Perioperative pain management with regional analgesia techniques for visceral cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Regional analgesia following visceral cancer surgery might provide an advantage but evidence for best treatment options related to risk-benefit is unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) with meta-analysis and GRADE assessment. SETTING: Postoperative pain treatment. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing visceral cancer surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Any kind of peripheral (PRA) or epidural analgesia (EA) with/without systemic analgesia (SA) was compared to SA with or without placebo treatment or any other regional anaesthetic techniques. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome measures were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest and during activity 24 h after surgery, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and postoperative paralytic ileus. MAIN RESULTS: 59 RCTs (4345 participants) were included. EA may reduce pain intensity at rest (mean difference (MD) -1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.35 to -0.75, low certainty evidence) and during activity 24 h after surgery (MD -1.83; 95% CI: -2.34 to -1.33, very low certainty evidence). PRA likely results in little difference in pain intensity at rest (MD -0.75; 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.31, moderate certainty evidence) and pain during activity (MD -0.93; 95% CI: -1.34 to -0.53, moderate certainty evidence) 24 h after surgery compared to SA. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (very low certainty evidence) and development of paralytic ileus (very low certainty of evidence) between EA, respectively PRA and SA. CONCLUSIONS: Following visceral cancer surgery EA may reduce pain intensity. In contrast, PRA had only limited effects on pain intensity at rest and during activity. However, we are uncertain regarding the effect of both techniques on block-related adverse events and paralytic ileus. Further research is required focusing on regional analgesia techniques especially following laparoscopic visceral cancer surgery.

Regional anaesthesia for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, visceral, non-oncological surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, non-oncological visceral surgery in adults is challenging. Regional anaesthesia could be a promising component in multimodal pain management. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment. Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest/during movement after 24 h, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and the number of patients with postoperative paralytic ileus. RESULTS: 82 trials were included. Peripheral regional anaesthesia combined with general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia may result in a slight reduction of pain intensity at rest at 24 h (mean difference (MD) - 0.72 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.91 to - 0.54; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), which was not clinically relevant. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect on pain intensity during activity at 24 h (MD -0.8 points; 95%CI - 1.17 to - 0.42; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the incidence of block-related adverse events. In contrast, neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) may reduce postoperative pain intensity at rest in a clinical relevant matter (MD - 1.19 points; 95%CI - 1.99 to - 0.39; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), but the effect is uncertain during activity (MD - 1.13 points; 95%CI - 2.31 to 0.06; I2 = 95%; very low-certainty evidence). There is uncertain evidence, that neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) increases the risk for block-related adverse events (relative risk (RR) 5.11; 95%CI 1.13 to 23.03; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis confirms that regional anaesthesia might be an important part of multimodal postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic visceral surgery, e.g. in patients at risk for severe postoperative pain, and with large differences between surgical procedures and settings. Further research is required to evaluate the use of adjuvants and the additional benefit of regional anaesthesia in ERAS programmes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021258281.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

Chronic postsurgical pain: A European survey.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is a clinical problem, and large prospective studies are needed to determine its incidence, characteristics, and risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To find predictive factors for CPSP in an international survey. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Multicentre European prospective observational trial. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, sternotomy, endometriosis surgery, or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHOD: Standardised questionnaires were completed by the patients at 1, 3, and 7 days, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, with follow-up via E-mail, telephone, or interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary goal of NIT-1 was to propose a scoring system to predict those patient likely to have CPSP at 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 3297 patients were included from 18 hospitals across Europe and 2494 patients were followed-up for 6 months. The mean incidence of CPSP at 6 months was 10.5%, with variations depending on the type of surgery: sternotomy 6.9%, breast surgery 7.4%, TKA 12.9%, endometriosis 16.2%. At 6 months, neuropathic characteristics were frequent for all types of surgery: sternotomy 33.3%, breast surgery 67.6%, TKA 42.4%, endometriosis 41.4%. One-third of patients experienced CPSP at both 3 and 6 months. Pre-operative pain was frequent for TKA (leg pain) and endometriosis (abdomen) and its frequency and intensity were reduced after surgery. Severe CPSP and a neuropathic pain component decreased psychological and functional wellbeing as well as quality of life. No overarching CPSP risk factors were identified. CONCLUSION: Unfortunately, our findings do not offer a new CPSP predictive score. However, we present reliable new data on the incidence, characteristics, and consequences of CPSP from a large European survey. Interesting new data on the time course of CPSP, its neuropathic pain component, and CPSP after endometriosis surgery generate new hypotheses but need to be confirmed by further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03834922.

