Search

Despite numerous publications, new guidelines for the treatment of acute pain and efforts from a number of initiatives, there is still a tremendous need for improvement in postoperative pain therapy. One of the reasons for the shortcomings in the care of patients with postoperative pain is the lack of applicability of guidelines in daily clinical practice. Therefore, simple but effective and easy to implement concepts need to be developed. In the following review, different concepts that have been developed over recent years are presented and evaluated for their effectiveness. One of these is the notion of balanced analgesia, currently probably one of the most widely used perioperative therapy concepts. The idea of this concept is to reduce the doses of analgesics, e.g. opioids, through combinations of different classes of analgesics, thereby reducing their side effects. However, recent studies and essential meta-analyses indicate pitfalls using this concept. The pros and cons will be discussed and ideas on how to deal with balanced analgesia in daily practice will be given. Another pain concept of "procedure-specific postoperative pain therapy", is an appealing idea of an international initiative from surgeons and anaesthesiologists and an essential part of the German S3 guidelines for acute pain released last year. Critical evaluation of the available recommendations for procedure-specific analgesia together with the presentation of relatively simple but evidence-based algorithms for specific procedures may help to implement this concept in clinical routine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Tonsillectomy is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures; however, pain management remains challenging. Procedure‐specific efficacy as well as specific risks of treatment options should guide selection of pain management protocols based on evidence and should optimise analgesia without harm. The aims of this systematic review were to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after tonsillectomy. A systematic review utilising preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analysis guidelines with procedure‐specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language up to November 2019 assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. Out of the 719 potentially eligible studies identified, 226 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, excluding the studies examining surgical techniques. Pre‐operative and intra‐operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol; non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs; intravenous dexamethasone; ketamine (only assessed in children); gabapentinoids; dexmedetomidine; honey; and acupuncture. Inconsistent evidence was found for local anaesthetic infiltration; antibiotics; and magnesium sulphate. Limited evidence was found for clonidine. The analgesic regimen for tonsillectomy should include paracetamol; non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone, with opioids as rescue analgesics. Analgesic adjuncts such as intra‐operative and postoperative acupuncture as well as postoperative honey are also recommended. Ketamine (only for children); dexmedetomidine; or gabapentinoids may be considered when some of the first‐line analgesics are contra‐indicated. Further randomised controlled trials are required to define risk and combination of drugs most effective for postoperative pain relief after tonsillectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 65-year old women having temperature dependent and severely itching flush like erythema caused by small-fibre neuropathy in skin grafts. Topics discussed include dermal nerve fibres reduced and thinned in the lesional area, Quantitative sensory testing (QST) being performed in lesional and non-lesional skin of the limb and role of the sensory neurons in efferent cutaneous functions such as inflammatory reactions.

Despite numerous publications, new guidelines for the treatment of acute pain and efforts from a number of initiatives, there is still a tremendous need for improvement in postoperative pain therapy. One of the reasons for the shortcomings in the care of patients with postoperative pain is the lack of applicability of guidelines in daily clinical practice. Therefore, simple but effective and easy to implement concepts need to be developed. In the following review, different concepts that have been developed over recent years are presented and evaluated for their effectiveness. One of these is the notion of balanced analgesia, currently probably one of the most widely used perioperative therapy concepts. The idea of this concept is to reduce the doses of analgesics, e.g. opioids, through combinations of different classes of analgesics, thereby reducing their side effects. However, recent studies and essential meta-analyses indicate pitfalls using this concept. The pros and cons will be discussed and ideas on how to deal with balanced analgesia in daily practice will be given. Another pain concept of „procedure-specific postoperative pain therapy“, is an appealing idea of an international initiative from surgeons and anaesthesiologists and an essential part of the German S3 guidelines for acute pain released last year. Critical evaluation of the available recommendations for procedure-specific analgesia together with the presentation of relatively simple but evidence-based algorithms for specific procedures may help to implement this concept in clinical routine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rotator cuff repair can be associated with significant and difficult to treat postoperative pain. We aimed to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after rotator cuff repair. A systematic review using procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in English from 1 January 2006 to 15 April 2019 assessing postoperative pain after rotator cuff repair using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Databases. Out of 322 eligible studies identified, 59 randomised controlled trials and one systematic review