Search

IntroductionCurrent treatments for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain are suboptimal. Discovery of robust prognostic markers separating patients who recover from patients with persistent pain and disability is critical for developing patient-specific treatment strategies and conceiving novel approaches that benefit all patients. Given that chronic pain is a biopsychosocial process, this study aims to discover and validate a robust prognostic signature that measures across multiple dimensions in the same adolescent patient cohort with a computational analysis pipeline. This will facilitate risk stratification in adolescent patients with chronic MSK pain and more resourceful allocation of patients to costly and potentially burdensome multidisciplinary pain treatment approaches.Methods and analysisHere we describe a multi-institutional effort to collect, curate and analyse a high dimensional data set including epidemiological, psychometric, quantitative sensory, brain imaging and biological information collected over the course of 12 months. The aim of this effort is to derive a multivariate model with strong prognostic power regarding the clinical course of adolescent MSK pain and function.Ethics and disseminationThe study complies with the National Institutes of Health policy on the use of a single internal review board (sIRB) for multisite research, with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Review Board as the reviewing IRB. Stanford’s IRB is a relying IRB within the sIRB. As foreign institutions, the University of Toronto and The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) are overseen by their respective ethics boards. All participants provide signed informed consent. We are committed to open-access publication, so that patients, clinicians and scientists have access to the study data and the signature(s) derived. After findings are published, we will upload a limited data set for sharing with other investigators on applicable repositories.Trial registration numberNCT04285112.

BACKGROUND Given that variation exists in health care utilization, expenditure, and medical practice, there is a paucity of data on variation within the practice of anesthesia. The Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN) data lend itself to explore whether different medical practice patterns exist and if there are nerve blocks with more local anesthetic dosing variation than others. The primary aim of this study was to quantify variation in single injection caudal block dosing, and the secondary aim was to explore possible causes for variation (eg, number of blocks performed versus geographic location). METHODS We queried the PRAN database for single injection caudal blocks in children

Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We summarised efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of these types of drugs for treating pain using randomised controlled trials: in people of any age, with any type of pain, and for any treatment duration. Primary outcomes were 30% and 50% reduction in pain intensity, and AEs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies, and the overall quality of evidence using GRADE. Studies of 7 days treatment duration were analysed separately. We included 36 studies (7217 participants) delivering cannabinoids (8 studies), cannabis (6 studies), and CBM (22 studies); all had high and/or uncertain risk of bias. Evidence of benefit was found for cannabis 7 days (risk difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.12; 6 trials, 1484 patients, very low-quality evidence). No other beneficial effects were found for other types of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in our primary analyses; 81% of subgroup analyses were negative. Cannabis, nabiximols, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol had more AEs than control. Studies in this field have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had GRADE rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. We have little confidence in the estimates of effect. The evidence neither supports nor refutes claims of efficacy and safety for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in the management of pain.

The President of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) established a Taskforce on Cannabis and Cannabinoid Analgesia, to systematically examine the evidence on (i) analgesic pharmacology of cannabinoids and preclinical evidence on their efficacy in animal models of injury-related or pathological persistent pain, (ii) the clinical efficacy of cannabis, cannabinoids and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) for pain, (iii) harms related to long-term use of cannabinoids, as well as (iv) societal issues and policy implications related to the use of these compounds for pain management. Here, we summarize key knowledge gaps identified in the Taskforce outputs and propose a research agenda for generating high-quality evidence on the topic. The systematic assessment of preclinical and clinical literature identified gaps in rigor of study design and reporting across the translational spectrum. We provide recommendations to improve the quality, rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of preclinical and clinical research on cannabis and cannabinoids for pain, as well as for the conduct of systematic reviews on the topic. Gaps related to comprehensive understanding of the endocannabinoid system and cannabinoid pharmacology, including pharmacokinetics and drug formulation aspects, are discussed. We outline key areas where high quality clinical trials with cannabinoids are needed. Important remaining questions about long-term and short-term safety of cannabis and cannabinoids are emphasized. Finally, regulatory, societal and policy challenges associated with medicinal and non-medicinal use of cannabis are highlighted, with recommendations for improving patient safety and reducing societal harms in the context of pain management.

The increase in opioid-related deaths in the United States (and other countries) has prompted a national debate in medicine about the appropriateness of opioids for the treatment of acute and chronic pain, and specifically in children, if medical opioid use causes or increases the risk of opioid use disorder (OUD) later in life. Some in the medical community and in government advocate withholding opioids from children after an arbitrary number of days of treatment, regardless of diagnosis. Here, I argue that opioid experimentation and misuse is no more common in children and adolescents today than 2 or 3 decades ago, that there is no compelling evidence that appropriate medical use of opioids leads to OUD, and that the epidemic of inadequately treated pain in children remains the more compelling issue.

Fewer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are conducted for chronic or recurrent pain in pediatric populations compared with adult populations; thus, data to support treatment efficacy in children are limited. This article evaluates the design features and reporting practices of RCTs for chronic and recurrent pain that are likely unique to, or particularly important in, a pediatric population to promote improvements in the evidence base for pediatric pain treatments. Areas covered include outcome measure selection and reporting and reporting of adverse events and challenges to recruitment and retention. A search of PubMed and EMBASE identified primary publications describing RCTs of treatments for select chronic and recurrent pain conditions in children or adolescents published between 2000 and 2017. Only 49% of articles identified a primary outcome measure. The primary outcome measure assessed pain intensity in 38% of the trials, specifically measure by verbal rating scale (13%), faces pain scale (11%), visual analogue scale (9%), or numeric rating scale (5%). All of the CONSORT harms reporting recommendations were fulfilled by 10%. The goal of this article is to promote comprehensive reporting of pediatric pain RCTs to improve the design of future trials, facilitate conduction of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and better inform clinical practice. PERSPECTIVE: This review of chronic and recurrent pediatric pain trials demonstrates inadequacies in the reporting quality of key features specifically important to pediatric populations. It provides recommendations that address these shortcomings to promote continued efforts toward improving the quality of the design and publication of future pediatric clinical pain trials.

