Intravenous Opioid Medication with Piritramide Reduces the Risk of Pneumothorax During CT-Guided Percutaneous Core Biopsy of the Lung.

PURPOSE: CT-guided percutaneous core biopsy of the lung is usually performed under local anesthesia, but can also be conducted under additional systemic opioid medication. The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the effect of intravenous piritramide application on the pneumothorax rate and to identify risk factors for post-biopsy pneumothorax. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy-one core biopsies of the lung were included in this retrospective single center study. The incidence of pneumothorax and chest tube placement was evaluated. Patient-, procedure- and target-related variables were analyzed by univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The overall incidence of pneumothorax was 39.2% (67/171). The pneumothorax rate was 31.5% (29/92) in patients who received intravenous piritramide and 48.1% (38/79) in patients who did not receive piritramide. In multivariable logistic regression analysis periinterventional piritramide application proved to be the only independent factor to reduce the risk of pneumothorax (odds ratio 0.46, 95%-confidence interval 0.24, 0.88; p = 0.018). Two or more pleura passages (odds ratio 3.38, 95%-confidence interval: 1.15, 9.87; p = 0.026) and prone position of the patient (odds ratio 2.27, 95%-confidence interval: 1.04, 4.94; p = 0.039) were independent risk factors for a higher pneumothorax rate. CONCLUSION: Procedural opioid medication with piritramide proved to be a previously undisclosed factor decreasing the risk of pneumothorax associated with CT-guided percutaneous core biopsy of the lung. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4: small study cohort.

Pre-hospital analgesia in pediatric trauma and critically ill patients: An analysis of a German air rescue service.

BACKGROUND: Pain management in the pre-hospital setting remains a particular challenge for paramedics and emergency physicians, especially in children. This study evaluates the pre-hospital use and effect of analgesics in children with trauma or pain due to other reasons. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis of the database of a German air rescue service and was conducted over a period of 9 years (2012-2020) to assess pain in general and whether patients with trauma pain due to other reasons received treatment with analgesics. We included all patients in the registry under the age of 16 years. Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 3 at hospital admission and incomplete records were excluded. The intensity of pain was determined by the emergency physician on scene at arrival and hospital admission in a ten-point rating scale (0 = no pain). Effective pain reduction was analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 227,458 cases, a total of 22,025 emergency cases involved pediatric patients aged 0-16 years. 20,405 cases were included in the study. 12,000 (58.8%) children had suffered a trauma, 8108 (39.7%) had pain due to other reasons and 297 (1.5%) had both. In total, 4,608 (38.4%) of the children with trauma were assessed having a numerical rating scale (NRS) > 4 at EMS arrival. These patients received mainly ketamine (34.5%) and the opioids fentanyl (38.7%) and piritramide (19.1%). The value on the NRS was significantly lower at admission to hospital (mean 1.9) compared with the EMS arrival (mean 6.9). In 4.9% the NRS at hospital admission was still > 4. 282 patients within the non-trauma group had a pre-hospital NRS of > 4. The pain therapy consisted of opioids (35.8%) and ketamine (2.8%). 28.4% patients in the non-trauma group received no pain medication. In 16.0% the NRS at hospital admission was still > 4. CONCLUSIONS: German emergency physicians achieved a sufficient pain therapy in pediatric patients with a NRS > 4 after trauma. In case of non-trauma, the pain management by the emergency physicians is restrained and less successful. The most common analgesic medications administered were ketamine and fentanyl, followed by piritramide. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study has been retrospectively registered at DRKS (DRKS00026222).

