AAAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Knee Arthroplasty Pain

Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks-American Pain Society-American Academy of Pain Medicine Pain Taxonomy Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Needle Pain

Needle procedures are among the most common causes of pain and distress for individuals seeking health care. While needle pain is especially problematic for children needle pain and associated fear also has significant impact on adults and can lead to avoidance of appropriate medical care. Currently there is not a standard definition of needle pain. A taxonomy, or classification system, for acute needle pain would aid research efforts and enhance clinical care. To meet this need, the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public-private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Pain Society, and the American Academy of Pain Medicine formed the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks-American Pain Society-American Academy of Pain Medicine Pain Taxonomy initiative. One of the goals of this initiative was to develop taxonomies for acute pain disorders, including needle pain. To accomplish this, a working group of experts in needle pain was convened. Based on available literature and expert opinion, the working group used a 5-dimenional structure (diagnostic criteria, common features, modulating factors, impact and/or functional consequences, and putative mechanisms) to develop an acute pain taxonomy that is specific needle pain. As part of this, a set of 4 diagnostic criteria, with 2 modifiers to account for the influence of needle associated fear, are proposed to define the types of acute needle pain. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents a taxonomy for acute needle pain. This taxonomy could help to standardize definitions of acute pain in clinical studies of patients undergoing needle procedures.

A qualitative study with orthopaedic surgeons on pain catastrophizing and surgical outcomes: shifting from a medical towards a biopsychosocial model of surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain catastrophizing (PC) moderates surgical outcomes and behavioural interventions are recommended to optimise post-operative results. Less is known about surgeons' experiences of providing care and their attitudes towards the use of interventions in practice.

OBJECTIVE

It is therefore invaluable to understand surgeons' views on how best to support patients who may be at risk of suboptimal recovery. Eleven surgeons and three registrar orthopaedic practitioners took part in semi-structured interviews within a hospital setting. The surgical decision-making process, views of PC and the use of behavioural interventions in surgical practice were explored.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified five themes: pain expressions and pain behaviours affect the surgeons' decision-making process, when pathologies and symptoms do not match, psychological factors pertaining to unsatisfactory outcomes, a service gap in surgical care and the acceptability of using a screening tool in surgical practice to identify patients at risk of suboptimal recovery.

CONCLUSION

Orthopaedic surgeons face challenges in identifying who is likely to reach optimal versus suboptimal outcome. Surgeons are becoming increasingly aware of patient psychological distress being detrimental to outcomes, and they support the use of behavioural interventions to optimise post-operative outcomes or stop unnecessary treatments. The surgeons accept the use of a screening tool in surgical practice with better access to support services with input from allied health professionals. A screening tool may provide great utility for identifying at risk patients, to allow for modification of surgical patients care plans.

Does the addition of iPACK to adductor canal block in the presence or absence of periarticular local anesthetic infiltration improve analgesic and functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

When combined with adductor canal block (ACB), local anesthetic infiltration between popliteal artery and capsule of knee (iPACK) is purported to improve pain following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the analgesic benefits of adding iPACK to ACB in the setting of surgeon-administered periarticular local infiltration analgesia (LIA) are unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic benefits of adding iPACK to ACB, compared with ACB alone, in the setting of LIA following TKA.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the effects of adding iPACK block to ACB versus ACB alone on pain severity at 6 hours postoperatively in adult patients undergoing TKA. We a priori planned to stratify analysis for use of LIA. Opioid consumption at 24 hours, functional recovery, and iPACK-related complications were secondary outcomes.

FINDINGS

Fourteen trials (1044 patients) were analyzed. For the primary outcome comparison in the presence of LIA (four trials, 273 patients), adding iPACK to ACB did not improve postoperative pain at 6 hours. However, in the absence of LIA (eight trials, 631 patients), adding iPACK to ACB reduced pain by a weighted mean difference (WMD) (95% CI) of -1.33 cm (-1.57 to -1.09) (p<0.00001). For the secondary outcome comparisons in the presence of LIA, adding iPACK to ACB did not improve postoperative pain at all other time points, opioid consumption or functional recovery. In contrast, in the absence of LIA, adding iPACK to ACB reduced pain at 12 hours, and 24 hours by a WMD (95% CI) of -0.98 (-1.79 to -0.17) (p=0.02) and -0.69 (-1.18 to -0.20) (p=0.006), respectively, when compared with ACB alone, but did not reduce opioid consumption. Functional recovery was also improved by a log(odds ratio) (95% CI) of 1.28 (0.45 to 2.11) (p=0.003). No iPACK-related complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Adding iPACK to ACB in the setting of periarticular LIA does not improve analgesic outcomes following TKA. In the absence of LIA, adding iPACK to ACB reduces pain up to 24 hours and enhances functional recovery. Our findings do not support the addition of iPACK to ACB when LIA is routinely administered.