This narrative review represents an output from the International Association for the Study of Pain's global task force on the use of cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management, informed by our companion systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies in this area. Our aims in this review are (1) to describe the value of studying cannabinoids and endogenous cannabinoid (endocannabinoid) system modulators in preclinical/animal models of pain; (2) to discuss both pain-related efficacy and additional pain-relevant effects (adverse and beneficial) of cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators as they pertain to animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain; and (3) to identify important directions for future research. In service of these goals, this review (1) provides an overview of the endocannabinoid system and the pharmacology of cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators, with specific relevance to animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain; (2) describes pharmacokinetics of cannabinoids in rodents and humans; and (3) highlights differences and discrepancies between preclinical and clinical studies in this area. Preclinical (rodent) models have advanced our understanding of the underlying sites and mechanisms of action of cannabinoids and the endocannabinoid system in suppressing nociceptive signaling and behaviors. We conclude that substantial evidence from animal models supports the contention that cannabinoids and endocannabinoid system modulators hold considerable promise for analgesic drug development, although the challenge of translating this knowledge into clinically useful medicines is not to be underestimated.

Children and adolescents with chronic pain are best managed by an interdisciplinary team. In cases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), the interdisciplinary team consists of a pain management specialist, such as an anesthesiologist or physiatrist, a physical therapist, an occupational therapist, a pain psychologist, and an orthopaedist. It may also include other professions, such as a gastroenterologist, psychiatrist, nurse practitioner, nutritionist, endocrinologist, acupuncturist, or social worker. Key factors include rapid recognition of CRPS and the initiation of appropriate treatment, both for the pain syndrome as well as for the orthopaedic injury. Intensive therapies have been shown to be effective in treating CRPS in children. Children often are more responsive to noninvasive treatments than adults.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the antinociceptive efficacy of cannabinoids, cannabis-based medicines, and endocannabinoid system modulators on pain-associated behavioural outcomes in animal models of pathological or injury-related persistent pain. In April 2019, we systematically searched 3 online databases and used crowd science and machine learning to identify studies for inclusion. We calculated a standardised mean difference effect size for each comparison and performed a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the impact of study design characteristics and reporting of mitigations to reduce the risk of bias. We meta-analysed 374 studies in which 171 interventions were assessed for antinociceptive efficacy in rodent models of pathological or injury-related pain. Most experiments were conducted in male animals (86%). Antinociceptive efficacy was most frequently measured by attenuation of hypersensitivity to evoked limb withdrawal. Selective cannabinoid type 1, cannabinoid type 2, nonselective cannabinoid receptor agonists (including delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha agonists (predominantly palmitoylethanolamide) significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in a broad range of inflammatory and neuropathic pain models. Fatty acid amide hydrolase inhibitors, monoacylglycerol lipase inhibitors, and cannabidiol significantly attenuated pain-associated behaviours in neuropathic pain models but yielded mixed results in inflammatory pain models. The reporting of criteria to reduce the risk of bias was low; therefore, the studies have an unclear risk of bias. The value of future studies could be enhanced by improving the reporting of methodological criteria, the clinical relevance of the models, and behavioural assessments. Notwithstanding, the evidence supports the hypothesis of cannabinoid-induced analgesia.

Hip denervation comprising radiofrequency lesioning of the obturator and femoral articular branches is used in adults with refractory hip pain who are not surgical candidates. Persistent hip pain occurs infrequently in pediatric patients, and there are limited data on the safety and efficacy of this procedure in a pediatric population. We provide a case report of a successful ultrasound and fluoroscopic-guided hip denervation procedure in an 11-year-old girl with persistent right hip pain after septic arthritis refractory to conservative and surgical management. At an 18-week follow-up, hip denervation provided improvement in pain, mobility, and reduced opioid consumption by 20%.

Clinical trials to test the safety and efficacy of analgesics across all pediatric age cohorts are needed to avoid inappropriate extrapolation of adult data to children. However, the selection of acute pain models and trial design attributes to maximize assay sensitivity, by pediatric age cohort, remains problematic. Acute pain models used for drug treatment trials in adults are not directly applicable to the pediatric age cohorts-neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents. Developmental maturation of metabolic enzymes in infants and children must be taken into consideration when designing trials to test analgesic treatments for acute pain. Assessment tools based on the levels of cognitive maturation and behavioral repertoire must be selected as outcome measures. Models and designs of clinical trials of analgesic medications used in the treatment of acute pain in neonates, infants, toddlers, children, and adolescents were reviewed and discussed at an Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) Pediatric Pain Research Consortium consensus meeting. Based on extensive reviews and continuing discussions, the authors recommend a number of acute pain clinical trial models and design attributes that have the potential to improve the study of analgesic medications in pediatric populations. Recommendations are also provided regarding additional research needed to support the use of other acute pain models across pediatric age cohorts.

Objective Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) is an uncommon sequel of lumbar puncture in children. When conservative treatment with bed rest, hydration, and caffeine are ineffective, epidural blood patches are recommended and are generally effective. The purpose of this report was to highlight that when lumbar epidural blood patches fail to eliminate PDPH, diagnostic evaluation should be performed and alternative treatment sought. Case Report An unusual case is described of an 11-year-old boy with PDPH, which was successfully managed with a ventral (anterior) epidural blood patch and epidural saline infusion after headache and other symptoms failed to resolve after conservative treatment and conventionally performed blood patches. Conclusions Ineffectiveness of conservative measures and epidural blood patches performed posteriorly to resolve PDPH should lead the physician both to question the diagnosis of PDPH by pursuing radiographic confirmation of a cerebral spinal fluid leak and, furthermore, identification of its location to best direct further therapy.

We know little about the safety or efficacy of pharmacological medicines for children and adolescents with chronic pain, despite their common use. Our aim was to conduct an overview review of systematic reviews of pharmacological interventions that purport to reduce pain in children with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) or chronic cancer-related pain (CCRP). We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, EMBASE, and DARE for systematic reviews from inception to March 2018. We conducted reference and citation searches of included reviews. We included children (0-18 years of age) with CNCP or CCRP. We extracted the review characteristics and primary outcomes of ≥30% participant-reported pain relief and patient global impression of change. We sifted 704 abstracts and included 23 systematic reviews investigating children with CNCP or CCRP. Seven of those 23 reviews included 6 trials that involved children with CNCP. There were no randomised controlled trials in reviews relating to reducing pain in CCRP. We were unable to combine data in a meta-analysis. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low, and we have very little confidence in the effect estimates. The state of evidence of randomized controlled trials in this field is poor; we have no evidence from randomised controlled trials for pharmacological interventions in children with cancer-related pain, yet cannot deny individual children access to potential pain relief. Prospero ID: CRD42018086900.

WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: Complications in pediatric regional anesthesia are rare, so a large sample size is necessary to quantify risk. The Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network contains data on more than 100,000 blocks administered at more than 20 children's hospitals. This study analyzed the risk of major complications associated with regional anesthesia in children.This is a prospective, observational study of routine clinical practice. Data were collected on every regional block placed by an anesthesiologist at participating institutions and were uploaded to a secure database. The data were audited at multiple points for accuracy.There were no permanent neurologic deficits reported (95% CI, 0 to 0.4:10,000). The risk of transient neurologic deficit was 2.4:10,000 (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.6:10,000) and was not different between peripheral and neuraxial blocks. The risk of severe local anesthetic systemic toxicity was 0.76:10,000 (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.6:10,000); the majority of cases occurred in infants. There was one epidural abscess reported (0.76:10,000, 95% CI, 0 to 4.8:10,000). The incidence of cutaneous infections was 0.5% (53:10,000, 95% CI, 43 to 64:10,000). There were no hematomas associated with neuraxial catheters (95% CI, 0 to 3.5:10,000), but one epidural hematoma occurred with a paravertebral catheter. No additional risk was observed with placing blocks under general anesthesia. The most common adverse events were benign catheter-related failures (4%).The data from this study demonstrate a level of safety in pediatric regional anesthesia that is comparable to adult practice and confirms the safety of placing blocks under general anesthesia in children.

* Abbreviations: CDC — : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention SUD — : substance use disorder It is impossible to watch broadcast news or read a newspaper without encountering a story of the “opioid epidemic,” an unfortunate phrase used by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)1 from whom “epidemic” carries an emotive connotation. The national interest in the opioid epidemic began when the New England Journal of Medicine,2 followed by other sources,3–7 documented increasing opioid-related deaths in the United States. With media attention (Fig 1) the topic became politicized, later followed by regulations, statutes, and litigation against the pharmaceutical industry in an attempt to solve the “crisis,” while punishing pharmaceutical manufacturers for causing this epidemic. FIGURE 1 The number of media publications using the word “opioid” from May 2008 to May 2018, as reported by Google Trends. Media attention produced many experts, pundits, and politicians who offer simplistic blameworthy origins for the problem (eg, overprescription of opioids, deceptive marketing of opioids, The Joint Commission, and/or an inability of Americans to endure discomfort), as well as simplistic solutions (eg, draconian restriction of prescribing, mandatory use of prescription drug monitoring programs, nonopioid alternatives to opioids, acupuncture, meditation, and/or yoga). Against this background, Chung et al8 have contributed a publication in this journal, “Outpatient Opioid Prescriptions for Children and Opioid-Related Adverse Events.” In this editorial, we will comment on their findings and put them into what we believe is the proper context. But before we do, there are 2 caveats: First is that the authors of this editorial are not champions of opioid use, per se. We know that opioids are associated with many untoward side effects and are potentially lethal. But we believe there is a reason why opioids have been used to treat pain since the Sumerians 5000 years ago: no other analgesics equal in potency and effect have been discovered … Address correspondence to Elliot J. Krane, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305. E-mail: ekrane{at}stanford.edu

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Complications in pediatric regional anesthesia are rare, so a large sample size is necessary to quantify risk. The Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network contains data on more than 100,000 blocks administered at more than 20 children’s hospitals. This study analyzed the risk of major complications associated with regional anesthesia in children. Methods This is a prospective, observational study of routine clinical practice. Data were collected on every regional block placed by an anesthesiologist at participating institutions and were uploaded to a secure database. The data were audited at multiple points for accuracy. Results There were no permanent neurologic deficits reported (95% CI, 0 to 0.4:10,000). The risk of transient neurologic deficit was 2.4:10,000 (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.6:10,000) and was not different between peripheral and neuraxial blocks. The risk of severe local anesthetic systemic toxicity was 0.76:10,000 (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.6:10,000); the majority of cases occurred in infants. There was one epidural abscess reported (0.76:10,000, 95% CI, 0 to 4.8:10,000). The incidence of cutaneous infections was 0.5% (53:10,000, 95% CI, 43 to 64:10,000). There were no hematomas associated with neuraxial catheters (95% CI, 0 to 3.5:10,000), but one epidural hematoma occurred with a paravertebral catheter. No additional risk was observed with placing blocks under general anesthesia. The most common adverse events were benign catheter-related failures (4%). Conclusions The data from this study demonstrate a level of safety in pediatric regional anesthesia that is comparable to adult practice and confirms the safety of placing blocks under general anesthesia in children.

Background and Objectives Some topics in the clinical management of regional anesthesia in children remain controversial. To evaluate and come to a consensus regarding some of these topics, The European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA) and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) developed a joint committee practice advisory on pediatric regional anesthesia (PRA). Methods Representatives from both ASRA and ESRA comprised the joint committee practice advisory on PRA. Evidence-based recommendations were based on a systematic search of the literature. In cases where no literature was available, expert opinion was elicited. Experts selected controversial topics in PRA. Results The performance of PRA under general anesthesia or deep sedation is associated with acceptable safety and should be viewed as the standard of care (Evidence B2 and Evidence B3). Because of the difficulty interpreting a negative test dose, the use of test dosing should remain discretionary (Evidence B4). The use of either air–loss of resistance or saline–loss of resistance techniques is supported by expert opinion, but the literature supporting one technique over the other is sparse and controversial; when used appropriately, each technique may be safely used in children. There are no current evidence-based data that the use of RA increases the risk for acute compartment syndrome or delays its diagnosis in children. Conclusions High-level evidence is not yet available for the topics evaluated, and most recommendations are based on Evidence B studies. The ESRA/ASRA recommendations intend to provide guidance for the safe practice of regional anesthesia in children.

We describe an instance in which complete paraplegia was evident immediately postoperatively after apparently uneventful lumbar epidural-general anesthesia in a patient with Morquio Type A syndrome (Morquio A) with moderate thoracic spinal stenosis.A 16-yr-old male with Morquio A received lumbar epidural-general anesthesia for bilateral distal femoral osteotomies. Preoperative imaging had revealed a stable cervical spine and moderate thoracic spinal stenosis with a mild degree of spinal cord compression. Systolic blood pressure (BP) was maintained within 20% of the pre-anesthetic baseline value. The patient sustained a severe thoracic spinal cord infarction. The epidural anesthetic contributed to considerable delay in the recognition of the diagnosis of paraplegia.This experience leads us to suggest that, in patients with Morquio A, it may be prudent to avoid the use of epidural anesthesia without very firm indication, to support BP at or near baseline levels in the presence of even moderate spinal stenosis, and to avoid flexion or extension of the spinal column in intraoperative positioning. If the spinal cord/column status is unknown or if the patient is known to have any degree of spinal stenosis, we suggest that the same rigorous BP support practices that are typically applied in other patients with severe spinal stenosis, especially stenosis with myelomalacia, should apply to patients with Morquio A and that spinal cord neurophysiological monitoring should be employed. In the event that cord imaging is not available, e.g., emergency procedures, it would be prudent to assume the presence of spinal stenosis.

