Pediatric Pain Screening Tool: A Simple 9-Item Questionnaire Predicts Functional and Chronic Postsurgical Pain Outcomes After Major Musculoskeletal Surgeries.

Reliable, clinic-friendly screening for Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) risk is unavailable. Within a prospective, observational study, we evaluated Pediatric Pain Screening Tool (PPST), a concise 9-item questionnaire, as a preoperative screening tool to identify those at higher risk for CPSP (Numerical Rating Scale > 3/10 beyond 3 months post-surgery) and poor function (disability/Functional Disability Inventory [FDI]/quality of life/ Pediatric Quality of Life) after spine fusion and Nuss procedures. Incidence of CPSP was 34.86% (38/109). We confirmed PPST scale stability, test re-test reliability (ICC = 0.68; P< .001); PPST measures were positively correlated with known CPSP risk factors (P< .001) preoperative pain (Pearson or Spearman Correlation Coefficient [SCC]:0.672), Child anxiety sensitivity index (SCC:0.357), Patient Related Outcome Measures Information System pain interference (SCC:0.569), Patient Related Outcome Measures Information System depression (SCC:0.501), Pediatric Quality of Life (SCC:-0.460) and insomnia severity index (SCC0.567). Preoperative PPST and PPST physical sub-scores (median(IQR) were higher in CPSP (2[0.5,4], 1[0,2]) compared to non-CPSP (1[0,3], 0[0,1.5]) groups (P= .026, P= .029) respectively. PPST scores/sub-scores positively correlated with higher FDI at 6 months but only PPST total and PPST psychosocial subscore correlated with higher FDI at 12 months. Based on ROC, optimal PPST cutoff for CPSP was 2 (63.9% sensitivity, 64.7% specificity). CPSP risk was high (48.94% risk) if PPST ≥ 2 (n = 47) and medium (22.81%) if PPST < 2 (n = 57) after spine/pectus surgery. General and risk-strata specific, targeted psychosocial non-pharmacological interventions, need to be studied. Findings need validation in diverse, larger cohorts. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02998138. PERSPECTIVE: The article supports Pediatric Pain Screening Tool, a simple 9-item questionnaire, as a preoperative screening tool for CPSP and function 6-12 months after spine/pectus surgeries. PPST measures correlate with known risk factors for CPSP. Risk stratification and targeted preventive interventions in high-risk subjects are proposed.

Chinese Version of the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale for Cancer Patients Reporting Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related chronic pain is reported by many patients during treatment. There are very few Chinese tools for measuring psychological inflexibility caused by cancer pain, particularly with regard to psychological processes that might influence pain severity and function disorder during cancer treatment. OBJECTIVE: To culturally adapt the Psychological Inflexibility in Pain Scale (PIPS) to Chinese cancer patients experiencing chronic pain, including the determination of psychometric properties of the translated PIPS. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 2 phases: (1) translation and cultural adaptation and (2) determination of psychometric properties of the translated PIPS. In total, 389 cancer patients with several types of cancer experiencing chronic pain enrolled from May to September 2018 at a tertiary cancer hospital in Yuelu District of Hunan Province, China. RESULTS: The Chinese PIPS version was semantically equivalent to the original. It had a 2-factor structure with satisfactory content validity (content validity index = 0.78-1.00), convergent and discriminant validity (composite reliability and average variance extracted at 0.41-0.89, P < .001), criterion-related validity (r = 0.54 and 0.41, P < .001), Cronbach's α coefficients (α = .87), and test-retest reliability (0.9 ≤ r ≤ 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese PIPS version has been culturally adapted and has strong psychometric properties. The scale is a psychometrically sound assessment of psychological inflexibility that can be used for future studies of pain and pain management for cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The study provides a vital tool for the psychological management of cancer patients with chronic pain.

