Search

Background Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges–Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests and quantile regression. Results The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4–8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2–8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (−4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events. Conclusions In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0–24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption., BACKGROUND: Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods.METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression.RESULTS: The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events.CONCLUSIONS: In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption.

Evidence in perioperative care is insufficient. There is an urgent need for large perioperative research programmes, including pragmatic randomised trials, testing daily clinical treatments and unanswered question, thereby providing solid evidence for effects of interventions given to a large and growing number of patients undergoing surgery and anaesthesia. This may be achieved through large collaborations. Collaboration for Evidence-based Practice and Research in Anaesthesia (CEPRA) is a novel collaborative research network founded to pursue evidence-based answers to major clinical questions in perioperative medicine. The aims of CEPRA are to (1) improve clinical treatment and outcomes and optimise the use of resources for patients undergoing anaesthesia and perioperative care, and (2) disseminate results and inform caretakers, patients and relatives, and policymakers of evidence-based treatments in anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. CEPRA is inclusive in its concept. We aim to extend our collaboration with all relevant clinical collaborators and patient associations and representatives. Although initiated in Denmark, CEPRA seeks to develop an international network infrastructure, for example, with other Nordic countries. The work of CEPRA will follow the highest methodological standards. The organisation aims to structure and optimise any element of the research collaboration to reduce economic costs and harness benefits from well-functioning research infrastructure. This includes successive continuation of trials, harmonisation of outcomes, and alignment of data management systems. This paper presents the initiation and visions of the CEPRA network. CEPRA aims to be inclusive, patient-focused, methodologically sound, and to optimise all aspects of research logistics. This will translate into faster research conduct, reliable results, and accelerated clinical implementation of results, thereby benefiting millions of patients whilst being cost and labour-s

A nurse-led critical care outreach service (NLCCOS) can support staff education and decision making in the wards, managing at-risk patients with ward nurses to avoid further deterioration. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients identified as at-risk, the types of treatments they required to prevent deterioration, the education initiated by the NLCCOS, and the perceived experiences of ward nurses. This prospective observational pilot study using mixed methods took place in one medical and one surgical ward at a university hospital in Denmark. Participants were patients nominated as at-risk by head nurses in each ward, the ward nurses, and nurses from the NLCCOS. In total, 100 patients were reviewed, 51 medical and 49 surgical patients, over a six-month period. Most patients (70%) visited by the NLCCOS had a compromised respiratory status, and ward nurses received teaching and advice regarding interventions. Sixty-one surveys were collected from ward nurses on their learning experience. Over 90% (n = 55) of nurses believed they had learned from, and were more confident with, managing patients following the experience. The main educational areas were respiratory therapy, invasive procedures, medications, and benefits of mobilization. Further research needs to measure the impact of the intervention on patient outcomes and MET call frequency over time in larger samples.

Background: The patient-relevant minimal important difference for opioid consumption remains undetermined, despite its frequent use as primary outcome in trials on postoperative pain management. A minimal important difference is necessary to evaluate whether significant trial results are clinically relevant. Further, it can be used as effect size to ensure that trials are powered to find clinically relevant effects. By exploring the dose–response relationship between postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects, we aim to approximate the minimal important difference in opioid consumption anchored to opioid-related adverse effects. Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of aggregated data from two clinical trials (PANSAID NCT02571361 and DEX2TKA NCT03506789) and one observational cohort study (Pain Map NCT02340052) on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome is the Hodges–Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption between patients with no opioid-related adverse effects and patients experiencing the mildest degree of one or more opioid-related adverse effects (i.e., mild nausea, sedation and/or dizziness or vomiting). Secondary outcomes include the Hodges–Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption that corresponds to one point on a cumulated opioid-related adverse event 0–10 scale. Further, we will explore the proportion of patients that experience opioid-related adverse effects for consecutive opioid dose intervals of 2 mg iv morphine equivalents. Quantile regression will be used to assess any significant interactions with patient baseline characteristics. Conclusions: This study will hopefully bring us one step closer to determining relevant opioid reductions and thereby improve our understanding of intervention effects and planning of future trials.

