RESUMEN
Pain is a significant health issue, and pain assessment is essential for proper diagnosis, follow-up, and effective management of pain. The conventional methods of pain assessment often suffer from subjectivity and variability. The main issue is to understand better how people experience pain. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has been playing a growing role in improving clinical diagnosis and decision-making. The application of AI offers promising opportunities to improve the accuracy and efficiency of pain assessment. This review article provides an overview of the current state of AI in pain assessment and explores its potential for improving accuracy, efficiency, and personalized care. By examining the existing literature, research gaps, and future directions, this article aims to guide further advancements in the field of pain management. An online database search was conducted via multiple websites to identify the relevant articles. The inclusion criteria were English articles published between January 2014 and January 2024). Articles that were available as full text clinical trials, observational studies, review articles, systemic reviews, and meta-analyses were included in this review. The exclusion criteria were articles that were not in the English language, not available as free full text, those involving pediatric patients, case reports, and editorials. A total of (47) articles were included in this review. In conclusion, the application of AI in pain management could present promising solutions for pain assessment. AI can potentially increase the accuracy, precision, and efficiency of objective pain assessment.
RESUMEN
Objectives: The present study compared the surgical wound catheter (SWC), femoral nerve block (FNB), and adductor canal block (ACB) for postoperative analgesia after knee arthroplasty. Methods: The study included (180) patients scheduled for unilateral total knee replacement and were randomly allocated into three groups. Patients received postoperative analgesia via continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% (10 ml bolus followed by continuous infusion of 5 ml/hour) through the SWC, FNB, or ACB groups. All groups received supplemental analgesia by IV morphine using patient controlled analgesia. Pain scores were assessed at rest and during movements, the worst and least pain scores, and how often were in worst pain during the first 72 hours. The functional activity and patient's satisfaction were also recorded. Results: The study showed significant reductions in pain scores at rest and during movements in all groups compared to the baseline scores. Significant reductions in pain scores were observed in both ACB and FNB groups compared to the SWC group (P < 0.05). The worst pain scores were (6.15 ± 2.9, 5.85 ± 2.7, and 5.025 ± 1.513), least pain scores (2.06 ± 0.72, 1.92 ± 1.34 and 1.89 ± 1.76), percentage of time in worst pain (17.67 ± 9.15, 11.42 ± 7.50, and 9.8.8 ± 8.14) and the total morphine consumption (39.24 ± 6.82, 34.55 ± 7.86, and 26.40 ± 8.47 mg) in the SWC, FNB, and ACB groups, respectively. Functional assessments and patient's satisfaction, at 6 and 24 hours, were significantly better in ACB followed by SWC, and lastly FNB group (P < 0.5). No significant differences in the incidence of side effects (P > 0.05). Local anesthetic leak from the SWC was a continuous concern by the orthopedic surgeons. Conclusions: In terms of efficiency, ACB provided the highest quality of analgesia in terms of pain relief, functional activity, and patient's satisfaction. Both ACB and FNB provided higher quality of analgesia compared to the SWC. While ACB and SWC provided better functional improvements compared to FNB.
RESUMEN
This review is made up of two parts; the first part discussing intellectual disability (ID) in general, while the second part covers the pain associated with intellectual disability and the challenges and practical tips for the management of pain associated with (ID). Intellectual disability is characterized by deficits in general mental abilities, such as reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience. ID is a disorder with no definite cause but has multiple risk factors, including genetic, medical, and acquired. Vulnerable populations such as individuals with intellectual disability may experience more pain than the general population due to additional comorbidities and secondary conditions, or at least the same frequency of pain as in the general population. Pain in patients with ID remains largely unrecognized and untreated due to barriers to verbal and non-verbal communication. It is important to identify patients at risk to promptly prevent or minimize those risk factors. As pain is multifactorial, thus, a multimodal approach using both pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological management is often the most beneficial. Parents and caregivers should be oriented to this disorder, given adequate training and education, and be actively involved with the treatment program. Significant work to create new pain assessment tools to improve pain practices for individuals with ID has taken place, including neuroimaging and electrophysiological studies. Recent advances in technology-based interventions such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence are rapidly growing to help give patients with ID promising results to develop pain coping skills with effective reduction of pain and anxiety. Therefore, this narrative review highlights the different aspects regarding the current status of the pain associated with intellectual disability, with more emphasis on the recent pieces of evidence for the assessment and management of pain among populations with intellectual disability.
