newborn.

Patient-controlled sublingual sufentanil tablet system versus intravenous opioid analgesia for postoperative pain management after lumbar spinal fusion surgery

PURPOSE

This retrospective cohort study investigated the efficacy of a sublingual sufentanil tablet system (SSTS) in comparison to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with piritramide for the management of postoperative pain following lumbar spinal fusion surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing single- or two-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery and receiving the SSTS or IV-PCA for postoperative pain relief as part of multimodal pain management that included IV paracetamol and oral metamizole. The following variables were collected: postoperative pain intensity and frequency scores using the numerical rating scale (NRS), hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), occurrence of nausea, postoperative mobilization, and patient satisfaction (MacNab criteria).

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were included. Those receiving the SSTS (n = 30) had significantly lower pain intensities on the operative day (NRS: 4.0, CI: 3.6-4.3 vs. 4.5, CI: 4.2-4.9; p < 0.05) and one day postoperatively (NRS: 3.4, CI: 3.1-3.8 vs. 3.9 CI: 3.6-4.3; p < 0.05) compared to patients receiving IV-PCA (n = 34). No differences were observed on postoperative days 2 to 5. SSTS patients experienced more nausea than IV-PCA patients (p = 0.027). Moreover, SSTS patients had a higher percentage of early mobilization following surgery than IV-PCA patients (p = 0.040). Regarding patient satisfaction, no significant differences were seen between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The SSTS is a potentially advantageous alternative to opioid IV-PCA for use within a multimodal approach to managing postoperative pain after lumbar fusion surgery. Furthermore, the potentially higher emetic effect of SSTS should be considered, and the patient should be able to perform the application.

Multimodal analgesia practices for knee and hip arthroplasties in the Netherlands. A prospective observational study from the PAIN OUT registry

INTRODUCTION

Different multimodal pain management strategies following total hip arthroplasty(THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery are used in clinical practice. The optimal pain management strategy, however, remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the differences in perioperative multimodal pain management strategies for THA and TKA in the Netherlands, and studies the associations between patient- and therapy related factors and pain outcomes.

METHODS

Data from the Dutch hospitals in the PAIN OUT network were used in this study. Demographic data, pain management strategy including perioperative medication use and anesthetic techniques were recorded and used in a multivariable regression analysis to study the association with maximum pain intensity, the duration of severe pain, pain interference in bed and postoperative nausea.

RESULTS

In 343 hip arthroplasty patients and 301 knee arthroplasty patients in seven hospitals, respectively 28 and 35 different combinations of analgesic regimens were used. The number of different drugs prescribed was not related to postoperative pain intensity. Female sex, younger age and spinal anesthesia were associated with higher postoperative maximum pain scores (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) > 5). Hip surgery and ketamine use were associated with lower postoperative pain scores. The use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and gabapentinoids, higher age, higher body mass index (BMI) and male gender were associated with less postoperative nausea (NRS < 3).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, our study demonstrated a large diversity of analgesic strategies following total joint arthroplasties in the Netherlands. Although no ideal strategy was identified, the use of NSAIDs, ketamine and dexamethasone were associated with less pain and less side effects.

Rethinking the definition of chronic postsurgical pain: composites of patient-reported pain-related outcomes vs pain intensities alone

ABSTRACT

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is defined by pain intensity and pain-related functional interference. This study included measures of function in a composite score of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to investigate the incidence of CPSP. Registry data were analyzed for PROs 1 day and 12 months postoperatively. Based on pain intensity and pain-related interference with function, patients were allocated to the groups " CPSPF " (at least moderate pain with interference), " mixed " (milder symptoms), and " no CPSPF ". The incidence of CPSPF was compared with CPSP rates referring to published data. Variables associated with the PRO-12 score (composite PROs at 12 months; numeric rating scale 0-10) were analyzed by linear regression analysis. Of 2319 patients, 8.6%, 32.5%, and 58.9% were allocated to the groups CPSPF , mixed , and no CPSPF , respectively. Exclusion of patients whose pain scores did not increase compared with the preoperative status, resulted in a 3.3% incidence. Of the patients without pre-existing pain, 4.1% had CPSPF. Previously published pain cutoffs of numeric rating scale >0, ≥3, or ≥4, used to define CPSP, produced rates of 37.5%, 9.7%, and 5.7%. Pre-existing chronic pain, preoperative opioid medication, and type of surgery were associated with the PRO-12 score (all P < 0.05). Opioid doses and PROs 24 hours postoperatively improved the fit of the regression model. A more comprehensive assessment of pain and interference resulted in lower CPSP rates than previously reported. Although inclusion of CPSP in the ICD-11 is a welcome step, evaluation of pain characteristics would be helpful in differentiation between CPSPF and continuation of pre-existing chronic pain.

Virtual reality reduces pain in palliative care-A feasibility trial

Background

Effective symptom control is a stated goal of palliative care (PC) to improve quality of life for terminally ill patients. Virtual reality (VR) provides temporary escapes from pharmacologically resistant pain and allows for experiences and journeys patients may not access in any other way. Enabling wishes through virtual worlds may also offer additional benefits such as controlling psychological and physical symptoms.

Aims

We investigated the feasibility of a single VR experience as a viable, satisfying, and effective tool for end-of-life pain relief for inpatients presenting palliative needs.

