Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale: the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state

Background

The 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) score is widely used to measure pain intensity after surgery. Despite this widespread use, it is unclear what constitutes the minimal clinically important difference (MCID); that is, what minimal change in score would indicate a meaningful change in a patient's pain status.

Methods

We enrolled a sequential, unselected cohort of patients recovering from surgery and used a VAS to quantify pain intensity. We compared changes in the VAS with a global rating-of-change questionnaire using an anchor-based method and three distribution-based methods (0.3 sd , standard error of the measurement, and 5% range). We then averaged the change estimates to determine the MCID for the pain VAS. The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was defined as the 25th centile of the VAS corresponding to a positive patient response to having made a good recovery from surgery.

Results

We enrolled 224 patients at the first postoperative visit, and 219 of these were available for a second interview. The VAS scores improved significantly between the first two interviews. Triangulation of distribution and anchor-based methods resulted in an MCID of 9.9 for the pain VAS, and a PASS of 33.

Conclusions

Analgesic interventions that provide a change of 10 for the 100 mm pain VAS signify a clinically important improvement or deterioration, and a VAS of 33 or less signifies acceptable pain control (i.e. a responder), after surgery.

Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.

METHODS

We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.

Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

Low back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering worldwide. Those with persistent disabling symptoms also contribute to substantial costs to society via healthcare expenditure and reduced work productivity. While there are many treatment options, none are universally endorsed. The idea that chronic LBP is a condition best understood with reference to an interaction of physical, psychological and social influences, the 'biopsychosocial model', has received increasing acceptance. This has led to the development of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) programs that target factors from the different domains, administered by healthcare professionals from different backgrounds.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence on the effectiveness of MBR for patients with chronic LBP. The focus was on comparisons with usual care and with physical treatments measuring outcomes of pain, disability and work status, particularly in the long term.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases in January and March 2014 together with carrying out handsearches of the reference lists of included and related studies, forward citation tracking of included studies and screening of studies excluded in the previous version of this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All studies identified in the searches were screened independently by two review authors; disagreements regarding inclusion were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included adults with non-specific LBP of longer than 12 weeks duration; the index intervention targeted at least two of physical, psychological and social or work-related factors; and the index intervention was delivered by clinicians from at least two different professional backgrounds.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted and checked information to describe the included studies, assessed risk of bias and performed the analyses. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to describe the methodological quality. The primary outcomes were pain, disability and work status, divided into the short, medium and long term. Secondary outcomes were psychological functioning (for example depression, anxiety, catastrophising), healthcare service utilisation, quality of life and adverse events. We categorised the control interventions as usual care, physical treatment, surgery, or wait list for surgery in separate meta-analyses. The first two comparisons formed our primary focus. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE method. We performed sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of the methodological quality, and subgroup analyses to investigate the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.

MAIN RESULTS

From 6168 studies identified in the searches, 41 RCTs with a total of 6858 participants were included. Methodological quality ratings ranged from 1 to 9 out 12, and 13 of the 41 included studies were assessed as low risk of bias. Pooled estimates from 16 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR is more effective than usual care in reducing pain and disability, with standardised mean differences (SMDs) in the long term of 0.21 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.37) and 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.4) respectively. The range across all time points equated to approximately 0.5 to 1.4 units on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for pain and 1.4 to 2.5 points on the Roland Morris disability scale (0 to 24). There was moderate to low quality evidence of no difference on work outcomes (odds ratio (OR) at long term 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.47). Pooled estimates from 19 RCTs provided moderate to low quality evidence that MBR was more effective than physical treatment for pain and disability with SMDs in the long term of 0.51 (95% CI -0.01 to 1.04) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.19) respectively. Across all time points this translated to approximately 0.6 to 1.2 units on the pain scale and 1.2 to 4.0 points on the Roland Morris scale. There was moderate to low quality evidence of an effect on work outcomes (OR at long term 1.87, 95% CI 1.39 to 2.53). There was insufficient evidence to assess whether MBR interventions were associated with more adverse events than usual care or physical interventions.Sensitivity analyses did not suggest that the pooled estimates were unduly influenced by the results from low quality studies. Subgroup analyses were inconclusive regarding the influence of baseline symptom severity and intervention intensity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Patients with chronic LBP receiving MBR are likely to experience less pain and disability than those receiving usual care or a physical treatment. MBR also has a positive influence on work status compared to physical treatment. Effects are of a modest magnitude and should be balanced against the time and resource requirements of MBR programs. More intensive interventions were not responsible for effects that were substantially different to those of less intensive interventions. While we were not able to determine if symptom intensity at presentation influenced the likelihood of success, it seems appropriate that only those people with indicators of significant psychosocial impact are referred to MBR.

Measuring pain as the 5th vital sign does not improve quality of pain management

BACKGROUND

To improve pain management, the Veterans Health Administration launched the "Pain as the 5th Vital Sign" initiative in 1999, requiring a pain intensity rating (0 to 10) at all clinical encounters.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the initiative's impact on the quality of pain management.

DESIGN

We retrospectively reviewed medical records at a single medical center to compare providers' pain management before and after implementing the initiative and performed a subgroup analysis of patients reporting substantial pain (> or =4) during a postimplementation visit.

PARTICIPANTS

Unique patient visits selected from all 15 primary care providers of a general medicine outpatient clinic.

MEASUREMENTS

We used 7 process indicators of quality pain management, based on appropriately evaluating and treating pain, to assess 300 randomly selected visits before and 300 visits after implementing the pain initiative.

RESULTS

The quality of pain care was unchanged between visits before and after the pain initiative (P>.05 for all comparisons): subjective provider assessment (49.3% before, 48.7% after), pain exam (26.3%, 26.0%), orders to assess pain (11.7%, 8.3%), new analgesic (8.7%, 11.0%), change in existing analgesics (6.7%, 4.3%), other pain treatment (11.7%, 13.7%), or follow-up plans (10.0%, 8.7%). Patients (n=79) who reported substantial pain often did not receive recommended care: 22% had no attention to pain documented in the medical record, 27% had no further assessment documented, and 52% received no new therapy for pain at that visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Routinely measuring pain by the 5th vital sign did not increase the quality of pain management. Patients with substantial pain documented by the 5th vital sign often had inadequate pain management.

