[Influence of health care crises on the treatment of cancer pain: a presentation using the example of the COVID-19 pandemic from the provider's perspective]. / Einfluss von Versorgungskrisen auf die Behandlung von Tumorschmerzen: eine Darstellung am Beispiel der COVID-19-Pandemie aus Versorgersicht.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to significantly restricted access to pain medicine services. Patients with cancer-related pain are considered a vulnerable group in terms of care deficits. A questionnaire among providers providing treatment to this group was used to assess limitations and solutions in this critical situation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The online survey, developed by the 'Tumour Pain Working Group' of the German Pain Society using the Delphi method, included questions on site structure, pandemic-related care problems, and burdens experienced by those treating patients. It was distributed several times via the mailing lists of the German Pain Society and the 'Palliative Medicine Working Group' of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. RESULTS: In all, 175 fully completed questionnaires were analysed. Over 75% of participants reported pandemic-related staff shortages and closures of pain medicine facilities, with 32% of facilities temporarily not treating elective pain patients and 13% not treating any emergencies. Care was hampered by numerous logistical problems such as very frequent pandemic-related cancellations by patients or in the transmission of prescriptions. Alternative forms of consultation by telephone or telemedicine, rarely used before the pandemic, were reported by 79 and 31% of respondents respectively, but deficiencies were noted. In addition, 52.1% of respondents complained of severe and 26.8% of moderate psychological stress due to the pandemic, and 74.1% evaluated working conditions as moderately to severely difficult. Medical training was still possible for 86% through format changes. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic revealed numerous deficits in the care of patients with cancer-related pain, as well as burdens on healthcare providers. The development of new concepts could help to ensure better care in future crisis situations.

[Regional comparison of specialized outpatient and (partial) inpatient pain medicine care in Germany]. / Regionaler Vergleich spezialisierter ambulanter und (teil-)stationärer schmerzmedizinischer Versorgung in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain requires graduated and staged levels of care. The aim of this study is to provide a regional overview regarding the accessibility of specialized outpatient and (partial) inpatient pain medicine care from the patient's perspective in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: For 1000 model patients randomly generated from German postal code location combinations, the travelling time by car (individual transport, IT) and available public transport connections (PTC) to the nearest specialized outpatient and inpatient pain medicine clinics and units were assessed using a route planner. RESULTS: Outpatient facilities (in a practice setting) were mostly realistically accessible depending on the proportion of pain treatment and the networking structure. University pain outpatient clinics were at a critically reachable distance with IT for 70% of the patients (80% with PTC) and had unrealistic accessibility for 49% of the patients with IT (68% with PTC). Interdisciplinary multimodal pain programs in day clinics were at a critically reachable distance for 68% of patients with IT (83% with PTC) and in 49% (75% PTC) at an unrealistic travelling time distance considering the more intense treatment requiring frequent travel. Full inpatient interdisciplinary multimodal treatment was more realistically reachable (IT 39% critical, 14% unrealistic, PTC 61% critical, 48% unrealistic). CONCLUSION: The results show relevant nationwide differences in the accessibility of facilities for specialized pain treatment depending on the place of residence. Considering the treatment of a chronic condition with long-term therapeutic goals and the need for graduated care (outpatient and inpatient treatment), the results reveal a partly critical situation from the patient's perspective.

[Chronic eye pain]. / Der chronische Augenschmerz.

Numerous conditions in the field of ophthalmology are associated with pain in or around the eye. Chronic pain associated with the eye is a common finding in the daily routine of ophthalmologists and can be associated with primary ocular or extraocular diseases as well as with other conditions. Appropriate diagnostic assessment and management of people with chronic pain requires an understanding of the condition based on the biopsychosocial model in which the interactions of biological/somatic, psychological and social factors are determining pain and suffering. Beyond the ophthalmological findings,  close interdisciplinary cooperation and assessment are required. Therefore, if eye pain is insufficiently responsive to treatment or if symptoms of chronic pain are evident, pain medicine expertise should be involved. The management of chronic ocular pain is based on interdisciplinary multimodal approaches, in addition to the ophthalmologist-specific approaches. These focus on self-efficacy, patient competence and acceptance of pain as central goals of treatment rather than pain relief. Patient information, education and the development of a suitable concept by the interdisciplinary team are essential therapeutic aspects in this context.

