Research priorities in regional anaesthesia: an international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia use is growing worldwide, and there is an increasing emphasis on research in regional anaesthesia to improve patient outcomes. However, priorities for future study remain unclear. We therefore conducted an international research prioritisation exercise, setting the agenda for future investigators and funding bodies. METHODS: We invited members of specialist regional anaesthesia societies from six continents to propose research questions that they felt were unanswered. These were consolidated into representative indicative questions, and a literature review was undertaken to determine if any indicative questions were already answered by published work. Unanswered indicative questions entered a three-round modified Delphi process, whereby 29 experts in regional anaesthesia (representing all participating specialist societies) rated each indicative question for inclusion on a final high priority shortlist. If ≥75% of participants rated an indicative question as 'definitely' include in any round, it was accepted. Indicative questions rated as 'definitely' or 'probably' by <50% of participants in any round were excluded. Retained indicative questions were further ranked based on the rating score in the final Delphi round. The final research priorities were ratified by the Delphi expert group. RESULTS: There were 1318 responses from 516 people in the initial survey, from which 71 indicative questions were formed, of which 68 entered the modified Delphi process. Eleven 'highest priority' research questions were short listed, covering themes of pain management; training and assessment; clinical practice and efficacy; technology and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: We prioritised unanswered research questions in regional anaesthesia. These will inform a coordinated global research strategy for regional anaesthesia and direct investigators to address high-priority areas.

Lumbar Sympathetic Block to Treat CRPS in an 18-Month-Old Girl: A Breaking Barriers Case Report and Review of Literature.

BACKGROUND: Children under the age of 3 years have been diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). They were found to be functionally disadvantaged and psychologically distressed in relation to children with other painful conditions. CASE PRESENTATION: An 18-month-old baby girl was referred to the pain clinic with a history of severe right lower limb pain that had begun 2 months earlier. The parents were unable to recall any trauma before the painful situation. Pain and allodynia were severe and extended from the toes to the gluteus area. She was low weight for her age (6700 g). The patient was on the maximum doses of gabapentin and amitriptyline accepted for her body weight and did not have the possibility to start rehabilitation due to severe pain and allodynia. After discussing the risks and potential benefits of a planned lumbar sympathetic block (LSB), the parents approved the interventional procedure. This is the first case report describing the LSB technique at such a young age. METHOD: A lumbar sympathetic block was carried on at the third lumbar vertebral level, fluoroscopy-guided, and under general anesthesia (GA) initiated with ketamine iv. A 4-cm needle was introduced using a tunneled vision approach in an oblique view at the L3 level until adequate depth was confirmed in the lateral position. Safety considerations were taken in relation to the radiation dose and all drugs injected with dose adjustment to her body weight. The block was successful (the skin temperature increased by 2.8 °C) and was uneventful. Pain and allodynia were completely alleviated in the recovery room. At the follow-up after 3 and 8 weeks, the parents reported an 80% improvement in pain and allodynia, a 70% improvement in sleep, a weight gain of 900 g, and that she had started rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar sympathetic blocks can be considered at a very young age to treat CRPS if other non-invasive measures fail.

Epidural steroid and clonidine for chronic intractable post-thoracotomy pain: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic post-thoracotomy pain is relatively common after major thoracic surgery. The primary results of a pilot study using thoracic epidural steroid and clonidine injection to treat chronic intractable post-thoracotomy pain are presented. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with intractable post-thoracotomy pain participated in the study. Thirteen patients received thoracic epidural injection of a mixture of 150 µg clonidine and 80 mg of methylprednisolone acetate diluted in 8 mL 0.5% lidocaine. Eight patients continued with comprehensive medical management and served as a control group. A visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was recorded before treatment, 30 minutes after the epidural injection and before discharge, at 3 weeks and 6 months. Pain, sleep disturbances, appetite changes and daily activity, as well as the incidence of complications were recorded. The need for opioid rescue medications was recorded. RESULTS: Twelve of 13 patients in the injection group reported improvement (> 50% reduction of pain) at 3 weeks and 6 months following the injection. Allodynia improved in all injection group patients compared to four of eight in the control group. Sleep disturbance, appetite changes and daily activity were improved in the injection group. The number of patients requiring opioid rescue medications was reduced from 61.5% to 15.3% during the 6-month duration of study. Injection caused transient hypotension in 46.2% of patients. Mild sedation was noted in 30.7% of patients receiving injection; 15.3% of the patients had localized back pain at the site of injection. DISCUSSION: Our preliminary data suggest possible efficacy of thoracic epidural steroid and clonidine mixture in the treatment of chronic post-thoracotomy pain. No serious adverse effects were noted in this pilot study.