Measuring what matters: top-ranked quality indicators for hospice and palliative care from the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association

CONTEXT

Measuring quality of hospice and palliative care is critical for evaluating and improving care, but no standard U.S. quality indicator set exists.

OBJECTIVES

The Measuring What Matters (MWM) project aimed to recommend a concise portfolio of valid, clinically relevant, cross-cutting indicators for internal measurement of hospice and palliative care.

METHODS

The MWM process was a sequential consensus project of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA). We identified candidate indicators mapped to National Consensus Project (NCP) Palliative Care Guidelines domains. We narrowed the list through a modified Delphi rating process by a Technical Advisory Panel and Clinical User Panel and ratings from AAHPM and HPNA membership and key organizations.

RESULTS

We narrowed the initial 75 indicators to a final list of 10. These include one in the NCP domain Structure and Process (Comprehensive Assessment), three in Physical Aspects (Screening for Physical Symptoms, Pain Treatment, and Dyspnea Screening and Management), one in Psychological and Psychiatric Aspects (Discussion of Emotional or Psychological Needs), one in Spiritual and Existential Aspects (Discussion of Spiritual/Religious Concerns), and three in Ethical and Legal Aspects (Documentation of Surrogate, Treatment Preferences, and Care Consistency with Documented Care Preferences). The list also recommends a global indicator of patient/family perceptions of care, but does not endorse a specific survey instrument.

CONCLUSION

This consensus set of hospice and palliative care quality indicators is a foundation for standard, valid internal quality measurement for U.S.

SETTINGS

Further development will assemble implementation tools for quality measurement and benchmarking.

Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To critically appraise and compare the measurement properties of the original versions of neck-specific questionnaires.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases were searched for articles concerning the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of an original version of a self-reported questionnaire, evaluating pain and/or disability, which was specifically developed or adapted for patients with neck pain. The methodological quality of the selected studies and the results of the measurement properties were critically appraised and rated using a checklist, specifically designed for evaluating studies on measurement properties.

RESULTS

The search strategy resulted in a total of 3,641 unique hits, of which 25 articles, evaluating 8 different questionnaires, were included in our study. The Neck Disability Index is the most frequently evaluated questionnaire and shows positive results for internal consistency, content validity, structural validity, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness, but a negative result for reliability. The other questionnaires show positive results, but the evidence for each measurement property is mostly limited, and at least 50% of the information on measurement properties per questionnaire is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings imply that studies of high methodological quality are needed to properly assess the measurement properties of the currently available questionnaires. Until high quality studies are available, we recommend using these questionnaires with caution. There is no need for the development of new neck-specific questionnaires until the current questionnaires have been adequately assessed.

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip

BACKGROUND

Current international treatment guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA) report are based on limited evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether land-based therapeutic exercise is beneficial for people with hip OA in terms of reduced joint pain and improved physical function and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched five databases from inception up to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based therapeutic exercise (as opposed to exercises conducted in water) with a non-exercise group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently selected studies for inclusion. We resolved disagreements through consensus. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We conducted analyses on continuous outcomes (pain, physical function and quality of life) and dichotomous outcomes (proportion of study withdrawals).

MAIN RESULTS

We considered that seven of the 10 included RCTs had a low risk of bias. However, the results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias as none of the RCTs were able to blind participants to treatment allocation and, while most RCTs reported blinded outcome assessment, pain, physical function and quality of life were participant self reported. One of the 10 RCTs was only reported as a conference abstract and did not provide sufficient data for the evaluation of bias risk.High-quality evidence from nine trials (549 participants) indicated that exercise reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.55 to -0.20) and improved physical function (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.05) immediately after treatment. Pain and physical function were estimated to be 29 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no pain or loss of physical function) in the control group; exercise reduced pain by an equivalent of 8 points (95% CI 4 to 11 points; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6) and improved physical function by an equivalent of 7 points (95% CI 1 to 12 points; NNTB 6). Only three small studies (183 participants) evaluated quality of life, with overall low quality evidence, with no benefit of exercise demonstrated (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.36). Quality of life was estimated to be 50 points on a norm-based mean (standard deviation (SD)) score of 50 (10) in the general population in the control group; exercise improved quality of life by 0 points. Moderate-quality evidence from seven trials (715 participants) indicated an increased likelihood of withdrawal from the exercise allocation (event rate 6%) compared with the control group (event rate 3%), but this difference was not significant (risk difference 1%; 95% CI -1% to 4%). Of the five studies reporting adverse events, each study reported only one or two events and all were related to increased pain attributed to the exercise programme.The reduction in pain was sustained at least three to six months after ceasing monitored treatment (five RCTs, 391 participants): pain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.18). Pain was estimated to be 29 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no pain) in the control group, the improvement in pain translated to a sustained reduction in pain intensity of 8 points (95% CI 4 to 12 points) compared with the control group (0 to 100 scale). The improvement in physical function was also sustained (five RCTs, 367 participants): physical function (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.16). Physical function was estimated to be 24 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no loss of physical function) in the control group, the improvement translated to a mean of 7 points (95% CI 4 to 13) compared with the control group.Only five of the 10 RCTs exclusively recruited people with symptomatic hip OA (419 participants). There was no significant difference in pain or physical function outcomes compared with five studies recruiting participants with hip or knee OA (130 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pooling the results of these 10 RCTs demonstrated that land-based therapeutic exercise programmes can reduce pain and improve physical function among people with symptomatic hip OA.