Studying serum neurofilament light chain levels as a potential new biomarker for small fiber neuropathy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Diagnosing small fiber neuropathies can be challenging. To address this issue, whether serum neurofilament light chain (sNfL) could serve as a potential biomarker of damage to epidermal Aδ- and C-fibers was tested. METHODS: Serum NfL levels were assessed in 30 patients diagnosed with small fiber neuropathy and were compared to a control group of 19 healthy individuals. Electrophysiological studies, quantitative sensory testing and quantification of intraepidermal nerve fiber density after skin biopsy were performed in both the proximal and distal leg. RESULTS: Serum NfL levels were not increased in patients with small fiber neuropathy compared to healthy controls (9.1 ± 3.9 and 9.4 ± 3.8, p = 0.83) and did not correlate with intraepidermal nerve fiber density at the lateral calf or lateral thigh or with other parameters of small fiber impairment. CONCLUSION: Serum NfL levels cannot serve as a biomarker for small fiber damage.

Co-crystal of Tramadol-Celecoxib Versus Tramadol or Placebo for Acute Moderate-to-Severe Pain After Oral Surgery: Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase 3 Trial (STARDOM1).

INTRODUCTION: Co-crystal of tramadol-celecoxib (CTC) is the first analgesic co-crystal for acute pain. This completed phase 3 multicenter, double-blind trial assessed the efficacy and safety/tolerability of CTC in comparison with that of tramadol in the setting of moderate-to-severe pain up to 72 h after elective third molar extraction requiring bone removal. METHODS: Adults (n = 726) were assigned randomly to five groups (2:2:2:2:1): orally administered twice-daily CTC 100 mg (44 mg rac-tramadol hydrochloride/56 mg celecoxib; n = 164), 150 mg (66/84 mg; n = 160) or 200 mg (88/112 mg; n = 160); tramadol 100 mg four times daily (n = 159); or placebo four times daily (n = 83). Participants in CTC groups also received twice-daily placebo. The full analysis set included all participants who underwent randomization. The primary endpoint was the sum of pain intensity differences over 0 to 4 h (SPID0-4; visual analog scale). Key secondary endpoints included 4-h 50% responder and rescue medication use rates. Safety endpoints included adverse events (AEs), laboratory measures, and Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (OR-SDS) score. RESULTS: All CTC doses were superior to placebo (P < 0.001) for primary and key secondary endpoints. All were superior to tramadol for SPID0-4 (analysis of covariance least squares mean differences [95% confidence interval]: - 37.1 [- 56.5, - 17.6], - 40.2 [- 59.7, - 20.6], and - 41.7 [- 61.2, - 22.2] for 100, 150, and 200 mg CTC, respectively; P < 0.001) and 4-h 50% responder rate. Four-hour 50% responder rates were 32.9% (CTC 100 mg), 33.8% (CTC 150 mg), 40.6% (CTC 200 mg), 20.1% (tramadol), and 7.2% (placebo). Rescue medication use was lower in the 100-mg (P = 0.013) and 200-mg (P = 0.003) CTC groups versus tramadol group. AE incidence and OR-SDS scores were highest for tramadol alone. CONCLUSIONS: CTC demonstrated superior pain relief compared with tramadol or placebo, as well as an improved benefit/risk profile versus tramadol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02982161; EudraCT number, 2016-000592-24.

Responsiveness of multiple patient-reported outcome measures for acute postsurgical pain: primary results from the international multi-centre PROMPT NIT-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Postsurgical outcome measures are crucial to define the efficacy of perioperative pain management; however, it is unclear which are most appropriate. We conducted a prospective study aiming to assess sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures assessing the core outcome set of domains pain intensity (at rest/during activity), physical function, adverse events, and self-efficacy. METHODS: Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively, on day 1 (d1), d3, and d7 after four surgical procedures (total knee replacement, breast surgery, endometriosis-related surgery, and sternotomy). Primary outcomes were sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures analysed by correlating their changes (d1-d3) with patients' global impression of change and patients' specific impression of change items as anchor criteria. Secondary outcomes included identification of baseline and patient characteristic variables explaining variance in change for each of the scales and descriptive analysis of various patient-reported outcome measures from different domains and after different surgeries. RESULTS: Of 3322 patients included (18 hospitals, 10 countries), data from 2661 patients were analysed. All patient-reported outcome measures improved on average over time; the median calculated sensitivity-to-change for all patient-reported outcome measures (overall surgeries) was 0.22 (range: 0.07-0.31, scale: 0-10); all changes were independent of baseline data or patient characteristics and similar between different procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Pain-related patient-reported outcome measures have low to moderate sensitivity-to-change; those showing higher sensitivity-to-change from the same domain should be considered for inclusion in a core outcome set of patient-reported outcome measures to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of perioperative pain management.