Opioid epidemics during the pandemic: Further insights to the same story.

The limited access to opioids remains a reality in developing countries. Recent evidence suggests that opioid epidemics are getting worse with the COVID-19 crisis. The increase in opioid abuse could be attributed to the extended lockdowns and the social distancing recommendations, hindering chronic pain patients' access to regular office visits and monitoring in addition to limited access to behavioral services like group therapies and other pain management interventions. Use of telemedicine as an alternative to in-person follow-up visits has faced many limitations due to technological challenges and cost. Chronic pain patients living in developing countries face extra burden during the pandemic. Limited access to outpatient clinics and hesitance to visit hospitals due to COVID-19 pandemic, in addition to reduction in supply of opioids, are some of the limiting factors. Unfortunately, the low-income class with limited financial capabilities faces further barriers to access the chronic pain services and treatments like opioid prescriptions. Medical entities involved in care of chronic pain patients have adopted different strategies to overcome these challenges. In addition to expanding on educational programs to medical staff and patients, modifying the strict opioid pre-scribing and dispensing regulations has been successful. Another positive trend has been the growing use of opioid sparing interventions, such as multimodal analgesia, regional blocks, and interventional pain procedures.

Influences of Gender on Intravenous Nalbuphine Actions After Major Abdominal Surgery: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Nalbuphine, a synthetic kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) agonist and a partial µ-opioid receptor (MOR) antagonist, has been used for years as an effective analgesic. It has been shown to have a better safety profile than morphine. Considering the long history of use of this drug, it is interesting that only a limited amount of information exists on how gender differences influence nalbuphine responses. In this randomized double-blind comparative trial after major abdominal surgery, the analgesic effects of two doses of continuous intravenous infusion of nalbuphine were evaluated based on gender. METHODS: Enrolled patients were divided into four groups (two females and two males with 32 patients in each group). Two of them (groups A1 and A2), one male and one female, received postoperative continuous intravenous infusions of nalbuphine at 2 mg/h via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Each patient had the potential of receiving a rescue bolus of 1 mg of nalbuphine with a lock out time of 15 min. The other two groups (groups B1 and B2) received half the infusion dose, 1 mg/h, and half the nalbuphine rescue dose with the PCA pump, 0.5 mg maximum every 15 min as needed. Patients' vital signs, numerical pain rating scores, rescue nalbuphine, and incidence of side effects were assessed immediately after the operation, and every 3 h during the first 12 h. RESULTS: Nalbuphine 2 mg/h dosing led to significantly lower pain scores amongst females compared to males at 6, 9, and 12 h; while the 1 mg/h infusion pain scores were only lower at the 9-h time period. Females receiving the nalbuphine 2 mg dose at 6 h, and the 1 mg dose at 6, 9, and 12-h measurements needed significantly lower doses of rescue nalbuphine. Females on the 1 mg dose experienced significantly more nausea, vomiting, and sedation at the 6-, 9-, and 12-h measurement times. In the multivariate analysis, female gender was a negative predictor at all measurement times. CONCLUSIONS: The current study supports the hypothesis that although nalbuphine was found to be an effective and well-tolerated analgesic after major abdominal surgery, females were statistically more responsive than males. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the Pan African Clinical trials Registry PACTR201304000486309, and approved for the Ethical aspects.