met the inclusion criteria. Pre-operative and intra-operative interventions that improved postoperative pain were paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors, intravenous dexamethasone, regional analgesia techniques including interscalene block or suprascapular nerve block (with or without axillary nerve block) and arthroscopic surgical technique. Limited evidence was found for pre-operative gabapentin, perineural adjuncts (opioids, glucocorticoids, or α-2-adrenoceptor agonists added to the local anaesthetic solution) or postoperative transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. Inconsistent evidence was found for subacromial/intra-articular injection, and for surgical technique-linked interventions, such as platelet-rich plasma. No evidence was found for stellate ganglion block, cervical epidural block, specific postoperative rehabilitation protocols or postoperative compressive cryotherapy. The analgesic regimen for rotator cuff repair should include an arthroscopic approach, paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, dexamethasone and a regional analgesic technique (either interscalene block or suprascapular nerve block with or without axillary nerve block), with opioids as rescue analgesics. Further randomised controlled trials are required to confirm the influence of the recommended analgesic regimen on postoperative pain relief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The procedure‐specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) working group develops evidence‐based pain management recommendations. PROSPECT methodology is unique and rigorous. However, several limitations were recognised that needed to be addressed, and several new factors were identified that improved PROSPECT methodology. The aim of this article is to present updated PROSPECT methodology for development of recommendations for procedure‐specific pain management, focusing on the methodological revisions we will implement. In future, included randomised clinical trials will need to be prospectively registered on a publicly accessible clinical trials database and the study design, including the primary outcome in the registration, should coincide with that in the published manuscript. Placebo‐controlled studies in which the analgesic intervention of interest is solely paracetamol, non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific inhibitors or opioids will not be included. Studies comparing one drug in a particular class with another in the same class will also not be included. Future projects will use the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool for quality of reporting of methodology and results. A modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach will be used for grading of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. Finally, the updated PROSPECT methodology addresses several other limitations and implements new factors that all add rigour and transparency to developing procedure‐specific pain management recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery has become increasingly popular due to faster recovery times and reduced postoperative pain compared with thoracotomy. However, analgesic regimens for video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery vary significantly. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after video‐assisted thoracoscopic surgery. A systematic review was undertaken using procedure‐specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language, between January 2010 and January 2021 assessing the effect of analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. We retrieved 1070 studies of which 69 randomised controlled trials and two reviews met inclusion criteria. We recommend the administration of basic analgesia including paracetamol and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs or cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐specific inhibitors pre‐operatively or intra‐operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra‐operative intravenous dexmedetomidine infusion may be used, specifically when basic analgesia and regional analgesic techniques could not be given. In addition, a paravertebral block or erector spinae plane block is recommended as a first‐choice option. A serratus anterior plane block could also be administered as a second‐choice option. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches. With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: The aim of this systematic review was to develop recommendations for the management of postoperative pain after primary elective total hip arthroplasty, updating the previous procedure‐specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) guidelines published in 2005 and updated in July 2010. Randomised controlled trials and meta‐analyses published between July 2010 and December 2019 assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic, surgical or other interventions were identified from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Five hundred and twenty studies were initially identified, of which 108 randomised trials and 21 meta‐analyses met the inclusion criteria. Peri‐operative interventions that improved postoperative pain include: paracetamol; cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐selective inhibitors; non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone. In addition, peripheral nerve blocks (femoral nerve block; lumbar plexus block; fascia iliaca block), single‐shot local infiltration analgesia, intrathecal morphine and epidural analgesia also improved pain. Limited or inconsistent evidence was found for all other approaches evaluated. Surgical and anaesthetic techniques appear to have a minor impact on postoperative pain, and thus their choice should be based on criteria other than pain. In summary, the analgesic regimen for total hip arthroplasty should include pre‐operative or intra‐operative paracetamol and cyclo‐oxygenase‐2‐selective inhibitors or non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, continued postoperatively with opioids