Background Pre-anaesthesia assessment is crucial to ensure the quality and safety of anaesthesia and surgery. However, despite being very common and essential for many patients undergoing elective surgery, little is known about the different pre-anaesthesia assessment approaches. Hence, this article outlines a study protocol for a scoping review aiming to, systematically, map the literature on pre-anaesthetic assessment approaches and outcomes, synthesise existing evidence, and identify knowledge gaps for future research. Methods We will conduct a scoping review of all study designs following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Moreover, the five steps set forth by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac will guide the review process. Studies with adults (≥18 years) scheduled for elective surgery are included. Data regarding trial characteristics, patients, clinicians performing the pre-anaesthetic assessment, interventions and outcomes are included using a combination of Covidence and Excel. Quantitative data are summarised using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data are presented through a descriptive synthesis. Conclusion The outlined scoping review will provide a synthesis of the literature, which can support the development of new evidence-based practices for safe perioperative management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery., Background: Pre-anaesthesia assessment is crucial to ensure the quality and safety of anaesthesia and surgery. However, despite being very common and essential for many patients undergoing elective surgery, little is known about the different pre-anaesthesia assessment approaches. Hence, this article outlines a study protocol for a scoping review aiming to, systematically, map the literature on pre-anaesthetic assessment approaches and outcomes, synthesise existing evidence, and identify knowledge gaps for future research. Methods: We will conduct a scoping review of all study designs following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Moreover, the five steps set forth by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by Levac will guide the review process. Studies with adults (≥18 years) scheduled for elective surgery are included. Data regarding trial characteristics, patients, clinicians performing the pre-anaesthetic assessment, interventions and outcomes are included using a combination of Covidence and Excel. Quantitative data are summarised using descriptive statistics, and qualitative data are presented through a descriptive synthesis. Conclusion: The outlined scoping review will provide a synthesis of the literature, which can support the development of new evidence-based practices for safe perioperative management of adult patients undergoing elective surgery.

Background: Sufficient pain management is a necessity and can play an important role in patients’ contentment. Aims: To investigate the instituted postoperative pain treatment, patients’ levels of pain, opioid consumption, and patient contentment, supplemented with a questionnaire based on the International Pain Outcome (IPO). Methods: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at Zealand University Hospital Køge, Denmark (ZUHK) from March 8, 2017, to January 7, 2019, aiming for a consecutive inclusion of 200 patients, 40 from five major surgical procedures. The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (REG-121-2016) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03080272). The Research Ethics Committee of the Zealand Region was consulted, but approval was not needed according to Danish law (J.nr. 16-000014). Results: We included 189 patients in total. We found a significant number of patients that did not achieve “no worse than mild pain” (Numeric Rating Scale ≤3) across surgical procedures. The provided pain treatment was heterogenic and inconsistent even among individuals who underwent similar surgical procedures. Although patients did not achieve “no worse than mild pain” (Numeric Rating Scale ≤3), the majority stated that they were content with their pain treatment. Conclusions: The analgesic treatment varied between procedures and patients and a significant number of patients did not achieve “no worse than mild pain” (Numeric Rating Scale ≤3). A significant association between patient contentment and experience of severe pain, pain relief, and involvement in own pain treatment, was found.

Patients undergoing spinal surgery are at high risk of acute and persistent postoperative pain. Therefore, adequate pain relief is crucial. This systematic review aimed to provide answers about best-proven postoperative analgesic treatment for patients undergoing lumbar 1- or 2-level fusions for degenerative spine diseases. We performed a search in PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was opioid consumption after 24 hours postoperatively. We performed meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, and Grading of Recommendations assessment to accommodate systematic errors. Forty-four randomized controlled trials were included with 2983 participants. Five subgroups emerged: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), epidural, ketamine, local infiltration analgesia, and intrathecal morphine. The results showed a significant reduction in opioid consumption for treatment with NSAID (P < 0.0008) and epidural (P < 0.0006) (predefined minimal clinical relevance of 10 mg). Concerning secondary outcomes, significant reductions in pain scores were detected after 6 hours at rest (NSAID [P < 0.0001] and intrathecal morphine [P < 0.0001]), 6 hours during mobilization (intrathecal morphine [P = 0.003]), 24 hours at rest (epidural [P < 0.00001] and ketamine [P < 0.00001]), and 24 hours during mobilization (intrathecal morphine [P = 0.03]). The effect of wound infiltration was nonsignificant. The quality of evidence was low to very low for most trials. The results from this systematic review showed that some analgesic interventions have the capability to reduce opioid consumption compared with control groups. However, because of the high risk of bias and low evidence, it was impossible to recommend a "gold standard" for the analgesic treatment after 1- or 2-level spinal fusion surgery.