Intravenous ibuprofen versus diclofenac plus orphenadrine in orthognathic surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of ibuprofen versus diclofenac plus orphenadrine on postoperative pain in orthognathic surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent orthognathic surgery were randomized into two groups to receive intravenously either 600 mg of ibuprofen (I-group) or 75 mg diclofenac plus 30 mg orphenadrine (D-group), both of which were given twice daily. Additionally, both groups were given metamizole 500 mg. Rescue pain medication consisted of acetaminophen 1000 mg and piritramide 7.5 mg as needed. To assess the pain intensity, the primary end point was the numeric rating scale (NRS) recorded over the course of the hospital stay three times daily for 3 days. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients were enrolled (age range, 18 to 61 years) between May 2019 and November 2020. Forty-eight bilateral sagittal split osteotomies (BSSO) and 51 bimaxillary osteotomies (BIMAX) were performed. Surgical subgroup analysis found a significant higher mean NRS (2.73 vs.1.23) in the BIMAX D-group vs. I-group (p = 0.015) on the third postoperative day. Additionally, as the patient's body mass index (BMI) increased, the mean NRS (r = 0.517, p = 0.001) also increased. No differences were found between age, gender, length of hospital stay, weight, operating times, number of patients with complete pain relief, acetaminophen or piritramide intake, and NRS values. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate that ibuprofen administration and lower BMI were associated with less pain for patients who underwent bimaxillary osteotomy on the third postoperative day. Therefore, surgeons may prefer ibuprofen for more effective pain relief after orthognathic surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ibuprofen differs from diclofenac plus orphenadrine in class and is a powerful analgetic after orthognathic surgery.

Analgesic effects of piritramide in acute postoperative pain - comparison of intramuscular administration with patient-controlled intravenous analgesia and impact of OPRM1 and ABCB1 polymorphisms.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, consumption and safety after piritramide administered either intramuscularly (IM) on demand or via patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) and to examine the impact of OPRM1 and ABCB1 gene polymorphisms on the drug efficacy/safety in both regimens. METHODS: One hundred and four patients scheduled for elective inguinal hernioplasty received piritramide with PCA or IM for postoperative pain management. We evaluated piritramide consumption, pain intensity using visual analogue scale (VAS) and adverse effects. RESULTS: Median (IQR) piritramide consumption was 18.5 (13.5-31.2) and 15.0 (15.0-15.0) mg in the PCA and IM groups, respectively (P=0.0092). The respective values of area under the VAS2-16-time curve were 40 and 280 mm.h (P=0.0027). Opioid-induced adverse effects were more frequent in the PCA than in the IM group. Variant OPRM1 allele was associated with decreased pain relief, increased opioid consumption and increased incidence of adverse effects, while ABCB1 polymorphisms showed no impact on the observed parameters. CONCLUSIONS: We observed higher piritramide consumption, better pain relief and slightly worse safety profile in the PCA group compared with IM administration. Variant OPRM1 118G allele carriers required higher opioid dosing and suffered from more adverse effects, however, the differences between genotypes have been less pronounced in the PCA patients likely due to improved pain management via PCA.

The effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative pain management compared to PCIA : A cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Standard protocols or algorithms are considered essential to ensure adequate analgesia. Germany has widely adopted postoperative protocols for pain management including oral opioids for rescue medication, but the effectiveness of such protocols has only been evaluated longitudinally in a before and after setting. The aim of this cohort analysis was to compare the effectiveness of an oral opioid rescue medication algorithm for postoperative management of pain to the gold standard of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study compared cohorts of patients of two prospective observational studies undergoing elective total hip replacement. After surgery patients received piritramide to achieve a pain score of ≤3 on the numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10). A protocol was started consisting of oral long-acting oxycodone and ibuprofen (basic analgesia). Cohort 1 (C1, 126 patients) additionally received an oral opioid rescue medication (hydromorphone) when reporting pain >3 on the NRS. Cohort 2 (C2, 88 patients) was provided with an opioid by PCIA (piritramide) for opioid rescue medication. Primary endpoints were pain intensity at rest, during movement, and maximum pain intensity within the first 24 h postoperative. Secondary endpoints were opioid consumption, functional outcome and patient satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS: Pain during movement and maximum pain intensity were higher in C1 compared to C2: pain on movement median 1st-3rd quartile: 6 (3.75-8) vs. 5 (3-7), p = 0.023; maximum pain intensity: 7 (5-9) vs. 5 (3-8), p = 0.008. There were no differences in pain intensity at rest or between women and men in either group. The mean opioid consumption in all patients (combined PACU, baseline, and rescue medication; mean ± SD mg ME) was 126.6 ± 51.8 mg oral ME (median 120 (87.47-154.25) mg ME). Total opioid consumption was lower in C1 than C2 (117 ± 46 mg vs 140 ± 56 mg, p = 0.002) due to differences in rescue opioids (C1: 57 ± 37 mg ME, C2: 73 ± 43 mg ME, p = 0.006, Z = -2.730). Basic analgesia opioid use was comparable (C1: 54 ± 31 mg ME, C2: 60 ± 36 mg ME, p = 0.288, Z = -1.063). There were no differences in respect to the addition of non-opioids and reported quality of mobilization, sleep, frequency of nausea and vomiting, or general satisfaction with pain management. CONCLUSION: In this study PCIA provided a better reduction of pain intensity, when compared to a standardized protocol with oral opioid rescue medication. This effect was associated with increased opioid consumption. There were no differences in frequencies of opioid side effects. This study was a retrospective analysis of two cohorts of a major project. As with all retrospective studies, our analysis has several limitations to consider. Data can only represent the observation of clinical practice. It cannot reflect the quality of a statement of a randomized controlled trial. Observational studies do not permit conclusions on causal relationships.