used as rescue analgesics. In addition, intra‐operative intravenous dexamethasone 8–10 mg is recommended. Regional analgesic techniques such as fascia iliaca block or local infiltration analgesia are recommended, especially if there are contra‐indications to basic analgesics and/or in patients with high expected postoperative pain. Epidural analgesia, femoral nerve block, lumbar plexus block and gabapentinoid administration are not recommended as the adverse effects outweigh the benefits. Although intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg can be used, the PROSPECT group emphasises the risks and side‐effects associated with its use and provides evidence that adequate analgesia may be achieved with basic analgesics and regional techniques without intrathecal morphine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) is a well-established technique in acute pain management and available in most German hospitals. Despite its widespread use, information on current clinical practice is limited. This investigation evaluated clinical practice and monitoring as well as PCIA-associated adverse events and critical incidents in German hospitals.Methods: An invitation to participate in this online-survey was sent to 995 heads of anesthesiology departments belonging to the "German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine".Results: Of the departments receiving the link, 244 took part (response rate 25%). PCIA was used in 193 of these hospitals (79%). All the following statements relate to the hospitals in which PCIA was used. Piritramide was the most frequently used opioid. In parallel with PCIA, additional nonopioid analgesics were used in 94% of the hospitals, and in 38%, additional slow-release oral opioids were used. Parenteral opioids were administered by the ward staff in 4% of the hospitals. In 75% of hospitals, there were standardized indications for PCIA therapy, with almost two thirds of respondents stating that PCIA was the technique of second choice if regional procedures were contraindicated or failed. In all, 76% of the hospitals had an acute pain service. Twenty-four percent of the hospitals regularly used PCIA in non-surgical patients. In pediatric patients, PCIA was used in 62 hospitals (32%). Only 31% of the hospitals reported the use of standardized protocols for the specific monitoring of patients' vital signs on general wards, exceeding general care. Of the department, 158 (82%) reported adverse events in connection with the use of PCIA within the six-month period preceding the survey (most frequently due to patients' noncompliance [52%], dislocated intravenous lines [41%], communication errors [16%], administration of additional analgesics [16%] and/ or sedatives [14%], problems with the pump [16%], programming errors [9%], incorrect opioid concentration in the reservoir [8%], non-observance of contraindications [7%], incorrect dosing [6%] and self-dosing by the patient [4%] or by third parties [3%], filling the reservoir with thewrong medication [2%]; and other problems [5%]). Only 35 of the hospitals (18%) reported no problems associated with PCIA therapy. Seventy-five of the 193 respondents (39%) stated that at least one critical incident had occurred in the context of the use of PCIA. This resulted in a total of 335 cases out of an estimate of 50.000 patients treated with PCIA. The respondents classified these as follows: I) 273 incidents requiring a prolonged stay in the recovery room, but without further complications, II) 58 requiring transfer to the intensive care unit, but without further complications, III) three resulting in permanent harm to the patient and IV) one resulting in the death of the patient. A comparison of the monitoring standards for PCIA showed that critical incidents were reported less frequently in hospitals with less intensive monitoring, and more frequently in hospitals with higher monitoring standards.Conclusion: PCIA is a frequently used analgesic technique in German hospitals. There were many differences in how PCIA therapy was applied and monitored on general wards. Adverse events occurred to a significant extent, with a considerable part of them, which might be preventable. Critical incidents were perceived more often when standards for monitoring on general wards were higher. Consented current recommendations regarding treatment and monitoring standards as well as the systematic recording of complications when using PCIA are pending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Caesarean section is associated with moderate‐to‐severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding success and mother‐child bonding. The aim of this systematic review was to update the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after elective caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia. A systematic review utilising procedure‐specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language between 1 May 2014 and 22 October 2020 evaluating the effects of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating pain management for emergency or unplanned operative deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia were excluded. A total of 145 studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients undergoing elective caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia, recommendations include intrathecal morphine 50–100 µg or diamorphine 300 µg administered pre‐operatively; paracetamol; non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone administered after delivery. If intrathecal opioid was not administered, single‐injection local anaesthetic wound infiltration; continuous wound local anaesthetic infusion; and/or fascial plane blocks such as transversus abdominis plane or quadratus lumborum blocks are recommended. The postoperative regimen should include regular paracetamol and non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs with opioids used for rescue. The surgical technique should include a Joel‐Cohen incision; non‐closure of the peritoneum; and abdominal binders. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation could be used as analgesic adjunct. Some of the interventions, although effective, carry risks, and consequentially were omitted from the recommendations. Some interventions were not recommended due to insufficient, inconsistent or lack of evidence. Of note, these recommendations may not be applicable to unplanned deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analgesic protocols used to treat pain after breast surgery vary significantly. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on this topic and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after oncological breast surgery. A systematic review using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidance with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. Seven hundred and forty-nine studies were found, of which 53 randomised controlled trials and nine meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Quantitative analysis suggests that dexamethasone and gabapentin reduced postoperative pain. The use of paravertebral blocks also reduced postoperative pain scores, analgesia consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Intra-operative opioid requirements were documented to be lower when a pectoral nerves block was performed, which also reduced postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption. We recommend basic analgesics (i.e. paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) administered pre-operatively or intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. In addition, pre-operative gabapentin and dexamethasone are also recommended. In major breast surgery, a regional anaesthetic technique such as paravertebral block or pectoral nerves block and/or local anaesthetic wound infiltration may be considered for additional pain relief. Paravertebral block may be continued postoperatively using catheter techniques. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period. Research is needed to evaluate the role of novel regional analgesic techniques such as erector spinae plane or retrolaminar plane blocks combined with basic analgesics in an enhanced recovery setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective peri-operative pain management is a prerequisite for optimal recovery after surgery. Despite published evidence-based guidelines from several professional groups, postoperative pain management remains inadequate. The procedure-specific pain management (PROSPECT) collaboration consists of anaesthetists and surgeons with broad international representation that provide healthcare professionals with practical and evidence-based recommendations formulated in a way that facilitates clinical decision-making across all stages of the peri-operative period on a procedure-specific basis. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a detailed description of the current PROSPECT methodology with the intention of providing the rigour and transparency in which procedure-specific pain management recommendations are developed. The high methodological standards of the recommendations should improve the quality of clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The treatment of any causal, procedure-specific and/or concomitant acute pain is an essential quality feature in any surgical subspecialty. An interdisciplinary and interprofessional pain therapy aims for an immediate improvement of the patients' quality of life, a reduction of the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in the medium term, prevention of any pain chronification in the long run as well as a reduction of hospitalization and sick leave. The "Agreement of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists and the Professional Association of German Surgeons for the Organization of Postoperative Pain Therapy" exists since 1992. In view of the continuously developing scientific evidence, updated guideline recommendations and interprofessionally designed treatment pathways, these agreements have been adapted to the current requirements and structural conditions of the German healthcare system. Thus, both aforementioned professional associations promote an up to date version of an "Agreement for the Organization of Pain Therapy for Surgical Patients", a precise recommendation and a manual for the acting partners in order to realize the abovementioned goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dipyrone (metamizole) is widely used for perioperative pain management in countries where it is marketed; however, uncertainty exists concerning the safe use of this drug, specifically considering the rare adverse event of an agranulocytosis. Methods: As evidence from published studies was lacking, an expert panel developed recommendations for the perioperative use of dipyrone. After a formal, structured consensus process, the recommendations were approved by the involved medical societies. Results: The panel agreed that blood cell counts shall not be standard for short-term perioperative use in patients unless they are at risk for neutropenia. The medical staff shall be aware of the symptoms and course of action when agranulocytosis is suspected. Patients shall be informed about the risks and benefits of dipyrone and about potential alternatives. The expert group concluded that dipyrone has a relatively positive risk-benefit ratio compared to other nonopioid analgesics. The group strongly recommended educating patients about the symptoms of agranulocytosis if they have received dipyrone over several days and/or treatment is to be continued after discharge, because agranulocytosis can occur several days after discontinuation of metamizole. Further recommendations refer to the information of the physician taking over the patient's care after discharge and the avoidance of re-exposure in patients having previously suffered from dipyrone-induced agranulocytosis. Conclusion: The group's recommendations shall be communicated in order to raise medical staff's and patients' awareness of the appropriate use of dipyrone in the perioperative period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The