Pain management following spinal surgeries: An appraisal of the available options

Spinal procedures are generally associated with intense pain in the postoperative period, especially for the initial few days. Adequate pain management in this period has been seen to correlate well with improved functional outcome, early ambulation, early discharge, and preventing the development of chronic pain. A diverse array of pharmacological options exists for the effective amelioration of post spinal surgery pain. Each of these drugs possesses inherent advantages and disadvantages which restricts their universal applicability. Therefore, combination therapy or multimodal analgesia for proper control of pain appears as the best approach in this regard. The current manuscript discussed the pathophysiology of postsurgical pain including its nature, the various tools for assessment, and the various pharmacological agents (both conventional and upcoming) available at our disposal to respond to post spinal surgery pain.

Selective versus routine use of episiotomy for vaginal birth

BACKGROUND

Some clinicians believe that routine episiotomy, a surgical cut of the vagina and perineum, will prevent serious tears during childbirth. On the other hand, an episiotomy guarantees perineal trauma and sutures.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on mother and baby of a policy of selective episiotomy ('only if needed') compared with a policy of routine episiotomy ('part of routine management') for vaginal births.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective versus routine use of episiotomy, irrespective of parity, setting or surgical type of episiotomy. We included trials where either unassisted or assisted vaginal births were intended. Quasi-RCTs, trials using a cross-over design or those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third author mediated where there was no clear consensus. We observed good practice for data analysis and interpretation where trialists were review authors. We used fixed-effect models unless heterogeneity precluded this, expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review includes 12 studies (6177 women), 11 in women in labour for whom a vaginal birth was intended, and one in women where an assisted birth was anticipated. Two were trials each with more than 1000 women (Argentina and the UK), and the rest were smaller (from Canada, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Columbia and Saudi Arabia). Eight trials included primiparous women only, and four trials were in both primiparous and multiparous women. For risk of bias, allocation was adequately concealed and reported in nine trials; sequence generation random and adequately reported in three trials; blinding of outcomes adequate and reported in one trial, blinding of participants and personnel reported in one trial.For women where an unassisted vaginal birth was anticipated, a policy of selective episiotomy may result in 30% fewer women experiencing severe perineal/vaginal trauma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5375 women; eight RCTs; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference for blood loss at delivery (an average of 27 mL less with selective episiotomy, 95% CI from 75 mL less to 20 mL more; two trials, 336 women, very low-certainty evidence). Both selective and routine episiotomy have little or no effect on infants with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (four trials, no events; 3908 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference in perineal infection (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.82, three trials, 1467 participants, low-certainty evidence).For pain, we do not know if selective episiotomy compared with routine results in fewer women with moderate or severe perineal pain (measured on a visual analogue scale) at three days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05, one trial, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) dyspareunia (RR1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53, three trials, 1107 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) urinary incontinence (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44, three trials, 1107 participants, low-certainty evidence). One trial reported genital prolapse at three years postpartum. There was no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.41; 365 women; one trial, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes relating to long-term effects were not reported (urinary fistula, rectal fistula, and faecal incontinence). Subgroup analyses by parity (primiparae versus multiparae) and by surgical method (midline versus mediolateral episiotomy) did not identify any modifying effects. Pain was not well assessed, and women's preferences were not reported.One trial examined selective episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy in women where an operative vaginal delivery was intended in 175 women, and did not show clear difference on severe perineal trauma between the restrictive and routine use of episiotomy, but the analysis was underpowered.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In women where no instrumental delivery is intended, selective episiotomy policies result in fewer women with severe perineal/vaginal trauma. Other findings, both in the short or long term, provide no clear evidence that selective episiotomy policies results in harm to mother or baby.The review thus demonstrates that believing that routine episiotomy reduces perineal/vaginal trauma is not justified by current evidence. Further research in women where instrumental delivery is intended may help clarify if routine episiotomy is useful in this particular group. These trials should use better, standardised outcome assessment methods.

Prediction of immediate postoperative pain using the analgesia/nociception index: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The analgesia/nociception index (ANI) is derived from heart rate variability, ranging from 0 (maximal nociception) to 100 (maximal analgesia), to reflect the analgesia/nociception balance during general anaesthesia. This should be correlated with immediate postoperative pain in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of ANI measured at arousal from general anaesthesia to predict immediate postoperative pain on arrival in PACU.

METHODS

Two hundred patients undergoing ear, nose, and throat or lower limb orthopaedic surgery with general anaesthesia using an inhalational agent and remifentanil were included in this prospective observational study. The ANI was measured immediately before tracheal extubation and pain intensity was assessed within 10 min of arrival in PACU using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS). The relationship between ANI and NRS was assessed using linear regression. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to evaluate the performance of ANI to predict NRS>3.

RESULTS

A negative linear relationship was observed between ANI immediately before extubation and NRS on arrival in PACU. Using a threshold of <50, the sensitivity and specificity of ANI to discriminate between patients with NRS≤3 and NRS>3 were both 86% with 92% negative predictive value, corresponding to an area under the ROC curve of 0.89.

CONCLUSIONS

The measurement of ANI immediately before extubation after inhalation-remifentanil anaesthesia was significantly associated with pain intensity on arrival in PACU. The performance of ANI for the prediction of immediate postoperative pain is good and may assist physicians in optimizing acute pain management.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01796249.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

The sensory and affective components of pain: are they differentially modifiable dimensions or inseparable aspects of a unitary experience? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pain is recognised to have both a sensory dimension (intensity) and an affective dimension (unpleasantness). Pain feels like a single unpleasant bodily experience, but investigations of human pain have long considered these two dimensions of pain to be separable and differentially modifiable. The evidence underpinning this separability and differential modifiability is seldom presented. We aimed to fill this gap by evaluating the current evidence base for whether or not the sensory and affective dimensions of pain can be selectively modulated using cognitive manipulations.

