Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for advanced cancer pain inpatients in specialist palliative care-a blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a treatment option for cancer pain, but the evidence is inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TENS. METHODS: A blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial (NCT02655289) was conducted on an inpatient specialist palliative care ward. We included adult inpatients with cancer pain ≥ 3 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Intensity-modulated high TENS (IMT) was compared with placebo TENS (PBT). Patients used both modes according to their preferred application scheme during 24 h with a 24-h washout phase. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity on the NRS during the preceding 24 h. Responders were patients with at least a "slight improvement." RESULTS: Of 632 patients screened, 25 were randomized (sequence IMT-PBT = 13 and PBT-IMT = 12). Finally, 11 patients in IMT-PBT and 9 in PBT-IMT completed the study (N = 20). The primary outcome did not differ between groups (IMT minus PBT: - 0.2, 95% confidence interval - 0.9 to 0.6). However, responder rates were higher in IMT (17/20 [85%] vs. 10/20 [50%], p = 0.0428). Two patients experienced an uncomfortable feeling caused by the current, one after IMT and one after PBT. Seven patients (35%) desired a TENS prescription. Women and patients with incident pain were most likely to benefit from TENS. CONCLUSION: TENS was safe, but IMT was unlikely to offer more analgesic effects than PBT. Even though many patients desired a TENS prescription, 50% still reported at least "slight pain relief" from PBT. Differences for gender and incident pain aspects demand future trials.

The cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS): evaluation of a new score to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption as a surrogate parameter for postoperative pain and invasiveness of surgical procedures.

OBJECTIVE: To validate and evaluate the applicability of a new score to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption in urological and surgical patients across different categories of pain medications and the invasiveness of medical interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS) was determined for two cohorts of patients split into three groups with surgeries involving clinically distinct levels of invasiveness (n = 2 x 60). Nonparametric statistical analyses were performed to determine differences between the CACS among the different groups and to assess the correlation between CACS and numeric rating scale (NRS) values for pain intensity. RESULTS: The score was determined for postoperative days 1 and 2 and revealed median scores of 0 (0-11), 3 (0-22) and 10 (6-17) for UA (urological patients from group A), UB (group B) and UC (group C), respectively, and 4 (0-20), 8 (0-38) and 17 (7-68) for SA (surgical patients from group A, SB (group B) and SC (group C), respectively. CACS enabled reliable differentiation between groups involving different levels of invasiveness (p < 0.001). CACS and peak NRS values showed variable degrees of correlation, as expressed by levels of significance ranging from p < 0.001 to p = 0.34 (NS). CONCLUSIONS: The CACS is a valid and easily applicable tool to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption in urological and surgical patients. It can be used as a surrogate parameter to assess postsurgical pain and the invasiveness of surgical procedures. These aspects may be measured to compare surgical procedures, in both clinical trials and clinical practice settings.

The cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS): evaluation of a new score to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption as a surrogate parameter for postoperative pain and invasiveness of surgical procedures

Objective To validate and evaluate the applicability of a new score to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption in urological and surgical patients across different categories of pain medications and the invasiveness of medical interventions. Materials and Methods The cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS) was determined for two cohorts of patients split into three groups with surgeries involving clinically distinct levels of invasiveness (n = 2 x 60). Nonparametric statistical analyses were performed to determine differences between the CACS among the different groups and to assess the correlation between CACS and numeric rating scale (NRS) values for pain intensity. Results The score was determined for postoperative days 1 and 2 and revealed median scores of 0 (0-11), 3 (0-22) and 10 (6-17) for UA (urological patients from group A), UB (group B) and UC (group C), respectively, and 4 (0-20), 8 (0-38) and 17 (7-68) for SA (surgical patients from group A, SB (group B) and SC (group C), respectively. CACS enabled reliable differentiation between groups involving different levels of invasiveness (p < 0.001). CACS and peak NRS values showed variable degrees of correlation, as expressed by levels of significance ranging from p < 0.001 to p = 0.34 (NS). Conclusions The CACS is a valid and easily applicable tool to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption in urological and surgical patients. It can be used as a surrogate parameter to assess postsurgical pain and the invasiveness of surgical procedures. These aspects may be measured to compare surgical procedures, in both clinical trials and clinical practice settings. .

[Pathophysiology and epidemiology of pain in thoracic surgery]. / Schmerztherapie in der Thoraxchirurgie - Schmerzpathophysiologie und -epidemiologie bei thorakalen Eingriffen.

Acute and chronic pain are significant problems after thoracic surgery with a multifactorial pathogenesis. On the one hand iatrogenic procedures as surgical access and complexity of treatment procedures, and on the other hand constitutional factors as psychosocial comorbidities affect individual pain threshold and the development of a Postthoracic Pain Syndrome (PTPS). Special phenomena associated with thoracic surgery like ipsitateral shoulder pain and neuropathic pain are discussed. The characterization of pathophysiological pathways wants to point out treatment options. In conclusion there is a need for well organized, multimodal pain therapy concepts to minimize the risk of perioperative and chronic pain.