Background: We review the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and clonidine as perineural or systemic adjuvants for brachial plexus blocks (BPB). Methods: We included randomised controlled trials on upper limb surgery with BPBs in adults, comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or either drug with placebo. The primary outcome was duration of analgesia. Secondary outcomes included adverse and serious adverse events. The review was conducted using Cochrane standards, trial sequential analyses (TSA) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: We included 101 trials with 6248 patients. Overall, duration of analgesia was prolonged with both clonidine (176 min [TSA adj. 95% CI: 118, 205, p <.00001; 33 trials]) and dexmedetomidine (292 min [TSA adj. 95% CI: 245 329, p <.00001; 53 trials]), but was longer for dexmedetomidine than clonidine (205 min [TSA adj. 95% CI: 157, 254, p <.00001; 19 trials]). Compared with placebo, dexmedetomidine was associated with bradycardia (RR 4.2 [95% CI 2.2, 8.3]), and both clonidine (RR 4.5 [95% CI 1.1, 18.3]) and dexmedetomidine (RR 3.9 [95% CI 2.0, 7.5]) were associated with hypotension. Serious adverse events were mostly related to block technique. GRADE-rated quality of evidence was low or very low. Conclusion: Alpha2-receptor agonists used as adjuvants for BPBs lead to a prolonged duration of analgesia, with dexmedetomidine as the most efficient. Alpha2-receptor agonists were associated with increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events. The quality of evidence was low to very low.

Background: Patients undergoing lumbar discectomy usually suffer from moderate to severe pain during the postoperative period. Multimodal, or balanced analgesia, is the leading treatment principle for managing postoperative pain. The rationale is to achieve optimal pain treatment through additive or synergistic effects of several non-opioid analgesics, and thereby, reducing the need for postoperative opioids, facilitating early mobilization and functional rehabilitation. For discectomy surgery, evidence of both the benefit and harm of different analgesic interventions is unclear. Objectives: This systematic review aims to investigate the benefits and harms of analgesic interventions in adult patients after lumbar discectomy. Methods: This protocol for a systematic review is written according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov for published and ongoing trials. All randomized clinical trials assessing the postoperative analgesics effect of an intervention with a control or no-intervention group undergoing lumbar discectomy will be included. Two authors will independently screen trials for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk-of-bias 2 tool. We will analyse the data using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis will be performed according to the Cochrane guidelines. We will present our primary findings in a ‘summary of findings’ table and evaluate the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Discussion: This systematic review will assess the benefits and harms of analgesic interventions after lumbar discectomy and have the potential to improve best practices and advance research.

