Chronic headaches related to post-dural puncture headaches: a scoping review.

Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a well-recognised complication of neuraxial procedures. Although it is generally considered to be self-limiting, there is mounting evidence suggesting an association between PDPH and chronic headaches. In this review, chronic headache after dural puncture was defined as the reporting of persistent headaches more than 1 month after the index dural puncture. This scoping review aims to: (1) review the relationship between PDPH and chronic headaches, (2) explore the pathophysiology of chronic headache arising from a dural puncture, and (3) make recommendations about the follow-up and treatment of these patients. The pooled relative risk of chronic headache from 15 863 patients reported in 12 cohort studies in patients with an accidental dural puncture compared with those without accidental dural puncture were 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.9), 2.5 (95% CI, 2.0-3.2), and 3.6 (95% CI, 1.9-7.1) at 2, 6, and 12 months, respectively. We also identified 20 case reports of 49 patients who developed chronic headache after a dural puncture. Epidural blood patch and fibrin glue injection and surgery have been used to treat chronic postural headaches. Overall, the level of evidence is low for all reported outcomes (aetiology, intervention and outcome) by virtue of the type of studies available (cohort and case reports) and significant risk of bias in the cohort studies. Based on findings from this review, we recommend that the risk of chronic headache is included in the informed consent discussion for all neuraxial procedures. Patients with PDPH should be closely followed up after hospital discharge.

Predictors of one year chronic post-surgical pain trajectories following thoracic surgery.

PURPOSE: Chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP) is a highly prevalent complication following thoracic surgery. This is a prospective cohort study that aims to describe the pain trajectories of patients undergoing thoracic surgery beginning preoperatively and up to 1 year after surgery METHODS: Two hundred and seventy nine patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery were enrolled. Participants filled out a preoperative questionnaire containing questions about their sociodemographic information, comorbidities as well as several psychological and pain-related statuses. They were then followed-up during their immediate postoperative period and at the three, six and 12 month time-points to track their postoperative pain, complications and pain-related outcomes. Growth mixture modeling was used to construct pain trajectories. RESULTS: The first trajectory is characterized by 185 patients (78.1%) with mild pain intensity across the 12 month period. The second is characterized by 32 patients (7.5%) with moderate pain intensity immediately after surgery which decreases markedly by 3 months and remains low at the 12 month follow-up. The final trajectory is characterized by 20 patients (8.4%) with moderate pain intensity immediately after surgery which persists at 12 months. Patients with moderate to severe postoperative pain intensity were much more likely to develop CPSP compared to patients with mild pain intensity. Initial pain intensity levels immediately following surgery as well as levels of pain catastrophizing at baseline were predicting pain trajectory membership. None of the surgical or anesthetic-related variables were significantly associated with pain trajectory membership. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo thoracic surgery can have postoperative pain that follows one of the three different types of trajectories. Higher levels of immediate postoperative pain and preoperative pain catastrophizing were associated with moderately severe CPSP.

Weeding Out the Problem: The Impact of Preoperative Cannabinoid Use on Pain in the Perioperative Period.

BACKGROUND: The recreational and medical use of cannabinoids has been increasing. While most studies and reviews have focused on the role of cannabinoids in the management of acute pain, no study has examined the postoperative outcomes of surgical candidates who are on cannabinoids preoperatively. This retrospective cohort study examined the impact of preoperative cannabinoid use on postoperative pain scores and pain-related outcomes in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery. METHODS: Outcomes of patients who had major orthopedic surgery at our hospital between April 1, 2015 and June 30, 2017 were reviewed. Data were obtained from Networked Online Processing of Acute Pain Information, a locally developed database for our Acute Pain Service. Propensity score matching was used to balance baselines variables including age, sex, type of surgery, history of depression or anxiety, and perioperative use of regional anesthesia between patients who reported use of cannabinoids and those not on this substance. Intensity of pain with movement in the early postoperative period (defined as up to 36 hours after surgery) was the primary outcome of this study. The secondary outcomes (all in early postoperative period) were pain at rest, opioid consumption, incidence of pruritus, nausea and vomiting, sedation, delirium, constipation, impairment of sleep and physical activity, patient satisfaction with analgesia, and the length of Acute Pain Service follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 3793 patients were included in the study. Of these, 155 patients were identified as being on cannabinoids for recreational or medical indications in the preoperative period. After propensity score matching, we compared data from 155 patients who were on cannabinoids and 155 patients who were not on cannabinoids. Patients who were on preoperative cannabinoids had higher pain numerical rating score (median [25th, 75th percentiles]) at rest (5.0 [3.0, 6.1] vs 3.0 [2.0, 5.5], P = .010) and with movement (8.0 [6.0, 9.0] vs 7.0 [3.5, 8.5], P = .003), and a higher incidence of moderate-to-severe pain at rest (62.3% vs 45.5%, respectively, P = .004; odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.25-3.14) and with movement (85.7% vs 75.2% respectively, P = .021; odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.10-3.57) in the early postoperative period compared to patients who were not on cannabinoids. There was also a higher incidence of sleep interruption in the early postoperative period for patients who used cannabinoids. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective study with propensity-matched cohorts showed that cannabinoid use was associated with higher pain scores and a poorer quality of sleep in the early postoperative period in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery.

