Search

Non-pharmacologic adjuncts to opioid analgesics for burn wound debridement enhance safety and cost effectiveness in care. The current study explored the feasibility of using a custom portable water-friendly immersive VR hardware during burn debridement in adults, and tested whether interactive VR would reduce pain more effectively than nature stimuli viewed in the same VR goggles.Forty-eight patients with severe burn injuries (44 adults and 4 children) had their burn injuries debrided and dressed in a wet wound care environment on Study Day 1, and 13 also participated in Study Day 2.The study used a within-subject design to test two hypotheses (one hypothesis per study day) with the condition order randomized. On Study Day 1, each individual (n = 44 participants) spent 5 min of wound care in an interactive immersive VR environment designed for burn care, and 5 min looking at still nature photos and sounds of nature in the same VR goggles. On Study Day 2 (n = 12 adult participants and one adolescent from Day 1), each participant spent 5 min of burn wound care with no distraction and 5 min of wound care in VR, using a new water-friendly VR system. On both days, during a post-wound care assessment, participants rated and compared the pain they had experienced in each condition. OUTCOME MEASURES ON STUDY DAYS 1 AND 2: Worst pain during burn wound care was the primary dependent variable. Secondary measures were ratings of time spent thinking about pain during wound care, pain unpleasantness, and positive affect during wound care.On Study Day 1, no significant differences in worst pain ratings during wound care were found between the computer-generated world (Mean = 71.06, SD = 26.86) vs. Nature pictures conditions (Mean = 68.19, SD = 29.26; t 1, NS). On secondary measures, positive affect (fun) was higher, and realism was lower during computer-generated VR. No significant differences in pain unpleasantness or "presence in VR" between the two conditions were found, however. VR VS. NO VR. (STUDY DAY 2): Participants reported significantly less worst pain when distracted with adjunctive computer generated VR than during standard wound care without distraction (Mean = 54.23, SD = 26.13 vs 63.85, SD = 31.50, t(11) = 1.91, p .05, SD = 17.38). In addition, on Study Day 2, "time spent thinking about pain during wound care" was significantly less during the VR condition, and positive affect was significantly greater during VR, compared to the No VR condition.The current study is innovative in that it is the first to show the feasibility of using a custom portable water-friendly immersive VR hardware during burn debridement in adults. However, contrary to predictions, interactive VR did not reduce pain more effectively than nature stimuli viewed in the same VR goggles.

Virtually all anesthesiologists care for patients who sustain traumatic injuries; however, the frequency with which operative anesthesia care is provided to this specific patient population is unclear. We sought to better understand the degree to which anesthesia providers participate in operative trauma care and how this differs by trauma center designation (levels I-V), using data from a comprehensive, regional database-the Washington State Trauma Registry (WSTR). We also sought to specifically assess operative anesthesia care frequency vis a vis the American College of Surgeons guidelines for continuous anesthesiology coverage for Level II trauma center accreditation.We conducted a retrospective analysis measuring the frequency of operative anesthesia care among patients enrolled in the WSTR. Univariate comparisons were made between trauma patients who had surgery during their admission and those who did not (medical management only). In addition, clinical factors associated with surgical intervention were measured. We also measured the average times from hospital admission to surgery and compared these times across trauma centers, grouped level I, II, and III-V.From 2004 to 2014, there were approximately 176,000 encounters meeting WSTR inclusion criteria. Approximately 60% of these trauma encounters included exposure to operative anesthesia during the admission. Among all surgical procedures during the trauma admission, approximately 33% occurred within a level I trauma center, 23% occurred within a level II trauma center, and 44% occurred in a trauma center with a III, IV, or V designation. The predominant procedure category during a trauma admission was orthopedic. The presence of hypotension on admission (P.01), increasing injury severity score (P.01) and higher emergency department Glasgow Coma Score (P.01) were all associated with surgical intervention during the trauma hospitalization, after adjustment for potential confounders. In level I trauma centers, for general surgical procedures, the median time to surgery was 2.5 hours; in level II trauma centers, the median time was 1.7 hours.This study highlights the frequent role anesthesiologists play in caring for patients who sustain traumatic injuries, in trauma centers levels I-V. In level II trauma centers, in-house anesthesiology coverage might have benefit for those patients requiring surgery within 1 hour, whereas the former American College of Surgeons requirement of 30-minute response time for out-of-hospital anesthesiology coverage is likely sufficient to provide satisfactory care to patients requiring surgery within 3 hours. Whether the increased cost of such in-house anesthesiology coverage at level II trauma centers is justified by its clinical benefit remains an unanswered question.

