[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]

[Opioid-free anesthesia : Wrong track or meaningful exit from the era of opioid-based analgesia?]

The limitations and disadvantages of opioids in anesthesia are very well known but the advantages combined with a lack of effective alternatives even now still prevents refraining from using opioids as part of an adequate pain therapy. For decades, pain research has had the declared goal of replacing opioids with new substances which have no serious side effects; however, currently this goal seems to be a long way off. Due to the media coverage of the "opioid crisis" in North America, the use of opioids for pain management is also increasingly being questioned by the patients. Measures to contain this crisis are only slowly taking effect in view of the increasing number of deaths, which is why the triggers are still being sought. The perioperative administration of opioids is not only a possible gateway to addiction and abuse but it can also cause outcome-relevant complications, such as respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting and an increase in postoperative pain. Therefore, these considerations gave rise to the idea of an opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), i.e., opioids are not administered as part of anesthesia to carry out surgical procedures. Although this idea may make sense at first glance, a rapid introduction of this concept appears to be risky as it entails significant changes for the entire anesthesiological management. Based on relatively robust data from clinical studies, this concept can now be evaluated and discussed not only emotionally but also objectively. This review article presents arguments for or against the complete avoidance of intraoperative or even perioperative opioids. The current conditions in Germany are primarily taken into account, so that the perioperative pain therapy is transferable to the established standards. The results from current clinical studies on the implementation of an opioid-free anesthesia are summarized and discussed.

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.

[Resolution of the Federal Joint Committee on the mandatory introduction and implementation of acute pain management concepts-Importance and consequences for ophthalmology]

Patient-centered and adequate postoperative pain management is an important part of a modern treatment concept and should also be standard in ophthalmology. Due to the "Regulation on the mandatory introduction and implementation of acute pain management concepts for adequate postoperative pain therapy" prescribed by the Federal Joint Committee of the German statutory healthcare system (G-BA), hospitals and outpatient facilities have been required to have regulations on pain management in place since 9 December 2020. It is very likely that the need of pain management in ophthalmic surgery has been systematically underestimated so far and studies on postoperative pain hardly exist. In the opinion of the authors, the decision represents an opportunity to pay more attention to the topic and to develop standards for ophthalmology as well. This article explains the G‑BA decision and the resulting consequences for ophthalmic surgical institutions.

Analgesic benefit of metamizole and ibuprofen vs. either medication alone: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain relief remains a key problem after surgery. Multimodal pain therapy has proven beneficial in alleviating pain to a certain extent. However, when combining non-opioids, the focus has been on NSAIDs and paracetamol, but effects of combined use are only moderate. Metamizole could be a potent adjunct, due to its preclusion in several countries, data on its combined use are sparse, despite its common use in many countries. The aim of this study was to examine whether the combination of metamizole and ibuprofen is superior in relieving postoperative pain to either drug alone.

METHODS

For this randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study, 35 patients undergoing bilateral lower third molar extraction were randomized. Each patient received three applications of 1000mg metamizole + 400mg ibuprofen for surgery on one side and either 1000mg metamizole + placebo or 400mg ibuprofen + placebo on the other side. Pain ratings, rescue-medication (tramadol), and sleep were assessed for 18 hours.

RESULTS

The combined treatment of metamizole and ibuprofen showed lower mean pain scores over 12 hours than ibuprofen (2.4±1.3 vs 3.8±1.6; P=0.005)). Further, combined treatment showed lower mean pain scores over 6 hours than ibuprofen (2.0±1.2 vs. 3.1±1.6; P=0.022) or metamizole alone (2.0±1.2 vs. 3.3±1.7; P=0.015). Consumption of rescue medication was lowest in the combination-group (25% vs. 46%-metamizole; 50%-ibuprofen). The trial was stopped prematurely as the COVID-pandemic halted elective surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined use enables superior pain control compared to ibuprofen after molar extraction and tends to be superior to metamizole alone. The premature study-termination may overestimate this effect.