[Dealing with "complex" pain patients in eye surgery : Perioperative management of patients with pre-existing chronic pain, opioid consumption and opioid use disorder]. / Umgang mit "komplexen" Schmerzpatienten bei Augeneingriffen : Perioperatives Management von Patienten mit vorbestehenden chronischen Schmerzen, Opioidvormedikation und Opioidabhängigkeit.

The quality of postoperative pain management is still considered insufficient in many cases, also in surgical ophthalmology. Complex constellations and comorbidities, such as pre-existing chronic pain, opioid consumption and opioid use disorders represent a special challenge due to psychosocial influencing factors and sometimes psychological and psychiatric comorbidities but also due to pharmacological effects, such as the development of opioid tolerance, the opioid-induced hyperalgesia. This review article aims to impart knowledge on aspects of these comorbidities and the perioperative management to improve the treatment skills of ophthalmologists in the management of pain in these complex patients.

[Identifying patients with risk for severe pain after ophthalmological surgery]. / Wie erkennt man Risikopatienten für starke Schmerzen nach Augeneingriffen?

Modern ophthalmology includes a wide range of surgical options and, accordingly, also requires appropriate pain management. There are established risk factors for severe postoperative pain that should be identified and considered in the perioperative management. The main risk factors and existing recommendations are presented in this article. Patients at risk should be identified before surgery. It is important that perioperative pain management is implemented in the treatment plan as part of an interdisciplinary cooperation to identify and address the risks as early as possible.

[Principles of acute pain therapy-An overview taking special features in the patient collective of ophthalmology into consideration]. / Grundlagen zur Akutschmerztherapie ­ Eine Übersicht unter Berücksichtigung von Besonderheiten im Patientenkollektiv der Augenheilkunde.

For many years the quality of perioperative pain management in general has been repeatedly reported as inadequate and there is significant evidence to indicate that this is also true after surgical procedures in ophthalmology. The patient population in ophthalmology is quite challenging due to numerous comorbidities and a high average age resulting in numerous contraindications and organ dysfunctions and requiring special knowledge to ensure high quality acute pain management. The following overview covers basic knowledge of acute pain management, with a particular focus on analgesic approaches and the specifics of the patient population and the associated limitations in terms of analgesic and co-analgesic pharmacological options.

Pain chronification impacts whole-brain functional connectivity in women with hip osteoarthritis during pain stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: Previous neuroimaging studies have shown that patients with chronic pain display altered functional connectivity across distributed brain areas involved in the processing of nociceptive stimuli. The aim of the present study was to investigate how pain chronification modulates whole-brain functional connectivity during evoked clinical and tonic pain. METHODS: Patients with osteoarthritis of the hip (n = 87) were classified into 3 stages of pain chronification (Grades I-III, Mainz Pain Staging System). Electroencephalograms were recorded during 3 conditions: baseline, evoked clinical hip pain, and tonic cold pain (cold pressor test). The effects of both factors (recording condition and pain chronification stage) on the phase-lag index, as a measure of neuronal connectivity, were examined for different frequency bands. RESULTS: In women, we found increasing functional connectivity in the low-frequency range (delta, 0.5-4 Hz) across pain chronification stages during evoked clinical hip pain and tonic cold pain stimulation. In men, elevated functional connectivity in the delta frequency range was observed in only the tonic cold pain condition. CONCLUSIONS: Across pain chronification stages, we found that widespread cortical networks increase their synchronization of delta oscillations in response to clinical and experimental nociceptive stimuli. In view of previous studies relating delta oscillations to salience detection and other basic motivational processes, our results hint at these mechanisms playing an important role in pain chronification, mainly in women.