METHODS

A rigorous systematic search, based on a priori search terms and consultation with field experts, yielded 4270 articles. A detailed screening process was based on the following recommendations: (i) evaluation of effectiveness; (ii) examination of methodological rigour, including each study having an a priori intention to cognitively modulate one of the two dimensions of pain; and (iii) sound theoretical reasoning. These were used to ensure that included studies definitively answered the research question.

RESULTS

After in-depth critique of all 12 articles that met the inclusion criteria, we found that there is no compelling evidence that the sensory and affective dimensions of pain can be selectively and intentionally modulated using cognitive manipulations in humans.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer potential explanations for this discrepancy between assumptions and evidence and contend that this finding highlights several important questions for the field, from both the research and clinical perspectives.

Neuropathic cancer pain: prevalence, severity, analgesics and impact from the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative-Computerised Symptom Assessment study

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain causes greater pain intensity and worse quality of life than nociceptive pain. There are no published data that confirm this in the cancer population.

AIM

We hypothesised that patients with neuropathic cancer pain had more intense pain, experienced greater suffering and were treated with more analgesics than those with nociceptive cancer pain, and a neuropathic pain screening tool, painDETECT, would perform as well in those with cancer pain as is reported in those with non-cancer pain.

DESIGN

The data were obtained from an international cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1051 patients from inpatients and outpatients, with incurable cancer completed a computerised assessment on symptoms, function and quality of life. In all, 17 centres within eight countries participated. Medical data were recorded by physicians. Pain type was a clinical diagnosis recorded on the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 670 had pain: 534 with nociceptive pain, 113 with neuropathic pain and 23 were unclassified. Patients with neuropathic cancer pain were significantly more likely to be receiving oncological treatment, strong opioids and adjuvant analgesia and have a reduced performance status. They reported worse physical, cognitive and social function. Sensitivity and specificity of painDETECT for identifying neuropathic cancer pain was less accurate than when used in non-cancer populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuropathic cancer pain is associated with a negative impact on daily living and greater analgesic requirements than nociceptive cancer pain. Validated assessment methods are needed to enable early identification of neuropathic cancer pain, leading to more appropriate treatment and reduced burden on patients.

Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids

BACKGROUND

Fibroids are common benign tumours arising in the uterus. Myomectomy is the surgical treatment of choice for women with symptomatic fibroids who prefer or want uterine conservation. Myomectomy can be performed by conventional laparotomy, by mini-laparotomy or by minimal access techniques such as hysteroscopy and laparoscopy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of laparoscopic or hysteroscopic myomectomy compared with open myomectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (inception to July 2014), the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (inception to July 2014), MEDLINE(R) (inception to July 2014), EMBASE (inception to July 2014), PsycINFO (inception to July 2014) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (inception to July 2014) to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also searched trial registers and references from selected relevant trials and review articles. We applied no language restriction in these searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing myomectomy via laparotomy, mini-laparotomy or laparoscopically assisted mini-laparotomy versus laparoscopy or hysteroscopy in premenopausal women with uterine fibroids diagnosed by clinical and ultrasound examination were included in the meta-analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted study selection and extracted data in duplicate. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain, reported in six studies, and in-hospital adverse events, reported in eight studies. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, reported in four studies, operating time, reported in eight studies and recurrence of fibroids, reported in three studies. Each of the other secondary outcomes-improvement in menstrual symptoms, change in quality of life, repeat myomectomy and hysterectomy at a later date-was reported in a single study. Odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and data combined using the fixed-effect model. The quality of evidence was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 23 potentially relevant trials, of which nine were eligible for inclusion in this review. The nine trials included in our meta-analysis had a total of 808 women. The overall risk of bias of included studies was low, as most studies properly reported their methods.Postoperative pain: Postoperative pain was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS), with zero meaning 'no pain at all' and 10 signifying 'pain as bad as it could be.' Postoperative pain was significantly less, as determined by subjectively assessed pain score at six hours (MD -2.40, 95% CI -2.88 to -1.92, one study, 148 women, moderate-quality evidence) and 48 hours postoperatively (MD -1.90, 95% CI -2.80 to -1.00, two studies, 80 women, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) in the laparoscopic myomectomy group compared with the open myomectomy group. This means that among women undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy, mean pain score at six hours and 48 hours would be likely to range from about three points lower to one point lower on a VAS zero-to-10 scale. No significant difference in postoperative pain score was noted between the laparoscopic and open myomectomy groups at 24 hours (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.12, four studies, 232 women, I² = 43%, moderate-quality evidence). The overall quality of these findings is moderate; therefore further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.In-hospital adverse events: No evidence suggested a difference in unscheduled return to theatre (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.86, two studies, 188 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence) and laparoconversion (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.83, eight studies, 756 women, I² = 53%, moderate-quality evidence) when open myomectomy was compared with laparoscopic myomectomy. Only one study including 148 women reported injury to pelvic organs (no events were described in other studies), and no significant difference was noted between laparoscopic myomectomy and laparoscopically assisted mini-laparotomy myomectomy (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.86). Significantly lower risk of postoperative fever was observed in the laparoscopic myomectomy group compared with groups treated with all types of open myomectomy (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.77, I² = 0%, six studies, 635 women). This indicates that among women undergoing laparoscopic myomectomy, the risk of postoperative fever is 50% lower than among those treated with open surgery. No studies reported immediate hysterectomy, uterine rupture, thromboembolism or mortality. Six studies including 549 women reported haemoglobin drop, but these studies were not pooled because of extreme heterogeneity (I² = 97%) and therefore could not be included in the analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic myomectomy is a procedure associated with less subjectively reported postoperative pain, lower postoperative fever and shorter hospital stay compared with all types of open myomectomy. No evidence suggested a difference in recurrence risk between laparoscopic and open myomectomy. More studies are needed to assess rates of uterine rupture, occurrence of thromboembolism, need for repeat myomectomy and hysterectomy at a later stage.

Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous vertebroplasty remains widely used to treat osteoporotic vertebral fractures although our 2015 Cochrane review did not support its role in routine practice.

OBJECTIVES

To update the available evidence of the benefits and harms of vertebroplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral fractures.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase and trial registries to 15 November 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures, comparing vertebroplasty with placebo (sham), usual care, or another intervention. As it is least prone to bias, vertebroplasty compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Major outcomes were mean overall pain, disability, disease-specific and overall health-related quality of life, patient-reported treatment success, new symptomatic vertebral fractures and number of other serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials were included: five compared vertebroplasty with placebo (541 randomised participants), eight with usual care (1136 randomised participants), seven with kyphoplasty (968 randomised participants) and one compared vertebroplasty with facet joint glucocorticoid injection (217 randomised participants). Trial size varied from 46 to 404 participants, most participants were female, mean age ranged between 62.6 and 81 years, and mean symptom duration varied from a week to more than six months.Three placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias and two were possibly susceptible to performance and detection bias. Other trials were at risk of bias for several criteria, most notably due to lack of participant and personnel blinding.Compared with placebo, high- to moderate-quality evidence from five trials (one with incomplete data reported) indicates that vertebroplasty provides no clinically important benefits with respect to pain, disability, disease-specific or overall quality of life or treatment success at one month. Evidence for quality of life and treatment success was downgraded due to possible imprecision. Evidence was not downgraded for potential publication bias as only one placebo-controlled trial remains unreported. Mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain) was five points with placebo and 0.6 points better (0.2 better to 1 better) with vertebroplasty, an absolute pain reduction of 6% (2% better to 10% better, minimal clinical important difference is 15%) and relative reduction of 9% (3% better to14% better) (five trials, 535 participants). Mean disability measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scale range zero to 23, higher scores indicate worse disability) was 14.2 points in the placebo group and 1.7 points better (0.3 better to 3.1 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement 7% (1% to 14% better), relative improvement 10% better (3% to 18% better) (three trials, 296 participants).Disease-specific quality of life measured by the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO) (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating worse quality of life) was 62 points in the placebo group and 2.75 points (3.53 worse to 9.02 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute change: 3% better (4% worse to 9% better), relative change: 5% better (6% worse to 15% better (two trials, 175 participants). Overall quality of life (European Quality of Life (EQ5D), zero = death to 1 = perfect health, higher scores indicate greater quality of life) was 0.38 points in the placebo group and 0.05 points better (0.01 better to 0.09 better) in the vertebroplasty group, absolute improvement: 5% (1% to 9% better), relative improvement: 18% (4% to 32% better) (three trials, 285 participants). In one trial (78 participants), 9/40 (or 225 per 1000) people perceived that treatment was successful in the placebo group compared with 12/38 (or 315 per 1000; 95% CI 150 to 664) in the vertebroplasty group, RR 1.40 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.95), absolute difference: 9% more reported success (11% fewer to 29% more); relative change: 40% more reported success (33% fewer to 195% more).Moderate-quality evidence (low number of events) from seven trials (four placebo, three usual care, 1020 participants), up to 24 months follow-up, indicates we are uncertain whether vertebroplasty increases the risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures (70/509 (or 130 per 1000; range 60 to 247) observed in the vertebroplasty group compared with 59/511 (120 per 1000) in the control group; RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.62 to 1.87)).Similarly, moderate-quality evidence (low number of events) from five trials (three placebo, two usual care, 821 participants), indicates uncertainty around the risk of other serious adverse events (18/408 or 76 per 1000, range 6 to 156) in the vertebroplasty group compared with 26/413 (or 106 per 1000) in the control group; RR 0.64 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.12). Notably, serious adverse events reported with vertebroplasty included osteomyelitis, cord compression, thecal sac injury and respiratory failure.Our subgroup analyses indicate that the effects did not differ according to duration of pain ≤ 6 weeks versus > 6 weeks. Including data from the eight trials that compared vertebroplasty with usual care in a sensitivity analyses altered the primary results, with all combined analyses displaying considerable heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based upon high- to moderate-quality evidence, our updated review does not support a role for vertebroplasty for treating acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice. We found no demonstrable clinically important benefits compared with placebo (sham procedure) and subgroup analyses indicated that the results did not differ according to duration of pain ≤ 6 weeks versus > 6 weeks.Sensitivity analyses confirmed that open trials comparing vertebroplasty with usual care are likely to have overestimated any benefit of vertebroplasty. Correcting for these biases would likely drive any benefits observed with vertebroplasty towards the null, in keeping with findings from the placebo-controlled trials.Numerous serious adverse events have been observed following vertebroplasty. However due to the small number of events, we cannot be certain about whether or not vertebroplasty results in a clinically important increased risk of new symptomatic vertebral fractures and/or other serious adverse events. Patients should be informed about both the high- to moderate-quality evidence that shows no important benefit of vertebroplasty and its potential for harm.

Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in people with spinal cord injury

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is frequent in persons living with spinal cord injury (SCI). Conventionally, the pain is treated pharmacologically, yet long-term pain medication is often refractory and associated with side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions are frequently advocated, although the benefit and harm profiles of these treatments are not well established, in part because of methodological weaknesses of available studies.

OBJECTIVES

To critically appraise and synthesise available research evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain in people living with SCI.