It is increasingly common for children with mitochondrial disease to undergo surgery and anesthesia. Although many different anesthetics have been used successfully for these patients, serious, unexpected complications have occurred during and following anesthetic exposure. This has led to the widespread opinion among anesthesiologists that mitochondrial patients are at increased risk from the stress of surgery and anesthesia. Defects in function of the mitochondrial electron transport chain can lead to striking hypersensitivity to volatile anesthetics in children. Despite this striking finding, the connection between mitochondrial function and response to anesthetics is unknown. We review here the anesthetic considerations for patients with mitochondrial defects. In addition, we present an approach to anesthetic care of these patients at our institutions.

Background Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as important We designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents. As the leading cause of morbidity in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (that is pain lasting three months or longer) can occur in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications (nociceptive, neuropathic, or idiopathic) relating to genetic conditions, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and for other unknown reasons. Antiepileptic (anticonvulsant) drugs, which were originally developed to treat convulsions in people with epilepsy, have in recent years been used to provide pain relief in adults for many chronic painful conditions and are now recommended for the treatment of chronic pain in the WHO list of essential medicines. Known side effects of antiepileptic drugs range from sweating, headache, elevated temperature, nausea, and abdominal pain to more serious effects including mental or motor function impairment. Objectives To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of antiepileptic drugs used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews as well as online clinical trial registries. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, by any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing any antiepileptic drug with placebo or an active comparator. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat for one additional event, using standard methods if data were available. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables. Main results We included two studies with a total of 141 participants (aged 7 to 18 years) with chronic neuropathic pain, complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-I), or fibromyalgia. One study investigated pregabalin versus placebo in participants with fibromyalgia (107 participants), and the other study investigated gabapentin versus amitriptyline in participants with CRPS-I or neuropathic pain (34 participants). We were unable to perform any quantitative analysis. Risk of bias for the two included studies varied, due to issues with randomisation (low to unclear risk), blinding of outcome assessors (low to unclear risk), reporting bias (low to unclear risk), the size of the study populations (high risk), and industry funding in the 'other' domain (low to unclear risk). We judged the remaining domains of sequence generation, blinding of participants and personnel, and attrition as low risk of bias. Primary outcomes One study (gabapentin 900 mg/day versus amitriptyline 10 mg/day, 34 participants, for 6 weeks) did not report our primary outcomes (very low-quality evidence). The second study (pregabalin 75 to 450 mg/day versus placebo 75 to 450 mg/day, 107 participants, for 15 weeks) reported no significant change in pain scores for pain relief of 30% or greater between pregabalin 18/54 (33.3%), and placebo 16/51 (31.4%), P = 0.83 (very low-quality evidence). This study also reported Patient Global Impression of Change, with the percentage of participants feeling "much or very much improved" with pregabalin 53.1%, and placebo 29.5% (very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low for one of two reasons: due to the fact that there was no evidence to support or refute the use of the intervention, or that there were too few data and the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Secondary outcomes In one small study, adverse events were uncommon: gabapentin 2 participants (2 adverse events); amitriptyline 1 participant (1 adverse event) (6-week trial). The second study reported a higher number of adverse events: pregabalin 38 participants (167 adverse events); placebo 34 participants (132 adverse events) (15-week trial) (very low-quality evidence). Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent in both studies: pregabalin (4 participants), placebo (4 participants), gabapentin (2 participants), and amitriptyline (1 participant) (very low-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were reported in both studies. One study reported only one serious adverse event (cholelithiasis and major depression resulting in hospitalisation in the pregabalin group) and the other study reported no serious adverse events (very low-quality evidence). There were few or no data for our remaining secondary outcomes (very low-quality evidence). We downgraded the evidence by three levels to very low due to too few data and the fact that the number of events was too small to be meaningful. Authors' conclusions This review identified only two small studies, with insufficient data for analysis. As we could undertake no meta-analysis, we were unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. Similarly, we could not comment on our remaining secondary outcomes: Carer Global Impression of Change; requirement for rescue analgesia; sleep duration and quality; acceptability of treatment; physical functioning; and quality of life. We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some antiepileptics, such as gabapentin and pregabalin, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of antiepileptic drugs to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Background Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. They bind to opioid receptors in the central nervous system (mu, kappa, delta, and sigma) and can be agonists, antagonists, mixed agonist-antagonists, or partial agonists. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most high-income countries, but access may be restricted in low- and middle-income countries. For example, opioids currently available in the UK include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are used in varying doses (generally based on body weight for paediatric patients) by means of parenteral, transmucosal, transdermal, or oral administration (immediate release or modified release). To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is a lower dose gradually titrated to effect in the child. Objectives To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of opioids used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table. Main results No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome. Authors' conclusions There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some opioids, such as morphine and codeine, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.

Current approaches to classification of chronic pain conditions suffer from the absence of a systematically implemented and evidence-based taxonomy. Moreover, existing diagnostic approaches typically fail to incorporate available knowledge regarding the biopsychosocial mechanisms contributing to pain conditions. To address these gaps, the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations Innovations Opportunities and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American Pain Society (APS) have joined together to develop an evidence-based chronic pain classification system called the ACTTION-APS Pain Taxonomy. This paper describes the outcome of an ACTTION-APS consensus meeting, at which experts agreed on a structure for this new taxonomy of chronic pain conditions. Several major issues around which discussion revolved are presented and summarized, and the structure of the taxonomy is presented. ACTTION-APS Pain Taxonomy will include the following dimensions: 1) core diagnostic criteria; 2) common features; 3) common medical comorbidities; 4) neurobiological, psychosocial, and functional consequences; and 5) putative neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms, risk factors, and protective factors. In coming months, expert working groups will apply this taxonomy to clusters of chronic pain conditions, thereby developing a set of diagnostic criteria that have been consistently and systematically implemented across nearly all common chronic pain conditions. It is anticipated that the availability of this evidence-based and mechanistic approach to pain classification will be of substantial benefit to chronic pain research and treatment. Perspective The ACTTION-APS Pain Taxonomy is an evidence-based chronic pain classification system designed to classify chronic pain along the following dimensions: 1) core diagnostic criteria; 2) common features; 3) common medical comorbidities; 4) neurobiological, psychosocial, and functional consequences; and 5) putative neurobiological and psychosocial mechanisms, risk factors, and protective factors.