Measurement Properties of the Oswestry Disability Index in Recipients of Lumbar Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study on the measurement properties of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) version 1.0. OBJECTIVES: To (1) determine the construct validity of the tool, specifically structural validity; (2) analyze the criterion validity of the tool, specifically concurrent validity against proxy measures of pain, function, and quality of life and predictive validity of each item to proxy measures of disability; and (3) reliability of the tool, specifically internal consistency. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: We endeavored to investigate the measurement properties of the ODI on a spine surgery population to test the assumption that a more disabled population may influence the properties of the tool. METHODS: Data were pulled from the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) Spine Registry. A total of 57,199 participants who underwent primary or revision lumbar spine surgeries were included. Structural validity was assessed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, concurrent validity, predictive validity by odds ratios, and internal consistency by Cronbach alpha. The Visual Analog Scale for back pain, two standard open questions, and the EuroQol 5 Dimension/Visual Analogue Scale were included as proxy measures of pain, function, and quality of life, respectively. Hospital readmission, return to operating room for treatment and revision surgery (all within 30 days) were included as proxy measures of disability to assess the predictive validity of each ODI item. RESULTS: The ODI demonstrated a two-factor structural solution, which explained 54.9% of the total variance. Fair internal consistency (0.74-0.77), and fair criterion validity (concurrent) and significant findings with predictive validity (P < 0.01) substantiated the use of each item of the ODI as well as the summary score and ODI thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Our study lends value to a burgeoning repository of evidence that suggests the ODI is a useful tool for capturing outcomes in clinical practice. We recommend its continued use in clinical practice.Level of Evidence: 4.

Development and Validation of a Novel Scoring System for Severity of Plantar Fasciitis.

OBJECTIVES: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of heel pain. Though PF is self-limited, it can develop into chronic pain and thus treatment is needed. Early and accurate prognostic assessment of patients with PF is critically important for selecting the optimal treatment pathway. Nevertheless, there is no scoring system to determine the severity of PF and no prognostic model in choosing between conservative or surgical treatment. The study aimed to develop a novel scoring system to evaluate the severity of plantar fasciitis and predict the prognosis of conservative treatment. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients treated from 2014 to 2018 were retrospectively collected. One hundred and eighty patients were eligible for the study. The demographics and clinical characteristics served as independent variables. The least follow-up time was 6 months. A minimal reduction of 60% in the visual analog scale (VAS) score from baseline was considered as minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Those factors significantly associated with achieving MCID in univariate analyses were further analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. A novel scoring system was developed using the best available literature and expert-opinion consensus. Inter-observer reliability and intra-observer reproducibility were evaluated. The appropriate cut-off points for the novel score system were obtained using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The system score = VAS (0-3 point = 1; 3.1-7 point = 3; 7.1-10 point = 5) + duration of symptoms (<6 months = 1; ≥1 6 months = 2) + ability to walk without pain (>1 h = 1; ≤1 h = 4) + heel spur in X-ray (No = 0; Yes = 2) + high intensity zone (HIZ) in MRI (No = 0; Yes = 2). The total score was divided in four categories of severity: mild (2-4 points), moderate (5-8 points), severe (9-12 points), and critical (13-15 points). Inter-observer agreement with a value of 0.84 was considered as perfect reliability. Intra-observer reproducibility with a value of 0.92 was considered as perfect reproducibility. The optimum cut-off value was 10 points. The sensitivity of predictive factors was 86.37%, 84.21%, 91.22%, 84.12%, and 89.32%, respectively; the specificity was 64.21%, 53.27%, 67.76%, 62.37%, and 79.58%, respectively; the area under curve was 0.75, 0.71, 0.72, 0.87, and 0.77, respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed a good fitting of the score system with an overall accuracy of 90.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on prognostic factors, the present study establishes a novel scoring system which is highly comprehensible, reliable, and reproducible. This score system can be used to identify the severity of plantar fasciitis and predict the prognosis of conservative treatment accurately. The application of this scoring system in clinical settings can significantly improve the decision-making process.