This pilot study investigated the use of virtual reality (VR) in laboring women. Twenty-seven women were observed for equivalent time during unmedicated contractions in the first stage of labor both with and without VR (order balanced and randomized). Numeric rating scale scores were collected after both study conditions. Significant decreases in sensory pain -1.5 (95% CI, -0.8 to -2.2), affective pain -2.5 (95% CI, -1.6 to -3.3), cognitive pain -3.1 (95% CI, -2.4 to -3.8), and anxiety -1.5 (95% CI, -0.8 to -2.3) were observed during VR. Results suggest that VR is a potentially effective technique for improving pain and anxiety during labor.

Pain from burn injuries is among the most excruciating encountered in clinical practice. Pharmacological methods often fail to achieve acceptable level of analgesia in these patients, especially during burn wound dressing and debridement. Virtual reality (VR) distraction is a promising analgesic technique that progressed significantly in the last decade with development of commercially available, low-cost, high-resolution, wide field-of-view, standalone VR devices that can be used in many clinical scenarios. VR has demonstrated clinical benefit as an adjunctive analgesic during burn wound dressing and other painful medical procedures. The technique has proven useful also in preparing patients for magnetic resonance imaging scans, particularly in claustrophobic patients. Modulation of pain-related brain activity at cortical and subcortical levels by VR, and its correlation with subjective improvement in various laboratory and clinical pain experiences has been demonstrated using multiple functional brain imaging studies including functional magnetic resonance imaging and brain perfusion single photon emission computed tomography.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Virtual reality (VR) is a promising tool for distraction analgesia. This study aims to compare brain perfusion patterns while patients were undergoing burn wound care in two conditions-VR distraction and control (NoVR). METHODS: With IRB approval, four patients hospitalized for acute burn care (three males and one female) participated in the study. All patients underwent wound care on two consecutive days; 1 day with standard analgesia and adjunctive VR, and the other day with standard analgesia alone, otherwise the wound care was very similar. Tc-99m ethyl cysteinate dimer was injected during wound care at the time of peak pain. Subjective patient reports on a 0-10 scale of pain intensity, time spent thinking about pain, and "fun" as well as opioid equivalent usage were analyzed. Voxel by voxel subtraction analysis of brain perfusion Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) images was performed at the group level. Statistical significance threshold was defined as P

Introduction The most recent ABA pain guidelines were developed over 13 years ago and have not been revised despite the changing practice of burn care. Coupled with the nationwide opioid epidemic there is a need to examine the available literature and revise the ABA practice guidelines for pain management. Methods A committee of a professional association was created to revise the previously published pain guidelines and consisted of a wide range of burn care providers including burn surgeons, burn nurses, anesthesiologists, a pharmacist, and a psychologist. A MEDLINE search of English-language publications from 1968 to 2018 was conducted using the keywords “burn pain,” “treatment,” and “assessment”. Selected other references were also used based on our evaluation of the greater pain literature. Studies were graded by 2 members of the committee using Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence (level 1 being the highest and level 5 the lowest). When there was a disagreement, a third member of the committee was used to resolve the disagreement. Our next step was to meet as a group and determine what our expert consensus was on a variety of topics related to treating pain in burn-injured patients. Finally, we assessed gaps in the knowledge that was available and determined research questions that would aid us in providing better recommendations for the care of the burn-injured patient. Results The literature search produced 189 papers, of which 95 were found to be relevant to the assessment and treatment of burn pain. From the greater pain literature, 115 references were included so a total of 210 papers were analyzed. The greatest number of papers were level 5 evidence (62, 29.5%) while only 30 (14.3%) were level 1. Following the review of the literature and meeting to establish consensus, 18 guidelines were established in the areas of pain assessment, opioid pain medications, non-opioid pain medications, regional anesthesia, and non-pharmacologic treatments. Conclusions While there is increasing research on various pain management modalities, the available studies are inadequate to create a true standard of care. Despite this, our committee reached a consensus using available literature from burn or other areas, expert experience and knowledge of pain physiology. Moving forward we call for more burn specific research into all modalities for burn pain control as well as research on multimodal pain control. Applicability of Research to Practice Burn pain is particularly difficult to manage and further study is needed to develop a standard of care for burn pain management.