Background and Objectives The impact of the patient state at time of placement of regional blocks on the risk of complications is unknown. Current opinion is based almost entirely on case reports, despite considerable interest in the question. Analyzing more than 50,000 pediatric regional anesthesia blocks from an observational prospective database, we determined the rate of adverse events in relation to the patient’s state at the time of block placement. Primary outcomes considered were postoperative neurologic symptoms (PONSs) and local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). Secondary outcome was extended hospital stay due to a block complication. Methods The Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network is a multi-institutional research consortium that was created with an emphasis on rigorous, prospective, and complete data collection including a data validation and audit process. For the purpose of the analysis, blocks were divided in major groups by single injection versus continuous and by block location. Rates were determined in aggregate for these groups and classified further based on the patient’s state (general anesthesia [GA] without neuromuscular blockade [NMB], GA with NMB, sedated, and awake) at the time of block placement. Results Postoperative neurological symptoms occurred at a rate of 0.93/1000 (confidence interval [CI], 0.7–1.2) under GA and 6.82/1000 (CI, 4.2–10.5) in sedated and awake patients. The only occurrence of PONSs lasting longer than 6 months (PONSs-L) was a small sensory deficit in a sedated patient (0.019/1000 [CI, 0–0.1] for all, 0.48/1000 [CI, 0.1–2.7] for sedated patients). There were no cases of paralysis. There were 5 cases of LAST or 0.09/1000 (CI, 0.03–0.21). The incidence of LAST in patients under GA (both with and without NMB) was 0.08/1000 (CI, 0.02–0.2) and 0.34/1000 (CI, 0–1.9) in awake/sedated patients. Extended hospital stays were described 18 times (0.33/1000 [CI, 0.2–0.53]). The rate for patients under GA without NMB was 0.29/1000 (CI, 0.13–0.48); GA with NMB, 0.29/1000 (CI, 0.06–0.84); sedated, 1.47/1000 (CI, 0.3–4.3); and awake, 1.15/1000 (CI, 0.02–6.4). Conclusions The placement of regional anesthetic blocks in pediatric patients under GA is as safe as placement in sedated and awake children. Our results provide the first prospective evidence for the pediatric anesthesia community that the practice of placing blocks in anesthetized patients should be considered safe and should remain the prevailing standard of care. Prohibitive recommendations based on anecdote and case reports cannot be supported.

Background and Objectives A practice advisory on regional anesthesia in children in 2008, published in this journal, supported the placement of regional blocks in children under general anesthesia (GA). Interscalene brachial plexus (IS) blocks were specifically excluded, based on case reports (level 3 evidence) of injury, which occurred predominantly in heavily sedated or anesthetized adult patients. Apart from case reports, there is a paucity of data that explore the safety of IS blocks placed in patients under GA, and the level of evidence available on which to base recommendations is limited. Methods Querying the database of the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN), we report on the incidence of postoperative neurological symptoms, local anesthetic systemic toxicity, and other reported adverse events in children receiving IS blocks under GA or sedated. Results A total of 518 interscalene blocks were performed, 390 under GA and 123 with the patient sedated or awake (5 cases had missing status); 472 of these were single injection, and 46 involved the placement of infusion catheters. Eighty-eight percent of blocks were placed with ultrasound guidance, 7.7% with no location device, and 2.5% with a nerve stimulator. No local anesthetic systemic toxicity, postoperative neurological symptoms, cardiovascular complications, or dural puncture was reported in this cohort. There were 1 vascular puncture and 1 postoperative infection. These negative results are compatible with 0 to 7.7/1000 events for each of these complications for IS blocks placed under GA. There was no paralysis, motor block, or sensory deficit beyond the expected block duration time. Conclusions Analyzing interscalene blocks in children placed under GA, we identified no serious adverse events. The upper limit of the confidence interval for these events is similar to that in awake or sedated adults receiving IS blocks. Based on these prospectively collected data, placement of IS blocks under GA in children is no less safe than placement in awake adults, calling into question the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine advisory proscribing GA during IS block in pediatric patients.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Pain is an experience that affects many people worldwide and is associated with higher mortality and lower quality of life. Cannabinoid, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are thought to reduce pain, but a proliferation of different products has led to variability in trials, creating a challenge when determining the assessment of efficacy in systematic reviews. We will conduct 2 systematic reviews commissioned by the International Association for the Study of Pain Task Force on the use of cannabinoids, cannabis, and CBMs for pain management: first, an overview review of systematic reviews to summarise the evidence base and second, a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of cannabinoids, cannabis, and CBMs. In these reviews we will determine the harm and benefit of CBM from the current literature and will interpret the findings in light of the quality of evidence and reviews included. We will search online databases and registries in any language for systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials. We will include studies that evaluate any cannabinoid or CBM vs any control for people with acute and chronic pain. Our primary outcomes for both reviews are the number of participants achieving (1) a 30% and (2) 50% reduction in pain intensity, (3) moderate improvement, and (4) substantial improvement. A number of secondary outcome measures will also be included. We will assess risk of bias and quality of evidence. We will analyse data using fixed and random effect models, with separate comparators for cannabis and CBMs. Prospero ID (CRD42019124710; CRD42019124714).

There has been an increasing tendency for anesthesiologists to be responsible for providing sedation or anesthesia during chest CT imaging in young children. Anesthesia-related atelectasis noted on chest CT imaging has proven to be a common and troublesome problem, affecting image quality and diagnostic sensitivity.To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a standardized anesthesia, lung recruitment, controlled-ventilation technique developed at our institution to prevent atelectasis for chest CT imaging in young children.Fifty-six chest CT scans were obtained in 42 children using a research-based intubation, lung recruitment and controlled-ventilation CT scanning protocol. These studies were compared with 70 non-protocolized chest CT scans under anesthesia taken from 18 of the same children, who were tested at different times, without the specific lung recruitment and controlled-ventilation technique. Two radiology readers scored all inspiratory chest CT scans for overall CT quality and atelectasis. Detailed cardiorespiratory parameters were evaluated at baseline, and during recruitment and inspiratory imaging on 21 controlled-ventilation cases and 8 control cases.Significant differences were noted between groups for both quality and atelectasis scores with optimal scoring demonstrated in the controlled-ventilation cases where 70% were rated very good to excellent quality scans compared with only 24% of non-protocol cases. There was no or minimal atelectasis in 48% of the controlled ventilation cases compared to 51% of non-protocol cases with segmental, multisegmental or lobar atelectasis present. No significant difference in cardiorespiratory parameters was found between controlled ventilation and other chest CT cases and no procedure-related adverse events occurred.Controlled-ventilation infant CT scanning under general anesthesia, utilizing intubation and recruitment maneuvers followed by chest CT scans, appears to be a safe and effective method to obtain reliable and reproducible high-quality, motion-free chest CT images in children.