Validation of PROMIS Physical Function in MIS TLIF: 2-Year Follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the correlation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System for physical function (PROMIS-PF) with legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) up to 2 years postoperatively. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PROMIS-PF has not been validated past 6 months following MIS TLIF. METHODS: A surgical registry was retrospectively reviewed for eligible MIS TLIFs between May 2015 and September 2017. Inclusion criteria were primary, one- or two-level MIS TLIFs for degenerative spinal pathology. Patients without preoperative or 2-year follow up PROMIS-PF surveys were excluded. Demographic, perioperative, and PROMs including Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) physical component summary (PCS) scores, and PROMIS-PF at preoperative and postoperative timepoint (e.g., 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years). A paired t test evaluated PROM improvement from baseline. The relationship of PROMIS-PF with VAS back, VAS leg, SF-12 PCS, and ODI was evaluated with a Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The 68-subject cohort was 41.2% female, with an average age of 52.9 years; 44.1% were obese, and the majority underwent one-level fusions (95.6%). Pain (VAS back, VAS leg) and disability metrics (ODI) demonstrated significant improvement at all timepoints following MIS TLIF when compared to baseline (all P < 0.001). Physical function (SF-12 PCS, PROMIS-PF) demonstrated significant postoperative improvement at 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (all P < 0.001). All evaluated timepoints, with the exception of preoperative VAS back scores, revealed strong PROMIS-PF correlations with VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS. CONCLUSION: PROMIS-PF demonstrated a strong correlation with pain (VAS back, VAS leg), disability (ODI) and physical function (SF-12) at all postoperative follow-ups through 2 years. Our study provides longitudinal evidence for utilizing PROMIS-PF as a valid physical function measure among patients undergoing MIS TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Optimizing Radiosurgery for Trigeminal Neuralgia: Impact of Radiation Dose and Anatomic Target on Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Radiosurgery is an increasingly popular treatment for trigeminal neuralgia (TN); however, several treatment variables require further study. This meta-analysis was conducted to clarify ambiguity in the literature and optimize treatment parameters. METHODS: A random-effects proportions meta-analysis using subgroup analysis and meta-regression investigated the association of prescription dose and anatomic target on outcomes in patients with typical TN. The PRISMA guidelines were used. Radiation doses used ranged from 70 to 90 Gy and the anatomic targets were either the root entry zone or a more distal nerve location. Outcome measures were pain at last follow-up and the development of bothersome numbness. RESULTS: Increasing radiation prescription dose was associated with improved outcomes across all analyzed doses (P < 0.001). Patients treated at a distal trigeminal nerve target had better pain control compared with a root entry zone target (P < 0.001). Despite a higher median dose, a distal target was independently associated with improved pain control. There were similar rates of bothersome numbness across radiation doses and both treatment targets. CONCLUSIONS: Higher radiation dose was associated with superior pain control without increasing bothersome numbness. Independent of dose, the distal target was also associated with improved pain control. Bothersome numbness was not related to dose or target.

Appropriate Management of Vertebral Fragility Fractures: Development of a Pathway Based on a Vertebral Compression Fracture Registry.

BACKGROUND: The BenchMarket Medical (BMM) Vertebral Compression Fracture (VCF) Registry, now known as Talosix, is a collaborative effort between Talosix (the authorized registry vendor), Noridian Healthcare Solutions, and clinicians to gather outcomes evidence for cement augmentation treatments in patients with acute painful osteoporotic VCFs. The VCF Registry was designed to provide outcomes evidence to inform the Medicare payer's "coverage with evidence development" decision to authorize reimbursement for cement augmentation treatments. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article was to present a pathway for appropriate use of vertebral augmentation based on the findings of the VCF Registry. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational data, including patient characteristics, diagnosis, process of care, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for pain and function, were collected from patients undergoing cement augmentation treatment. The PROs were collected at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months following the procedure. SETTING: The VCF Registry is a national ongoing registry with no specified end time or designated sample size. METHODS: Primary outcomes were pain improvement measured using the Numeric Rating Scale and function improvement, measured using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Secondary outcomes included cement leakage, new neurologic deficits, adverse events, readmissions, and death. RESULTS: The VCF Registry delivered outcomes data to support Noridian's "coverage with evidence development" decision. A total of 732 patients were included in this study. Registry outcomes confirmed postmarket evidence of highly significant pain relief with mean pain score improvement of 6.5/10 points at 6 months. Function also improved significantly with mean RMDQ score change of 11.4/24 points 6 months after surgery. Results also showed the safety and reliability of cement augmentation. LIMITATIONS: The nature of the registry data is that it contains nonrandomized, nonplacebo controlled data and should not be perceived as such. The real-world setting and the large number of patients within the dataset should increase the external validity of the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Cement augmentation treatments of patients with acute painful VCFs reliably results in highly significant benefits of pain decrease and functional improvement for this Medicare population. KEY WORDS: Vertebral compression fractures, osteoporosis, kyphoplasty, back pain, registry.

10 kHz High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Thoracic Pain: A Multicenter Case Series and a Guide for Optimal Anatomic Lead Placement.