SEARCH METHODS

The search was run on the 1st March 2011. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), four other databases and clinical trials registers. In addition, we manually searched the proceedings of three major scientific conferences on SCI. We updated this search in November 2014 but these results have not yet been incorporated.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any intervention not involving intake of medication or other active substances to treat chronic pain in people with SCI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. The primary outcome was any measure of pain intensity or pain relief. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, anxiety, depression and quality of life. When possible, meta-analyses were performed to calculate standardised mean differences for each type of intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 trials involving a total of 616 participants. Eight different types of interventions were studied. Eight trials investigated the effects of electrical brain stimulation (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES); five trials) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS; three trials). Interventions in the remaining studies included exercise programmes (three trials); acupuncture (two trials); self-hypnosis (one trial); transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) (one trial); and a cognitive behavioural programme (one trial). None of the included trials were considered to have low overall risk of bias. Twelve studies had high overall risk of bias, and in four studies risk of bias was unclear. The overall quality of the included studies was weak. Their validity was impaired by methodological weaknesses such as inappropriate choice of control groups. An additional search in November 2014 identified more recent studies that will be included in an update of this review.For tDCS the pooled mean difference between intervention and control groups in pain scores on an 11-point visual analogue scale (VAS) (0-10) was a reduction of -1.90 units (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.48 to -0.33; P value 0.02) in the short term and of -1.87 (95% CI -3.30 to -0.45; P value 0.01) in the mid term. Exercise programmes led to mean reductions in chronic shoulder pain of -1.9 score points for the Short Form (SF)-36 item for pain experience (95% CI -3.4 to -0.4; P value 0.01) and -2.8 pain VAS units (95% CI -3.77 to -1.83; P value < 0.00001); this represented the largest observed treatment effects in the included studies. Trials using rTMS, CES, acupuncture, self-hypnosis, TENS or a cognitive behavioural programme provided no evidence that these interventions reduce chronic pain. Ten trials examined study endpoints other than pain, including anxiety, depression and quality of life, but available data were too scarce for firm conclusions to be drawn. In four trials no side effects were reported with study interventions. Five trials reported transient mild side effects. Overall, a paucity of evidence was found on any serious or long-lasting side effects of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to suggest that non-pharmacological treatments are effective in reducing chronic pain in people living with SCI. The benefits and harms of commonly used non-pharmacological pain treatments should be investigated in randomised controlled trials with adequate sample size and study methodology.

Minimally invasive discectomy versus microdiscectomy/open discectomy for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation

BACKGROUND

Microdiscectomy or open discectomy (MD/OD) are the standard procedures for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation and they involve removal of the portion of the intervertebral disc compressing the nerve root or spinal cord (or both) with or without the aid of a headlight loupe or microscope magnification. Potential advantages of newer minimally invasive discectomy (MID) procedures over standard MD/OD include less blood loss, less postoperative pain, shorter hospitalisation and earlier return to work.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of MID versus MD/OD for management of lumbar intervertebral discopathy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2013) and EMBASE (1974 to November 2013) and applied no language restrictions. We also contacted experts in the field for additional studies and reviewed reference lists of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (QRCTs) that compared MD/OD with a MID (percutaneous endoscopic interlaminar or transforaminal lumbar discectomy, transmuscular tubular microdiscectomy and automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy) for treatment of adults with lumbar radiculopathy secondary to discopathy. We evaluated the following primary outcomes: pain related to sciatica or low back pain (LBP) as measured by a visual analogue scale, sciatic specific outcomes such as neurological deficit of lower extremity or bowel/urinary incontinence and functional outcomes (including daily activity or return to work). We also evaluated the following secondary outcomes: complications of surgery, duration of hospital stay, postoperative opioid use, quality of life and overall participant satisfaction. Two authors checked data abstractions and articles for inclusion. We resolved discrepancies by consensus.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We used pre-developed forms to extract data and two authors independently assessed risk of bias. For statistical analysis, we used risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 11 studies (1172 participants). We assessed seven out of 11 studies as having high overall risk of bias. There was low-quality evidence that MID was associated with worse leg pain than MD/OD at follow-up ranging from six months to two years (e.g. at one year: MD 0.13, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.16), but differences were small (less than 0.5 points on a 0 to 10 scale) and did not meet standard thresholds for clinically meaningful differences. There was low-quality evidence that MID was associated with worse LBP than MD/OD at six-month follow-up (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.51) and at two years (MD 0.54, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79). There was no significant difference at one year (0 to 10 scale: MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.59). Statistical heterogeneity was small to high (I(2) statistic = 35% at six months, 90% at one year and 65% at two years). There were no clear differences between MID techniques and MD/OD on other primary outcomes related to functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index greater than six months postoperatively) and persistence of motor and sensory neurological deficits, though evidence on neurological deficits was limited by the small numbers of participants in the trials with neurological deficits at baseline. There was just one study for each of the sciatica-specific outcomes including the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index and the Sciatica Frequency Index, which did not need further analysis. For secondary outcomes, MID was associated with lower risk of surgical site and other infections, but higher risk of re-hospitalisation due to recurrent disc herniation. In addition, MID was associated with slightly lower quality of life (less than 5 points on a 100-point scale) on some measures of quality of life, such as some physical subclasses of the 36-item Short Form. Some trials found MID to be associated with shorter duration of hospitalisation than MD/OD, but results were inconsistent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MID may be inferior in terms of relief of leg pain, LBP and re-hospitalisation; however, differences in pain relief appeared to be small and may not be clinically important. Potential advantages of MID are lower risk of surgical site and other infections. MID may be associated with shorter hospital stay but the evidence was inconsistent. Given these potential advantages, more research is needed to define appropriate indications for MID as an alternative to standard MD/OD.

