Search

Background: Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is a crucial component of multimodal analgesia that enhances recovery after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, LIA can cause fatal local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). The incidences of LIA-induced LAST in different surgeries and anesthetic agents have not been well investigated. Methods: This observational study enrolled 1,267 adult patients who received LIA with bupivacaine for primary THA or TKA under general anesthesia at a single medical center between January 2020 and October 2021. LAST incidence was graded by severity: severe (refractory seizure or arrhythmia requiring lipid rescue), major (seizure or arrhythmia requiring prompt medication), and minor (all other) events. Patient demographics, surgical and anesthesia details, recovery profiles, and LAST incidences were recorded and analyzed. Results: The incidence of severe LAST events was 2.41 per 1000 in unilateral THA, 0 in TKA, and 3.16 per 1000 in the entire cohort. The odds ratio of developing major LAST events was 4.35 in patients undergoing unilateral THA compared with those undergoing unilateral TKA in a matched comparison. Patients who underwent bilateral THA had the highest risk of developing LIA-induced LAST. Additionally, patients using propofol infusion for anesthesia maintenance had a lower risk of seizures and tremors than those using sevoflurane inhalation. The odds ratio of major LAST events was 0.47 in matched comparisons. Conclusions: LIA was associated with a significantly higher risk of LAST in the THA group than in the TKA group. Propofol maintenance reduces the likelihood of seizures and tremors compared with sevoflurane inhalation. Exploring strategies to reduce the incidence of LIA-induced LAST is essential to improve perioperative patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study evaluated the effectiveness, psychological effects, and sleep quality using intramuscular diazepam infusion compared with placebo in patients with herpes zoster (HZ)-related pain. Methods: The patients were randomized to either the diazepam or control group. The diazepam group received an intramuscular injection of diazepam for 3 consecutive days, while the control group received an intramuscular injection of 0.9% normal saline. The primary outcome was pain relief on posttreatment day 4, as measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Moreover, anxiety and depression were evaluated using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD7) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9), respectively. Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Results: In total, 78 patients were enrolled in the trial. The mean differences in VAS scores between the two groups were 0.62 (P = 0.049) on posttreatment day 3 and 0.66 (P = 0.037) on posttreatment day 4. The effective rates of pain management in the diazepam group ranged from 10.26 to 66.67%, which were higher than those in the control group on posttreatment days 3 and 4 (P < 0.05). The mean difference in PSQI scores between the diazepam and control groups was 1.36 (P = 0.034) on posttreatment day 7. No differences were found in the incidence of analgesia-adverse 1reactions between the diazepam and placebo groups. Conclusions: The intramuscular injection of diazepam for 3 consecutive days provides effective pain management and improves the quality of life. Our study suggests that diazepam is more effective than the placebo in patients with HZ-related pain. Trial registration: The study was prospectively registered at https://www.isrctn.com/trialist(Registration date: 24/01/2018; Trial ID: ISRCTN12682696). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients undergoing corneal abrasion as part of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) under general anesthesia suffer from early burning pain postoperatively. This pain appears to be poorly treatable with systemic analgesics. This study aims to evaluate postoperative pain management using topical lidocaine gel after DMEK with iatrogenic corneal abrasion. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 28 consecutive patients undergoing DMEK with corneal abrasion from October 19, 2021, to November 12, 2021, at a German university hospital. Patients during week 1 and 2 received peri-operative standard pain treatment (cohort S) and additional local lidocaine gel during week 3 and 4 immediately postoperatively (cohort L). Results: 13 patients were included in cohort S and 15 patients in cohort L. At awakening all patients (100%) in cohort S reported burning pain, and six of 15 patients (40%) in cohort L reported burning pain. Burning pain scores were significantly lower in cohort L (p < 0.001 at awakening, p < 0.001 at 10 min, p < 0.001 at 20 min, p < 0.001 at 30 min, p = 0.007 at 40 min after awakening, and p < 0.001 at leaving recovery room). No significant differences between cohort S and cohort L were detected concerning surgical outcome during 1-month-follow-up (p = 0.901 for best corrected visual acuity). Conclusion: Patients undergoing DMEK with corneal abrasion suffer significant pain in the recovery room. A single dose of topic lidocaine gel reduces the early postoperative burning pain sufficiently and does not affect the surgical outcome. Key messages: What is already known on this topic: Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) normally causes low levels of pain. What this study adds: When corneal abrasion is required during DMEK surgery under general anesthesia, patients experience pain sensations that can severely affect