Excessive pain during medical procedures is a widespread problem. Severe pain is especially problematic for severe burn patients who often endure dozens of wound cleanings/debridements and dozens of physical therapy sessions over a period of weeks or months after their initial injury. Pain medications help substantially, but are typically inadequate to control such intense pain from mechanical stimulation of pain receptors during severe burn wound cleaning/debridement. Immersive Virtual Reality (VR) distraction, a nonpharmacologic analgesic used in addition to traditional pain medications, may help bring pain down to more tolerable levels during medical procedures. Patients report 35–50% reductions in procedural pain while in a distracting immersive world, and fMRI brain scans show large drops in pain-related brain activity during virtual reality analgesia (www.vrpain.com). Contrary to concerns that distraction would not work with patients in severe to excruciating pain, preliminary results show that VR distraction is most effective for patients who need it the most, those with the highest pain intensity levels. VR is thought to reduce pain by blocking people’s view of the real world, directing patients’ attention into the virtual world, leaving less attention available to process incoming signals from pain receptors. Consistent with an attentional mechanism, results of laboratory studies show that highly immersive VR systems (hypothesized to be more attention demanding) reduce pain more effectively than less immersive VR systems. We review evidence from clinical and laboratory research studies exploring Virtual Reality analgesia, concentrating primarily on the work ongoing within our group. We briefly describe preliminary results of VR applications for settings other than burn patients; dental fears patients, venipuncture, cerebral palsy patients during physical therapy, older male patients undergoing endoscopic trans-urethral microwave thermo-therapy of an enlarged benign prostate, and patients in pain from a blunt force trauma injury. Finally, we briefly discuss recent and future improvements in VR distraction technology.

Immersive virtual reality (VR) distraction provides clinically effective pain relief and increases subjective reports of "fun" in medical settings of procedural pain. The goal of this study was to better describe the variable of "fun" associated with VR distraction analgesia using the circumplex model (pleasure/arousal) of affect.Seventy-four healthy volunteers (mean age, 29 years; 37 females) received a standardized, 18-minute, multimodal pain sequence (alternating thermal heat and electrical stimulation to distal extremities) while receiving immersive, interactive VR distraction. Subjects rated both their subjective pain intensity and fun using 0-10 Graphic Rating Scales, as well as the pleasantness of their emotional valence and their state of arousal on 9-point scales.Compared with pain stimulation in the control (baseline, no VR) condition, immersive VR distraction significantly reduced subjective pain intensity (P 0.001). During VR distraction, compared with those reporting negative affect, subjects reporting positive affect did so more frequently (41 percent versus 9 percent), as well as reporting both greater pain reduction (22 percent versus 1 percent) and fun scores (7.0 ± 1.9 versus 2.4 ± 1.4). Several factors-lower anxiety, greater fun, greater presence in the VR environment, and positive emotional valence-were associated with subjective analgesia during VR distraction.Immersive VR distraction reduces subjective pain intensity induced by multimodal experimental nociception. Subjects who report less anxiety, more fun, more VR presence, and more positive emotional valence during VR distraction are more likely to report subjective pain reduction. These findings indicate VR distraction analgesia may be mediated through anxiolytic, attentional, and/or affective mechanisms.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: This study’s goal is to examine the feasibility and acceptability of using VRM to impact the APP of adults in the inpatient setting. Aims include examining the: 1) feasibility of VRM for APP management; 2) acceptability of using VRM for APP management; and 3) experience of VRM for APP management. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: To comprehensively examine participants’ experience of using VRM for APP, this study will employ a convergent mixed-methods design in which living kidney donors (N = 45) will be recruited to serially use VRM during their hospital stay. Feasibility and acceptability will be evaluated using descriptive and inferential statistics evaluating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures taken pre-, post- and 1-hour post-VRM, PRO measures extracted from the participant’s electronic health record and data on VRM use. Semi-structured interviews will allow formulation of inferences based on participants’ experience of VRM for APP management and their insights on content, deployment, and clinical use of VRM. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: This in-process study expects: 1) an adequate sample of participants undergoing living kidney donor surgery who agree to enroll with retention of >90% of participants (Aim 1); 2) participants to report VRM as an acceptable and suitable treatment, feel “present” and interested in the VR environment, and feel comfortable using VRM in the hospital (Aim 2); and 3) to provide insight into participants’ experience of VRM for APP, understanding of extended VRM use for APP analgesia, examination of key variables affecting participants’ experience of VRM for APP and feedback about VRM procedures and protocol to inform future VRM use for APP management (Aim 3). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Results of the proposed study will inform future clinical testing and deployment of VRM, guide future use of VRM as an adjunct for inpatient APP management, and provide insight into inpatients’ experience of VRM for APP analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 2.8 million people are hospitalized in the USA annually for traumatic injuries, which include orthopedic and internal organ injuries. Early post-injury pain is predictive of poor outcomes, including inability to eventually return to work, and long-term psychological distress. The goal of the present study was to improve our scientific understanding of trauma-related pain by examining (1) the nature and frequency of inpatient trauma pain and (2) the associations between inpatient trauma pain, education, opioid analgesic equivalent use, pain catastrophizing, and sleep quality. METHOD: The study included 120 patients hospitalized at a major level I regional trauma center for the care of (1) closed long bone or calcaneus fractures and/or (2) an intraabdominal injury caused by blunt force trauma and requiring surgical repair (i.e., laparotomy). Medical records were reviewed to obtain demographic information and information about opioid use during hospitalization. In addition, participants were administered measures of average pain intensity, pain catastrophizing, and sleep quality. RESULTS: Education, opioid analgesic equivalents, catastrophizing, and poor sleep quality together accounted for 28% of the variance of average pain intensity over a 24-h period (p < .001), with each variable making a significant independent association. CONCLUSION: Two of the factors associated with pain intensity in the study sample—catastrophizing and sleep quality—are modifiable. It is therefore possible that interventions that target these variables in patients who are hospitalized for trauma could potentially result in better long-term outcomes, including a reduced risk for developing chronic pain. Research to evaluate this possibility is warranted.