Design

This is an observational, single-arm and national single-center feasibility trial.

Methods

A one-time VR experience with a selection of several videos and games was offered to 45 inpatients receiving PC at Muenster University Hospital. Patients with brain tumors, brain metastases, seizures, motion sickness, claustrophobia, vertigo, hearing or visual impairment, or unable to consent were excluded. Primary outcome measured patient reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). We also measured Karnofsky performance status, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire, and the Pain Out Questionnaire for postoperative pain.

Results

We analyzed data from 21 women (52.5%) and 19 men (47.5%) at an average age of 51.9 (SD: 15.81) years. The mean Karnofsky score among the sample was 45.5 (SD: 14.97) and the HRQOL was 41.9 (SD: 23.08). While no serious side effects were reported during the intervention, three patients experienced nausea (7%), two headaches (5%), and three reported dry eyes (7%) afterwards. Significant pain reduction (baseline VAS 2.25 (SD: 0.4399)) was demonstrated during (VAS 0.7 (SD: 0.2983, p < 0.0001)), immediately after (VAS 0.9 (SD: 0.3354, p = 0.0001)) and one hour after the intervention (VAS 1.15 (SD: 0.4163, p = 0.0004)). More than 80% rated the VR experience as very good or good (85%, n = 34) and intended to make use of the device again (82.5%, n = 33). However, two participants (5%) also expressed sadness by becoming aware of old memories and previous opportunities that are gone.

Discussion

The present pilot study suggests that VR seems to be a feasible and effective tool for pain relief in PC. Its use encompasses the approach of a total pain and symptom therapy and enhances patients’ dignity and autonomy. Future research ought to include if and to what extent VR could reduce the necessity of pharmacological pain relief.

The influence of involving patients in postoperative pain treatment decisions on pain-related patient-reported outcomes: A STROBE-compliant registering observational study

The evidence regarding the influence of allowing patients to participate in postoperative pain treatment decisions on acute pain management is contradictory. This study aimed to identify the role of patient participation in influencing pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This is a cross-sectional study. The data were provided by PAIN OUT (www.pain-out.eu). A dataset specific to adult Chinese patients undergoing orthopedic surgery was selected. The PROs were assessed on postoperative day 1. The patient participant was assessed using an 11-point scale. Participants who reported >5 were allocated to the "participation" group, and those who reported ≤5 were allocated to the "nonparticipation" group. A 1:1 propensity score matching was conducted. The primary outcome was the desire for more pain treatment. All other items of PROs were the secondary outcomes comprising pain intensity, interference of pain with function, emotional impairment, adverse effects, and other patient perception. From February 2014 to November 2020, 2244 patients from 20 centers were approached, of whom 1804 patients were eligible and 726 pairs were matched. There was no significant difference between the groups in the desire for more pain treatment either before (25.4% vs 28.2%, risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.90 [0.77, 1.05], P = .18) or after matching (26.7% vs 28.8%, risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.93 [0.79, 1.10], P = .43). After matching, patients in the participation group reported significantly better PROs, including pain intensity (less time spent in severe pain [P < .01]), emotional impairment (less anxiety [P < .01]), interference with function (less interference with sleep [P < .01]), adverse effects (less drowsiness [P = .01]), and patient perception (more pain relief [P < .01] and more satisfaction [P < .01]), than the nonparticipation group. Patient participation in pain treatment decisions was associated with improved pain experience but failed to mitigate the desire for more treatment.

A novel methodology to integrate outcomes regarding perioperative pain experience into a composite score: prediction model development and validation

BACKGROUND

An integrated score that globally assesses perioperative pain experience and rationally weights each component has not yet been developed.

METHODS

A development dataset specific to adult Chinese patients undergoing orthopedic surgery was obtained from PAIN OUT (1985 qualified patients of 2244). A more recent validation dataset obeying the same conditions was obtained from the Chinese Anesthesia Shared-database Platform (1004 qualified patients of 1032). Outcomes were assessed using the International Pain Outcomes Questionnaire (IPO-Q), which comprises key patient-level outcomes of perioperative pain management, including pain experience and perceptions of care. Using principal component analysis and regression models, a composite score was inferred to integrate pain experience. The discrimination of the composite score for dissatisfaction and desire for more pain treatment was compared with that of the worst pain score.

RESULTS

A composite score was developed from the 12 items of the IPO-Q regarding pain experience. The weight for calculating the composite score was worst pain 11, least pain 17, time spent in severe pain 11, interference with activity in bed 9, interference with breathing deeply or coughing 10, interference with sleep 9, anxiety 12, helplessness 12, nausea 0, drowsiness 2, itch 5, and dizziness 2. In external validation, the composite score indicated superior discrimination to the worst pain in predicting dissatisfaction (P<0.001) and desire for more pain treatment (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study introduced a methodology to integrate outcomes regarding perioperative pain experience into a composite score, which was based on the weight of each item.

Status quo of pain-related patient reported outcomes and perioperative pain management in 10 415 patients from 10 countries: analysis of registry data

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is common at the global level, despite considerable attempts for improvement, reflecting the complexity of offering effective pain relief. In this study, clinicians from Mexico, China, and eight European countries evaluated perioperative pain practices and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in their hospitals as a basis for carrying out quality improvement (QI) projects in each country.