RESUMEN
An extensive computer search (from January 2020 to January 2023) was conducted including literature from the PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. According to preset criteria, a total of 58 articles were included in this review article. Generally, any patient who becomes infected with COVID-19 can develop post-COVID-19 conditions. The course of COVID-19 is divided into three main stages: acute COVID-19 (up to 4 weeks), post-acute COVID-19 (from 4 to 12 weeks), and post-COVID (from 12 weeks to 6 months). If a more protracted course of COVID (over 6 months) is demonstrated, the term "long-COVID" is used. Although the acute stage of COVID-19 infection most commonly manifests with acute respiratory symptoms, one very common symptom of the disease is pain, while the most common symptoms of post-COVID syndrome are shortness of breath, dry cough, fatigue, loss of olfactory and gustatory function, tightness and chest pain, sleep and mood disturbances, body aches, muscle and joint pain, sore throat, fever, and persistent headaches. All observations demonstrated a high incidence of chronic pain syndromes of various localization in the post- and long-COVID period. Post-COVID chronic pain might include a newly developed chronic pain as a part of post-viral syndrome; worsening of preexisting chronic pain due to the associated changes in the medical services, or a de novo chronic pain in healthy individuals who are not infected with COVID. Chronic pain during and post-COVID-19 pandemic is an important health issue due to the significant impacts of pain on the patients, health care systems, and society as well. Therefore, it is important that patients with chronic pain receive effective treatment according to their specific needs. Accordingly, the main goal of this review article is to provide a broad description about the post-COVID pain and to explore the impact of long COVID-19 on chronic pain patients, and also to give brief reports about the prevalence, risk factors, possible mechanisms, different presentations, and the management tools through a systematic approach.
RESUMEN
Pain in dementia patients is common, poorly measured, and undertreated. It is important to discuss the challenges in the pain assessment and management to find a possible solution for adequate pain management. The aim of this article is to discuss the challenges in the assessment of pain in geriatric patients with dementia. An extensive online database search was conducted via multiple websites using the following keywords: "dementia," "pain assessments," "pain assessment with dementia," "causes of pain with dementia," "pain assessments using recent technology," "geriatric," and "old age" to identify the relevant articles. Our inclusion criteria were articles that focused on pain in geriatric patients diagnosed with dementia, in English, published between January 2018 and January 2023, and available as free full text and those which were clinical trials, observational studies, review articles, systemic reviews, meta-analysis, or case series. The exclusion criteria were articles that did not have pain in geriatric patients diagnosed with dementia as their primary focus, involving geriatric or non-geriatric patients with major psychological distress, not in the English language, not published between January 2018 and January 2023, and not available as free full-text and those which were case reports and editorial articles. After manually excluding the articles that did not meet our inclusion criteria, we ended up with 38 articles. In conclusion, any instruments have been made for the pain assessment in patients with dementia. The two most common tools used to assess pain in this vulnerable population are the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) and Pain Assessment Checklist for Seniors with Limited Ability to Communicate (PACSLAC) scales. The utilization of new technology may offer promising solutions for the pain assessment in patients with dementia.
RESUMEN
During ablation of re-entrant ventricular tachycardia (VT) 3-dimensional mapping systems are now used to properly delineate the scar tissue and aid ablation of scar-related VT. The aim of our study was to outline how the mode of ablation predicts success and recurrence in large scar-related VT. When comparing patients with recurrence and patients with no recurrence, univariate analysis showed that number of ablation lesions (28 ± 8 vs. 12 ± 8, P = 0.01) and more linear ablation lesions rather than focal lesions (P = 0.03) were associated with long-term success. We demonstrated that more extensive ablation lesions and creation of linear lesions is associated with better success rate and lower recurrence rate during ablation of large scar-related ventricular tachycardia.