Erector spinae plane block for postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Acute and chronic postoperative pain are important healthcare problems, which can be treated with a combination of opioids and regional anaesthesia. The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which might be able to reduce opioid consumption and related side effects. OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic effects and side effect profile of ESPB against no block, placebo block or other regional anaesthetic techniques. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 4 January 2021 and updated the search on 3 January 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating adults undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia were included. We included ESPB in comparison with no block, placebo blocks or other regional anaesthesia techniques irrespective of language, publication year, publication status or technique of regional anaesthesia used (ultrasound, landmarks or peripheral nerve stimulator). Quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and studies investigating co-interventions in either arm were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for inclusion and exclusion criteria, and risk of bias (RoB), and extracted data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and we used GRADE to rate the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest at 24 hours and block-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain at rest (2, 48 hours) and during activity (2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery), chronic pain after three and six months, as well as cumulative oral morphine requirements at 2, 24 and 48 hours after surgery and rates of opioid-related side effects. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 69 RCTs in the first search and included these in the systematic review. We included 64 RCTs (3973 participants) in the meta-analysis. The outcome postoperative pain was reported in 38 out of 64 studies; block-related adverse events were reported in 40 out of 64 studies. We assessed RoB as low in 44 (56%), some concerns in 24 (31%) and high in 10 (13%) of the study results. Overall, 57 studies reported one or both primary outcomes. Only one study reported results on chronic pain after surgery. In the updated literature search on 3 January 2022 we found 37 new studies and categorised these as awaiting classification. ESPB compared to no block There is probably a slight but not clinically relevant reduction in pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery in patients treated with ESPB compared to no block (visual analogue scale (VAS), 0 to 10 points) (mean difference (MD) -0.77 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.08 to -0.46; 17 trials, 958 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between the groups treated with ESPB and those receiving no block (no events in 18 trials reported, 1045 participants, low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to placebo block ESPB probably has no effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to placebo block (MD -0.14 points, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.00; 8 trials, 499 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events between ESPB and placebo blocks (no events in 10 trials reported; 592 participants; low-certainty evidence). ESPB compared to other regional anaesthetic techniques Paravertebral block (PVB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PVB (MD 0.23 points, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.52; 7 trials, 478 participants; low-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in block-related adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95; 7 trials, 522 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to TAPB (MD -0.16 points, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.14; 3 trials, 160 participants; low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.83; 4 trials, 202 participants; low-certainty evidence). Serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) The effect on postoperative pain could not be assessed because no studies reported this outcome. There may be no difference in block-related adverse events (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.59; 2 trials, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pectoralis plane block (PECSB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to PECSB (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.58; 2 trials, 98 participants; low-certainty evidence). The effect on block-related adverse events could not be assessed. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) Only one study reported on each of the primary outcomes. Intercostal nerve block (ICNB) ESPB may not have any additional effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to ICNB, but this is uncertain (MD -0.33 points, 95% CI -3.02 to 2.35; 2 trials, 131 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in block-related adverse events, but this is uncertain (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.28; 3 trials, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Epidural analgesia (EA) We are uncertain whether ESPB has an effect on postoperative pain intensity at rest 24 hours after surgery compared to EA (MD 1.20 points, 95% CI -2.52 to 4.93; 2 trials, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). A risk ratio for block-related adverse events was not estimable because only one study reported this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESPB in addition to standard care probably does not improve postoperative pain intensity 24 hours after surgery compared to no block. The number of block-related adverse events following ESPB was low. Further research is required to study the possibility of extending the duration of analgesia. We identified 37 new studies in the updated search and there are three ongoing studies, suggesting possible changes to the effect estimates and the certainty of the evidence in the future.