Objective We conducted a randomized controlled study to determine the effects of virtual reality (VR) distraction on pain and range of motion (ROM) in patients hospitalized for burn care during active physical therapy exercises. Method Thirty-nine participants aged 15 to 66 (M = 36) years with significant burn injuries (mean burn size = 14% TBSA) participated. Under therapist supervision, using a within-subjects design, participants performed unassisted active ROM exercises both with and without VR distraction in a randomized order. Therapists provided participants with instructions but did not physically assist with stretches. Maximum active ROM was measured using a goniometer. A 0-100 Graphic Rating Scale (GRS) was used to assess the cognitive, affective, and sensory components of pain. A GRS rating of the amount of "fun" during stretching served as a measure of positive experience. Results Participants reported lower mean GRS ratings during VR, relative to No VR, for worst pain, pain unpleasantness, and time spent thinking about pain. They also reported having a more positive experience during VR than during No VR. However, patients did not show greater ROM during VR. Conclusion Immersive VR reduced pain during ROM exercises that were under the control of the patient. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Background Excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol-impaired driving remain significant public health problems, leading to considerable morbidity and mortality, particularly among younger populations. Methods Using data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), we employed a small areas modeling strategy to estimate the county-level annual prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving in every United States county for the years 2002 through 2012, the latest year in which county identifiers were publicly available. Results Alcohol-impaired driving episodes declined from 157.0 million in 2002 (prevalence 3.8%: 95% uncertainty interval [UI], 3.7%–4.0%) to 129.7 million in 2012 (prevalence 3.7%: 95% UI, 3.5%–3.8%), a 17.4% decline. There is considerable variation in the prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving at the county level, ranging from 2.0% in the Sitka City Borough of Alaska to 9.3% in Nance County, Nebraska. Clusters of increased alcohol-impaired driving were observed in Northern Wisconsin (Marinette, Florence, Forest, Vilas, Oneida, Iron counties), North Dakota (Cavalier, Pembina, Walsh, Ramsey, Nelson, Benson, Eddy counties) and Montana (Sheridan, Daniels, Roosevelt, Valley, Phillips, Petroleum, Garfield counties). Conclusions This study showed guarded progress with respect to the occurrence of alcohol-impaired driving episodes in the US from 2002 to 2012. Because these data rely on self-report, this likely represents an underestimate of the true prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving in the US. As the US continues to have several million episodes of alcohol-impaired driving each month, renewed efforts are needed to mitigate this high-risk health behavior.

Acute and procedural pain remain difficult for providers to treat. Like other complementary and alternative therapies, immersive virtual reality (VR) therapy has shown promising results. Although VR therapy for acute pain has been investigated since the 2000s, it is still in its infancy. Only recently have falling prices and increased accessibility made this technology available outside of academic institutions. This chapter explores the development, evidence, necessary requirements, and future directions of VR therapy, while addressing challenges faced when attempting to use VR therapy for acute and procedural pain.