While decreased ATP production and redox imbalance are central to mitochondrial disease pathogenesis, efforts to develop effective treatments have been hampered by the lack of imaging markers of oxidative stress. In this study we wished to determine if Tc99m-HMPAO, a SPECT imaging marker of cerebral blood flow and glutathione/protein thiol content, could be used to monitor the effect(s) of EPI-743, an oral redox modulating, para-benzoquinone based therapeutic for mitochondrial disease. We hypothesized that treatment changes in HMPAO uptake would be inversely proportional to changes in oxidative stress within the brain and directly correlate to clinical response to EPI-743 therapy. Twenty-two patients with mitochondrial disease were treated with EPI-743. Each underwent baseline and 3-month Tc99m-HMPAO SPECT scanning along with clinical/neurologic evaluations. Diseases treated were: Leigh syndrome (n=7), polymerase γ deficiency (n=5), MELAS (n=5), Friedreich ataxia (n=2), Kearns-Sayre syndrome, Pearson syndrome, and mtDNA depletion syndrome. Neuro-anatomic uptake analyses of HMPAO were performed with NeuroGam™ (Segami Corp.) statistical software and clinical response was assessed by the Newcastle Paediatric Mitochondrial Disease Scale or Newcastle Mitochondrial Disease Adult Scale depending on patient age. For all 22 patients there was a significant linear correlation between the change in cerebellar uptake of HMPAO and the improvement in Newcastle score (r=0.623, **p=0.00161). The MELAS subgroup showed a significant relationship of whole brain uptake (n=5, r=0.917, *p=0.028) to improvement in Newcastle score. We conclude that Tc99m-HMPAO SPECT scanning has promise as a general marker of the oxidative state of the brain and its response to redox modulating therapies. Further studies will be needed to confirm these findings in a more homogenous study population.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia is increasingly used in pediatric patients to provide postoperative analgesia and to supplement intraoperative anesthesia. The Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network was formed to obtain highly audited data on practice patterns and complications and to facilitate collaborative research in regional anesthetic techniques in infants and children. METHODS: We constructed a centralized database to collect detailed prospective data on all regional anesthetics performed by anesthesiologists at the participating centers. Data were uploaded via a secure Internet connection to a central server. Data were rigorously audited for accuracy and errors were corrected. All anesthetic records were scrutinized to ensure that every block that was performed was captured in the database. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were tracked until their resolution. Blocks were categorized by type and as single- injection or catheter (continuous) blocks. RESULTS: A total of 14,917 regional blocks, performed on 13,725 patients, were accrued from April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2010. There were no deaths or complications with sequelae lasting >3 months (95% CI 0–2:10,000). Single- injection blocks had fewer adverse events than continuous blocks, although the most frequent events (33% of all events) in the latter group were catheter- related problems. Ninety- five percent of blocks were placed while patients were under general anesthesia. Single- injection caudal blocks were the most frequently performed (40%), but peripheral nerve blocks were also frequently used (35%), possibly driven by the widespread use of ultrasound (83% of upper extremity and 69% of lower extremity blocks). CONCLUSIONS: Regional anesthesia in children as commonly performed in the United States has a very low rate of complications, comparable to that seen in the large multicenter European studies. Ultrasound may be increasing the use of peripheral nerve blocks. Multicenter collaborative networks such as the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network can facilitate the collection of detailed prospective data for research and quality improvement. (Anesth Analg 2012;115: 1353–64)

The pediatric adaptation of the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry (Peds-CHOIR) is a free, open-source, flexible learning health care system (LHS) that meets the call by the Institute of Medicine for the development of national registries to guide research and precision pain medicine. This report is a technical account of the first application of Peds-CHOIR with 3 aims: (1) to describe the design and implementation process of the LHS; (2) to highlight how the clinical system concurrently cultivates a research platform rich in breadth (eg, clinic characteristics) and depth (eg, unique patient- and caregiver-reporting patterns); and (3) to demonstrate the utility of capturing patient-caregiver dyad data in real time, with dynamic outcomes tracking that informs clinical decisions and delivery of treatments. Technical, financial, and systems-based considerations of Peds-CHOIR are discussed. Cross-sectional retrospective data from patients with chronic pain (N = 352; range, 8-17 years; mean, 13.9 years) and their caregivers are reported, including National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains (mobility, pain interference, fatigue, peer relations, anxiety, and depression) and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Consistent with the literature, analyses of initial visits revealed impairments across physical, psychological, and social domains. Patients and caregivers evidenced agreement in observable variables (mobility); however, caregivers consistently endorsed greater impairment regarding internal experiences (pain interference, fatigue, peer relations, anxiety, and depression) than patients' self-report. A platform like Peds-CHOIR highlights predictors of chronic pain outcomes on a group level and facilitates individually tailored treatment(s). Challenges of implementation and future directions are discussed.

Analgesic trials pose unique scientific, ethical, and practical challenges in pediatrics. Participants in a scientific workshop sponsored by the US Food and Drug Administration developed consensus on aspects of pediatric analgesic clinical trial design. The standard parallel-placebo analgesic trial design commonly used for adults has ethical and practical difficulties in pediatrics, due to the likelihood of subjects experiencing pain for extended periods of time. Immediate-rescue designs using opioid-sparing, rather than pain scores, as a primary outcome measure have been successfully used in pediatric analgesic efficacy trials. These designs maintain some of the scientific benefits of blinding, with some ethical and practical advantages over traditional designs. Preferred outcome measures were recommended for each age group. Acute pain trials are feasible for children undergoing surgery. Pharmacodynamic responses to opioids, local anesthetics, acetaminophen, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs appear substantially mature by age 2 years. There is currently no clear evidence for analgesic efficacy of acetaminophen or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in neonates or infants younger than 3 months of age. Small sample designs, including cross-over trials and N of 1 trials, for particular pediatric chronic pain conditions and for studies of pain and irritability in pediatric palliative care should be considered. Pediatric analgesic trials can be improved by using innovative study designs and outcome measures specific for children. Multicenter consortia will help to facilitate adequately powered pediatric analgesic trials.