treatment of any causal, procedure-specific and/or concomitant acute pain is an essential quality feature in any surgical subspecialty. An interdisciplinary and interprofessional pain therapy aims for an immediate improvement of the patients' quality of life, a reduction of the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in the medium term, prevention of any pain chronification in the long run as well as a reduction of hospitalization and sick leave. The "Agreement of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists and the Professional Association of German Surgeons for the Organization of Postoperative Pain Therapy" exists since 1992. In view of the continuously developing scientific evidence, updated guideline recommendations and interprofessionally designed treatment pathways, these agreements have been adapted to the current requirements and structural conditions of the German healthcare system. Thus, both aforementioned professional associations promote an up to date version of an "Agreement for the Organization of Pain Therapy for Surgical Patients", a precise recommendation and a manual for the acting partners in order to realize the abovementioned goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dipyrone (metamizole) is widely used for perioperative pain management in countries where it is marketed; however, uncertainty exists concerning the safe use of this drug, specifically considering the rare adverse event of an agranulocytosis.Methods: As evidence from published studies was lacking, an expert panel developed recommendations for the perioperative use of dipyrone. After a formal, structured consensus process, the recommendations were approved by the involved medical societies.Results: The panel agreed that blood cell counts shall not be standard for short-term perioperative use in patients unless they are at risk for neutropenia. The medical staff shall be aware of the symptoms and course of action when agranulocytosis is suspected. Patients shall be informed about the risks and benefits of dipyrone and about potential alternatives. The expert group concluded that dipyrone has a relatively positive risk-benefit ratio compared to other nonopioid analgesics. The group strongly recommended educating patients about the symptoms of agranulocytosis if they have received dipyrone over several days and/or treatment is to be continued after discharge, because agranulocytosis can occur several days after discontinuation of metamizole. Further recommendations refer to the information of the physician taking over the patient's care after discharge and the avoidance of re-exposure in patients having previously suffered from dipyrone-induced agranulocytosis.Conclusion: The group's recommendations shall be communicated in order to raise medical staff's and patients' awareness of the appropriate use of dipyrone in the perioperative period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although pain services have been established in many hospitals, there is considerable heterogeneity among them with respect to organization of service, staff and qualifications of staff, and treatment approaches.With this recommendation, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine defines requirements for pain services in hospitals with respect to organizational standards and staff qualifications. The therapy offered by pain services supplements the treatment provided by the other departments involved, ensuring the high quality of specialized pain management in all areas of the hospital. Pain services shall oversee treatment with specialized analgesia techniques as well as the involvement of consultants, bringing together in-hospital pain medicine expertise in one service with availability 24 h and 7 days per week via a single contact. The medical head of the pain service shall be a qualified provider of pain medicine as defined by the German Medical Association and as a minimum should also have undergone additional training in basic psychosomatic medicine. Further members of the medical staff should possess the credentials of a medical specialist: non-medical staff should have completed continuing education in the treatment of pain. Minimal guidelines for personnel resources were defined: these included a specific time frame for first contacts (20 min) and follow-up (10 min) for specific analgesic techniques and for the involvement of consultants (first contact 45 min, follow-up 20 min), with additional time for travel, set-up, training and quality management. In addition to definition of the space and equipment needed, each service should draft its own budget, and this should be adequate and plannable. Written agreements between the disciplines and transparent documentation, including patient-reported outcomes, are recommended to ensure quality. The provision of specialized pain therapy should have high priority over all disciplines or departments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute pain management is an interprofessional and interdisciplinary task and requires a good and trustful cooperation between stakeholders. Despite provisions in Germany according to which medical treatment can only be rendered by a formally qualified physician ("Arztvorbehalt"), a physician does not have to carry out every medical activity in person. Under certain conditions, some medical activities can be delegated to medical auxiliary personnel but they need to be (1) instructed, (2) supervised and (3) checked by the physician himself; however, medical history, diagnostic assessment and evaluation, indications, therapy planning (e.g. selection, dosage), therapeutic decisions (e. g. modification or termination of therapy) and obtaining informed consent cannot be delegated. With respect to drug therapy, monitoring of the therapy remains the personal responsibility of the physician, while the actual application of medication can be delegated. From a legal perspective, the current practice needs to be stressed about what is within the mandatory requirements and what is not when medical activities are delegated to non-medical staff. The