BACKGROUND: Surgical options for thoracic pain are limited and carry significant risk and morbidity. Spinal cord stimulation has the potential to be used for treatment of thoracic pain, as it has been useful for treating multiple types of chronic pain. Conventional tonic stimulation is limited in the treatment of thoracic pain, as it can produce paresthesia that is difficult to localize. Conversely, high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF-SCS) does not activate dorsal column A Beta fibers and does not produce paresthesia, and thus may be more beneficial in treating thoracic back pain not manageable with tonic stimulation. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate (1) the efficacy of 10 kHz HF-SCS for patients with chronic thoracic pain; and (2) appropriate paresthesia-free lead placement and programming targets for 10 kHz HF-SCS for patients with chronic thoracic pain. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Multisite academic medical center or pain clinic. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 19 patients with thoracic back pain who underwent HF-SCS implantation. These patients had lead placement and stimulation between the T1-T6 vertebral levels. Outcome measures collected include location of device implant, stimulation settings, and pain scores at baseline, end of trial, and 1, 6, and 12 months postimplant. Follow-up phone calls collected information on if the patient reported functional improvement, improved sleep, or decreased pain medication usage. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test compared differences in mean pain scores across time points. RESULTS: Significantly decreased Visual Analog Scale scores were observed with 17/19 (89.5%) patients demonstrating response to therapy (> 50% reduction in pain scores). These results were sustained relative to baseline at 1, 6, and 12 months postimplant, depending on length of follow-up. Many patients also reported functional improvement (17/19), improved sleep (14/19), and reduction in use of pain medications after implantation (9/19). A total of 15/19 patients reported best relief when contacts over T1 or T2 vertebrae were used for stimulation. LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its retrospective design. Additionally, including documentation from multiple sites may be prone to selection and abstraction bias. Data were also not available for all patients at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: HF-SCS may be a viable option for significant, long-lasting pain relief for thoracic back pain. There may also be evidence for anatomically based lead placement and programming for thoracic back pain. Randomized, controlled trials with extended follow-up are needed to further evaluate this therapy. KEY WORDS: Thoracic pain, back pain, spinal cord stimulation, high frequency, 10 kHz.

The Concerns About Pain (CAP) Scale: A Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Pain Catastrophizing.

Pain catastrophizing has been recognized as an important and consistent psychosocial predictor of nearly every key pain-related outcome. The purpose of this study was to develop a new measure of pain catastrophizing using modern psychometric methodology. People with chronic pain (N = 795) responded to thirty items. Data were analyzed using item response theory, including assessment of differential item functioning and reliability. Sensitivity to change and validity were examined using data collected from patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery (n = 184) and participating in an ongoing longitudinal aging with a disability survey study (n = 1,388). The final 24-item bank had no items with significant local dependence, misfit, or differential item functioning. Results provided strong evidence of reliability and validity. Six- and 2-item short forms were developed for use when computer adaptive testing is not feasible or desirable. The item bank was named the University of Washington Concerns About Pain scale because the term "catastrophizing" was considered stigmatizing by people with chronic pain. Guidance for score interpretation was developed with extensive feedback from individuals with chronic pain. The Concerns About Pain item bank, short forms, and user manuals are free and publicly available to all users and can be accessed online at https://uwcorr.washington.edu/measures/. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents the development of the University of Washington Concerns About Pain scale, the first item response theory-based item bank of pain catastrophizing. The measure is intended for clinicians interested in improving outcomes of patients with chronic pain and for researchers who study impact of and treatment interventions aimed at reducing pain catastrophizing.

A Comparison of the Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors with Limited Ability to Communicate (PACSLAC) and Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale (PAINAD).

BACKGROUND: There is currently no gold standard instrument for assessing pain in severely cognitively impaired adults who are unable to provide self-report. AIMS: To determine interrater reliability of the PACSLAC and PAINAD in assessing pain behaviors in patients with the same pain stimulus, determine the consistency of the reliable changes between and within the instruments and assess nurse preference for either instrument. DESIGN: A single-group, within-subjects repeated-measures design was implemented. SETTING: The study took place in a small suburban hospital. PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS: Pain levels were observed at 24, 48, and 72 hours postsurgery using two instruments: Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors with Limited Ability to Communicate (PACSLAC) and Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale (PAINAD). These instruments were selected because they are among the most commonly recommended tools for clinical use. Interrater reliability was analyzed along with reliable changes in pain for each period, and the study concluded with the nurse raters completing a preference survey. METHODS: A convenience sample of 30 patients was used with a diagnosis of severe dementia rendering the patient unable to reliably express pain, 60+ years of age, recovering from hip fracture surgery. RESULTS: Greater interrater reliability was found for the PACSLAC, with reliable change potentially affected by the type and level of pain medication. The nurses' preference for the tool was split. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the PACSLAC may be the more reliable tool over the PAINAD; however, rater training and familiarity with the tool is critical.