Mechanisms inherent in acute-to-chronic pain after surgery - risk, diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic factors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pain is an expected consequence of a surgery, but it is far from being well controlled. One major complication of acute pain is its risk of persistency beyond healing. This so-called chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) is defined as new or increased pain due to surgery that lasts for at least 3 months after surgery. CPSP is frequent, underlies a complex bio-psycho-social process and constitutes an important socioeconomic challenge with significant impact on patients' quality of life. Its importance has been recognized by its inclusion in the eleventh version of the ICD (International Classification of Diseases). RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence for most pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions preventing CPSP is inconsistent. Identification of associated patient-related factors, such as psychosocial aspects, comorbidities, surgical factors, pain trajectories, or biomarkers may allow stratification and selection of treatment options based on underlying individual mechanisms. Consequently, the identification of patients at risk and implementation of individually tailored, preventive, multimodal treatment to reduce the risk of transition from acute to chronic pain is facilitated. SUMMARY: This review will give an update on current knowledge on mechanism-based risk, prognostic and predictive factors for CPSP in adults, and preventive and therapeutic approaches, and how to use them for patient stratification in the future.

Pain management after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy: A systematic review with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy can be difficult to treat, and if inadequately managed can lead to respiratory complications, prolonged hospital stays and chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy. DESIGN: A systematic review using PROcedure-SPECific Pain Management (PROSPECT) methodology. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews published in the English language until November 2020 assessing postoperative pain after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Databases. RESULTS: Of 319 eligible studies, 209 randomised controlled trials and three systematic reviews were included in the final analysis. Pre-operative, intra-operative and postoperative interventions that reduced postoperative pain included paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous magnesium, intravenous dexmedetomidine and parasternal block/infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: The analgesic regimen for cardiac surgery via sternotomy should include paracetamol and NSAIDs, unless contraindicated, administered intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. Intra-operative magnesium and dexmedetomidine infusions may be considered as adjuncts particularly when basic analgesics are not administered. It is not clear if combining dexmedetomidine and magnesium would provide superior pain relief compared with either drug alone. Parasternal block/surgical site infiltration is also recommended. However, no basic analgesics were used in the studies assessing these interventions. Opioids should be reserved for rescue analgesia. Other interventions, including cyclo-oxygenase-2 specific inhibitors, are not recommended because there was insufficient, inconsistent or no evidence to support their use and/or due to safety concerns.

Clinical profiling of specific diagnostic subgroups of women with chronic pelvic pain.

Introduction: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common condition affecting up to 26.6% of women, with many suffering for several years before diagnosis and/or treatment. Its clinical presentation is varied and there are frequently comorbid conditions both within and outside the pelvis. We aim to explore whether specific subgroups of women with CPP report different clinical symptoms and differing impact of pain on their quality of life (QoL). Methods: The study is part of the Translational Research in Pelvic Pain (TRiPP) project which is a cross-sectional observational cohort study. The study includes 769 female participants of reproductive age who completed an extensive set of questions derived from standardised WERF EPHect questionnaires. Within this population we defined a control group (reporting no pelvic pain, no bladder pain syndrome, and no endometriosis diagnosis, N = 230) and four pain groups: endometriosis-associated pain (EAP, N = 237), interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (BPS, N = 72), comorbid endometriosis-associated pain and BPS (EABP, N = 120), and pelvic pain only (PP, N = 127). Results: Clinical profiles of women with CPP (13-50 years old) show variability of clinical symptoms. The EAP and EABP groups scored higher than the PP group (p < 0.001) on the pain intensity scales for non-cyclical pelvic pain and higher than both the BPS and PP groups (p < 0.001) on the dysmenorrhoea scale. The EABP group also had significantly higher scores for dyspareunia (p < 0.001), even though more than 50% of sexually active participants in each pain group reported interrupting and/or avoiding sexual intercourse due to pain in the last 12 months. Scores for the QoL questionnaire (SF-36) reveal that CPP patients had significantly lower QoL across all SF-36 subscales (p < 0.001). Significant effects were also observed between the pain groups for pain interference with their work (p < 0.001) and daily lives (p < 0.001), with the EABP suffering more compared to the EAP and PP groups (p < 0.001). Discussion: Our results demonstrate the negative impact that chronic pain has on CPP patients' QoL and reveal an increased negative impact of pain on the comorbid EABP group. Furthermore, it demonstrates the importance of dyspareunia in women with CPP. Overall, our results demonstrate the need for further exploration of interventions targeting QoL more broadly and suggest that novel approaches to classifying women with CPP are needed.