Complications associated with stellate ganglion nerve block: a systematic review

Stellate ganglion nerve blockade (SGNB) is a vital tool in our armamentarium for the treatment of various chronic pain syndromes. SGNB can be performed using the traditional landmark-based approach, or with image guidance using either fluoroscopy or ultrasound. In this review, we systematically analyzed reported SGNB-related complications between 1990 and 2018. Seven databases were queried for SGNB between January 1, 1990 and November 27, 2018. Search results of the complications associated with SGNB were reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. Out of a total of 1909 articles, 67 articles met our inclusion criteria, yielding 260 cases with adverse events. In 134 of the 260 (51.5%) cases, SGNB was performed with image guidance. Sixty-four (24.6%) and 70 (26.9%) of the complication cases reported the use of ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance, respectively. One hundred and seventy-eight (68.4%) patients had medication-related or systemic side effects, and 82 (31.5%) had procedure-related or local side effects. There was one report of death due to massive hematoma leading to airway obstruction. There was one case report of quadriplegia secondary to pyogenic cervical epidural abscess and discitis following an SGNB. Complications following SGNB have been reported with both landmark-based techniques and with imaging guidance using fluoroscopy or ultrasound. In our systematic review, most adverse events that were reported occurred during or shortly after SGNB. Vigilance, American Society of Anesthesiologists standard monitors for conscious sedation, and accessibility to resuscitation equipment are vital to the safe performance of SGNB.

Non-surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain

BACKGROUND

Chronic pelvic pain is a common and debilitating condition; its aetiology is multifactorial, involving social, psychological and biological factors. The management of chronic pelvic pain is challenging, as despite interventions involving surgery, many women remain in pain without a firm gynaecological diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of non-surgical interventions for women with chronic pelvic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register. We also searched (from inception to 5 February 2014) AMED, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS. We handsearched sources such as citation lists, trial registers and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain were eligible for inclusion. We included studies of women with a diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome or adhesions but excluded those with pain known to be caused by endometriosis, primary dysmenorrhoea (period pain), active chronic pelvic inflammatory disease or irritable bowel syndrome. We considered studies of any non-surgical intervention, including lifestyle, physical, medical and psychological treatments.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed independently by two review authors. Meta-analysis was performed using the Peto odds ratio (Peto OR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome measure was pain relief, and secondary outcome measures were psychological outcomes, quality of life, requirement for analgesia and adverse effects. The quality of the evidence was assessed by using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs were identified that involved non-surgical management of chronic pelvic pain: 13 trials were included in the review, and eight were excluded. The studies included a total of 750 women-406 women in the intervention groups and 344 in the control groups. Included studies had high attrition rates, and investigators often did not blind adequately or did not clearly describe randomisation procedures. Medical treatment versus placebo Progestogen (medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA)) was more effective than placebo at the end of treatment in terms of the number of women achieving a greater than 50% reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score immediately after treatment (Peto OR 3.00, 95% CI 1.70 to 5.31, two studies, n = 204, I(2) = 22%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence of benefit was maintained up to nine months after treatment (Peto OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.71, two studies, n = 204, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Women treated with progestogen reported more adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness) than those given placebo (high-quality evidence). The estimated effect of lofexidine on pain outcomes when compared with placebo was compatible with benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.61, one study, 39 women, low-quality evidence). Women in the lofexidine group reported more adverse effects (including drowsiness and dry mouth) than women given placebo (moderate-quality evidence). Head-to-head comparisons of medical treatments Head-to-head comparisons showed that women taking goserelin had greater improvement in pelvic pain score (MD 3, 95% CI 2.08 to 3.92, one study, n = 47, moderate-quality evidence) at one year than those taking progestogen. Women taking gabapentin had a lower VAS pain score than those taking amytriptyline (MD -1.50, 95% CI -2.06 to -0.94, n = 40, low-quality evidence). Study authors reported that no statistically significant difference was observed in the rate of adverse effects among women taking gabapentin compared with women given amytriptyline. The study comparing goserelin versus progestogen did not report on adverse effects. Psychological treatment Women who underwent reassurance ultrasound scans and received counselling were more likely to report improved pain than those treated with a standard 'wait and see' policy (Peto OR 6.77, 95% CI 2.83 to 16.19, n = 90, low-quality evidence). Significantly more women who had writing therapy as a disclosure reported improvement in pain than those in the non-disclosure group (Peto OR 4.47, 95% CI 1.41 to 14.13, n = 48, very low-quality evidence). No difference between groups in pain outcomes was noted when other psychological therapies were compared with standard care or placebo (quality of evidence ranged from very low to low). Studies did not report on adverse effects. Complementary therapy Distension of painful pelvic structures was more effective for pain when compared with counselling (MD 35.8, 95% CI 23.08 to 48.52 on a zero to 100 scale, one study, n = 48, moderate-quality evidence). No difference in pain levels was observed when magnetic therapy was compared with use of a control magnet (very low-quality evidence). Studies did not report on adverse effects.The results of studies examining psychological and complementary therapies could not be combined to yield meaningful results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of moderate quality supports progestogen as an option for chronic pelvic pain, with efficacy reported during treatment. In practice, this option may be most acceptable among women unconcerned about progestogenic adverse effects (e.g. weight gain, bloatedness-the most common adverse effects). Although some evidence suggests possible benefit of goserelin when compared with progestogen, gabapentin as compared with amytriptyline, ultrasound versus 'wait and see' and writing therapy versus non-disclosure, the quality of evidence is generally low, and evidence is drawn from single studies.Given the prevalence and healthcare costs associated with chronic pelvic pain in women, RCTs of other medical, lifestyle and psychological interventions are urgently required.

Segmental hyperalgesia to mechanical stimulus in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome: evidence of central sensitization

PURPOSE

We investigate if subjects with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome demonstrate mechanical or thermal hyperalgesia, and whether the hyperalgesia is segmental or generalized (global).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten female subjects with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and 10 age matched female controls without comorbid fibromyalgia or narcotic use were recruited for quantitative sensory testing. Using the method of limits, pressure pain and heat pain thresholds were measured. Using the method of fixed stimulus, the visual analog scale pain experienced was recorded when a fixed pressure/temperature was applied.