[Clinical updates on phantom limb pain : German version]. / Klinisches Update zu Phantomschmerz : Deutsche Fassung.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with amputation (up to 80 %) suffer from phantom limb pain postsurgery. These are often multimorbid patients who also have multiple risk factors for the development of chronic pain from a pain medicine perspective. Surgical removal of the body part and sectioning of peripheral nerves result in a lack of afferent feedback, followed by neuroplastic changes in the sensorimotor cortex. The experience of severe pain, peripheral, spinal, and cortical sensitization mechanisms, and changes in the body scheme contribute to chronic phantom limb pain. Psychosocial factors may also affect the course and the severity of the pain. Modern amputation medicine is an interdisciplinary responsibility. METHODS: This review aims to provide an interdisciplinary overview of recent evidence-based and clinical knowledge. RESULTS: The scientific evidence for best practice is weak and contrasted by various clinical reports describing the polypragmatic use of drugs and interventional techniques. Approaches to restore the body scheme and integration of sensorimotor input are of importance. Modern techniques, including apps and virtual reality, offer an exciting supplement to already established approaches based on mirror therapy. Targeted prosthesis care helps to obtain or restore limb function and at the same time plays an important role reshaping the body scheme. DISCUSSION: Consequent prevention and treatment of severe postoperative pain and early integration of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions are required to reduce severe phantom limb pain. To obtain or restore body function, foresighted surgical planning and technique as well as an appropriate interdisciplinary management is needed.

[Resolution of the Federal Joint Committee on the mandatory introduction and implementation of acute pain management concepts-Importance and consequences for ophthalmology]. / Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA) zur verpflichtenden Einführung und Umsetzung von Akutschmerzmanagementkonzepten ­ Bedeutung und Konsequenzen für die Ophthalmologie.

Patient-centered and adequate postoperative pain management is an important part of a modern treatment concept and should also be standard in ophthalmology. Due to the "Regulation on the mandatory introduction and implementation of acute pain management concepts for adequate postoperative pain therapy" prescribed by the Federal Joint Committee of the German statutory healthcare system (G-BA), hospitals and outpatient facilities have been required to have regulations on pain management in place since 9 December 2020. It is very likely that the need of pain management in ophthalmic surgery has been systematically underestimated so far and studies on postoperative pain hardly exist. In the opinion of the authors, the decision represents an opportunity to pay more attention to the topic and to develop standards for ophthalmology as well. This article explains the G­BA decision and the resulting consequences for ophthalmic surgical institutions.

[The guidelines of the Federal Joint Committee on acute pain management : Background and consequences for the practice in hospitals]. / Die Vorgaben des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses zum Akutschmerzmanagement : Hintergründe und Konsequenzen für die Praxis im Krankenhaus.

The quality of postoperative pain therapy in Germany shows a heterogeneous treatment practice and large differences in quality between individual institutions, The patient representatives in the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) have therefore decisively campaigned for many years that instruments of non-legislative standards are employed in order to noticeably improve the quality of perioperative pain therapy for patients in Germany. As a result of these efforts, in October 2020 a binding specification for internal quality management was included in the quality management guidelines (QM-RL) by the G­BA. This describes in concrete terms the structural and procedural requirements for an internal quality management of acute pain for all institutions in which operations and comparable potentially painful interventions are carried out. This article describes the content of this regulation and the resulting consequences for the institutions, the medical and administrative management and especially the role of anesthesia.

[Practice of perioperative phantom limb pain prevention in Germany: a nationwide survey]. / Praxis der perioperativen Prävention von Phantomschmerz: eine deutschlandweite Umfrage.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of phantom limb pain after major amputation remains high and affected patients suffer from relevant impairments in the quality of life. Perioperative treatment strategies may prevent phantom limb pain. This study aims to assess the state of the perioperative anesthesiological pain management for major amputations. Furthermore, it analyzes potentials for optimization and barriers towards a better treatment of patients with amputations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This online survey was distributed by the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) mailing list of anesthesiological consultants. It was approved by the Charité ethics board. RESULTS: Overall, 402 persons participated in this survey. Mostly, general anesthesia (85%), regional anesthesia (63%) and neuraxial anesthesia (49%) were performed in different combinations. Furthermore, 72% of participants reported using i.v. opioids postoperatively, mostly applied via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). In contrast, preoperative regional anesthesia (74%) and gabapentinoids (67%) were seen as potential methods to improve treatment; however, barrier analysis revealed that treatment options are limited especially by organizational aspects and intrinsic patient factors. CONCLUSION: This survey describes the current practice of phantom limb pain prevention in Germany. It shows an unmet need for specialized perioperative pain treatment. As the evidence regarding treatment recommendations is limited, further research questions can be deduced from this study.