use of standards of care improves treatment quality but like any medical treatment it must be based on the physician's individual assessment and indications for each patient and requires personal contact between physician and patient. Delegation on the ward and in acute pain therapy requires the authorization of the delegator to give instructions in the respective setting. The transfer of non-delegable duties to non-medical personnel is regarded as medical malpractice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this analysis was to describe the role of anesthesiology departments in pain medicine and palliative care services in German hospitals.Method: In the year 2012, all heads of departments of anesthesiology registered with the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine were surveyed about structures of pain medicine and palliative care services in their hospitals using a standardized postal questionnaire.Results: Out of 408 returned questionnaires (response rate 47%) 403 could be evaluated. Of the hospitals 58% had a designated pain medicine service, in 36 (9%) of the hospitals this was organized as an independent department and in 195 (57%) as part of another department, mostly the department of anesthesiology. The "pain clinic" as an outpatient service was the most common form of structure for pain medicine services (41%). Inpatient pain medicine units were available in 77 (19%) of the hospitals and a partial inpatient unit in the form of a day hospital in 26 (7%) of the hospitals. For the care of inpatients from other departments, there was an intrahospital pain consultation service in 166 of the hospitals, which was the only structure for pain medicine in 32 of the 231 hospitals that reported having a designated pain medicine service. In 160 pain medicine services anesthesiologists were the only medical practitioners and in a further 18 both anesthesiologists and other specialists were available (orthopedist/orthopedic surgeons n = 6, internal medicine n = 4, psychiatrist n = 2, general practitioner = 1 and neurologist n = 1). Only two hospitals had no anesthesiologist in the pain medicine team and for the remaining 51 hospitals no information was provided. In 189 of the 231 hospitals with pain medicine services, there was at least 1 physician with special qualifications in pain management. In 97 (44%) of the hospitals psychologists were part of the team with 53 having at least 1 psychologist with a special qualification in chronic pain management. Of the hospitals, 16% had a specialized department for palliative care, in 32% a specialized palliative care service was part of another department, which was the department of anesthesiology in 30%. Of the hospitals 56% had a palliative care consultation service, 41% had a specialized inpatient palliative care unit, 6% an outpatient clinic, 4% a day hospital and in 16% a specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) serving the community was incorporated. Inpatient consultation services and the SOPC were more common when the department of anesthesiology was involved in the palliative care services.Conclusion: In German hospitals, the departments of anesthesiology make a significant contribution to the provision of both pain medicine and palliative care services. Nevertheless, the respective structures of care are often incomplete or even lacking. There were shortcomings in terms of organization and qualification of the team in pain medicine services (e.g. no doctor with special qualifications in pain management or no psychologist). Palliative care services are more often organized as independent departments than as pain medicine services. Engagement of the anesthesiology department in palliative care is linked to a broader scope of the services provided, which might reflect the capacity of many anesthesiologists to work in an interdisciplinary manner and across interfaces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peripheral nerve catheters (PNC) play an important role in postoperative pain treatment following major extremity surgery. There are several trials reported in the literature which investigated the efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US) and nerve stimulator (NS) guided PNC placement; however, most of these trials were only small and focused mainly on anesthesiologist-related indicators of block success (e.g. block onset time and procedure time) but not primarily on patient-related outcome data including postoperative pain during movement.Aim: This retrospective analysis compared the analgesic efficacy and safety of US versus NS guided peripheral nerve catheters (PNC) for postoperative pain therapy in a large cohort of patients.Material and Methods: Data of patients (June 2006-December 2010) treated with US (nus = 368 June 2008-December 2010) and NS (nns = 574, June 2006-May 2008) guided PNC were systematically analyzed. Apart from demographic data, postoperative pain scores [numeric rating scale (NRS): 0-10] on each treatment day, the number of patients with need for additional opioids, cumulative local anesthetic consumption and catheter-related complications were compared.Results: On the day of surgery patients treated with US-guided PNC reported lower NRS at rest (p = 0.034) and during movement (p < 0.001). Additionally, the number of patients requiring additional opioids on the day of surgery was lower in the US group (absolute difference 12.4 %, p = 0.001). Furthermore, the number of multiple puncture attempts (absolute difference 5.6 %, p < 0.001) and failed catheter placements (absolute difference 3.4 %, p = 0.06) were lower in the US group. There were no patients in both groups with long-lasting neurological impairment.Conclusion: This database analysis demonstrated that patients treated with US-guided PNC reported significantly lower postoperative pain scores and the number of patients requiring additional opioids was significantly lower on the day of surgery. The numbers of multiple punctures and failed catheter placements were reduced in the US group, which might be seen as an advantage of US-guided