RESULTS

The visual analog scale pain rated by female subjects with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome was significantly higher than that rated by female control subjects when a fixed mechanical pressure (2 or 4 kg) was applied to the suprapubic (T11) area (p = 0.028). There was an up shift of the stimulus-response curve, which corresponded to the presence of mechanical hyperalgesia in the suprapubic area in interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome. However, the visual analog scale pain rated by subjects with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome was not different from that rated by controls when a fixed pressure was applied at the other body sites (T1 arm, L4 leg, S2-3 sacral). No difference in visual analog scale pain rating was noted when a fixed heat stimulus (35C or 37C) was applied to any of the body sites tested (T1, T11, L4, S2). There was no difference in pressure pain thresholds or thermal pain thresholds between subjects with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome and controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Female subjects with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome showed segmental hyperalgesia to mechanical pressure stimulation in the suprapubic area (T10-T12). This segmental hyperalgesia may be explained in part by spinal central sensitization.

Efficacy of Transforaminal Endoscopic Spine System (TESSYS) Technique in Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation

BACKGROUND To compare efficacy and safety of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic spine system (TESSYS) and traditional fenestration discectomy (FD) in treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH). MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 106 LDH patients were divided into TESSYS group (n=48) and FD group (n=58). Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and modified MacNab criteria were used for efficacy evaluation. Post-operative responses were compared by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) based on detection of serum IL-6, CRP, and CPK levels. RESULTS In the TESSYS group, compared with the FD group, we observed, shorter incision length, less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, lower hospitalization cost, shorter recovery time, lower complication rate (all P<0.001), and lower VAS scores of lumbago and skelalgia at 3 days and 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively (all P<0.05). At 24 and 48 h postoperatively, CRP level was remarkably higher in the FD group compared to the TESSYS group (P<0.001). Further, comparison of IL-6 levels at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h postoperatively revealed significantly higher levels in the FD group than in the FESSYS group (all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS TESSYS had clinical advantages over FD and entails less trauma and quicker postoperative recovery, suggesting that TESSYS is well tolerated by patients and is a better approach than FD in surgical treatment of LDH.

Comparing the psychometric properties of the Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Behaviors (CNPI) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAIN-AD) instruments

OBJECTIVE

To examine and compare the psychometric properties of two common observational pain assessment tools used in persons with dementia.

DESIGN

In a cross-sectional descriptive study nursing home (NH) residents were videotaped at rest and during a structured movement procedure. Following one training session and one practice session, two trained graduate nursing research assistants independently scored the tapes using the two pain observation tools.

SETTING

Fourteen NHs in Western Washington State participating in a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to enhance pain assessment and management.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty participants with moderate to severe pain were identified by nursing staff or chosen based on the pain items from the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment.

MEASURES

Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators (CNPI) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), demographic and pain-related data (Minimum Data Set), nursing assistant reports of participants' usual pain intensity, and Pittsburgh Agitation Scale.

RESULTS

Internal consistency for both tools was good except for the CNPI at rest for one rater. Inter-rater reliability for pain presence was fair (K = 0.25 for CNPI with movement; K = 0.31 for PAINAD at rest) to moderate (K = 0.43 for CNPI at rest; K = 0.54 for PAINAD with movement). There were significant differences in mean CNPI and PAINAD scores at rest and during movement, providing support for construct validity. However, both tools demonstrated marked floor effects, particularly when participants were at rest.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite earlier studies supporting the reliability and validity of the CNPI and the PAINAD, findings from the current study indicate that these measures warrant further study with clinical users, should be used cautiously both in research and clinical settings and only as part of a comprehensive approach to pain assessment.

Comparing quantification of pain severity by verbal rating and numeric rating scales

BACKGROUND

Researchers have reported widely varying correlations among the 3 main instruments used to quantify pain severity, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), both at the level of groups and at the level of individuals.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparability of reports of pain severity using a VRS and a NRS in a spinal cord injury (SCI) sample.

METHODS

Data were taken from a longitudinal observational study. Patients were 168 individuals with new traumatic SCI admitted for inpatient rehabilitation who completed the VRS and NRS multiple times, each time for multiple pains as appropriate.

RESULTS

For 1114 ratings of pain, VRS and corresponding NRS ratings were correlated weakly (Spearman correlation, rho = 0.38). For 36 individuals with at least 10 completions of paired VRS and NRS, rho ranged from -0.55 to 0.76. Variation in NRS rating for each VRS adjective was reduced by about 25% when between-patient variation was eliminated. Mean NRS ratings by VRS adjective, for patients who had used each of at least 2 adjectives at least 5 times each, showed large differences in mean NRS scores between individuals using the same VRS adjective.

CONCLUSION

There are considerable differences between individuals in how NRS and VRS are used; there also seem to be individuals whose understanding of the meaning of the VRS adjectives is completely different from what was assumed by the creators of this VRS. Both VRS and NRS data must be used with extreme caution by SCI clinicians and researchers.

Pain assessment and pain treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVES

To describe the current literature on pain assessment and pain treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia.

METHOD

A comprehensive systematic search of the literature with narrative synthesis was conducted. Eight major bibliographic databases were searched in October 2018. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were sequentially screened. Standardised data extraction and quality appraisal exercises were conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were included in the review, 11 reporting findings on pain assessment tools or methods and 27 reporting findings on treatments for pain. In regard to pain assessment, a large proportion of people with moderate to severe dementia were unable to complete a self-report pain instrument. Pain was more commonly reported by informal caregivers than the person with dementia themselves. Limited evidence was available for pain-focused behavioural observation assessment. In regard to pain treatment, paracetamol use was more common in community-dwelling people with dementia compared with people without dementia. However, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were used less. For stronger analgesics, community-dwelling people with dementia were more likely to receive strong opioids (eg, fentanyl) than people without dementia.

CONCLUSION

This review identifies a dearth of high-quality studies exploring pain assessment and/or treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia, not least into non-pharmacological interventions. The consequences of this lack of evidence, given the current and projected prevalence of the disease, are very serious and require urgent redress. In the meantime, clinicians should adopt a patient- and caregiver-centred, multi-dimensional, longitudinal approach to pain assessment and pain treatment for this population.