METHODS

PAIN OUT, an international perioperative pain registry, provided standardized methodology for assessing management and multi-dimensional PROs on the first postoperative day, in patients undergoing orthopedic, general surgery, obstetric & gynecology or urological procedures.

RESULTS

Between 2017-2019, data obtained from 10,415 adult patients in 105 wards, qualified for analysis. At the ward level: 50% (median) of patients reported worst pain intensities ≥7/10 NRS, 25% spent ≥50% of the time in severe pain and 20-34% reported severe ratings for pain-related functional and emotional interference. Demographic variables, country and surgical discipline explained a small proportion of the variation in the PROs, leaving about 88% unexplained. Most treatment processes varied considerably between wards. Ward effects accounted for about 7% and 32% of variation in PROs and treatment processes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive evaluation demonstrates that many patients in this international cohort reported poor pain-related PROs on the first postoperative day. PROs and treatments varied greatly. Most of the variance of the PROs could not be explained. The findings served as a basis for devising and implementing QI programs in participating hospitals.

Prevalence and management of pain in lung cancer patients in northern China: A multicenter cross-sectional study

Background

Pain is a fearful yet common symptom among lung cancer patients. This multicenter, cross‐sectional study was conducted to examine the current status of pain prevalence and management in lung cancer patients in northern China.

Methods

A total of 18 hospitals across northern China were selected. Patients with primary lung cancer who visited the outpatient clinic or were admitted in the wards on a preplanned day were invited to complete a questionnaire. Meanwhile, physicians who had experience of treating primary lung cancer patients were also surveyed.

Results

A total of 533 patients and 197 physicians provided valid responses to the survey, of which 45.4% (242/533) of patients reported pain during the course of disease and 24.2% (129/533) of patients had experienced pain within the past 24 h. The mean average pain intensity by the brief pain inventory was 3.47 ± 1.55. The binary logistic regression analysis showed female gender and stage IV disease were significantly associated with the presence of pain. A total of 74.4% (96/129) of patients reporting pain within 24 h were taking analgesics. The most common reason for patients not using analgesics was that the pain was tolerable (48.2%), while the most common barriers to prescribing opioids as reported by physicians were fear of adverse reactions (43.7%) and fear of addiction (43.1%).

Conclusion

Despite recognition of the importance of pain control by most physicians and an improvement in cancer pain management, inadequate treatment of cancer pain still exists in lung cancer patients in northern China. High‐quality pain education for both patients and physicians is needed in the future.

Effect of ultrasound-guided selective sensory nerve blockade of the knee on pain management compared with periarticular injection for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound-guided selective sensory nerve blockade (SSNB) of the knee, including an adductor canal block (ACB), anterior femoral cutaneous nerve block, and infiltration between the popliteal artery and posterior capsule of the knee may provide effective motor-sparing knee analgesia for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We hypothesized that the SSNB would manage pain better on ambulation 24 hours postoperatively compared to periarticular infiltration (PAI), when combined with postoperative continuous ACB.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients undergoing elective TKA under spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned to either SSNB (SSNB group) or intraoperative PAI (PAI group). All patients received postoperative multimodal analgesia, including continuous ACB. The primary outcome was pain on ambulation 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included rest and dynamic numerical rating scale pain score, intravenous morphine requirement, functional performance measures, adverse events, satisfaction, and length of stay.

RESULTS

There was no difference in pain score during movement between the groups (mean difference -0.48 [-1.38 to 0.42], p = 0.3) and other immediate overall pain scores 24 hours postoperatively. Patients in the SSNB group had significantly lower intravenous morphine requirement than the PAI group for 48 hours postoperatively (0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 2]; p = 0.008). There was no intergroup difference in the performance-based measures, satisfaction, and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

The SSNB did not provide superior postoperative analgesia, or improvement in immediate functional performance. However, it may result in lower opioid consumption postoperatively when compared with the intraoperative PAI.

Relationship Between Quality of Care and Patient Care Outcomes for Postoperative Pain in Major Orthopedic Surgery: Analytical and Cross-Sectional Study

The quality of care provided for the management of postoperative pain and patient outcomes are key criteria for healthcare institutions. This study aimed to determine the relationship between the quality of care provided for the alleviation of postoperative pain experienced among patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery and the patient care outcomes. The study was designed as an analytical and cross-sectional study. The rates of pain severity and sleep interference, activity interference, affective experiences, and adverse effects due to postoperative pain were higher in female patients than in male patients. A significant positive correlation was identified between the quality of postoperative pain care and the perception of care (p < .05). Implementing nursing interventions to improve pain management and increase the quality of care appears to be vital elements for reducing adverse effects caused by pain and increasing the satisfaction with postoperative pain care.

Postoperative Pain and Age: A Retrospective Cohort Association Study

BACKGROUND

As the population ages, the number of elderly people undergoing surgery increases. Literature on the incidence and intensity of postoperative pain in the elderly is conflicting. This study examines associations between age and pain-related patient reported outcomes and perioperative pain management in a dataset of surgical patients undergoing four common surgeries: spinal surgery, hip or knee replacement, or laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Based on the authors' clinical experience, they hypothesize that pain scores are lower in older patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort, study data were collected between 2010 and 2018 as part of the international PAIN OUT program. Patients filled out the International Pain Outcomes Questionnaire on postoperative day 1.