Remifentanil for abdominal surgery is associated with unexpectedly unfavorable outcomes.

Insufficient perioperative pain treatment is known as a highly predictive risk factor for the development of chronic postoperative pain. Remifentanil is an ultrashort-acting opioid that provides quick and efficient analgesia but is associated with the induction of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. Despite these well-known characteristics, this substance is being increasingly used in anesthesia and in a variety of medical fields, such as intensive-care medicine and obstetrics. The aim of our study was to reveal whether remifentanil influences postoperative pain, the requirement for postoperative analgesics, and requirement of antiemetics (as indirect indicator of postoperative nausea and vomiting), as well as the effects on time to extubation and length of stay in the postanesthesia care unit in daily clinical routine. From an electronic medical records database of 55,693 anesthesias, we analyzed data from all patients receiving intraabdominal surgery (visceral, gynecological, and urological) under general anesthesia or combined general-epidural anesthesia by propensity score matching. The administration of remifentanil was associated with higher postoperative pain scores despite a higher requirement of postoperative analgesics. Additional epidural analgesia was not able to avoid this finding. The intraoperative use of remifentanil is associated with a deterioration of pain levels and postoperative analgesic requirement, wherefore the potential benefit of this substance seems to be outweighed by its potential disadvantages. Especially in operative procedures in which high postoperative pain scores are expected, the unreflective use should be critically questioned.

Treating Therapy-Resistant Headache After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage with Acupuncture.

INTRODUCTION: Subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) is usually associated with severe headache, whereas the options of pharmacological analgesia are restricted. Acupuncture is a promising method in treatment of headaches associated with meningeal sensitivity or irritation, such as migraine or post-dural puncture headache. CASE REPORT: We report on 3 patients, who suffered severe headache due to aneurysmal SAH, and received acupuncture when pharmacological measures were exhausted. After acupuncture treatment all patients reported at least 50% pain reduction and could stop or reduce analgesics without side effects. DISCUSSION: Acupuncture may be an effective pain treatment method in patients suffering from headache due to SAH. Randomized trials using acupuncture as an add-on to standard analgesic therapy would help evaluate the role of acupuncture for this purpose.