their well-being. An immediate postoperative single dose of topical lidocaine gel applied by the surgeon reduces the early burning pain sufficiently and does not affect the surgical outcome. To reduce postoperative pain levels and to improve the postoperative well-being of patients, all patients undergoing DMEK with corneal abrasion should receive topical lidocaine gel at least once. However, this simple intervention should still be investigated in prospective studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sterile water injections can provide effective pain relief during childbirth, particularly for low back pain related to childbirth. However, the pain associated administering the injections can negatively impact women's impressions of the procedure. It may discourage women from considering repeat doses despite the quality of analgesia experienced. Determining strategies to reduce the pain related to the administration of sterile water injections would improve the acceptability of the technique. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of topical local anesthesia on the pain associated with administration of sterile water injections. Methods: The study was designed as a multi-arm single-blind, randomized, controlled trial and 120 female healthy students were randomly divided according to one of four groups. The Intervention group received sterile water injections with topical local anesthesia. Control group 1 received sterile water injections without topical local anesthesia, control group 2 received injections of isotonic saline 0.9% with topical local anesthesia and control group 3 received injections of isotonic saline 0.9% without topical local anesthesia. Pain Immediately after the injections and subsidence in pain were recorded using a visual analogue scale. Sensations in the injection area were reported 15 min and the day after the injections. Results: The main finding of this study was that local anesthesia with EMLA® reduces the pain associated with the administration of intracutaneous sterile water injections. There was a significant difference in the self-assessed pain score immediately following the injections between the control (73.3 mm) and intervention groups (50.0 mm), p = 0.001. No adverse side effects were reported. Conclusion: Local anesthesia with EMLA® reduces the pain associated with intracutaneous administration of sterile water injections. Trial registration: The study was registered 08/07/2014 at ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02213185. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimally invasive adrenalectomy is the standard of care for small adrenal tumours. Both the transperitoneal lateral approach and posterior retroperitoneal approach are widely used and have been proven to be safe and effective. However, the prevalence of chronic postsurgical pain has not been specifically investigated in previous studies. The primary goal of this study was to identify the prevalence of chronic postsurgical pain after minimally invasive adrenalectomy. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among all consecutive patients who had undergone minimally invasive adrenalectomy in a single university medical centre. The primary outcome was the prevalence of chronic postsurgical pain. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of localized hypoesthesia, risk factors for the development of chronic postsurgical pain, and the Health-Related Quality of Life. Three questionnaires were used to measure the prevalence and severity of chronic postsurgical pain, hypoesthesia, and Health-Related Quality of Life. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk factors for development of chronic postsurgical pain. Results: Six hundred two patients underwent minimally invasive adrenalectomy between January 2007 and September 2019, of whom 328 signed informed consent. The prevalence of chronic postsurgical pain was 14.9%. In the group of patients with chronic postsurgical pain, 33% reported hypoesthesia as well. Young age was a significant predictor for developing chronic postsurgical pain. The prevalence of localized hypoesthesia was 15.2%. In patients with chronic postsurgical pain, Health-Related Quality of Life was significantly lower, compared to patients without pain. Conclusions: The prevalence of chronic postsurgical pain following minimally invasive adrenalectomy is considerable. Furthermore, the presence of chronic postsurgical pain was correlated with a significant and clinically relevant lower Health-Related Quality of Life. These findings should be included in the preoperative counselling of the patient. In the absence of evidence for effective treatment in established chronic pain, prevention should be the key strategy and topic of future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In women presenting for caesarean section under spinal anesthesia, continuous measurement of circulatory aspects, such as blood pressure and cardiac output, is often needed. At present, invasive techniques are used almost exclusively. Reliable non-invasive monitoring would be welcome, as it could be safer, less uncomfortable, and quick and easy to apply. We aimed to evaluate whether a non-invasive, finger plethysmographic device, the ccNexFin monitor, can replace invasively measured blood pressure in the radial artery, and whether cardiac output measurements from this device can be used interchangeably with measurements from the mini-invasive LiDCO monitor currently in use at our institution. Methods: Simultaneous invasive measurements were compared to ccNexFin in 23 healthy women during elective caesarean