Behavioral Voluntary and Social Bioassays Enabling Identification of Complex and Sex-Dependent Pain-(-Related) Phenotypes in Rats with Bone Cancer.

Cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) is a common and devastating symptom with limited treatment options in patients, significantly affecting their quality of life. The use of rodent models is the most common approach to uncovering the mechanisms underlying CIBP; however, the translation of results to the clinic may be hindered because the assessment of pain-related behavior is often based exclusively on reflexive-based methods, which are only partially indicative of relevant pain in patients. To improve the accuracy and strength of the preclinical, experimental model of CIBP in rodents, we used a battery of multimodal behavioral tests that were also aimed at identifying rodent-specific behavioral components by using a home-cage monitoring assay (HCM). Rats of all sexes received an injection with either heat-deactivated (sham-group) or potent mammary gland carcinoma Walker 256 cells into the tibia. By integrating multimodal datasets, we assessed pain-related behavioral trajectories of the CIBP-phenotype, including evoked and non-evoked based assays and HCM. Using principal component analysis (PCA), we discovered sex-specific differences in establishing the CIBP-phenotype, which occurred earlier (and differently) in males. Additionally, HCM phenotyping revealed the occurrence of sensory-affective states manifested by mechanical hypersensitivity in sham when housed with a tumor-bearing cagemate (CIBP) of the same sex. This multimodal battery allows for an in-depth characterization of the CIBP-phenotype under social aspects in rats. The detailed, sex-specific, and rat-specific social phenotyping of CIBP enabled by PCA provides the basis for mechanism-driven studies to ensure robustness and generalizability of results and provide information for targeted drug development in the future.

Phenotype- and species-specific skin proteomic signatures for incision-induced pain in humans and mice.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain after surgery is common and often leads to chronic post-surgical pain, but neither treatment nor prevention is currently sufficient. We hypothesised that specific protein networks (protein-protein interactions) are relevant for pain after surgery in humans and mice. METHODS: Standardised surgical incisions were performed in male human volunteers and male mice. Quantitative and qualitative sensory phenotyping were combined with unbiased quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics and protein network theory. The primary outcomes were skin protein signature changes in humans and phenotype-specific protein-protein interaction analysis 24 h after incision. Secondary outcomes were interspecies comparison of protein regulation as well as protein-protein interactions after incision and validation of selected proteins in human skin by immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Skin biopsies in 21 human volunteers revealed 119/1569 regulated proteins 24 h after incision. Protein-protein interaction analysis delineated remarkable differences between subjects with small (low responders, n=12) and large incision-related hyperalgesic areas (high responders, n=7), a phenotype most predictive of developing chronic post-surgical pain. Whereas low responders predominantly showed an anti-inflammatory protein signature, high responders exhibited signatures associated with a distinct proteolytic environment and persistent inflammation. Compared to humans, skin biopsies in mice habored even more regulated proteins (435/1871) 24 h after incision with limited overlap between species as assessed by proteome dynamics and PPI. Immunohistochemistry confirmed the expression of high priority candidates in human skin biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Proteome profiling of human skin after incision revealed protein-protein interactions correlated with pain and hyperalgesia, which may be of potential significance for preventing chronic post-surgical pain. Importantly, protein-protein interactions were differentially modulated in mice compared to humans opening new avenues for successful translational research.