Interventions to reduce shoulder pain following gynaecological laparoscopic procedures.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is a common procedure used to diagnose and treat various gynaecological conditions. Shoulder-tip pain (STP) as a result of the laparoscopy occurs in up to 80% of women, with potential for significant morbidity, delayed discharge and readmission. Interventions at the time of gynaecological laparoscopy have been developed in an attempt to reduce the incidence and severity of STP. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of methods for reducing the incidence and severity of shoulder-tip pain (STP) following gynaecological laparoscopy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 8 August 2018. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions used during or immediately after gynaecological laparoscopy to reduce the incidence or severity of STP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes: incidence or severity of STP and adverse events of the interventions; secondary outcomes: analgesia usage, delay in discharge, readmission rates, quality-of-life scores and healthcare costs. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies (3284 women). Laparoscopic procedures in these studies varied from diagnostic procedures to complex operations. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.Specific technique versus "standard" technique for releasing the pneumoperitoneumUse of a specific technique of releasing the pneumoperitoneum (pulmonary recruitment manoeuvre, extended assisted ventilation or actively aspirating intra-abdominal gas) reduced the severity of STP at 24 hours (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to -0.50; 5 RCTs; 670 participants; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) and reduced analgesia usage (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.35; 4 RCTs; 570 participants; I2 = 91%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be little or no difference in the incidence of STP at 24 hours (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.82; 1 RCT; 118 participants; low-quality evidence).No adverse events occurred in the only study assessing this outcome.Fluid instillation versus no fluid instillationFluid instillation is probably associated with a reduction in STP incidence (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.66; 2 RCTs; 220 participants; I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) and severity (mean difference (MD) (0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) scale) -2.27, 95% CI -3.06 to -1.48; 2 RCTs; 220 participants; I2 = 29%, moderate-quality evidence) at 24 hours, and may reduce analgesia usage (MD -12.02, 95% CI -23.97 to -0.06; 2 RCTs; 205 participants, low-quality evidence).No study measured adverse events.Intraperitoneal drain versus no intraperitoneal drainUsing an intraperitoneal drain may reduce the incidence of STP at 24 hours (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.46; 3 RCTs; 417 participants; I2 = 90%, low-quality evidence) and may reduce analgesia use within 48 hours post-operatively (SMD -1.84, 95% CI -2.14 to -1.54; 2 RCTs; 253 participants; I2 = 90%). We are uncertain whether it reduces the severity of STP at 24 hours, as the evidence was very low quality (MD (0 to 10 VAS scale) -1.85, 95% CI -2.15 to -1.55; 3 RCTs; 320 participants; I2 = 70%).No study measured adverse events.Subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control (no fluid instillation, normal saline or Ringer's lactate)There is probably little or no difference between the groups in incidence of STP (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.23; 4 RCTs; 336 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in STP severity (MD -1.13, 95% CI -2.52 to 0.26; 1 RCT; 50 participants; low-quality evidence), both measured at 24 hours. However, the intervention may reduce post-operative analgesia use (SMD-0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.21; 2 RCTs; 129 participants; I2 = 51%, low-quality evidence).No adverse events occurred in any study.Local anaesthetic into peritoneal cavity (not subdiaphragmatic) versus normal salineLocal anaesthetic into the peritoneal cavity may reduce the incidence of STP at 4 to 8 hours post-operatively (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93; 2 RCTs; 157 participants; I2 = 56%; low-quality evidence). Our other outcomes of interest were not assessed.Warmed, or warmed and humidified CO2 versus unwarmed and unhumidified CO2There may be no difference between these interventions in incidence of STP at 24 to 48 hours (OR 0.81 95% CI 0.45 to 1.49; 2 RCTs; 194 participants; I2 = 12%; low-quality evidence) or in analgesia usage within 48 hours (MD -4.97 mg morphine, 95% CI -11.25 to 1.31; 1 RCT; 95 participants; low-quality evidence); there is probably little or no difference in STP severity at 24 hours (MD (0 to 10 VAS scale) 0.11, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.97; 2 RCTs; 157 participants; I2 = 50%; moderate-quality evidence).No study measured adverse events.Gasless laparoscopy versus CO2 insufflationGasless laparoscopy may be associated with increased severity of STP within 72 hours post-operatively when compared with standard treatment (MD 3.8 (0 to 30 VAS scale), 95% CI 0.76 to 6.84; 1 RCT; 54 participants, low-quality evidence), and there may be no difference in the risk of adverse events (OR 2.56, 95% CI 0.25 to 26.28; 1 RCT; 54 participants; low-quality evidence).No study measured the incidence of STP. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low to moderate-quality evidence that the following interventions are associated with a reduction in the incidence or severity, or both, of STP, or a reduction in analgesia requirements for women undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy: a specific technique for releasing the pneumoperitoneum; intraperitoneal fluid instillation; an intraperitoneal drain; and local anaesthetic applied to the peritoneal cavity (not subdiaphragmatic).There is low to moderate-quality evidence that subdiaphragmatic intraperitoneal local anaesthetic and warmed and humidified insufflating gas may not make a difference to the incidence or severity of STP.There is low-quality evidence that gasless laparoscopy may increase the severity of STP, compared with standard treatment.Few studies reported data on adverse events. Some potentially useful interventions have not been studied by RCTs of gynaecological laparoscopy.