Background Initial results of Washington State's quality improvement initiative addressing the management of blunt traumatic pediatric spleen injuries were published in 2008. In this update, we evaluated whether these effects were sustained over time. Methods Data from the Washington Trauma Registry for years 1999–2001 (pre-intervention), 2003–2005 (post-intervention), and 2012–2014 (follow-up) were used in a retrospective cohort study. Children between ages 0 to 14 years who were hospitalized with a traumatic blunt spleen injury were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to account for patient, injury, and hospital characteristics. Results Overall, splenectomies continued to be less common with 8.3% of pediatric patients receiving splenectomies in the follow-up period compared with 14.3% and 7.2% in the preintervention and post-intervention periods ( p = 0.034). After adjustment, splenectomies remained less likely to be performed in both post-intervention (OR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.16–0.90) and follow-up periods (OR = 0.29; 95% CI = 0.12–0.70) compared to pre-intervention. Children were much more likely to be cared for at pediatric trauma hospitals in the follow-up period (OR = 5.13; 95% CI = 2.79–9.43) after adjustment. Conclusions Evaluation of this statewide quality improvement initiative showed that positive changes in management practices persist. This evidence suggests that statewide quality improvement initiatives can be sustainable with minimal ongoing effort. Level of evidence Level III.

Background The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between exposure to methylprednisolone (MP) and improvements in motor function among patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI). MP therapy for patients with TSCI is controversial because of the current conflicting evidence documenting its benefits and risks. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study from September 2007 to November 2014 of 311 patients with acute TSCI who were enrolled into a model systems database of a regional, level I trauma center. We linked outcomes and covariate data from the model systems database with MP exposure data from the electronic medical record. The primary outcomes were rehabilitation discharge in American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) motor scores (sum of 10 key muscles bilaterally as per International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury, range, 0-100) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor scores (range, 13-91). Secondary outcomes measured infection risk and gastrointestinal (GI) complications among MP recipients. For the primary outcomes, multivariable linear regression was used. Results There were 160 MP recipients and 151 nonrecipients. Adjusting for age, sex, weight, race, respective baseline motor score, surgical intervention, injury level, ASIA Impairment Scale (AIS) grade, education, and insurance status, there was no association with improvement in discharge ASIA motor function or FIM motor score among MP recipients: -0.34 (95% CI, -2.8, 2.1) and 0.75 (95% CI, -2.8, 4.3), respectively. Adjusting for age, sex, race, weight, injury level, and receipt of surgery, no association with increased risk of infection or GI complications was observed. Conclusions This retrospective cohort study involving patients with acute TSCI observed no short-term improvements in motor function among MP recipients compared with nonrecipients. Our findings support current recommendations that MP use in this population should be limited.

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management of traumatic blunt splenic injury is preferred over splenectomy because of improved outcomes and reduced complications. However, variability in treatment is previously reported with respect to hospital profit types and ownership. METHODS: Our study objectives were to investigate the past decade's trends in pediatric splenic injury management and to determine whether previously reported disparities by hospital type have changed. We analyzed data from the Kid's Inpatient Database from Healthcare Cost and Utility Project for Years 2000, 2003, 2006, and 2009. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the likelihood of receiving splenectomy in different hospital profit and ownership types. Patients 18 years and younger admitted with blunt splenic injury (DRG International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev.-Clinical Modification code 865) were included. Treatment was dichotomized into nonoperative management, defined as initial attempt at nonoperative management, and operative management, defined as splenectomy within 1 day of admission. RESULTS: Of 17,044 patient records, 11,893 participants were studied. Not-for-profit hospitals demonstrated a higher rate of nonoperative management than for-profit hospitals in 2000 (83.8% vs. 71.0 %). Both not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals increased the use of nonoperative management, with a narrower disparity observed by 2009 (87.5% vs. 84.6%). The use of splenectomy was reduced significantly between 2000 and 2003 (odds ratio, 0.66; weighted 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81). The rate of nonoperative management in children's hospitals remained very high across the study period (98.6% in 2009) and continued to be the benchmark for pediatric spleen injury management. CONCLUSION: Improvement was observed in nonoperative management rates for pediatric spleen injuries in both not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals. However, general hospitals still fail to reach the target of 90% nonoperative management. Further investigations are needed to facilitate optimal management of such children in general hospitals. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic and prognostic study, level III.