RESULTS

A total of 11,510 patients from 26 countries, 59% female, with a mean age of 62 yr, underwent one of the aforementioned types of surgery. Large variation was detected within each age group for worst pain, yet for each surgical procedure, mean scores decreased significantly with age (mean Numeric Rating Scale range, 6.3 to 7.3; β = -0.2 per decade; P ≤ 0.001), representing a decrease of 1.3 Numeric Rating Scale points across a lifespan. The interference of pain with activities in bed, sleep, breathing deeply or coughing, nausea, drowsiness, anxiety, helplessness, opioid administration on the ward, and wish for more pain treatment also decreases with age for two or more of the procedures. Across the procedures, patients reported being in severe pain on postoperative day one 26 to 38% of the time, and pain interfered moderately to severely with movement.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors' findings indicate that postoperative pain decreases with increasing age. The change is, however, small and of questionable clinical significance. Additionally, there are still too many patients, at any age, undergoing common surgeries who suffer from moderate to severe pain, which interferes with function, supporting the need for tailoring care to the individual patient.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Interest of registries in neuropathic pain research

Neuropathic pain is frequent in the general population, with 7 to 10% of adults presenting with chronic neuropathic pain. To date, the gold standard to evaluate treatments is based on randomized controlled trials. Nonetheless, such design is run on a limited sample and for a limited period. Moreover, many treatments will never be compared directly in sufficiently large and representative populations. A way to overcome several of these limitations is to use real-world data. Indeed, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) includes a special interest group focusing on pain registries and promoting the use of such approaches. In this short narrative review, several of the main chronic pain registries are presented. The strengths and weaknesses of this approach are presented. Indication bias is frequent in observational studies because the choice of treatment is generally influenced by the patients' characteristics. However, a propensity score can be computed to adjust for these differences. The use of propensity score is briefly explained. Some data specific to neuropathic pain are discussed.

The Greek Neuropathic Pain Registry: The structure and objectives of the sole NPR in Greece

OBJECTIVES

Neuropathic pain (NP) is a complex condition that impairs the patients' quality of life. Registries are useful tools, increasingly used as they provide high-quality data. This article aims to describe the Greek Neuropathic Pain Registry (Gr.NP.R.) design, the patients' baseline data, and real-world treatment outcomes.

METHODS

The Gr.NP.R. collects electronically, stores, and shares real-world clinical data from Pain and Palliative Care centers in Greece. It is a web-based application, which ensures security, simplicity, and transparency. VAS, DN4, and Pain Detect were used for pain and NP assessment.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2020, 5980 patients with chronic pain, of cancer or non-cancer origin, were examined and 2334 fulfilled the NP inclusion criteria (VAS > 5, DN4 > 4, and Pain Detect ≥ 19). At the first visit, the mean age was 64.8 years, 65.5% were female patients, and 97.9% were Greek. The mean (SD) time from pain initiation to visiting the pain clinics was 1.5 (3.8) years. Most patients were undertreated. Following the patients' registration, the national guidelines were implemented. The majority of the prescribed medications were gabapentinoids (70.2%), especially pregabalin (62.6%), and opioids (tramadol, 55.3%). At visits 1 and 6, mean VAS was 7.1 and 5, and mean DN4 score was 5.6 and 3.5, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Gr.NP.R. provides information on the demographics, clinical progress, treatment history, treatment responses, and the drugs of choice for patients with cancer and non-cancer NP. The collected data may help physicians plan the management of their patients.

Implementation of the Uniformed Services University Pain Registry Biobank: A Military and Veteran Population Focused Biobank and Registry

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this overview is to discuss the development, implementation, data content, and structure of the Uniformed Services University Pain Registry Biobank. Additionally, procedures and policies for accessing samples for pain-related research purposes are detailed.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional overview.

SETTING

Multiple military treatment facilities.

SUBJECTS

Adult beneficiaries seeking care within the Military Health System.

METHODS

Participants complete a baseline battery of biopsychosocial survey measures, including PROMIS® measures, provide biologic samples (e.g. blood and saliva), and relevant health history, including medications and surgical history, is extracted from medical records. During the course of the next year, enrolled participants complete surveys and provide biologic samples at 3-months, 6-months, and 12-months. Thereafter, participants are contacted once annually to complete self-reported assessments and provide biologic samples.

RESULTS

In the first year alone 86 subjects have participated in the Uniformed Services University Pain Registry Biobank and provided 390 observations (e.g. biological samples and biopsychosocial patient-reported outcomes). The Uniformed Services University Pain Registry Biobank's integration of biological samples, patient-reported outcomes, and health record data over a longitudinal period across a diverse sample recruited from multiple military facilities addresses many of the limitations faced by other pain-related registries or biorepositories.

CONCLUSIONS

The Uniformed Services University Pain Registry Biobank will serve as a platform for conducting research closely aligned with the Federal Pain Research Strategy. The inclusion of active duty service members, beneficiaries, and civilians living with and without acute or chronic pain provides a unique data repository for all investigators interested in advancing pain science.