[Oxycodone, piritramide and tramadol for the management of postoperative pain : A registry study on use and effectiveness in clinical routine]. / Oxycodon, Piritramid und Tramadol zur postoperativen Schmerztherapie : Eine Registerstudie zur Verwendung und Wirksamkeit.

BACKGROUND: In the context of improving perioperative pain management and shortening hospital stays, potent oral analgesics, such as slow release opioids, are gaining increasingly in importance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the use and effectiveness of different opioids in postoperative pain treatment in Germany. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using data from the QUIPS database, the records of 5249 patients were evaluated. The total study population was divided into four groups: group 1 (10 mg oxycodone with or without naloxone 5 mg), group 2 (20 mg oxycodone with or without naloxone 10 mg), group 3 (piritramide) and group 4 (tramadol). Maximum pain intensity, pain-related interference with sleep and respiration, vomiting, postoperative fatigue, desire for more pain treatment and satisfaction with pain management were evaluated. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The differences in pain intensity were statistically significant between groups. Patients with piritramide reported more pain, more interference with sleep and respiration and more fatigue compared to those from the other groups. In the group with 10 mg oxycodone, the desire for additional pain medication was the lowest. Postoperative vomiting and satisfaction with pain management differed significantly between the four groups. Procedure-specific analysis has shown that differences between sub-groups were also significant following cholecystectomy and total knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our findings suggest that postoperative pain treatment with slow release oral oxycodone does not show disadvantages compared to tramadol or piritramide with regard to pain-related impairments and opioid-induced side effects. This hypothesis needs to be further analyzed in controlled studies.

Anesthesia in a child with suspected peroxisomal disorder.

We present the case of an 8­year-old female child with suspected peroxisomal disorder requiring general anesthesia for adenotomy, paracentesis and brainstem-evoked response audiometry. Peroxisomes are small intracellular organelles that catalyse key metabolic reactions. Peroxisomal disorders are a heterogeneous group of rare genetic diseases. Anesthesia can be challenging as adrenal insufficiency, mental retardation, muscle weakness, risk of pulmonary aspiration, airway complications, seizure disorders and altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can occur in these patients but guidelines for anesthesia do not exist due to the heterogeneity and rarity of these diseases and case reports are rare. Anesthesia was induced by sevoflurane via a face mask, followed by remifentanil and rocuronium for oral intubation after intravenous access was obtained. Anesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and remifentanil. Dexamethasone was given for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting as well as perioperative adrenal crises. Piritramide was given for postoperative analgesia. With this approach anesthesia was uneventful. The trachea was extubated with the patient awake and she was taken to the recovery room in a stable condition. The classification and breadth of clinical manifestations of peroxisomal disorders is complex and briefly summarized. Anesthesiologists should consider characteristics of their particular patient's form of peroxisomal disorder, as this may greatly influence procedural planning.

[Piritramide : A critical review]. / Piritramid : Eine kritische Übersicht.

BACKGROUND: In many European countries and particularly in Germany, piritramide is the first choice opioid analgesic for the management of postoperative and posttraumatic pain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the pharmacological properties of piritramide and to evaluate whether these result in any clinical advantages with respect to effectiveness, safety and side effect profile compared to other strong opioids. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Google Scholar and 27 articles published between 1961 and 2015 were retrieved and included in this review. RESULTS: Piritramide is a strong opioid that can only be administered parenterally. After intravenous injection it is effective after 17 min with pain relief lasting for up to 6 h. It is metabolized in the liver to inactive compounds, which is advantageous compared to morphine where active metabolites can accumulate in patients with renal failure. Piritramide is highly lipophilic resulting in a long context-sensitive half-life, making it unsuitable for continuous infusions. Studies further suggest that the side effect profile of piritramide is comparable to morphine. CONCLUSION: So far there is little evidence to support the widespread use of piritramide as first-line opioid analgesic for postoperative pain management in Germany. Especially lacking are in-depth studies about its mechanisms of action, receptor pharmacology, dose-response relationships and clinical dosing regimens. It is therefore questionable why piritramide is given priority.

