A Pilot Study of the Correlation between the Numeric Rating Scale used to Evaluate "Geop" and Questionnaires on Pain Perception

Do "central sensitization" questionnaires reflect measures of nociceptive sensitization or psychological constructs? A systematic review and meta-analyses

ABSTRACT

Central sensitization (CS) is defined as an increased nociceptive responsiveness due to sensitization of neurons in the central nervous system, usually the result of prolonged nociceptive input or a disease state associated with noxious inputs (eg, polyarthritis). The concept of CS has recently been adopted in clinical assessments of chronic pain, but its diagnosis in humans may now include a wide range of hypervigilant responses. The purpose of this review is to ascertain whether self-report questionnaires linked with CS are associated with enhanced nociceptive responses or whether they measure sensitivity in a broader sense (ie, emotional responses). According to our published, PROSPERO-registered review protocol (CRD42021208731), a predefined search of studies that involve the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) or Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire (PSQ), correlated with either nociceptive sensory tests or emotional hypervigilance was conducted on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Correlations between the CSI or PSQ with our primary outcomes were extracted and meta-analysed. A review of 66 studies totalling 13,284 participants found that the CSI (but not the PSQ) strongly correlated with psychological constructs: depression, anxiety, stress, pain catastrophising, sleep, and kinesiophobia. The CSI and PSQ showed weak or no correlations with experimental measures of nociceptive sensitivity: pain thresholds, temporal summation, or conditioned pain modulation. The PSQ did, however, correlate strongly with phasic heat and tonic cold pain tests. The studies reviewed did not provide sufficient evidence that self-report measures reflect a canonical understanding of CS. The CSI more closely reflects psychological hypervigilance than increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons.

Management of lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of rehabilitation, surgical, injection, and medication interventions

BACKGROUND

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has a substantial impact on mobility, autonomy, and quality of life. Previous reviews have demonstrated inconsistent results and/or have not delineated between specific nonsurgical interventions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions in the management of LSS.

METHODS

Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies, included patients with LSS, assessed the effectiveness of any interventions (rehabilitation, surgical, injection, medication), included at least two intervention groups, and included at least one measure of pain, disability, ambulation assessment, or LSS-specific symptoms. Eighty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were conducted across outcomes. Effect sizes were calculated using Hedge's g and reported descriptively. Formal grading of evidence was conducted.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis comparing rehabilitation to no treatment/placebo demonstrated significant effects on pain favoring rehabilitation (mean difference, MD -1.63; 95% CI: -2.68, -0.57; I² = 71%; p = .002). All other comparisons to no treatment/placebo revealed nonsignificant findings. The level of evidence ranged from very low to high for rehabilitation and medication versus no treatment/placebo for pain, disability, ambulation ability, and LSS symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the findings of this review are inconclusive regarding superiority of interventions, this accentuates the value of multimodal patient-centered care in the management of patients with LSS.

Paravertebral block using levobupivacaine or dexmedetomidine-levobupivacaine for analgesia after cholecystectomy: a randomized double-blind trial

Background

Thoracic paravertebral block (TPVB) has emerged as an effective and feasible mode of providing analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Though a variety of local anaesthetic combinations are used for providing TPVB, literature is sparse on use of dexmedetomidine in TPVB. We aimed to compare levobupivacaine and levobupivacaine-dexmedetomidine combination in ultrasound guided TPVB in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methodology

70 ASA I/II patients, aged 18–60 years, scheduled to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia were enrolled and divided into two groups. Before anaesthesia induction, group A patients received unilateral right sided ultrasound guided TPVB with 15 ml 0.25% levobupivacaine plus 2 ml normal saline while group B patients received unilateral right sided ultrasound guided TPVB with 15 ml 0.25% levobupivacaine plus 2 ml solution containing dexmedetomidine 1 μg.kg^-1. Patients were monitored for pain using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at rest, on movement, coughing and comfort scores post surgery. Total analgesic consumption in first 48 hour postoperative period, time to first request analgesic and pain scores were recorded.

Results

Total amount of rescue analgesia (injection tramadol plus injection tramadol intravenous equivalent dose) consumed during 48 hours postoperatively in group A was 146.55 mg while in group B was 111.30 mg (p = 0.026). Mean time for demanding rescue analgesia was 273 minutes in group A while in group B was 340 minutes (p = 0.00).

Conclusion

TPVB using dexmedetomidine 1 μg.kg^-1 added to levobupivacaine 0.25% in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy significantly reduced total analgesic consumption in first 48 hours and provided longer duration of analgesia postoperatively compared to levobupivacaine 0.25% alone.

Prediction of Pleural Adhesions by Lung Ultrasonography: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

Pleural adhesion makes video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) an arduous procedure and can increase postoperative pain from accompanying adhesiolysis. For the present study, the feasibility of lung ultrasonography for the prediction of pleural adhesions and postoperative pain in VATS was investigated.

DESIGN

Blinded, prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary teaching hospital, Seoul, South Korea.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to III) scheduled to undergo VATS were assessed for eligibility. After exclusions, 53 patients were enrolled and followed-up.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were evaluated with lung ultrasonography during deep spontaneous respiration before induction of anesthesia, and surgeons confirmed the presence of pleural adhesions during the surgery. Pain was evaluated using a numeric rating scale and by the amount of opioid consumption until 24 hours postoperatively. Lung ultrasonography showed acceptable predictability of pleural adhesions, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.83) and high specificity (0.97, 95% CI 0.91-0.99) but low sensitivity (0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.68). The pain score was not different between sonographic adhesion (+) and (-) groups; however, the sonographic adhesion (+) group consumed more opioids until 24 hours postoperatively (fentanyl 675 [558-805] μg v 420 [356-476] μg; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lung ultrasonography may help with planning postoperative pain management in VATS; however, it was a better tool for ruling out rather than detecting pleural adhesions.

Development of the Geop-Pain questionnaire for multidisciplinary assessment of pain sensitivity

Background

To assess the multidisciplinary aspects of pain, various self-rating questionnaires have been developed, but there have not been sufficient relevant studies on this topic in South Korea. The aim of this study was to develop a new pain sensitivity-related questionnaire in the Korean language that would be simple and would well reflect Koreans' senses.

Methods

A new pain assessment questionnaire was developed through a pre-survey on "geop", which is the Korean word expressing fear, anxiety, or catastrophizing. We named the new assessment questionnaire the Geop-Pain Questionnaire (GPQ). The GPQ was composed of 15 items divided into three categories and rated on a 5-point scale. As a preliminary study, internal consistency and test-retest reliability analyses were conducted. Subsequently, 109 individuals completed the GPQ along with three pain-related questionnaires translated into Korean (Pain Sensitivity Questionnaire [PSQ], Pain Anxiety Symptoms Scale [PASS], and Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS]), and the correlations were analyzed.

Results

All items in the GPQ showed appropriate internal consistency, and the test-retest reliability analysis showed no statistically significant differences. The correlations between the GPQ and the existing questionnaires revealed that the GPQ scores had mid-positive correlations with the PSQ scores and strong positive correlations with the PASS and PCS scores.

Conclusions

This study attempted to develop a questionnaire assessing pain sensitivity multidimensionally using the Korean word geop for the first time. The self-rating GPQ showed high correlations with the existing questionnaires and demonstrated potential to be utilized as a pain prediction index in clinical practice.