[Applicability of QUIKS in conservatively treated tumor inpatients]. / Anwendbarkeit von QUIKS bei stationär konservativ behandelten Tumorpatienten.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement in conservative pain management (QUIKS), a module for nonoperative patients in the QUIPS project was tested on a cohort of tumor patients regarding its applicability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Conservatively treated inpatients at the University Hospital of Würzburg (UKW) were prospectively surveyed on the quality of pain management using the QUIKS outcome questionnaire (AZ 129/17, Ethics Committee at UKW). Information on therapy and demographics was taken from the hospital's internal documentation system. RESULTS: During the data collection period 100 conservatively treated inhouse tumor patients from different hospitals were included. Of the patients 74% required assistance in answering the questionnaire. Functional limitations or pain treatment-related side effects were present in 77% of the patients; the average pain level was 6 on the numerical rating scale. The most commonly reported type of pain was back pain and headache. Of the patients 18% received pain therapy with opioids and 26% with nonopioids, adjustment was made in 5% with opioids and in 44% with nonopioids and pain medicine specialists were consulted in 9% of cases. CONCLUSION: The application of the questionnaire was well accepted by the patients but required a high level of assistance in completing it. A high level of pain was observed during the hospital stay and the adjustment of pain therapy or the involvement of pain medicine specialists was rare. The interpretation of statements regarding the quality of tumor pain may be limited as other (pre-existing) pain entities, such as nontumor-associated pain or chronic tumor pain could not be clearly delineated.

[Pain Management in Hospitals - Current Practice, Quality and Organisation in Non-surgical Medical Care]. / Schmerzmanagement im Krankenhaus ­ aktuelle Praxis, Qualität und Organisation in der nichtoperativen Medizin.

For many years now, effective pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches for acute and chronic pain exist, as well as organisational strategies for their implementation in hospitals. Nevertheless, there remain considerable deficits in pain management and the portion of patients with severe or long-lasting pain in non-surgical units is often high. There is a considerable potential to improve quality and structures of pain mangement in non-surgical hospital settings in Germany. Recently, legal requirements to establish a structured perioperative pain management were introduced. This should not be seen as a signal that pain management is less important in non-surgical disciplines. On the contrary - it should raise awareness for more clinical and health services research to further develop and validate appropriate approaches and concepts to improve pain treatment in this field.

[Pain Management in Non-surgical Inpatients - Treatment Approaches and Competence for Pain Services]. / Schmerztherapie bei nichtoperativen Patienten im Krankenhaus ­ Therapieansätze und Behandlungskompetenz im Schmerzdienst.

The number of non-surgical patients in the hospital setting with pain due to medical conditions or comorbidities and/or invasive procedures or treatments is high. Compared to perioperative pain management, the portion of patients and/or conditions that require more than an approach focused on pharmacological treatment of nociceptive pain is considerably higher. Rather, treatment often requires the differentiated use of co-analgesics, non-pharmacological treatments, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychological assessment and interventsions and educational approaches, ideally in the form of closely coordinated interdisciplinary treatment. The assessment and treatment of acute and especially chronic pain should follow the biopsychosocial concept of pain, especially if risk factors for chronification have been identified, if patients receive high-dose therapy with analgesics or have preexisting a chronic pain disorder.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]. / Perioperative Schmerztherapie mit Nichtopioidanalgetika : Gemeinsame interdisziplinäre Empfehlung der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics. METHODS: An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process. RESULTS: The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs. CONCLUSION: The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]. / Perioperative Schmerztherapie mit Nichtopioidanalgetika : Gemeinsame interdisziplinäre Empfehlung der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics. METHODS: An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process. RESULTS: The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs. CONCLUSION: The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]. / Perioperative Schmerztherapie mit Nichtopioidanalgetika : Gemeinsame interdisziplinäre Empfehlung der Deutschen Schmerzgesellschaft, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie.

BACKGROUND: Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics. METHODS: An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process. RESULTS: The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs. CONCLUSION: The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.