Prediction of postoperative opioid analgesia using clinical-experimental parameters and electroencephalography.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are often used for pain treatment, but the response is often insufficient and dependent on e.g. the pain condition, genetic factors and drug class. Thus, there is an urgent need to identify biomarkers to enable selection of the appropriate drug for the individual patient, a concept known as personalized medicine. Quantitative sensory testing (QST) and clinical parameters can provide some guidance for response, but better and more objective biomarkers are urgently warranted. Electroencephalography (EEG) may be suitable since it assesses the central nervous system where opioids mediate their effects. METHODS: Clinical parameters, QST and EEG (during rest and tonic pain) was recorded from patients the day prior to total hip replacement surgery. Postoperative pain treatment was performed using oxycodone and piritramide as patient-controlled analgesia. Patients were stratified into responders and non-responders based on pain ratings 24 h post-surgery. Parameters were analysed using conventional group-wise statistical methods. Furthermore, EEG was analysed by machine learning to predict individual response. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were included, of which 51 responded to postoperative opioid treatment (30 non-responders). Conventional statistics showed that more severe pre-existing chronic pain was prevalent among non-responders to opioid treatment (p = 0.04). Preoperative EEG analysis was able to predict responders with an accuracy of 65% (p = 0.009), but only during tonic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain grade before surgery is associated with the outcome of postoperative pain treatment. Furthermore, EEG shows potential as an objective biomarker and might be used to predict postoperative opioid analgesia. SIGNIFICANCE: The current clinical study demonstrates the viability of EEG as a biomarker and with results consistent with previous experimental results. The combined method of machine learning and electroencephalography offers promising results for future developments of personalized pain treatment.

Continuous adductor canal block versus continuous femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty for mobilisation capability and pain treatment: a randomised and blinded clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Continuous femoral nerve blocks for total knee arthroplasty can cause motor weakness of the quadriceps muscle and thus prevent early mobilisation. Perioperative falls may result as an iatrogenic complication. In this randomised and blinded trial, we tested the hypothesis that a continuous adductor canal block is superior to continuous femoral nerve block regarding mobilisation ('timed up-and-go' test and other tests) after total knee arthroplasty under general anaesthesia. METHODS: In our study, we included patients scheduled for unilateral knee arthroplasty under general anaesthesia into a blinded and randomised trial. Patients were allocated to a continuous adductor canal block (CACB) or a continuous femoral nerve block (CFNB) for three postoperative days (POD 1-3); with a bolus of 15 ml ropivacaine 0.375%, followed by continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% and patient-controlled bolus administration. Both groups received an additional continuous sciatic nerve block as well as a multimodal systemic analgesic treatment. The primary outcome parameter was mobilisation capability, assessed by 'timed up-and-go' (TUG) test. Analgesic quality, need for opioid rescue and local anaesthetic consumption were also assessed. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included and analysed (21 patients per group). No significant difference was noted in respect to mobilisation at POD 3 (TUG [s]: CACB 45, CFNB 51). It is worth saying that pain scores (numeric rating scale, NRS) were similar in both groups at POD 3 {rest [median (interquartile range)]: CACB 0 (0-3), CFNB 1 (0-3); stress: CACB 4 (2-5), CFNB 3 (2-4)}. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning the mobilisation capability, we did not actually observe a superior effect of CACB compared with CFNB technique in our patients following total knee arthroplasty. Moreover, no difference was observed concerning analgesia quality.

Opioid-free anesthesia: what about patient comfort? A prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effect of a pern-operative opioid-free approach on postoperative patient comfort in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From September 2014 to July 2015, 66 female patients of the Belgian Oncology Institut Jules Bordet were recruited. They were randomized into two groups: the first group received anesthesia with opioids for their breast cancer surgery, and the second group received opioid-free anesthesia. Patient comfort was evaluated 24 hours postoperatively through the QoR-40 score, with a difference of 15 points considered as being clinically relevant. Postoperative analgesia was provided through a piritramide patient-controlled analgesia device, during the first 24 hours. The hypothesis of this study was that opioid-free anesthesia would improve quality of recovery after anesthesia. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in postoperative QoR-40 score was observed between groups [Mean (SD) QoR-40 of 182.1/200 (13.9) in the opioid-free group, and 175.6/200 (14.80) in the opioid group; P = 0.04]. The clinical relevance of this finding is questionable, insofar as the difference of 15 points was not met. A statistically significant difference in postoperative piritramide usage was observed (8.1 (6.6) in the opioid-free group, and 13.1 (9.4) in the opioid group; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial shows, for the first time, equal comfort during the immediate postoperative period in patients having received opioid-free and conventional anesthesia for their breast cancer surgery. Opioid-free anesthesia in this indication appears safe, and may be associated with slightly reduced pain during the first 24 postoperative hours.