section under spinal anesthesia. We used Bland Altman statistics to assess agreement, and polar plot methodology to judge trending abilities with pre-defined limits. Results: Mean arterial and systolic pressures showed biases (invasive – ccNexFin) of − 4.3 and 12.2 mmHg, with limits of agreement of − 15.9 – 7.4 and − 11.1 – 35.6, respectively. The ccNexFin trending abilities were within the suggested limits for mean pressure but insufficient for systolic pressure compared to invasive measurements. Cardiac output had a small bias of 0.2 L/min, but wide limits of agreement of − 2.6 – 3.0. The ccNexFin trending abilities compared to the invasive estimated values (LiDCO) were unsatisfactory. Conclusions: We consider the ccNexFin monitor to have sufficient accuracy in measuring mean arterial pressure. The limits of agreement for systolic measurements were wider, and the trending ability compared to invasive measurements was outside the recommended limit. The ccNexFin is not reliable for cardiac output measurements or trend in pregnant women for caesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Trial registration: Registered May 23, 2013, at ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01861132. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain after surgery is a major issue for patient discomfort and often associated with delayed recovery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of pain and requirement for analgesics up to 6 months after elective surgery, independent if new pain symptoms occurred after surgery or if preoperative pain persisted in the postoperative period. Methods: A prospective observational single center cohort study was conducted between January 2012 and August 2013. Eligible patients were scheduled to undergo elective surgical interventions including joint (hip, knee arthroplasty), back (nucleotomy, spondylodesis), or urological surgery (cystectomy, prostatectomy, nephrectomy). Pain was assessed on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) before, on postoperative day 2 and 6 months after surgery. Clinical information was collected with structured questionnaires and by telephone interview. Results: Six hundred and forty-four patients gave informed consent, including 54.4 % men (mean age 62.2, SD 14.3). Higher preoperative pain scores were found in patients undergoing joint (mean 7.6; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 7.2-8.0) and back surgery (mean 7.1, CI: 6.8-7.5) than in patients prior to urological surgery (mean 2.3; CI: 1.8-2.8). After 6 months, about 50 % of patients after joint or back surgery indicated pain levels ≥3/10, compared to 15. 9 % of patients after urological surgery (p < .001). 35.3 % of the patients after joint surgery and 41.3 % after back surgery still use pain medication 6 months postoperatively, in contrast to 7.3 % of patients after urological surgery. 13.6 % of patients who underwent back surgery indicated the regular intake of opioids. Conclusions: Our results reveal that a significant percentage of patients undergoing procedures in joint or back surgery still need pain medication up to 6 months postoperatively due to ongoing pain symptoms. Improved monitoring of pain management is warranted, especially after discharge from hospital, to improve long-term results. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01488617); date of registration December 6th 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mismanagement of remifentanil leads to severe side effects such as opioid-induced tolerance and hyperalgesia. Recently studies revealed an alternative withdrawal method to limit these side effects. A gradual withdrawal of remifentanil seems to be associated with less pain. The hypothesis of this double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was that a gradual withdrawal of remifentanil would be associated with less immediate post-operative pain compared to after an abrupt discontinuation of remifentanil in patients who underwent thyroid surgery. Methods: This double-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary level hospital in Brussels (Belgium) from April until August 2017. 34 patients undergoing thyroid surgery were randomized and 29 patients completed the study. After randomization, patients undergoing thyroid surgery were allocated to two groups: one with an abrupt discontinuation of remifentanil after surgery and one with a gradual withdrawal of remifentanil after surgery. The primary outcome was the initial post-operative demand of analgesic medication. Results: Gradual withdrawal of remifentanil was associated with a delayed initial post-operative demand of analgesic medication (P = 0.006). The first morphine bolus was given after 76.3 +/− 89.0 min in the group with a gradual withdrawal of remifentanil versus after 9.0 +/− 13.5 min in the group with an abrupt discontinuation of remifentanil. However, overall morphine consumption, numeric rating scale scores, Ramsay Sedation Scale scores, and quality of recovery scores (QoR-40) were similar in both groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Though overall morphine consumption, numeric rating scale scores, Ramsay Sedation Scale scores, and quality of recovery scores (QoR-40) are not altered, a gradual withdrawal of remifentanil after thyroid surgery is safe and associated with a delayed initial post-operative demand of analgesic drugs. The withdrawal process does, however, require vigilance and training. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03110653 (PI: Luc Barvais; date of registration: 03/31/2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]