Neuropathic pain is relatively uncommon in children. Although some syndromes closely resemble those found in adults, the incidence and course of the condition can vary substantially in children, depending on developmental status and contextual factors. There are some neuropathic pain syndromes that are rare and relatively unique to the pediatric population. This article discusses the array of neuropathic pain conditions in children and available treatment strategies. Data are limited by small numbers and few randomized controlled trials. Research and clinical implications are discussed.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty assessing pain has been cited as one of the primary reasons for infrequent and inadequate assessment and analgesia for children with cognitive impairment (CI). Several behavioral observational pain tools have been shown to have good psychometric properties for pain assessment in this population; however, routine clinical use may depend largely on their pragmatic qualities. We designed this study to evaluate pragmatic attributes or clinical utility properties of three recently developed pain assessment tools for children with CI. METHODS: A sample of clinicians from three medical centers were asked to review 15 videotaped observations of children with CI, recorded during their first three postoperative days during participation in a previous study. Participants scored pain using the revised-Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (r-FLACC) tool (individualized for the child during the previous study) for five observations, the noncommunicative Non-Communicating Children’s Pain Checklist-Postoperative Version (NCCPC-PV) for five, and the Nursing Assessment of Pain Intensity (NAPI) for five observations. After their review of all segments, participants completed the Clinical Utility Attributes Questionnaire (CUAQ) ranking three attributes of clinical utility; complexity, compatibility, and relative advantage. RESULTS: Five physicians and 15 nurses comprised the sample. There was excellent agreement between the coded pain scores (i.e., mild, moderate, severe pain) assigned using all tools and r-FLACC scores assigned by original observers (88%–98% exact agreement; 0.71–0.96). The internal consistency or reliability of the CUAQ was supported by high values for each of the subscales ( 0.84–0.93). Subscale and total CUAQ scores were higher for the r-FLACC and NAPI compared with the NCCPC-PV. The r-FLACC had similar scores for complexity, but slightly higher scores for compatibility, relative advantage, and total utility compared with the NAPI. CONCLUSIONS: We found that clinicians rated the complexity, compatibility, relative advantage, and overall clinical utility higher for the r-FLACC and NAPI compared with the NCCPC-PV, suggesting that these tools may be more readily adopted into clinical practice. (Anesth Analg 2008;106:72‐8)

In the last 25 years there has been an increase in the use of regional blocks in children. This is due to several converging factors: a better knowledge of the pharmacology of local anesthetic agents in the child, the availability of equipment adapted for children’s anatomy, the recognition of the remarkable hemodynamic stability of the young child during an neuraxial block, as well as the recognition of the need to treat pain not just in the operative period, but in the postoperative period of time as well. The safety of performing regional anesthetic blocks in children depends on the practitioner’s recognition of three important differences between adults and children: (1) their frequent inability to allow the performance of a regional anesthetic block unless under general anesthesia (which is a subject of controversy that is beyond the scope of this review), (2) the anatomic differences between adults and children, and (3) the pharmacologic/pharmacodynamic differences between adults and children. The purpose of this review is to examine the pharmacology of the local anesthetic agents commonly used in children.

An ideal taxonomy of chronic pain would be applicable to people of all ages. Developmental sciences focus on lifespan developmental approaches, and view the trajectory of processes in the life course from birth to death. In this article we provide a review of lifespan developmental models, describe normal developmental processes that affect pain processing, and identify deviations from those processes that lead to stable individual differences of clinical interest, specifically the development of chronic pain syndromes. The goals of this review were 1) to unify what are currently separate purviews of “pediatric pain,” “adult pain,” and “geriatric pain,” and 2) to generate models so that specific elements of the chronic pain taxonomy might include important developmental considerations. Perspective A lifespan developmental model is applied to the forthcoming Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks—American Pain Society Pain Taxonomy to ascertain the degree to which general “adult” descriptions apply to pediatric and geriatric populations, or if age- or development-related considerations need to be invoked.

Dear Editor, The following letter describes two pilot studies testing the feasibility of immersive virtual reality therapy on pediatric patients with unilateral lower limb complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). In these studies, patients completed target-hitting tasks in virtual reality using novel avatar bodies. Patients completed all sessions without adverse effects and both patients and parents were enthusiastic about the treatment. We discuss how function was tracked within and across sessions, and next steps. Because virtual reality (VR) replaces sensory information from the physical world, users may partially replace their sense of presence in the physical world, or in their physical body. This quality of presence was first used to treat pain using distraction ⇓ and has also been used to produce relaxation or increased engagement (e.g., in physical therapy). A second quality that may be utilized in pain treatment is flexibility: the ability to change the relationship between a participant's appearance and/or actions in the physical world, and the appearance and actions that this participant perceives virtually ⇓. Leveraging the flexibility of virtual reality allows the creation of avatars whose movements differ from that of the participants' own, allowing more radical interventions than mirroring the unaffected limb. Following Lanier's concept of homuncular flexibility ⇓, researchers have demonstrated that users can learn to identify with avatars that have very different bodies ⇓ and learn to control these avatars very rapidly ⇓. We propose that using such novel bodies may also be therapeutic for pain. Four patients with pediatric CRPS, confirmed by Budapest Criteria ⇓, were enrolled in this study, after institutional review board (IRB) approval, consent, and assent. All patients were receiving concurrent multidisciplinary therapy including physical and occupational therapy, psychological support, and medical visits. All therapies, including medications, were kept constant throughout the study …

A practice advisory on regional anesthesia in children in 2008, published in this journal, supported the placement of regional blocks in children under general anesthesia (GA). Interscalene brachial plexus (IS) blocks were specifically excluded, based on case reports (level 3 evidence) of injury, which occurred predominantly in heavily sedated or anesthetized adult patients. Apart from case reports, there is a paucity of data that explore the safety of IS blocks placed in patients under GA, and the level of evidence available on which to base recommendations is limited.Querying the database of the Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network (PRAN), we report on the incidence of postoperative neurological symptoms, local anesthetic systemic toxicity, and other reported adverse events in children receiving IS blocks under GA or sedated.A total of 518 interscalene blocks were performed, 390 under GA and 123 with the patient sedated or awake (5 cases had missing status); 472 of these were single injection, and 46 involved the placement of infusion catheters. Eighty-eight percent of blocks were placed with ultrasound guidance, 7.7% with no location device, and 2.5% with a nerve stimulator. No local anesthetic systemic toxicity, postoperative neurological symptoms, cardiovascular complications, or dural puncture was reported in this cohort. There were 1 vascular puncture and 1 postoperative infection. These negative results are compatible with 0 to 7.7/1000 events for each of these complications for IS blocks placed under GA. There was no paralysis, motor block, or sensory deficit beyond the expected block duration time.Analyzing interscalene blocks in children placed under GA, we identified no serious adverse events. The upper limit of the confidence interval for these events is similar to that in awake or sedated adults receiving IS blocks. Based on these prospectively collected data, placement of IS blocks under GA in children is no less safe than placement in awake adults, calling into question the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine advisory proscribing GA during IS block in pediatric patients.