Validation of the UNESP-Botucatu pig composite acute pain scale (UPAPS).

The creation of species-specific valid tools for pain assessment is essential to recognize pain and determine the requirement and efficacy of analgesic treatments. This study aimed to assess behaviour and investigate the validity and reliability of an acute pain scale in pigs undergoing orchiectomy. Forty-five pigs aged 38±3 days were castrated under local anaesthesia. Behaviour was video-recorded 30 minutes before and intermittently up to 24 hours after castration. Edited footage (before surgery, after surgery before and after rescue analgesia, and 24 hours postoperatively) was analysed twice (one month apart) by one observer who was present during video-recording (in-person researcher) and three blinded observers. Statistical analysis was performed using R software and differences were considered significant when p<0.05. Intra and inter-observer agreement, based on intra-class correlation coefficient, was good or very good between most observers (>0.60), except between observers 1 and 3 (moderate agreement 0.57). The scale was unidimensional according to principal component analysis. The scale showed acceptable item-total Spearman correlation, excellent predictive and concurrent criterion validity (Spearman correlation ≥ 0.85 between the proposed scale versus visual analogue, numerical rating, and simple descriptive scales), internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient >0.80 for all items), responsiveness (the pain scores of all items of the scale increased after castration and decreased after intervention analgesia according to Friedman test), and specificity (> 95%). Sensitivity was good or excellent for most of the items. The optimal cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥ 6 of 18. Discriminatory ability was excellent for all observers according to the area under the curve (>0.95). The proposed scale is a reliable and valid instrument and may be used clinically and experimentally to assess postoperative acute pain in pigs. The well-defined cut-off point supports the evaluator´s decision to provide or not analgesia.

Comparative evaluations of single-item pain-intensity measures in cancer patients: Numeric rating scale vs. verbal rating scale.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric quality of two single-item pain-intensity measures: the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS). BACKGROUND: Measuring pain intensity is a vital step in initiating symptom management and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions with cancer patients. Single-item pain-intensity measures of the NRS and VRS format have been evaluated to be acceptable for use in clinical practice and research; however, evidence to choose one over the other, as a standardised pain-assessment format, is insufficient. DESIGN: Descriptive correlational study. The study was guided and reported following the STROBE guideline. METHODS: Data accrued at two time points during cancer treatment with a total of 249 patients treated in a Korean University Hospital. Two single-item measures were constructed to assess pain intensity over 1 week. The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI; pain intensity subscale and interference subscale) and the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue were the criterion. Convergent and concurrent validity were tested with Pearson's correlations. RESULTS: In the convergent-validity evaluation of the cross-sectional association with the BPI, the NRS showed a much higher level of association than the VRS (0.81 versus 0.61). In convergent validity with a longitudinal association with the BPI, the NRS score change had a much higher level of association (0.61 versus 0.37). In concurrent-validity evaluation, the NRS and VRS showed similar levels of associations with fatigue (-0.48 versus -0.49). Yet, the NRS showed statistically higher levels of correlation with functional limitations than the VRS (0.55 versus 0.42), comparable to the concurrent validity of the BPI. CONCLUSION: The NRS showed higher validity than VRS when assessing overall pain intensity over the past week. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL NURSING: Pain assessment is a vital role of nurses in caring for patients with cancer. Current study findings support the use of the single-item NRS pain measure to assess global pain intensity over the past week.

