Acute Pain Service - what it is, why it is and what is next?

Ultrasound-Guided Bilateral Erector Spinae Block Versus Tumescent Anesthesia for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Reduction Mammoplasty: A Randomized Controlled Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare the tumescent anesthesia method and erector spinae block with respect to postoperative analgesia consumption, pain scores and patient satisfaction, in patients receiving breast reduction surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODS

The study included 44 females, aged 20-65 years, who were to undergo breast reduction surgery, without adjunctive liposuction on the breast. Using the closed envelope method, the patients were randomly separated into two groups to receive tumescent anesthesia or erector spinae block (ESB). Patients in the ESB group received the block before general anesthesia by a single anesthetist (G.Ö.).

RESULTS

The 24-h tramadol consumption with PCA, which was the primary outcome of the study, was determined to be statistically significantly less in the ESB group (p < 0.001). The NRS scores were compared at 30 min postoperatively and then at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h. At all the measured time points, the pain scores of the ESB group were statistically significantly lower (p < 0.001). Additional analgesia was required by one patient in the ESB group and by seven patients in the tumescent group and was applied as 1 g paracetamol. The requirement for additional analgesia was statistically significantly lower in the ESB group (p < 0.024). Patient satisfaction was statistically significantly better in the ESB group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of this study, bilateral ESB performed under ultrasound guidance in breast reduction surgery was more effective than tumescent anesthesia concerning postoperative analgesia consumption and pain scores. ESB could be an appropriate, effective and safe postoperative analgesia method for patients undergoing reduction mammoplasty surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Enhanced recovery after surgery: Pain management

Effective pain management is fundamental to enhanced recovery after surgery. Selection of strategies should be tailored to patient and operation. As well as improving the quality of recovery, effective analgesia reduces the host stress response, facilitates mobilization and allows resumption of oral intake. Multi-modal regimens combining paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents where indicated, a potent opioid and a local anaesthetic technique achieve effective analgesia while limiting the dose and thereby side effects of any one agent.

The changing face of acute pain services

Background and Aims

Acute Pain Services have been implemented initially to treat inadequate postoperative pain. This study was undertaken to prospectively review the current challenges of the APS team in an academic hospital assessing the effects of its activity on both surgical and medical pain intensity. It also define the characteristics of the patients and the risk factors influencing the multiple visits from the APS team.

Method

This prospective cohort study was conducted at Uppsala University Hospital (a Swedish tertiary and quaternary care hospital) during one year. All the patients referred to the APS team were enrolled. A standardized data collection template of demographic data, medical history, pain diagnosis, associated diseases, duration of treatment, number of visits by the APS team and type of treatment was employed. The primary outcomes were pain scores before, after treatment and the number of follow-ups. The patients were visited by APS at regular intervals and divided by the number of visits by APS team into several groups: group 1 (one visit and up to 2 follow ups); group 2 (3 to 4 follow-ups); group 3 (5 to 9 follow-ups); group 4 (10 to 19 follow-ups); group 5 (>20 followups). The difference between groups were analyzed with ordinal logistic regression analyses.

Results

Patients (n = 730) (mean age 56±4, female 58%, men 42%) were distributed by service to medical (41%) and surgical (58%). Of these, 48% of patients reported a pain score of moderate to severe pain and 27% reported severe pain on the first assessment. On the last examination before discharge, they reported 25–30% less pain (P = 0.002). The median NRS (numerical rating scores) decreased significantly from 9.6 (95% confidence interval, 8.7–9.9) to 6.3 (6.1–7.4) for the severe pain (P < 0.0001), from 3.8 (3.2–4.3) to 2.4 (1.8–2.9) for the moderate pain. The odds ratio for frequent follow-ups of the patients between 18 and 85 years (n = 609) was 2.33 (95% CI: 1.35–4.02) if the patient had a history of chronic neuropathic pain, 1.80(1.25–2.60) in case the patient had a history of chronic nociceptive pain, 2.06(1.30–3.26) if he had mental diseases, and 3.35(2.21–5.08) if he had opioid dependency at the time of consultation from APS. Strong predictors of frequent visits included female gender (P = 0.04).

Conclusions

Beside the benefits of APS in reducing pain intensity, this study demonstrates that the focus of APS has been shifted from the traditional treatment of acute surgical pain to the clinical challenges of treating hospitalized patients with a high comorbidity of psychiatric diseases, opioid dependency and chronic pain.

Implications

The concept of an APS will ultimately be redefined according to the new clinical variables. In the light of the increasing number of patients with complex pain states and chronic pain, opioid dependency and psychiatric comorbidities it is mandatory that the interdisciplinary APS team should include other specialties besides the “classical interdisciplinary APS team”, as psychiatry, psychology, rehabilitation and physiotherapy with experience in treating chronic pain patients.