Big Data in Studying Acute Pain and Regional Anesthesia

The digital transformation of healthcare is advancing, leading to an increasing availability of clinical data for research. Perioperative big data initiatives were established to monitor treatment quality and benchmark outcomes. However, big data analyses have long exceeded the status of pure quality surveillance instruments. Large retrospective studies nowadays often represent the first approach to new questions in clinical research and pave the way for more expensive and resource intensive prospective trials. As a consequence, the utilization of big data in acute pain and regional anesthesia research has considerably increased over the last decade. Multicentric clinical registries and administrative databases (e.g., healthcare claims databases) have collected millions of cases until today, on which basis several important research questions were approached. In acute pain research, big data was used to assess postoperative pain outcomes, opioid utilization, and the efficiency of multimodal pain management strategies. In regional anesthesia, adverse events and potential benefits of regional anesthesia on postoperative morbidity and mortality were evaluated. This article provides a narrative review on the growing importance of big data for research in acute postoperative pain and regional anesthesia.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the International Pain Outcome questionnaire in surgery

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

The reliability and validity of International Pain Outcome questionnaire Spanish adaptation is confirmed in a large heterogeneous sample. Factor scores can be used as a global outcome analysis tool.

Background:

Choosing perioperative suitable treatments requires reliable and valid outcome measurements. The International Pain Outcome (IPO) questionnaire has been widely used for quality improvement and research purposes within the PAIN-OUT network that has collected more than 550,000 data sets of postoperative patients in 200 hospitals worldwide. Our aim is to confirm psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the IPO questionnaire and its invariance by pain predictors.

Method:

Sample included 4014 participants within a large age range, who underwent different surgical procedures. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessed internal structure, considering invariance by sex, age, procedure, smoking, obesity, affective disorder, and chronic pain. Incremental predictive validity of factor scores on question would have liked more pain treatment and opioid requirement was also estimated with logistic binary regression.

Results:

Confirmatory factor analysis verified original structure in 3 factors measuring pain intensity and interference (F1), adverse effects (F2), and perceptions of care (F3), with good internal consistency. Multigroup CFA analysis confirmed invariance by assessed pain predictors. Good incremental predictive capacity to identify would have liked more pain treatment was achieved.

Conclusion:

Our study confirms the factor structure, supports reliability, and adds some evidence of convergent validity of the Spanish adaptation of the IPO questionnaire. The sum of scores in its main factors serves a global outcome analysis tool. Low scores in F1 and F2 with high scores in F3 would indicate optimal quality of care.

'Desire for more analgesic treatment': pain and patient-reported outcome after paediatric tonsillectomy and appendectomy

BACKGROUND

Insufficiently treated pain after paediatric appendectomy and tonsillectomy is frequent. We aimed to identify variables associated with poor patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

This analysis derives from the European PAIN OUT infant registry providing information on perioperative pharmacological data and patient-reported outcomes 24 h after surgery. Variables associated with the endpoint 'desire for more pain treatment' were evaluated by elastic net regularisation (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]).

RESULTS

Data from children undergoing appendectomy (n=472) and tonsillectomy (n=466) between 2015 and 2019 were analysed. Some 24.8% (appendectomy) and 20.2% (tonsillectomy) wished they had received more pain treatment in the 24 h after surgery. They reported higher composite pain scores (5.2 [4.8-5.5] vs 3.6 [3.5-3.8]), more pain-related interference, and more adverse events than children not desiring more pain treatment, and they received more opioids after surgery (morphine equivalents (81 [60-102] vs 50 [43-56] μg kg^-1). Regression analysis revealed that pain-related sleep disturbance (appendectomy odds ratio: 2.8 [1.7-4.6], tonsillectomy 3.7 [2.1-6.5]; P<0.001) and higher pain intensities (1.5-fold increase) increased the probability of desiring more pain treatment. There was an inverse association between the number of different classes of non-opioids administered preventively, and the desire for more analgesics postoperatively. Children not receiving any non-opioid analgesics before the end of a tonsillectomy had a 3.5-fold (2.1-6.5-fold) increase in the probability of desiring more pain treatment, compared with children receiving at least two classes of different non-opioid analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive administration of at least two classes of non-opioid analgesics is a simple strategy and may improve patient-reported outcomes.

Quality Indicators (QI) of Acute Pain after Surgery in European Countries

OBJECTIVES

It is common practice to use pain quality indicators (QI) to accurately assess the medical care situation of patients. This literature review identifies the status quo of acute pain QI among adult inpatients.

DATA SOURCES

Studies published in English or German were identified using a systematic search on CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from 01/2007 to 02/2018. Additional pain management journals, conference proceedings, and websites of health organizations and pain societies were manually screened. Studies about postoperative pain in adults (≥18 years) during inpatient stay after all types of surgery in Europe were included in this review.

REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS

The identified study results were categorized into structural, process, and outcome indicators based on Donabedian's framework of evaluating care quality.

RESULTS

The search identified 319 citations, of which 20 studies used structure, process, and outcome data including 180,988 patients and 1,970 health care professionals to gain insight into the quality of acute pain management. Overall, 80% used patient surveys to collect data. National data on pain management are reported in five European studies (France [2], the Netherlands, Spain, and Austria).

CONCLUSIONS

European studies comprehensively comparing acute pain management results are currently missing. Thus, this report highlights the need to develop consensus-based quality indicators in management of acute pain, which take into account both the methodologic quality and the relevance to clinical practice.

Towards Better Perioperative Pain Management in Mexico: A Study in a Network of Hospitals Using Quality Improvement Methods from PAIN OUT

Objective

This was a pre–post study in a network of hospitals in Mexico-City, Mexico. Participants developed and implemented Quality Improvement (QI) interventions addressing perioperative pain management.