Background: Postoperative pain has a major influence on older adults’ rehabilitation. There is a lack of knowledge regarding how older adults return to daily living after discharge. Aims: The primary aim of this study was to examine the association between moderate to severe pain during the first 5 postoperative days and pain 1 year after discharge in older adults after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Design: This was a prospective cohort study. Methods: The study was conducted from August 2019 to February 2020, in a University Hospital in Denmark and included a 5-day diary and a telephone interview postoperatively. The following main areas were investigated: pain levels, pain management, side effects from opioids, mood, fatigue, quality of sleep, and functional level. Associations between moderate to severe pain levels at 5 days after surgery and persistent pain at 1 year were evaluated through correlation analyses. Results: A total of 70 THA older adults returned the diary postoperatively. Thereafter, 62 participated in a 1-year follow-up interview. No associations were found between pain levels 5 days postoperatively and after 1 year. Fifteen older adults reported hip pain was present still 1 year after surgery, and 14 patients still used analgesics on daily basis. No correlation was found between levels of pain and quality of sleep 1 year after surgery. Conclusions: No association was found between older adults with moderate to severe levels of pain during the first 5 days postoperatively and 1 year after surgery. Proactive follow-up strategies for older adults after discharge following THA may be indicated to promote optimal rehabilitation.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic called for rapidly considerable changes in the healthcare system. Healthcare professionals from different departments within the hospital settings were enrolled in the emergency preparedness. This study, therefore, aimed to explore the healthcare professionals’ experiences attending the ICU-preparedness and caring for patients with COVID-19 during the initial stage of the pandemic. Methods A descriptive explorative qualitative study was conducted by interviewing healthcare professionals during spring 2020, exploring their experiences as part of the ICU-preparedness team and caring for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Healthcare professionals from different departments were recruited by purposive sampling. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis. Findings Sixteen nurses and four physicians from a university hospital in Denmark participated. The analysis revealed three main themes and eight sub-themes. The main themes were (1) Professionalism in work-life (adaption, the patient’s welfare, insecurity, and security), (2) Community Spirit (responsibility and contribution), and (3) Institutional organisation (the role of management, loss of freedom, and information). Interpretation Despite work specialities and professions, the participants reported a uniformity of similar experiences of uncertainties, but also a sense of community arose during the first phase of COVID-19. Recommendations To ensure resilience and mental health, and well-being for the healthcare professionals, comprehensive support should be provided. Guidelines for interventions and training are necessary to promote preparedness and reduce psychological stress., BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic called for rapidly considerable changes in the healthcare system. Healthcare professionals from different departments within the hospital settings were enrolled in the emergency preparedness. This study, therefore, aimed to explore the healthcare professionals' experiences attending the ICU-preparedness and caring for patients with COVID-19 during the initial stage of the pandemic.METHODS: A descriptive explorative qualitative study was conducted by interviewing healthcare professionals during spring 2020, exploring their experiences as part of the ICU-preparedness team and caring for patients with COVID-19 in the ICU. Healthcare professionals from different departments were recruited by purposive sampling. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using content analysis.FINDINGS: Sixteen nurses and four physicians from a university hospital in Denmark participated. The analysis revealed three main themes and eight sub-themes. The main themes were (1) Professionalism in work-life (adaption, the patient's welfare, insecurity, and security), (2) Community Spirit (responsibility and contribution), and (3) Institutional organisation (the role of management, loss of freedom, and information).INTERPRETATION: Despite work specialities and professions, the participants reported a uniformity of similar experiences of uncertainties, but also a sense of community arose during the first phase of COVID-19.RECOMMENDATIONS: To ensure resilience and mental health, and well-being for the healthcare professionals, comprehensive support should be provided. Guidelines for interventions and training are necessary to promote preparedness and reduce psychological stress.

Objective: To investigate the literature in terms of describing new ways to organize pain treatment for patients with chronic nonmalignant pain and the effect on opioid consumption. Design: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, REHABDATA, PsycINFO, and EMBASE using the methodology recommended by Cochrane. The data extraction was performed by Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Time frame. The quality of the studies was rated by the Study Quality Assessment Tool or the revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence when suitable. Setting: Primary care clinics. Patients/participants: Patients with chronic nonmalignant pain in high-dose opioid treatment connected to a primary care clinic or the employed healthcare professionals. Main outcome measures: The primary aim of this Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review was to investigate if an organizational change in the follow-up procedures has an effect on high-dose opioid consumption in patients with long-term nonmalignant pain. Results: Out of 2,146 articles, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, mainly of an observational character. The majority of the studies were rated as good quality studies. As for the risk of bias, five studies were rated unclear, one study rated as high risk, and four studies as low risk of bias. One study could not be rated. All studies demonstrated a reduction in opioid consumption. Two studies investigated patients’ pain and quality of life, but no reduction was found between groups. Conclusion: The findings indicate that it is possible to detect a reduction in opioid consumption when a new follow-up procedure has been implemented., Objective: To investigate the literature in terms of describing new ways to organize pain treatment for patients with chronic nonmalignant pain and the effect on opioid consumption. Design: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, REHABDATA, PsycINFO, and EMBASE using the methodology recommended by Cochrane. The data extraction was performed by Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Time frame. The quality of the studies was rated by the Study Quality Assessment Tool or the revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence when suitable. Setting: Primary care clinics. Patients/participants: Patients with chronic nonmalignant pain in high-dose opioid treatment connected to a primary care clinic or the employed healthcare professionals. Main outcome measures: The primary aim of this Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review was to investigate if an organizational change in the follow-up procedures has an effect on high-dose opioid consumption in patients with long-term nonmalignant pain. Results: Out of 2,146 articles, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria, mainly of an observational character. The majority of the studies were rated as good quality studies. As for the risk of bias, five studies were rated unclear, one study rated as high risk, and four studies as low risk of bias. One study could not be rated. All studies demonstrated a reduction in opioid consumption. Two studies investigated patients’ pain and quality of life, but no reduction was found between groups. Conclusion: The findings indicate that it is possible to detect a reduction in opioid consumption when a new follow-up procedure has been implemented.

