Quantitative sensory testing as an assessment tool to predict the response to standard pain treatment in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Emerging evidence suggest that quantitative sensory testing (QST) may predict the treatment response to pain-relieving therapies. This systematic review and meta-analysis focus on the predictive value of QST for pain management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for all studies from year 2000 to 2023 on pretreatment QST and treatment of OA including surgical, pharmaceutical, and nonsurgical and nonpharmaceutical therapies. Preclinical studies and reviews were excluded. The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework website (link: https://osf.io/4FETK/, Identifier: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/4FETK). Meta-analysis were conducted to demonstrate the strength of the pre-treatment QST predictions on pain outcomes after OA treatments. Sixteen surgical (all on total knee arthroplasty [TKA], N = 1967), 5 pharmaceutical (4 on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], N = 271), and 4 exercise-based therapy studies (N = 232) were identified. Pretreatment QST parameters predicted pain-relieving treatment outcomes in 81% of surgical, 100% of pharmaceutical, and 50% of exercise-based therapy studies. Meta-analyses found pretreatment QST profiles to predicted pain outcomes after TKA (random effects: 0.309, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.206-0.405, P < 0.001), NSAIDs (random effects: 0.323, 95% CI: 0.194-0.441, P < 0.001), and exercise-based therapies (random effects: 0.417, 95% CI: 0.138-0.635, P = 0.004). The overall risk of bias for the included studies was low to moderate. This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate weak-to-moderate associations between pretreatment QST and pain outcomes after standard OA pain treatments. Based on this work, it is hypothesized that a subset of specific pain sensitive patients with OA exist and that these patients do not respond adequately to standard OA pain treatments.

Does the performance of lower limb peripheral nerve blocks differ among orthopedic sub-specialties? A single institution experience in 246 patients.

OBJECTIVES: Continuous peripheral nerve blocks (cPNBs) have shown promising results in pain management after orthopaedic surgeries. However, they can be associated with some risks and limitations. The purpose of this study is to describe our experience with the cPNBs regarding efficacy and adverse events in patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries on the lower extremity in different subspecialties. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study on collected data from perineural catheters for pain management after orthopedic surgeries in lower limbs. Catheters were placed by experienced anesthesiologists using sterile technique. After an initial bolus dose of 10-20 mL ropivacaine 0.5% (weight adjusted), the catheters were secured and connected to disposable mechanical infusion pumps with ropivacaine 0.2% (basal infusion rate = 6 mL/h; weight adjusted (0.2 mL/kg/h)). After catheterization, the patients were examined daily, by specially educated acute pain service nurses. Pro re nata (PRN) or fixed boluses (10 mL bupivacaine 0.25%; weight adjusted) with an upper limit of 4 times/day, were administered if indicated. Patients' demographic data, physiological status, and pre-op intake of opioids and other analgesics were registered. The severity of post-operative pain was assessed with 'Numeric Rating Scale' (NRS) and 'Face, legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability' (FLACC) scale for adults and children, respectively. The need for additional opioids and possible complications were registered. RESULTS: We included 547 catheters of 246 patients (Range 1-10 catheters per patient). Overall, 115 (21%) femoral, 162 (30%) saphenous, 66 (12%) sciatic, and 204 (37%) popliteal sciatic nerve catheter were used. 452 (83%) catheters were inserted by a primary procedure, 61(11%) catheters employed as a replacement, and 34 catheters (6.2%) used as a supplement. For guiding the catheterization, ultrasound was applied in 451 catheters (82%), nerve stimulator in 90 catheters (16%), and both methods in 6 catheters (1.1%). The median duration a catheter remained in place was 3 days (IQR = 2-5). The proportion of catheters with a duration of two days was 81, 79, 73, and 71% for femoral, sciatic, saphenous, and popliteal nerve, respectively. In different subspecialties, 91% of catheters in wound and amputations, 89% in pediatric surgery, 76% in trauma, 64% in foot and ankle surgery, and 59% in limb reconstructive surgery remained more than two days. During first 10 days after catheterization, the proportion of pain-free patients were 77-95% at rest and 63-88% during mobilization, 79-92% of the patients did not require increased opioid doses, and 50-67% did not require opioid PRN doses. In addition to 416 catheters (76%), which were removed as planned, the reason for catheter removal was leaving the hospital in 27 (4.9%), loss of efficacy in 69 (13%), dislodgement in 23 (4.2%), leakage in 8 (1.5%), and erythema in 4 catheters (0.73%). No major complication occurred. CONCLUSIONS: After orthopaedic procedures, cPNBs can be considered as an efficient method for improving pain control and minimizing the use of additional opioids. However, the catheters sometimes might need to be replaced to achieve the desired efficacy.

Waking Up in Pain: a prospective unselected cohort study of pain in 3702 patients immediately after surgery in the Danish Realm.

BACKGROUND: Acute and persistent pain after surgery is well described. However, no large-scale studies on immediate postoperative pain in the operating room (OR) exist, hindering potential areas of research to improve clinical outcomes. Thus, we aimed to describe the occurrence and severity of immediate postoperative pain in a large, unselected cohort. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study, encompassing all procedures in 31 public hospitals in the Danish Realm, during a 5-day period including the weekend. Data on procedures and anesthesia were collected and the main outcome was occurrence of moderate or severe pain in the OR. Secondary outcomes included pain, sedation and nausea in the OR or during the first 15 min in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) including relevant risk factors. Descriptive and logistic regression statistics were used. RESULTS: A total of 3675 procedures were included for analysis (87% inclusion rate). Moderate or severe pain occurred in 7.4% (95% CI 6.5% to 8.3%) of cases in the OR immediately after awakening, rising to 20.2% in the OR and/or PACU. Large intraprocedure and interprocedure variations occurred (0.0%-37.5%), and in 20% of cases with epidural-general anesthesia patients experienced moderate or severe pain. Independent risk factors were female sex, younger age, preoperative pain, daily opioid use and major surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Moderate or severe pain in the immediate postoperative phase occurred in 20% of all cases with procedure and anesthesiological technique variations, suggesting a need for identification of relevant procedure-specific risk factors and development of preventive treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: RoPR ID 43191.