RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The way that pain is assessed in the PACU could impact on postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. However, there is currently no evidence to support this speculation. The authors hypothesised that using a comfort scale reduces postoperative opioid consumption when compared with a standard numerical rating scale (NRS) to evaluate pain in the PACU. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, patients were assessed using either a comfort scale (comfort group) or a pain NRS (NRS group). The primary outcome was the opioid consumption in the PACU. The main secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, length of stay in the PACU, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 885 randomised patients, 860 were included in the analysis. Opioid consumption in the PACU was comparable in the comfort and NRS groups (median [interquartile range [IQR] 0 (0-5) vs 0 (0-6); P=0.2436), irrespective of the type of surgical procedure. The majority of patients did not need any postoperative opioid (59% in the comfort group and 56% in the NRS group, P=0.2260). There was no difference in postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, time to reach an Aldrete score ≥9 after extubation, and global satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Using a comfort scale to assess pain in the PACU did not spare any opioid compared with use of a standard NRS. Further studies focusing on patients at risk of increased postoperative opioid consumption are necessary. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05234216.
Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides , Período de Recuperação da Anestesia , Medição da Dor , Dor Pós-Operatória , Humanos , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Masculino , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição da Dor/métodos , Idoso , Adulto , Náusea e Vômito Pós-Operatórios , Satisfação do Paciente , Tempo de Internação/estatística & dados numéricosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to improving patient experience and analgesia after ambulatory orthopaedic surgery remains unclear. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised clinical trial compared single-injection nerve block analgesia with home delivery of continuous nerve block analgesia by remote-controlled electronic pump. The primary outcome was patient-reported satisfaction (Evaluation du Vecu de l'Anesthesie Generale [EVAN-G]; 0-100) assessed on postoperative Day 2. Secondary outcomes focused on pain, opioid consumption, quality of rehabilitation, activity tracking using a wearable electronic device, and 90-day quality of life. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 294 patients to continuous pump delivery or single injection. For subjects with normal level of pain catastrophising (Pain Catastrophizing Scale <30; n=211), median global EVAN-G was higher with the electronic pump compared with the single injection (78 [69-86] vs 72 [63-84]; P=0.03), as were pain satisfaction scores (P=0.01). For the maximum pain levels, the numerical rating scale score was 2.0 (1.0-5.0) in the electronic-pump group vs 5.0 (3.0-7.0) in the single-injection group on the first 2 days after surgery (P<0.0001). Total opioid consumption in morphine equivalent was higher with single injection (mean [standard deviation]): 70.5 [73.8] vs 31.9 [54.2] mg; P<0.01). The groups did not differ in early rehabilitation on Day 1 or quality of life on Day 45. Electronic activity tracking indicated higher activity in the electronic-pump group (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported patient satisfaction at home was better with continuous nerve block analgesia via electronic pump vs single injection, without impairing early rehabilitation. Single-injection analgesia was associated with higher pain levels and opioid consumption and lower satisfaction. Patient catastrophising negatively affected the experience of pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02720965.