Virtual reality reduces pain in palliative care-A feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective symptom control is a stated goal of palliative care (PC) to improve quality of life for terminally ill patients. Virtual reality (VR) provides temporary escapes from pharmacologically resistant pain and allows for experiences and journeys patients may not access in any other way. Enabling wishes through virtual worlds may also offer additional benefits such as controlling psychological and physical symptoms. AIMS: We investigated the feasibility of a single VR experience as a viable, satisfying, and effective tool for end-of-life pain relief for inpatients presenting palliative needs. DESIGN: This is an observational, single-arm and national single-center feasibility trial. METHODS: A one-time VR experience with a selection of several videos and games was offered to 45 inpatients receiving PC at Muenster University Hospital. Patients with brain tumors, brain metastases, seizures, motion sickness, claustrophobia, vertigo, hearing or visual impairment, or unable to consent were excluded. Primary outcome measured patient reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). We also measured Karnofsky performance status, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire, and the Pain Out Questionnaire for postoperative pain. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 21 women (52.5%) and 19 men (47.5%) at an average age of 51.9 (SD: 15.81) years. The mean Karnofsky score among the sample was 45.5 (SD: 14.97) and the HRQOL was 41.9 (SD: 23.08). While no serious side effects were reported during the intervention, three patients experienced nausea (7%), two headaches (5%), and three reported dry eyes (7%) afterwards. Significant pain reduction (baseline VAS 2.25 (SD: 0.4399)) was demonstrated during (VAS 0.7 (SD: 0.2983, p < 0.0001)), immediately after (VAS 0.9 (SD: 0.3354, p = 0.0001)) and one hour after the intervention (VAS 1.15 (SD: 0.4163, p = 0.0004)). More than 80% rated the VR experience as very good or good (85%, n = 34) and intended to make use of the device again (82.5%, n = 33). However, two participants (5%) also expressed sadness by becoming aware of old memories and previous opportunities that are gone. DISCUSSION: The present pilot study suggests that VR seems to be a feasible and effective tool for pain relief in PC. Its use encompasses the approach of a total pain and symptom therapy and enhances patients' dignity and autonomy. Future research ought to include if and to what extent VR could reduce the necessity of pharmacological pain relief.

The "WWHow" Concept for Prospective Categorization of Post-operative Severity Assessment in Mice and Rats.

The prospective severity assessment in animal experiments in the categories' non-recovery, mild, moderate, and severe is part of each approval process and serves to estimate the harm/benefit. Harms are essential for evaluating ethical justifiability, and on the other hand, they may represent confounders and effect modifiers within an experiment. Catalogs and guidelines provide a way to assess the experimental severity prospectively but are limited in adaptation due to their nature of representing particular examples without clear explanations of the assessment strategies. To provide more flexibility for current and future practices, we developed the modular Where-What-How (WWHow) concept, which applies findings from pre-clinical studies using surgical-induced pain models in mice and rats to provide a prospective severity assessment. The WWHow concept integrates intra-operative characteristics for predicting the maximum expected severity of surgical procedures. The assessed severity categorization is mainly congruent with examples in established catalogs; however, because the WWHow concept is based on anatomical location, detailed analysis of the tissue trauma and other intra-operative characteristics, it enables refinement actions, provides the basis for a fact-based dialogue with authority officials and other stakeholders, and helps to identify confounder factors of study findings.

Perioperative ketamine for postoperative pain management in patients with preoperative opioid intake: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Postoperative pain management in opioid users remains challenging. The perioperative administration of ketamine might lead to favourable pain outcomes in these patients. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) with meta-analysis and assessment of the quality of evidence by GRADE was performed. SETTING: Perioperative pain treatment. PATIENTS: Adult opioid users undergoing surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative administration of ketamine. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain at rest/during movement after 24 h and number of patients with ketamine-related adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs (802 patients with at least two weeks opioid-intake) were included. There is low-quality evidence that ketamine may slightly reduce postoperative pain during movement after 24 h (mean difference: -0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.22 to -0.36). Based on a very low-quality of evidence, we are uncertain on any effect of ketamine on pain at rest after 24 h and incidences of adverse events like hallucinations and confusion within 48 h. However, perioperative ketamine reduced cumulative mean opioid consumption by 97.3 mg (95%CI: -164.8 to -29.7) after 24 h and 186.4 mg (95%CI: -347.6 to -25.2) after 48 h. The relative risks (RR) for opioid-related adverse events were significantly different for sedation within 24 h (RR: 0.54; 95%CI 0.37 to 0.78). CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited evidence for a reduced postoperative pain intensity using perioperative ketamine in preoperative opioid-consuming patients. However, a clinically relevant opioid-sparing effect was evident associated with a reduced risk for postoperative sedation and without increased harm. Therefore, ketamine might be a useful anti-hyperalgesic adjuvant in these patients. Nevertheless, with clinical heterogeneity being considerable, it's too premature to suggest any specific ketamine protocol. Furthermore, many questions (like ideal dosing, treatment duration and more favourable patient-related outcome measures including long-term effects) remain open and need to be addressed in future studies. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42020185497.