regional anaesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US) vs nerve stimulation (NS) guidance for peripheral nerve catheter placement. Methods This meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement and the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous outcomes relative risks [RRs; 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were calculated, while for continuous outcomes, mean differences (MDs; 95% CI) were calculated. All statistical analyses were performed using the Revman® statistical software (Version 5.1). Results Fifteen randomized controlled trials including 977 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. Peripheral nerve catheters placed under US guidance showed a higher RR of 1.14 (95% CI: 1.02–1.27; P=0.02) for an overall successful block in comparison with NS. However, postoperative pain scales at movement (numeric rating scale: 0–10) were comparable between US- vs NS-guided peripheral nerve catheters 24 (MD: 0.08; 95% CI: −0.77 to 0.94; P=0.85) and 48 (MD: 1.0; 95% CI: −0.3 to 2.3; P=0.13) h after surgery. Patients receiving a US-guided peripheral nerve catheter had a lower RR of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.04–0.38; P=0.0002) for an accidental vascular puncture. Conclusions There is evidence that US-guided peripheral nerve catheters show a higher success rate and a lower risk for an accidental vascular puncture compared with NS guidance. However, this difference resulted only in marginally lower postoperative pain scores at rest. Nevertheless, these results were influenced by heterogeneity and should be interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuraxial anesthesia is an established and safe procedure in perioperative pain therapy which can help to minimize complications and to improve perioperative outcome. In patients with acquired bleeding disorders by comorbidities or concomitant antithrombotic medication an individual decision should be made based on risks and benefits. A large number of literature references and guidelines help making a decision, for example the recently updated evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine for patients receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy. However, no explicit recommendations or guidelines exist for patients with hemorrhagic diatheses, such as von Willebrand disease (vWD), hemophilia A and B and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP). Published data regarding the safety of neuraxial techniques in these patients is scarce. Neuraxial anesthesia in patients with vWD is only acceptable when coagulation is optimized (substitution of factor concentrates or hemostatic agents depending on the type of vWD) and monitored frequently during the procedure. The only exception might be obstetric patients with vWD type I as coagulation frequently normalizes at the end of pregnancy. In these patients neuraxial anesthesia can often be performed without supplementation of clotting factors.Neuraxial techniques in patients with hemophilia A or B are usually contraindicated. The procedure may only be acceptable if serious reasons exist against general anesthesia. Supplementation of the missing factor to normal levels and monitoring during procedure is essential if neuraxial block is performed.Patients with ITP often present with low platelet counts. Normally, spinal or epidural anesthesia is considered safe if the platelet count is over 80,000/µl. However, the consistently low platelet counts in ITP seem to be less problematic than rapidly falling values due to other diseases, because this is often accompanied by platelet dysfunction or coagulopathy. In several studies neuraxial anesthesia was successfully performed with platelet counts between 50,000 and 80,000/µl. Nevertheless, the minimum safe platelet count for neuraxial blockade remains undefined in these patients.Evidence-based recommendations for neuraxial anaesthesia in patients with hemophilia, vWD or ITP cannot be offered. Each patient has to be treated individually with appropriate caution. This overview is intended to assist in the decision for or against neuraxial anesthesia in these patients, with emphasis on the pathophysiological background, blood investigations and case reports from the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ketamine added to caudal local anaesthetics in comparison with local anaesthetics alone in children undergoing urological, lower abdominal, or lower limb surgery.Methods: The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled data analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis and relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Revman(®) statistical software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes.Results: Thirteen RCTs (published between 1991 and 2008) including 584 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant longer time to first analgesic requirements in patients receiving ketamine in addition to a local anaesthetic compared with a local anaesthetic alone (MD: 5.60 h; 95% CI: 5.45-5.76; P<0.00001). There was a lower RR for the need of rescue analgesia in children receiving a caudal regional anaesthesia with ketamine in addition to local anaesthetics (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.44-1.15; P=0.16).Conclusions: Caudally administered ketamine, in addition to a local anaesthetic, provides prolonged postoperative analgesia with few adverse effects compared with local anaesthetics alone. There is a clear benefit of caudal ketamine, but the uncertainties about neurotoxicity relating to the dose of ketamine, single vs repeated doses and the child's age, still need to be clarified for use in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The aim of this quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ketamine added to caudal local anaesthetics in comparison with local anaesthetics alone in children undergoing urological, lower abdominal, or lower limb surgery. Methods The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled data analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis and relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Revman® statistical software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Results Thirteen RCTs (published between 1991 and 2008) including 584 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant longer time to first analgesic requirements in patients receiving ketamine in addition to a local anaesthetic compared with a local anaesthetic alone (MD: 5.60 h; 95% CI: 5.45–5.76; P<0.00001). There was a lower RR for the need of rescue analgesia in children receiving a caudal regional anaesthesia with ketamine in addition to local anaesthetics (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.44–1.15; P=0.16). Conclusions Caudally administered ketamine, in addition to a local anaesthetic, provides prolonged postoperative analgesia with few adverse effects compared with local anaesthetics alone. There is a clear benefit of caudal ketamine, but the uncertainties about neurotoxicity relating to the dose of ketamine, single vs repeated doses and the child's age, still need to be clarified for use in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Thoracic paravertebral blocks (PVBs) are successfully performed for pain management after breast surgery. The aim of the present quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and adverse events of PVB in women undergoing breast surgery. Methods The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the RevMan® statistical software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Pain scores were converted to a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). Results Fifteen randomized controlled trials (published between 1999 and 2009) including 877 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in worst postoperative pain scores between PVB and general anaesthesia (GA) at <2 h (MD: −2.68; 95% CI: −3.33 to −2.02; P<0.00001), 2–24 h (MD: −2.34; 95% CI: −2.42 to −1.12; P<0.00001), and 24–48 h (MD: −1.75; 95% CI: −3.19 to 0.31; P=0.02). Accordingly, lower pain scores were observed for combined PVB with GA compared with GA alone for <2 h (MD: −1.87; 95% CI: −2.53 to −1.21; P<0.00001), 2–24 h (MD: −2.21; 95% CI: −3.07 to −1.35; P<0.00001), and 24–48 h (MD: −1.80; 95% CI: −2.92 to 0.68; P=0.002). The RR for the reported adverse events (e.g. pneumothorax) was low. Conclusions There is considerable evidence that PVB in addition to GA or alone provide a better postoperative pain control with little adverse effects compared with other analgesic treatment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since paracetamol was first synthesized in 1878 it has become one of the most popular and widely used drugs for the first-line treatment of fever and pain. The reasons for this popularity are a wide variety of formulations, an assumed positive safety record and the wide availability as an over-the-counter drug. However, recently several studies questioned the positive risk-benefit ratio of paracetamol for postoperative pain by observing several possible adverse effects and limitations. The aim of the present review is to give an update of the recent literature on the efficacy of paracetamol for postoperative pain and on the value of the clinical relevance of different adverse effects of paracetamol. Finally, based on the current findings the authors try to assess the role of paracetamol for the treatment of postoperative pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since paracetamol was first synthesized in 1878 it has become one of the most popular and widely used drugs for the first-line treatment of fever and pain. The reasons for this popularity are a wide variety of formulations, an assumed positive safety record and the wide availability as an over-the-counter drug. However, recently several studies questioned the positive risk-benefit ratio of paracetamol for postoperative pain by observing several possible adverse effects and limitations. The aim of the present review is to give an update of the recent literature on the efficacy of paracetamol for postoperative pain and on the value of the clinical relevance of different adverse effects of paracetamol. Finally, based on the current findings the authors try to assess the role of paracetamol for the treatment of postoperative pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 30-80% of postoperative patients complain about moderate to severe post-surgical pain, indicating that postoperative pain treatment is still a problem.Methods: We analysed prospectively collected data on patients in a university hospital receiving systemic and epidural patient-controlled analgesia and continuous peripheral nerve block (CPNB) documented by the acute pain service team in a computer-based system.Results: Of 18 925 patients visited in the postoperative period between 1998 and 2006, 14 223 patients received patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), 1591 i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA), 1737 continuous brachial plexus block, and 1374 continuous femoral/sciatic nerve block. Mean dynamic and resting pain scores (VAS 0-100) were significantly lower for peripheral or neuroaxial regional analgesia compared with patient-controlled systemic opioid analgesia (P<0.05). The risk of a symptomatic spinal mass lesion including epidural haematoma (0.02%; 1:4741) or epidural abscess (0.014%; 1:7142) after PCEA was 1:2857 (0.04%). Neurological complications after CPNB occurred in two patients who received interscalene brachial plexus block.Conclusions: We demonstrated that PCEA, IV-PCA, and CPNB are safe and efficient. Although all of these treatment strategies provide effective analgesia, PCEA and CPNB provided superior pain relief compared with IV-PCA. We demonstrated that serious complications of analgesic techniques are rare but possibly disastrous necessitating a close supervision by an acute pain service. We found a low rate of adverse effects including hypotension and motor impairment and a low incidence of epidural haematoma for thoracic PCEA compared with lumbar PCEA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]