Methods

PAIN OUT, an international QI and research network, provided tools for web-based auditing and feedback of pain management and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the clinical routine. Ward- and patient-level factors were evaluated with multi-level models. Change in proportion of patients reporting worst pain ≥6/10 between project phases was the primary outcome.

Results

Participants created locally adapted resources for teaching and pain management, available to providers in the form of a website and a special issue of a national anesthesia journal. They offered teaching to anesthesiologists, surgeons, including residents, and nurses. Information was offered to patients and families. A total of 2658 patients were audited in 9 hospitals, between July 2016 and December 2018. Participants reported that the project made them aware of the importance of: training in pain management; auditing one’s own patients to learn about PROs and that QI requires collaboration between multi-disciplinary teams. Participants reported being unaware that their patients experienced severe pain and lacked information about pain treatment options. Worst pain decreased significantly between the two project phases, as did PROs related to pain interfering with movement, taking a deep breath/coughing or sleep. The opportunity of patients receiving information about their pain treatment options increased from 44% to 77%.

Conclusions

Patients benefited from improved care and pain-related PROs. Clinicians appreciated gaining increased expertise in perioperative pain management and methods of QI.

Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain services in the Republic of Ireland

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most medical services were shut down and resources were redistributed. Closures included pain management departments where many staff were redeployed. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain services in the Republic of Ireland.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to pain consultants working in public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland between the 22nd and 28th September 2020.

RESULTS

We received responses from 18 consultants from all 15 public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland with chronic pain services. Procedural volume during lockdown fell to 26% of pre-COVID levels. This had recovered somewhat by the time of the survey to 71%. Similarly, in-person outpatient clinic volume fell to 10% of per-COVID numbers and recovered to 50%. On average, 39% of public hospital activity was made up for by the availability of private hospitals. This varied significantly across the country. The use of telemedicine increased significantly during the pandemic. Before COVID, on average, 13% of outpatient clinic volume was composed of telephone or video consultations. This increased to 46% at the time of the survey.

CONCLUSION

This survey of consultant pain physicians in the Republic of Ireland has revealed how chronic pain services have been affected during the pandemic and how they have evolved.

Predicting Acute Pain After Surgery: A Multivariate Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To identify perioperative practice patterns that predictably impact postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND

Despite significant advances in perioperative medicine, a significant portion of patients still experience severe pain after major surgery. Postoperative pain is associated with serious adverse outcomes that are costly to patients and society.

METHODS

The presented analysis took advantage of a unique observational data set providing unprecedented detailed pharmacological information. The data were collected by PAIN OUT, a multinational registry project established by the European Commission to improve postoperative pain outcomes. A multivariate approach was used to derive and validate a model predictive of pain on postoperative day 1 (POD1) in 1008 patients undergoing back surgery.

RESULTS

The predictive and validated model was highly significant (P = 8.9E-15) and identified modifiable practice patterns. Importantly, the number of nonopioid analgesic drug classes administered during surgery predicted decreased pain on POD1. At least 2 different nonopioid analgesic drug classes (cyclooxygenase inhibitors, acetaminophen, nefopam, or metamizol) were required to provide meaningful pain relief (>30%). However, only a quarter of patients received at least 2 nonanalgesic drug classes during surgery. In addition, the use of very short-acting opioids predicted increased pain on POD1, suggesting room for improvement in the perioperative management of these patients. Although the model was highly significant, it only accounted for a relatively small fraction of the observed variance.

CONCLUSION

The presented analysis offers detailed insight into current practice patterns and reveals modifications that can be implemented in today's clinical practice. Our results also suggest that parameters other than those currently studied are relevant for postoperative pain including biological and psychological variables.

Predicting poor postoperative acute pain outcome in adults: an international, multicentre database analysis of risk factors in 50,005 patients

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Eight risk factors were identified in a large international database. Patients with 3 or more risk factors are at higher risk for poor pain outcome.

Background:

The aim of this study was to determine simple risk factors for severe pain intensity (≥7 points on a numeric rating scale [NRS]), to analyse their relation to other patient-reported outcome measures and to develop a simple prediction model.

Methods:

We used data from 50,005 patients from the PAIN-OUT project. Within a first data set (n = 33,667), relevant risk factors were identified by logistic binary regression analysis, assessed for additional patient-reported outcome measures beyond pain intensity and summed up for developing a simple risk score. Finally, sum of factors was plotted against postoperative pain outcomes within a validation data set (n = 16,338).

Results:

Odds ratios (OR) for the following risk factors were identified: younger age (<54 years, OR: 1.277), preoperative chronic pain at the site of surgery (OR: 1.195), female sex (OR: 1.433), duration of surgery (>90 minutes, OR: 1.308), preoperative opioid intake (OR: 1.250), feeling anxious (OR: 1.239) and feeling helpless due to pain (OR: 1.198), and the country of the recruiting centre (OR: 1.919). Patients with ≥3 risk factors had more severe pain intensity scores, spent a longer time in severe pain, and wished to have received more pain treatment (P < 0.001). A simple risk score was created with 4 risk factors showing a moderate prediction level.

Conclusions:

Patients with ≥3 risk factors are at higher risk for poor postoperative acute pain outcome after surgery. Future studies using this score might show that preventive strategies might decrease pain intensity, pain-related postoperative dysfunction, and the development of chronic pain.

The effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative pain management compared to PCIA : A cohort analysis

Background

Standard protocols or algorithms are considered essential to ensure adequate analgesia. Germany has widely adopted postoperative protocols for pain management including oral opioids for rescue medication, but the effectiveness of such protocols has only been evaluated longitudinally in a before and after setting. The aim of this cohort analysis was to compare the effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative management of pain to the gold standard of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA).

Material and methods

This study compared cohorts of patients of two prospective observational studies undergoing elective total hip replacement. After surgery patients received piritramide to achieve a pain score of ≤3 on the numeric rating scale (NRS 0–10). A protocol was started consisting of oral long-acting oxycodone and ibuprofen (basic analgesia). Cohort 1 (C1, 126 patients) additionally received an oral opioid rescue medication (hydromorphone) when reporting pain >3 on the NRS. Cohort 2 (C2, 88 patients) was provided with an opioid by PCIA (piritramide) for opioid rescue medication. Primary endpoints were pain intensity at rest, during movement, and maximum pain intensity within the first 24 h postoperative. Secondary endpoints were opioid consumption, functional outcome and patient satisfaction with pain management.

Results

Pain during movement and maximum pain intensity were higher in C1 compared to C2: pain on movement median 1st–3rd quartile: 6 (3.75–8) vs. 5 (3–7), p = 0.023; maximum pain intensity: 7 (5–9) vs. 5 (3–8), p = 0.008. There were no differences in pain intensity at rest or between women and men in either group. The mean opioid consumption in all patients (combined PACU, baseline, and rescue medication; mean ± SD mg ME) was 126.6 ± 51.8 mg oral ME (median 120 (87.47–154.25) mg ME). Total opioid consumption was lower in C1 than C2 (117 ± 46 mg vs 140 ± 56 mg, p = 0.002) due to differences in rescue opioids (C1: 57 ± 37 mg ME, C2: 73 ± 43 mg ME, p = 0.006, Z = −2.730). Basic analgesia opioid use was comparable (C1: 54 ± 31 mg ME, C2: 60 ± 36 mg ME, p = 0.288, Z = −1.063). There were no differences in respect to the addition of non-opioids and reported quality of mobilization, sleep, frequency of nausea and vomiting, or general satisfaction with pain management.

Conclusion

In this study PCIA provided a better reduction of pain intensity, when compared to a standardized protocol with oral opioid rescue medication. This effect was associated with increased opioid consumption. There were no differences in frequencies of opioid side effects. This study was a retrospective analysis of two cohorts of a major project. As with all retrospective studies, our analysis has several limitations to consider. Data can only represent the observation of clinical practice. It cannot reflect the quality of a statement of a randomized controlled trial. Observational studies do not permit conclusions on causal relationships.

Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group Enhanced Observation Study Postoperative Pain Profiles, Analgesic Use, and Transition to Chronic Pain and Excessive and Prolonged Opioid Use Patterns Methodology

To study the impact of anesthesia opioid-related outcomes and acute and chronic postsurgical pain, we organized a multicenter study that comprehensively combined detailed perioperative data elements from multiple institutions. By combining pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcomes with automatically extracted high-resolution intraoperative data obtained through the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG), the authors sought to describe the impact of patient characteristics, preoperative psychological factors, surgical procedure, anesthetic course, postoperative pain management, and postdischarge pain management on postdischarge pain profiles and opioid consumption patterns. This study is unique in that it utilized multicenter prospective data collection using a digital case report form integrated with the MPOG framework and database. Therefore, the study serves as a model for future studies using this innovative method. Full results will be reported in future articles; the purpose of this article is to describe the methods of this study.

Neuropathic Pain Registries Improve Pain Management and Provide More Efficacious Planning of Healthcare Services

The first official health registry dates back to the 19th century and was proven to be very useful for gathering important information regarding a specific disease. Since then, data collection through registries is gaining more popularity, as it can offer useful information not only to health providers but also to healthcare planning services. Health registries could come along with randomized controlled trials and support or reject their findings in the "real world". Pain registries and neuropathic pain registries have proven to be very potent weapons in the armory of the pain specialist and are growing rapidly, offering substantial information for this challenging pain entity.

Sufentanil Sublingual for Acute Post-Operative Pain: A Systematic Literature Review Focused on Pain Intensity, Adverse Events, and Patient Satisfaction

Context

Pain is commonly experienced among patients after surgical procedures. Clinical pain management after surgery is far from being successful. Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient-controlled analgesia or PCA). PCA devices have been developed including the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS). A systematic review of the use of SSTS for postoperative pain is needed to identify an alternative method of pain management.

Objectives

To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of PCA with SSTS used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute post-operative pain in a hospital setting.

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in December 2019 for studies examining SSTS for pain in adult after surgical procedures. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.

Results

Sixteen studies evaluating SSTS were included for a total of 2311 patients. All participants in the SSTS group reported NRS ≤ 4 within 24 h after surgery. Patient satisfaction was high, with a minimum of 70% satisfaction among patients treated with SSTS. The most common adverse events (AEs) overall for SSTS 15 and 30 mcg were nausea, vomiting, and headache. AEs observed in the studies were generally consistent with those associated with opioids and the postsurgical setting.