Rosenfeld et al in their recent article "Office Insertion of Tympanostomy Tubes without Anesthesia in Young Children" describe using a "papoose board for restraint" while performing a procedure resulting in severe pain for a significant number of children: a myringotomy and tube insertion. In 2016, it is inappropriate to perform elective painful procedures in children without treatment to avoid or minimize pain. We strongly disagree with the authors' conclusion "that office insertion of tubes in young children is a feasible alternative to general anesthesia for caregivers and clinicians who are comfortable with this choice."

A premature newborn infant is being treated in a neonatal intensive care unit, quite ill and subject to an array of invasive procedures. We wish to do all we can to minimize that individual’s suffering. Which analgesics may be effective? Are they safe? Are they metabolized by the youngest of human beings in a predictable way? Clearly, to answer these questions it is necessary to conduct clinical trials on children within this population. But is it ethical? Is it feasible? That is the tension experienced by pediatric practitioners who wish to invoke evidence to ease children’s pain in a safe and effective manner. The magnitude of the problem may be appreciated when one examines the epidemiology of pain in children. A prospective study conducted in neonatal intensive care settings showed that over the first 14 days of admission, each premature infant experienced a median of 75 (range: 3–364) painful procedures and ten (range: 0–51) painful procedures per day of hospitalization. Among the total of 42,413 painful procedures observed, newborns were provided with pharmacologic therapy specifically targeting the procedural pain only 2.1% of the time [1]. This study, and others in the field, tells us little about other, more ongoing pain in neonates, such as disease-related and postoperative pain. Of course, beyond the neonatal period, infants and children commonly experience acute pain due to surgery or injuries. In addition to acute pain, 5–23% of school-age children experience significant recurrent pain, such as headache, chest pain, abdominal pain and limb pain [2–4]. Children also endure chronic daily pain from headache disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, inflammatory and autoimmune disease, post-traumatic neuropathic pain conditions including complex regional pain syndrome, small fiber neuropathies and pain due to malignancies and other life-limiting diseases.

Little debate exists regarding the effectiveness of regional anesthesia in improving surgical outcomes and providing pain management for patients after surgery, trauma, or for certain medical illnesses. There is also little debate regarding the desirability of extending these benefits to patients in the pediatric age range. However, contention arises regarding the safety of such an extrapolation, particularly when one contemplates performing certain regional anesthetics on children rendered pharmacologically unconscious to overcome their fear and lack of voluntary cooperation. Here we will review the ethical issues that surround this consideration. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

The impact of the patient state at time of placement of regional blocks on the risk of complications is unknown. Current opinion is based almost entirely on case reports, despite considerable interest in the question. Analyzing more than 50,000 pediatric regional anesthesia blocks from an observational prospective database, we determined the rate of adverse events in relation to the patient's state at the time of block placement. Primary outcomes considered were postoperative neurologic symptoms (PONSs) and local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST). Secondary outcome was extended hospital stay due to a block complication.The Pediatric Regional Anesthesia Network is a multi-institutional research consortium that was created with an emphasis on rigorous, prospective, and complete data collection including a data validation and audit process. For the purpose of the analysis, blocks were divided in major groups by single injection versus continuous and by block location. Rates were determined in aggregate for these groups and classified further based on the patient's state (general anesthesia [GA] without neuromuscular blockade [NMB], GA with NMB, sedated, and awake) at the time of block placement.Postoperative neurological symptoms occurred at a rate of 0.93/1000 (confidence interval [CI], 0.7-1.2) under GA and 6.82/1000 (CI, 4.2-10.5) in sedated and awake patients. The only occurrence of PONSs lasting longer than 6 months (PONSs-L) was a small sensory deficit in a sedated patient (0.019/1000 [CI, 0-0.1] for all, 0.48/1000 [CI, 0.1-2.7] for sedated patients). There were no cases of paralysis. There were 5 cases of LAST or 0.09/1000 (CI, 0.03-0.21). The incidence of LAST in patients under GA (both with and without NMB) was 0.08/1000 (CI, 0.02-0.2) and 0.34/1000 (CI, 0-1.9) in awake/sedated patients. Extended hospital stays were described 18 times (0.33/1000 [CI, 0.2-0.53]). The rate for patients under GA without NMB was 0.29/1000 (CI, 0.13-0.48); GA with NMB, 0.29/1000 (CI, 0.06-0.84); sedated, 1.47/1000 (CI, 0.3-4.3); and awake, 1.15/1000 (CI, 0.02-6.4).The placement of regional anesthetic blocks in pediatric patients under GA is as safe as placement in sedated and awake children. Our results provide the first prospective evidence for the pediatric anesthesia community that the practice of placing blocks in anesthetized patients should be considered safe and should remain the prevailing standard of care. Prohibitive recommendations based on anecdote and case reports cannot be supported.

Although former preterm birth infants are at risk for postoperative apnea after surgery, it is unclear whether the same is true of full-term birth infants. We evaluated the incidence of apnea in 60 full-term neonates and infants undergoing pyloromyotomy both before and after anesthesia. All subjects were randomized to a remifentanil- or halothane-based anesthetic. Apnea was defined by the presence of prolonged apnea (>15 s) or frequent brief apnea, as observed on the pneumocardiogram. Apnea occurred before surgery in 27% of subjects and after surgery in 16% of subjects, with no significant difference between subjects randomized to remifentanil or halothane anesthesia. This apnea was primarily central in origin, occurred throughout the recording epochs, and was associated with severe desaturation in some instances. Of the subjects with normal preoperative pneumocardiograms, new onset postoperative apnea occurred in 3 (23%) of 13 subjects who received halothane-based anesthetics versus 0 (0%) of 22 subjects who received remifentanil-based anesthetics (P = 0.04). Thus, postoperative apnea can follow anesthesia in otherwise healthy full-term infants after pyloromyotomy and is occasionally severe with desaturation. New-onset postoperative apnea was not seen with a remifentanil-based anesthetic.