Comparison of the Zurich Observation Pain Assessment with the Behavioural Pain Scale and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool in nonverbal patients in the intensive care unit: A prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the concordance of Zurich Observation Pain Assessment (ZOPA) with the behavioural Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) to detect pain in nonverbal ICU patients. DESIGN: Prospective observational study [BASEC-Nr. PB_2016-02324]. SETTING: A total of 49 ICU patients from cardiovascular, visceral and thoracic surgery and neurology and neurosurgery were recruited. Data from 24 patients were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Three independent observers assessed pain with the BPS, the CPOT or ZOPA prior, during and after a potential painful nursing intervention. Tools were randomized concerning the pain management after each pain assessment. Frequency of nine additional pain indicating items from a previous qualitative, explorative study was calculated. RESULTS: ZOPA was positive in 32 of 33 measuring cycles (97.0%; 95%CI: 84.2-99.9%), followed by the CPOT (28/33 cycles, 84.8%; 95%CI: 68.1-94.9%) and the BPS (23/33 cycles, 67.0%; 95%CI: 51.3-84.4%). In 22/33 cycles all tools were concordant (66.7%; 95%CI: 48.2-82.0%). Analgesics were provided in 29 out of 33 cycles (87.9%; 95%CI: 71.8-96.6%). Additional pain indicating items were inconsistently reported. CONCLUSION: ZOPA is concordant with the BPS and the CPOT to indicate pain but detects pain earlier due to the low threshold value. Inclusion of further items does not improve pain assessment.

Use of IMMPACT domains in clinical trials of acupuncture for chronic pain: A methodological survey.

Acupuncture is one of the therapeutic resources used for the management of chronic pain. Variability in outcome measurements in randomized clinical trials of non-oncologic chronic pain (RCT-NOCP) generates inconsistencies in determining effects of treatments. The objective of this survey was to assess the adherence to the recommendations made by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) in the measurement of RCT-NOCP of acupuncture. This methodological research made a systematic search for eligible studies from different sources of information. Eligible studies included those with number of patients ≥100, who randomized and allocated patients with chronic non-oncologic pain to be treated with acupuncture or with "sham" acupuncture, or non-acupuncture. This research included the recommendations for IMMPACT in the measurement of RCT-NOCP: presence of outcomes pain, physical function, emotional state and improvement perception of patient, the source of the outcome information pain and the tools used to measure such domains. From a total of 1,386 studies, 24 were included in this survey. Eleven studies presented low risk of bias. Pain outcome was measured in 23 studies, physical function in 22 studies, emotional state in 14 studies and improvement perception of patient in one study. As for the pain outcome, the patient was the information source in 50% of the studies. The measurement tools recommended for IMMPACT were included in eight studies (35%) that evaluated pain, one study that evaluated the emotional state (7%), and one study that evaluated the improvement perception and satisfaction of patient. It was observed that studies which did not adhere to the recommendations had more favorable results for acupuncture in the outcome pain. This study concludes that randomized clinical trials that used acupuncture to manage chronic pain failed to adhere to IMMPACT recommendations. Clinical societies and IMMPACT do not share the same recommendations. This fact reflects in the diversity of outcomes and instruments adopted in the studies, making it difficult to compare the results.

Evaluating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of EQ-5D-3L in Patients With Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Swiss Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of a prospective, multicenter cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare thresholds of published minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for the three-level EuroQol-5D health survey (EQ-5D-3L) summary index (range -0.53 to 1.00) with our anchor-based estimate and evaluate how useful these thresholds are in determining treatment success in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: MCID values for EQ-5D-3L are specific to the underlying disease and only three studies have been published for DLSS patients reporting different values. METHODS: Patients of the multicenter Lumbar Stenosis Outcome Study with confirmed DLSS undergoing first-time decompression or fusion surgery with 12-month follow-up were enrolled in this study. To calculate MCID we used the Spinal Stenosis Measure satisfaction subscale as anchor. RESULTS: For this study, 364 patients met the inclusion criteria; of these, 196 were very satisfied, 72 moderately satisfied, 43 somewhat satisfied, and 53 unsatisfied 12 months after surgery. The MCID calculation estimated for EQ-5D-3L a value of 0.19. Compared with published MCID values (ranging from 0.30 to 0.52), our estimation is less restrictive. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LSS undergoing surgery, we estimated an MCID value for EQ-5D-3L summary index of 0.19 with the help of the average change anchor-based method, which we find to be the most suitable method for assessing patient change scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Validation of the Critical Care Pain Observational Tool in Palliative Care.