Intraoperative administered tramadol reduces the need for piritramide in the immediate postoperative period in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy: A retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Adenotonsillectomy is a frequently performed procedure in pediatric day-case surgery causing significant pain for which adequate analgesia is required. Our aim was to investigate if the intraoperative administration of IV tramadol decreases the need for postoperative pain medication in children. Because tramadol has well-known pro-emetic effects, we also assessed the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study in 314 children aged 1-13 years undergoing elective adenotonsillectomy. We identified 160 children who had received standard pain medication consisting of IV paracetamol and ketorolac and compared them with a group of 154 children who had received in addition a perioperative infusion of tramadol. RESULTS: 32.5% of the patients in the tramadol group versus 83.8% of the patients in the standard group required postoperative administration of piritramide (p < 0.0001). Groups did not differ with respect to the postoperative need for anti-emetics but in the tramadol group more patients had received prophylactic therapy with odansetron or dexamethasone (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results of this retrospective study indicate that intraoperative tramadol administration in combination with prophylactic antiemetic therapy decreases the need for piritramide in the immediate postoperative period without increasing the incidence of PONV after tonsillectomy in children.

OPRM1 and ABCB1 polymorphisms and their effect on postoperative pain relief with piritramide.

Genetic factors may contribute to the differential response to opioids. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between polymorphisms of µ1-opioid receptor gene OPRM1 (rs1799971), and P-glycoprotein transporter gene ABCB1 (rs1045642, rs2032582), and piritramide efficacy under postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). In 51 patients, OPRM1 variant was associated with decreased efficacy in early postoperative period evidenced by sum of pain intensity difference in the 0-6 h postoperative period (SPID(0-6)), (F=3.27, p=0.029). Mean (SD) SPID(0-6) was observed in the 118AA genotype 22.9 (6.1) mm, which was significantly higher from the 118GG genotype 10.0 (4.4) mm, p=0.006. The lowest cumulative dose was recorded in 118AA genotype 19.1 (9.8) mg, which was significantly less than in the 118GG genotype group 36.6 (6.1) mg, p=0.017. Opioid-induced adverse effects were observed in 11, 30, and 100 % of patients in 118AA, 118AG, and 118GG genotype groups, respectively (p<0.05). Piritramide efficacy and safety was not significantly affected by ABCB1 (rs1045642, rs2032582) polymorphisms. Variant OPRM1 118G allele is associated with decreased acute postoperative pain relief after piritramide. Decreased efficacy leads to higher drug consumption under PCA settings, which however, does not fully compensate insufficient pain relief, but increases incidence of adverse effects.

Ultrasound guided femoral nerve block and lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block for postoperative pain control after primary hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of an ultrasound guided femoral nerve (FN) block together with an ultrasound guided lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) block in addition to a patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) pump with piritramide as a strategy for postoperative pain-management after primary hip arthroplasty. METHODS: In a retrospective study, data recorded from 32 patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty in 2008, before peripheral blocks were used, were compared with data from 38 patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty in 2011, when an ultrasound guided single shot FN and LFCN block was used. As primary endpoint the total piritramide consumption after 48 hours was analyzed. A score on a visual analog pain scale at rest and during movement was included as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Patients receiving the peripheral nerve blocks used significantly less piritramide in comparison to the patients who received no peripheral nerve blocks (p < 0.01). Moreover, pain scores at rest and during movement were significantly lower in the group with the peripheral nerve block (p-values respectively < 0.01 and < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study indicates that a FN block in combination with a LFCN block as supplementary postoperative analgesia after primary hip arthroplasty, can reduce the piritramide consumption. Furthermore, patients receiving the peripheral nerve block report lower pain scores at rest and during movement compared with the patients who did not receive a peripheral block. However, as this is a retrospective study, conclusions have to be drawn cautiously.

Treatment of neuropathic pain with the capsaicin 8% patch: is pretreatment with lidocaine necessary?

