The First Comprehensive Survey of the Practice of Postoperative Pain Management in Hungarian Hospitals - a Descriptive Study

Nonpharmacologic Therapies for Postoperative Pain in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To search for studies that address the efficacy of nonpharmacologic methods for pain relief in adults undergoing cardiac surgeries.

DESIGN

A systematic review registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under number CRD42020168681.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed, LILACS, CINAHL, the Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS

The review used a PRISMA guideline that selected primary randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of nonpharmacologic pain relief therapies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, with no time or language restrictions. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials was used to assess methodological rigor.

RESULTS

After screening, 23 of the 140 studies found in the databases were selected. The studies examined the efficacy of 13 different nonpharmacologic therapies, as well as a combination of therapies, with massage therapy being the most commonly examined, followed by musical intervention and hypnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Some interventions, when combined with pharmacologic therapy, were effective in relieving postoperative pain after cardiac surgeries, according to the studies analyzed. However, most studies had significant methodological flaws, and further studies with high methodological quality are needed.

Pain Sensitivity and Acute Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Surgery: The Mediating Roles of Pain Self-Efficacy and Pain Catastrophizing

BACKGROUND

Inadequately managed postoperative pain remains a common issue. Examining factors like pain sensitivity, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy can help improve postoperative pain management. While these factors have been identified as potential predictors of acute postoperative pain, their effects have been inconsistent. Few studies have explored the interactions between these factors.

AIM

To investigate the influence of preoperative pain sensitivity, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy on acute postoperative pain in abdominal surgery patients and to determine the mediating roles of pain catastrophizing and pain self-efficacy in the relationship between pain sensitivity and acute postoperative pain, as per the gate control theory.

METHODS

A total of 246 patients were enrolled in this study. General information was collected before surgery, and the Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ) were administered. After surgery, patients' average pain scores over the 24 hours were reported using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Correlation analyses and a structural equation model were used to examine the relationships among these variables.

RESULTS

NRS scores over 3 during the 24 hours post-surgery were reported by 21.54% of patients. Postoperative acute pain was found to be associated with pain sensitivity (rs = 0.463, p < .001), pain catastrophizing (rs = 0.328, p < .001), and pain self-efficacy (rs = -0.558, p < .001). A direct effect on postoperative acute pain was exerted by pain sensitivity (effect = 0.250, p = .001), along with indirect effects through: (A) pain catastrophizing (effect = 0.028, p = .001); (B) pain self-efficacy (effect = 0.132, p = .001); and (C) the chain mediation of pain self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing (effect = 0.021, p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of postoperative acute pain can be predicted by pain self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing, and the connection between moderate pain sensitivity and postoperative acute pain severity is mediated by them. Therefore, intervention programs aimed at boosting pain self-efficacy and reducing pain catastrophizing can enhance postoperative pain outcomes for abdominal surgery patients.

Considerations on the Obstacles That Lead to Slow Recruitment in a Pain Management Clinical Trial: Experiences from the Belgian PELICAN (PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain) Pragmatic Study

Background

A qualitative evaluation study of the prematurely terminated PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain (PELICAN) study was performed. The PELICAN study aimed to examine pain management for localized neuropathic pain (LNP), as epidemiological figures have shown a high percentage of LNP patients in Belgium. The study compared systemic and topical medications according to pain relief, adverse effects, and several measures of quality of life.

Objective

Achieving better study patient recruitment through qualitative research. To investigate and determine the causes of the observed recruitment problems in the PELICAN study, pain centers involved in the study as well as nonrecruiting pain centers were included. Furthermore, it aimed to highlight the positive and negative lessons learned from the conducted study and the number of obstacles the team had to overcome.

Methods

A qualitative study, using a mixed methods approach, was performed. Multiple pain centers in Belgium completed an online survey, after which a structured interview was conducted to elaborate the responses in more detail. The broad topics of these meetings were feedback about the study, reviewing survey answers, and actions undertaken to enhance recruitment.

Results

Different factors contributed to the low recruitment rate in the PELICAN study, such as limited and late referral from the general practitioners to the Belgian pain centers, insufficient internal referrals from nonpain specialists, lack of specific expertise on LNP in some centers, scarcity of staff, limited reimbursement to administer complex analgesic schemes, overestimation of the patient population, and the reluctance of patients to participate in pain research. Additionally, shortcomings in the implemented study design and the need for more logistical investments were identified.

Conclusion

The findings of the qualitative study demonstrate the need for further, more varied LNP research in Belgium, not limited to pharmacological studies. It also sheds important light on the recruitment obstacles that may be faced during these studies. Future studies could support this research by offering better proposals for feasibility and recruitment, for instance, by designing and conducting a compelling pilot study or applying social media during the recruitment phase. Clinical Trials. This trial is registered with NCT03348735. EUDRACT number 2018-003617-17.