Objectives: In the current study, we aimed to explore the experiences and attitudes among healthcare professionals as they transitioned from their familiar disciplines to respiratory medicine, intensive care or other departments during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Background: In preparation for the increasing number of patients suspected of having or who would be severely ill from COVID-19, a major reconstruction of the Danish Healthcare System was initiated. The capacity of the healthcare system to respond to the unprecedented situation was dependent on healthcare professionals’ willingness and ability to engage in these new circumstances. For some, this may have resulted in uncertainty, anxiety and fear. Design: The study was a descriptive study using semi-structured focus group interviews. Healthcare professionals (n = 62) from seven departments were included, and 11 focus group interviews were conducted. The focus group interviews took place during June 2020. Analyses was conducted using thematic analysis. The current study was reported using the consolidated criteria for reporting Qualitative research (COREQ). Results: Healthcare professionals experiences was described by five themes: 1) Voluntary involvement, 2) Changes within the organisation, 3) Risks, 4) Professional identity and 5) Personal investment. Common to all five themes was the feeling of being on a pendulum from a meaningful experience to an experience of mental overload, when situations and decisions no longer seemed to be worthwhile. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals experienced a pendulum between a meaningful experience and one of mental overload during the COVID-19 pandemic. The swinging was conditioned by the prevailing context and was unavoidable. Relevance to clinical practice. To balance the continuous pendulum swing, leaders must consider involvement, and to be supportive and appreciative in their leader style. This is consistent with a person-centred leadership that fa

Background Acute and persistent pain after surgery is well described. However, no large-scale studies on immediate postoperative pain in the operating room (OR) exist, hindering potential areas of research to improve clinical outcomes. Thus, we aimed to describe the occurrence and severity of immediate postoperative pain in a large, unselected cohort. Methods This was a prospective cohort study, encompassing all procedures in 31 public hospitals in the Danish Realm, during a 5-day period including the weekend. Data on procedures and anesthesia were collected and the main outcome was occurrence of moderate or severe pain in the OR. Secondary outcomes included pain, sedation and nausea in the OR or during the first 15 min in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) including relevant risk factors. Descriptive and logistic regression statistics were used. Results A total of 3675 procedures were included for analysis (87% inclusion rate). Moderate or severe pain occurred in 7.4% (95% CI 6.5% to 8.3%) of cases in the OR immediately after awakening, rising to 20.2% in the OR and/or PACU. Large intraprocedure and interprocedure variations occurred (0.0%–37.5%), and in 20% of cases with epidural-general anesthesia patients experienced moderate or severe pain. Independent risk factors were female sex, younger age, preoperative pain, daily opioid use and major surgical procedures. Conclusion Moderate or severe pain in the immediate postoperative phase occurred in 20% of all cases with procedure and anesthesiological technique variations, suggesting a need for identification of relevant procedure-specific risk factors and development of preventive treatments.

Background: Treatment of postoperative pain remains a significant clinical problem, and prediction of patients with a risk of higher postoperative pain levels is an important focus. We aimed to identify patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) with risk of higher pain levels at 24 h postoperatively by using four simple and easily available clinical tools. Methods: This prospective observational cohort study included 102 patients having THA at Zealand University Hospital in Denmark. The following predictive tools were investigated for identifying patients with higher postoperative pain levels at 24 h postoperatively, both at rest and during mobilization: preoperative pain by peripheral venous cannulation (PVC) (dichotomized according to numerical rating scale pain ≤ 2/> 2 (PVC-Low/PVC-High) (primary outcome); the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) nurses' expectations of patients pain levels; patients early pain levels at the PACU; and patients own forecast of postoperative pain levels. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze comparisons between prediction groups. For the primary outcome we considered a p-value < 0.01 as statistically significant and for other outcomes a p-value of 0.05. Results: We found no significant differences between the PVC groups for pain during mobilization at 24-h postoperatively: PVC-Low: 6 (4-8) (median, (IQR)) versus PVC-High: 7 (5-8) (median, (IQR)), p = 0.10; and for pain at rest: PVC-Low 2 (0-3) (median, (IQR)) versus PVC-High 3 (2-5) (median, (IQR)), p = 0.12. Other comparisons performed between predictive groups did not differ significantly. Conclusions: In this prospective cohort study of 102 THA patients, we did not find that preoperative pain by PVC, when using a cut-off point of NRS ≤ 2, were able to predict postoperative pain at 24 h postoperatively. Neither did PACU nurses' prediction of pain, patients forecast of pain, nor did maximum pain levels at the PACU. Trial registration: Retrospectively registered 2