The capsaicin 8% patch can effectively treat neuropathic pain, but application can cause discomfort or a burning sensation. Until March 2013, it was recommended that patients be pretreated with a topical anesthetic, for example lidocaine, before capsaicin patch application. However, speculation existed over the need for pretreatment and its effectiveness in alleviating treatment-associated discomfort. This article compares tolerability to and efficacy of the capsaicin patch in pretreated and non-pretreated patients. All patients received a single capsaicin patch application. Pretreated patients received a lidocaine plaster before and intravenous lidocaine and metamizole infusions during capsaicin patch application. Pain levels, assessed using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), were used to determine tolerability and efficacy. All patients (pretreated n = 32; non-pretreated n = 26) completed 100% of the intended capsaicin patch application duration. At the time of capsaicin patch removal, 69% of pretreated and 88% of non-pretreated patients reported an NRS score increase, which returned to baseline by 6 hours post-treatment. There was no significant difference in mean NRS score between patient groups at any time during or after capsaicin patch treatment. Response was similar between patient groups; capsaicin patch treatment provided rapid and significant pain reductions that were sustained over 12 weeks. The same proportion of pretreated and non-pretreated patients reported willingness to receive retreatment with the capsaicin patch. This analysis shows that the capsaicin 8% patch is generally tolerable, and the small discomfort associated with patch application is short-lived. Lidocaine pretreatment does not have a significant effect on tolerability, efficacy, or patient willingness to receive retreatment.

[Anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany: telephone-based survey]. / Anästhesiologische Akutschmerztherapie in Deutschland: Telefonbasierte Umfrage.

INTRODUCTION: The last survey of anesthesiological acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted in 1999. Since then new organisational as well as therapeutic aspects have developed. Amongst others the operation and procedures key (OPS) figure 8-919 complex acute pain therapy has been introduced in the German medical billing system, with the restriction that it cannot currently be redeemed. There is an ongoing debate on the role of epidural analgesia in acute pain therapy and new oral medication concepts have been established. Therefore a survey of the present state of acute pain therapy in Germany was conducted. METHODS: Based on a list of all 1,356 hospitals in Germany a randomized list of 412 hospitals was generated. Out of these 412 hospitals those with anesthesiology departments (378 hospitals) were contacted via telephone and asked to participate in the survey. Out of the 378 hospitals 285 (75.4 %) agreed to take part. The survey consisted of a questionnaire containing closed and open questions regarding organisational and therapeutic aspects of acute pain therapy. The ethics committee of the University of Regensburg rated the survey as not being subject to approval due to the lack of personal patient data. RESULTS: Of the participating hospitals 183 (64.2 %) had an acute pain service (APS) and of these 107 (58.5 %) met the quality criteria of the OPS 8-919. This figure however, was only consistently documented by 40 (37 %) APSs. Epidural analgesia (EA) was offered by 275 (96.5 %) hospitals and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) by 255 (89.5 %). Likewise, 255 (89.5 %) hospitals used controlled-released opioids in acute pain therapy. Concerning EA, the medications most used were sufentanil as an opioid and ropivacaine as a local anesthetic in255 (92.7 %) of the hospitals with EA for sufentanil and 253 (92 %] for ropivacaine. An EA was offered on regular wards in 240 (87.3 %) hospitals. Uncertainty existed about concrete limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter. The opioid most utilized in PCA was piritramide with some hospitals using morphine or oxycodone (92.2 %, 9.4 % and 9.4 %, respectively). Other opioids, such as hydromorphone and tramadol were rarely used and remifentanil was not used at all. Oral medication was widely used with metamizole being the non-opioid analgesic and oxycodone/naloxone the controlled-release opioid being prescribed the most. New antiepileptic drugs, such as gabapentin or pregabalin were rarely employed in acute pain therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Since 1999 the number of hospitals that have implemented an APS has risen from 36.1 % to 64.2 %. The lack of consistent documentation of the OPS 8-919 will probably not increase the likelihood that it will become redeemable in the near future. Certain therapy methods, such as EA and PCA were still well established with oral therapy gaining in significance. The uncertainty regarding limits for coagulation values before removal of an epidural catheter could perhaps be reduced by a statement from the German Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care.