PURPOSE: Pain assessment at the end of life remains a problem for patients who are unable to self-report their pain when transitioning across care settings. This study therefore tested the internal consistency and discriminant, concurrent, and convergent validity of the Critical-Care Pain Observational Tool (French version) when used with end-of-life patients in a palliative care setting. DESIGN: This was a descriptive correlational study that used a repeated-measures within-subjects prospective design. METHODS: The pain of 13 patients was assessed when at rest and during turning. RESULTS: The internal consistency reliability coefficient alphas were .64 at rest and .70 during turning. Discriminant validity was shown by a decrease in the total Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score. Concurrent validity was demonstrated by the association between the patients' self-report of pain and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score at rest (0.65, p < .016) and during turning (0.77, p = .002). Finally, the convergent validity between the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score and the Algoplus scale score was demonstrated with a Spearman's correlation coefficient of 0.76 at rest and 0.84 during turning. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool can be used with end-of-life patients in French-speaking countries.

Thirty-five Years of Acute Pain Services: Where Do We Go From Here?

Acute pain services (APS) have developed over the past 35 years. Originally implemented solely to care for patients with regional catheters or patient-controlled analgesia after surgery, APS have become providers of care throughout the perioperative period, with some institutions even taking the additional step toward providing outpatient services for patients with acute pain. Models vary considerably in terms of tasks and responsibilities, staffing, education, protocols, quality, and financing. Many challenges face today's APS, including the increasing number of patients with preexisting chronic pain, intake of analgesics and opioids before surgery, substance-dependent patients needing special care, shorter hospital stays, early discharge of patients in need of further analgesic treatment, prevention and treatment of chronic postsurgical pain, minimization of adverse events, and side effects of treatment. However, many APS lack a clear-cut definition of their structures, tasks, and quality. Development of APS in the future will require us to face urgent questions, such as, "What are meaningful outcome variables?" and, "How do we define high quality?" It is obvious that focusing exclusively on pain scores does not reflect the complexity of pain and recovery. A broader approach is needed-a common concept of surgical and anesthesiological services within a hospital (eg, procedure-specific patient pathways as indicated by the programs "enhanced recovery after surgery" or the "perioperative surgical home"), with patient-reported outcome measures as one central quality criterion. Pain-related functional impairment, treatment-induced side effects, speed of mobilization, as well as return to normal function and everyday activities are key.

AAAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Abdominal and Peritoneal Pain After Surgery.

Abdominal and peritoneal pain after surgery is common and burdensome, yet the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria for this type of acute pain impedes basic, translational, and clinical investigations. The collaborative effort among the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, American Pain Society, and American Academy of Pain Medicine Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) provides a systematic framework to classify acute painful conditions. Using this framework, a multidisciplinary working group reviewed the literature and developed core diagnostic criteria for acute abdominal and peritoneal pain after surgery. In this report, we apply the proposed AAAPT framework to 4 prototypical surgical procedures resulting in abdominal and peritoneal pain as examples: cesarean delivery, cholecystectomy, colorectal surgical procedures, and pancreas resection. These diagnostic criteria address the 3 most common surgical procedures performed in the United States, capture diverse surgical approaches, and may also be applied to other surgical procedures resulting in abdominal and peritoneal pain. Additional investigation regarding the validity and reliability of this framework will facilitate its adoption in research that advances our comprehension of mechanisms, deliver better treatments, and help prevent the transition of acute to chronic pain after surgery in the abdominal and peritoneal region. PERSPECTIVE: Using AAAPT, we present key diagnostic criteria for acute abdominal and peritoneal pain after surgery. We provide a systematic classification using 5 dimensions for abdominal and peritoneal pain that occurs after surgery, in addition to 4 specific surgical procedures: cesarean delivery, cholecystectomy, colorectal surgical procedures, and pancreas resection.

The evidentiary basis of vertebral augmentation: a 2019 update.

No aspect of neurointerventional practice has been associated with as longstanding contention and debate as to its effectiveness as has vertebroplasty (VP). Four blinded randomized controlled trials published since 2009 have demonstrated conflicting results regarding a conferred benefit in pain reduction and functional improvement for patients who undergo VP for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Significant heterogeneity exists between each of these trials, which has resulted in difficulty for interventionalists and surgeons to translate the trial findings into routine clinical practice. In addition, patients and their families are ever more enlightened and enabled via the internet and social media to review both medical literature and websites. Without the proper background and context, their decisions may be lacking appropriate and necessary scientific discussion. This review article summarizes the randomized controlled trial data to date, with particular focus on the aforementioned four blinded studies. We will also evaluate the profound impact of the decrease in vertebral augmentation utilization on short- and long-term patient morbidity and mortality using available national and administrative datasets from both within the USA and internationally. We also consider future trial design to help evaluate this procedure and determine its role in modern neurointerventional practice.