Efficacy and adverse events of selective serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors in the management of postoperative pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Selective-serotonin-noradrenaline-reuptake inhibitors (SSNRI) might be an interesting option for postoperative pain treatment. Objective was to investigate postoperative pain outcomes of perioperative SSNRI compared to placebo or other additives in adults undergoing surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) with meta-analysis and GRADE assessment. SETTING: Acute and chronic postoperative pain treatment. PATIENTS: Adult patients undergoing surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Perioperative administration of SSNRI. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain at rest/during movement (measured on a scale from 0 to 10), number of patients with chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and with SSNRI-related adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (908 patients) were included. We have high-quality evidence that duloxetine has no effect on pain at rest at 2 h (MD: -0.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.51 to 0.47), but probably reduces it at 48 h (MD: -1.16; 95%CI -1.78 to -0.54). There is low- and moderate-quality evidence that duloxetine has no effects on pain during movement at 2 h (MD: -0.42; 95%CI -1.53 to 0.69) and 48 h (MD: -0.91; 95% CI -2.08 to 0.26), respectively. We have very low-quality evidence that duloxetine might reduce pain at rest (MD: -0.45; 95%CI -0.74 to -0.15) and movement (MD: -1.19; 95%CI -2.32 to -0.06) after 24 h. We have low-quality evidence that duloxetine may reduce the risk of CPSP at 6 months (RR:0.35; 95%CI 0.14 to 0.90). There is moderate-quality evidence that duloxetine increases the risk of dizziness (RR:1.72; 95%CI 1.26 to 2.34). CONCLUSION: At the expense of a higher risk for dizziness, SSNRI may be effective in reducing postoperative pain between 24 and 48 h after surgery. However, the results of the meta-analyses are mostly imprecise and duloxetine might only be used in individual cases. Protocol registration: CRD42018094699.

Developing consensus on core outcome domains for assessing effectiveness in perioperative pain management: results of the PROMPT/IMI-PainCare Delphi Meeting.

ABSTRACT: Postoperative pain management is still insufficient, leading to major deficits, including patient suffering, impaired surgical recovery, long-term opioid intake, and postsurgical chronic pain. Yet, identifying the best treatment options refers to a heterogeneous outcome assessment in clinical trials, not always reflecting relevant pain-related aspects after surgery and therefore hamper evidence synthesis. Establishing a core outcome set for perioperative pain management of acute pain after surgery may overcome such limitations. An international, stepwise consensus process on outcome domains ("what to measure") for pain management after surgery, eg, after total knee arthroplasty, sternotomy, breast surgery, and surgery related to endometriosis, was performed. The process, guided by a steering committee, involved 9 international stakeholder groups and patient representatives. The face-to-face meeting was prepared by systematic literature searches identifying common outcome domains for each of the 4 surgical procedures and included breakout group sessions, world-café formats, plenary panel discussions, and final voting. The panel finally suggested an overall core outcome set for perioperative pain management with 5 core outcome domains: physical function (for a condition-specific measurement), pain intensity at rest, pain intensity during activity, adverse events, and self-efficacy. Innovative aspects of this work were inclusion of the psychological domain self-efficacy, as well as the specific assessment of pain intensity during activity and physical function recommended to be assessed in a condition-specific manner. The IMI-PROMPT core outcome set seeks to improve assessing efficacy and effectiveness of perioperative pain management in any clinical and observational studies as well as in clinical practice.

European* clinical practice recommendations on opioids for chronic noncancer pain - Part 1: Role of opioids in the management of chronic noncancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC). METHODS: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment. RESULTS: The key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance. SIGNIFICANCE: In chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.

European clinical practice recommendations on opioids for chronic noncancer pain - Part 2: Special situations.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is under debate. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC). METHODS: The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment. RESULTS: The European Clinical Practice Recommendations give guidance for combination with other medications, the management of frequent (e.g. nausea, constipation) and rare (e.g. hyperalgesia) side effects, for special clinical populations (e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy) and for special situations (e.g. liver cirrhosis). CONCLUSION: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. SIGNIFICANCE: If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. A collaboration of medical specialties and of all health care professionals is needed for some special populations and clinical situations.