Effects of regional anaesthesia on mortality in patients undergoing lower extremity amputation: A retrospective pooled analysis.

Background and Aims: Lower extremity amputation (LEA) is a commonly performed surgery and is associated with significant mortality and morbidity. This review compares the impact of anaesthetic technique on 30-day mortality and other perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing LEA. Methods: A systematic search of databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from January 2010 to March 2021, was performed. Studies were eligible if they compared 30-day mortality following either general anaesthesia (GA) or regional anaesthesia (RA), in adult patients undergoing LEA. Results: Ten retrospective observational studies were identified. Four of these studies utilised a propensity-score matching technique. Based on these four studies, RA when compared to GA, is not associated with a reduction in the 30-day mortality (Odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.65, 1.05, I2 20%, P = 0.12). Also there is a very low level of evidence that RA may result in a decrease in the hospital length-of-stay and intensive care unit admissions of patients undergoing LEA. Conclusion: RA does not decrease the 30-day postoperative mortality in patients undergoing LEA when compared to GA.

Clinical Challenges and Considerations in Management of Chronic Pain Patients During a COVID-19 Pandemic.

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was deemed a pandemic on 11 March 2020, we have seen exponential increases in the number of cases and deaths worldwide. The rapidly evolving COVID-19 situation requires revisions to clinical practice to defer non-essential clinical services to allocate scarce medical resources to the care of the COVID-19 patient and reduce risk to healthcare workers. Chronic pain patients require long-term multidisciplinary management even during a pandemic. Fear of abandonment, anxiety and depression may increase during this period of social isolation and aggravate pain conditions. Whilst physical consults for chronic pain patients were reduced, considerations including continuity of support and analgesia, telemedicine, allied health support and prioritising necessary pain services and interventions, were also taken to ensure biopsychosocial care for them. Chronic pain patients are mostly elderly with multiple comorbidities, and are more susceptible to morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. It is imperative to review pain management practices during the COVID-19 era with respect to infection control measures, re-allocation of healthcare resources, community collaborations, and analgesic use and pain interventions. The chronic pain patient faces a potential risk of functional and emotional decline during a pandemic, increasing healthcare burden in the long term. Clinical decisions on pain management strategies should be based on balancing the risks and benefits to the individual patient. In this commentary, we aim to discuss the basis behind some of the decisions and safeguards that were made at our tertiary pain centre over the last 6 months during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Brain Death in Asia: Do Public Views Still Influence Organ Donation in the 21st Century?

BACKGROUND: Historically, brain death legislation was adopted in Asia at a much later stage than it was in the West, with heated public debates surrounding these laws. In this study, we investigated whether the poor acceptance of brain death continues to the present day, focusing on the following: (1) what the Asian public understands brain death to be; (2) how views toward brain death are compared with those of cardiac death; and (3) the extent to which brain death perception contributes to the low rate of deceased organ donation that has been observed amongst Asians. METHODS: Using a door-to-door sampling strategy, we recruited 622 residents in Singapore between September 2016 and July 2017. RESULTS: Our results suggest that resistance toward brain death persists, with the majority of respondents equating this as a bleak outcome but not as death. Correspondingly, they considered cardiac death a better indicator of death and were more fearful of being alive during organ donation. In turn, these views predicted a decreased willingness to donate either their own or their family members' organs. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our results suggest that views of brain death continue to hamper organ donation, and are seemingly resistant to both time and legislation.

Framingham risk score inadequately predicts cardiac risk in young patients presenting with a first myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) is a well-validated epidemiologic tool used to assess the risk for a fi rst cardiac event. Because young patients presenting with a fi rst myocardial infarction (MI) tend to have less significant risk profiles compared with older patients, we hypothesized that FRS may underestimate cardiac risk in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 1267 patients between January 2002 and November 2007 presenting with a fi rst MI. Patients with pre-existing diabetes mellitus and vascular disease were excluded. FRS was calculated for each patient. Patients were divided based on their age: group A (<40 years), group B (40 to 64 years) and group C (> or =65 years). RESULTS: The mean age was 54.7 +/- 11 years, 88.4% of the patients were males. Younger patients were more likely to be assigned with lower scores. Based on FRS, 63.0%, 29.3% and 14.2% of group A, B and C patients were classified as low risk (10-year risk for cardiac events<10%) respectively, P <0.001. The sensitivity of FRS in identifying at least intermediate risk subjects (10-year risk for cardiac events >10%) was 37.0% in group A vs 85.8% in group C (P <0.001). The incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus was higher in younger patients (12.0% vs 13.2% vs 7.1 % in groups A, B and C respectively, P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: FRS inadequately predicts cardiac risk in young patients presenting with a fi rst MI. This could be because a significant proportion of these young patients have undiagnosed diabetes mellitus, a coronary artery disease risk equivalent.