Conclusions

SSTS is an important system for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain in a hospital setting. SSTS is well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events (AEs) and no clinically meaningful vital sign changes. These data confirm the safety and tolerability of the SSTS. Successful pain management resulted in a high level of acceptance of the SSTS by patients with high satisfaction for the method of pain control.

A survey of postoperative pain treatments and unmet needs

More than 300 million patients undergo surgery worldwide each year. Pain associated with these procedures is associated with short- and long-term negative sequelae for patients, healthcare providers, and healthcare systems. The following chapter is a review of the reality of postoperative pain management in everyday clinical routine based on survey- and registry-derived data with a focus on care in adults. Between 30% and up to 80% of patients report moderate to severe pain in the days after surgery. Structures, processes, and outcomes vary widely between hospitals and indicate gaps between evidence-based findings and practice. Pain assessment is not effectively implemented in many hospitals and should consider cultural differences. Few data exist on the situation of pain management in low- and middle-income countries, indicating lack of resources and available medication in many of these areas. Certain types of surgery as well as demographic and clinical factors are associated with increased risk of severe postoperative pain.

Evaluation of Pain as A Fifth Vital Sign: Nurses' Opinions and Beliefs

Objective:

After the American Pain Society recognized pain as a fifth vital sign, many countries adopted similar pain screening approaches. The routine evaluation of pain has recently come to the agenda in Turkey, along with the important role played by nurses in pain evaluation, and hence, this study focuses on the opinions of nurses on the evaluation of pain as a fifth vital sign, their pain beliefs, and how their pain beliefs influence their opinions.

Methods:

This descriptive study was conducted in a City Hospital with the involvement of 223 nurses. A questionnaire and a Pain Beliefs Questionnaire were used for the collection of data, and the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and Mann–Whitney U-test, analysis of variance, and Kruskal–Wallis tests.

Results:

Of the respondent nurses, 31.8% of the nurses were working in medical inpatient clinics, and 56.5% stated that pain should not be evaluated as a fifth vital sign, giving the following reasons: if patients are in pain, they already report it (40.5%), and overwork and the lack of sufficient nurses (34.9%). There was no difference in the pain beliefs scores of the nurses who stated that pain should not be evaluated as a fifth vital sign (56.5%) and the scores of those who stated the opposite (43.5%) (P > 0.05).

Conclusions:

Most of the nurses do not think that pain should be evaluated as a fifth vital sign. Furthermore, the pain beliefs of nurses do not influence their opinions regarding the assessment of pain as a fifth vital sign.

Improving perioperative pain management: a preintervention and postintervention study in 7 developing countries

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Introduction:

The burden of untreated postoperative pain is high.

Objective:

This study assessed feasibility of using quality improvement (QI) tools to improve management of perioperative pain in hospitals in multiple developing countries.

Methods:

The International Pain Registry and Developing Countries working groups, from the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), sponsored the project and PAIN OUT, a QI and research network, coordinated it, and provided the research tools. The IASP published a call about the project on its website. Principal investigators (PIs) were responsible for implementing a preintervention and postintervention study in 1 to 2 surgical wards in their hospitals, and they were free to choose the QI intervention. Trained surveyors used standardized and validated web-based tools for collecting findings about perioperative pain management and patient reported outcomes (PROs). Four processes and PROs, independent of surgery type, assessed effectiveness of the interventions.

Results:

Forty-three providers responded to the call; 13 applications were selected; and PIs from 8 hospitals, in 14 wards, in 7 countries, completed the study. Interventions focused on teaching providers about pain management. Processes improved in 35% and PROs in 37.5% of wards.

Conclusions:

The project proved useful on multiple levels. It offered PIs a framework and tools to perform QI work and findings to present to colleagues and administration. Management practices and PROs improved on some wards. Interpretation of change proved complex, site-dependent, and related to multiple factors. PAIN OUT gained experience coordinating a multicentre, international QI project. The IASP promoted research, education, and QI work.

The Quality of Postoperative Pain Therapy in German Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Many patients in German hospitals complain of inadequate treatment of their postoperative pain. Hospital-related structural and procedural variables may affect pain perception and patient satisfaction. We studied the association of individual variables with outcome quality.

METHODS

Data from the years 2011 to 2014 from the world's largest acute pain registry (QUIPS) were evaluated. The analysis was performed with mixed linear regression models.

RESULTS

We studied registry data from 138 German hospitals concerning four commonly performed types of operations (total number of operations, 21 114) and found that the intensity of pain, functional impairment, and satisfaction with postoperative pain therapy were all highly variable from one hospital to another. Patients in university hospitals complained more often than those in standard care facilities of highly intense pain (odds ratio [OR] 2.44; 95% con - fidence interval [CI] [1.18; 5.04]) and dissatisfaction (OR 3.58 [1.85; 6.93]). In specialized centers as well, pain intensity (OR 1.39 [1.06; 1.83]) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.59 [1.25; 2.02]) were higher. Pain-related limitation of movement was also reported more commonly in university hospitals (OR 2.12 [0.87; 5.16]) and specialized centers (OR 1.87 [1.33; 2.65]) than in standard care facilities. Less pain-related limitation of movement and higher satisfaction were reported in hospitals in which pain was documented in the patients' charts and the patients felt adequately informed about the treatment options.

CONCLUSION

The current state of postoperative pain therapy leaves much room for improvement. Quality indicators in the field of acute pain medicine might help improve patient care.