The COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences for chronic pain: a narrative review.

The COVID-19 pandemic transformed everyday life, but the implications were most impactful for vulnerable populations, including patients with chronic pain. Moreover, persistent pain is increasingly recognised as a key manifestation of long COVID. This narrative review explores the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for chronic pain. Publications were identified related to the COVID-19 pandemic influence on the burden of chronic pain, development of new-onset pain because of long COVID with proposed mechanisms and COVID-19 vaccines and pain interventions. Broadly, mechanisms underlying pain due to SARS-CoV-2 infection could be caused by 'systemic inflammatory-immune mechanisms', 'direct neuropathic mechanisms' or 'secondary mechanisms due to the viral infection or treatment'. Existing chronic pain populations were variably impacted and social determinants of health appeared to influence the degree of effect. SARS-CoV-2 infection increased the absolute numbers of patients with pain and headache. In the acute phase, headache as a presenting symptom predicted a milder course. New-onset chronic pain was reportedly common and likely involves multiple mechanisms; however, its prevalence decreases over time and symptoms appear to fluctuate. Patients requiring intensive support were particularly susceptible to long COVID symptoms. Some evidence suggests steroid exposure (often used for pain interventions) may affect vaccine efficacy, but there is no evidence of clinical repercussions to date. Although existing chronic pain management could help with symptomatic relief, there is a need to advance research focusing on mechanism-based treatments within the domain of multidisciplinary care.

Erector spinae plane block vs. peri-articular injection for pain control after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomised controlled trial.

Interscalene brachial plexus block is the standard regional analgesic technique for shoulder surgery. Given its adverse effects, alternative techniques have been explored. Reports suggest that the erector spinae plane block may potentially provide effective analgesia following shoulder surgery. However, its analgesic efficacy for shoulder surgery compared with placebo or local anaesthetic infiltration has never been established. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the analgesic efficacy of pre-operative T2 erector spinae plane block with peri-articular infiltration at the end of surgery. Sixty-two patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder repair were randomly assigned to receive active erector spinae plane block with saline peri-articular injection (n = 31) or active peri-articular injection with saline erector spinae plane block (n = 31) in a blinded double-dummy design. Primary outcome was resting pain score in recovery. Secondary outcomes included pain scores with movement; opioid use; patient satisfaction; adverse effects in hospital; and outcomes at 24 h and 1 month. There was no difference in pain scores in recovery, with a median difference (95%CI) of 0.6 (-1.9-3.1), p = 0.65. Median postoperative oral morphine equivalent utilisation was significantly higher in the erector spinae plane group (21 mg vs. 12 mg; p = 0.028). Itching was observed in 10% of patients who received erector spinae plane block and there was no difference in the incidence of significant nausea and vomiting. Patient satisfaction scores, and pain scores and opioid use at 24 h were similar. At 1 month, six (peri-articular injection) and eight (erector spinae plane block) patients reported persistent pain. Erector spinae plane block was not superior to peri-articular injection for arthroscopic shoulder surgery.

Caring for patients with pain during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations from an international expert panel.

Chronic pain causes significant suffering, limitation of daily activities and reduced quality of life. Infection from COVID-19 is responsible for an ongoing pandemic that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, leading to systemic complications and death. Led by the World Health Organization, healthcare systems across the world are engaged in limiting the spread of infection. As a result, all elective surgical procedures, outpatient procedures and patient visits, including pain management services, have been postponed or cancelled. This has affected the care of chronic pain patients. Most are elderly with multiple comorbidities, which puts them at risk of COVID-19 infection. Important considerations that need to be recognised during this pandemic for chronic pain patients include: ensuring continuity of care and pain medications, especially opioids; use of telemedicine; maintaining biopsychosocial management; use of anti-inflammatory drugs; use of steroids; and prioritising necessary procedural visits. There are no guidelines to inform physicians and healthcare providers engaged in caring for patients with pain during this period of crisis. We assembled an expert panel of pain physicians, psychologists and researchers from North America and Europe to formulate recommendations to guide practice. As the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve rapidly, these recommendations are based on the best available evidence and expert opinion at this present time and may need adapting to local workplace policies.

Satisfactory analgesia with minimal emesis in day surgeries: a randomised controlled trial of morphine versus hydromorphone.

BACKGROUND: Opioids remain the mainstay therapy for post-surgical pain. Although both morphine and hydromorphone are potent analgesics, it has been suggested that hydromorphone is clinically better. Our primary objective was to compare morphine with hydromorphone for achieving satisfactory analgesia with minimal emesis (SAME). METHODS: We performed a multicentre RCT in 402 patients having ambulatory surgery. A random computer-generated allocation, stratified by site, was developed by our pharmacy. Concealment was achieved by allocating patients to study groups by nurses using sequentially coded study medication syringes having equi-analgesic doses, made available in the postoperative recovery room. Patients, health providers, and research personnel were blinded. The operating-room protocol allowed for routine anaesthetic management, excluding the use of study medications. Study medications were administered by recovery nurses as per an algorithm. Analyses utilised the intention-to-treat principle, and regression analyses were used for outcomes as appropriate and using multiple imputation. RESULTS: Of 751 patients, 402 were randomised between morphine (n=199) and hydromorphone (n=203). Baseline and intraoperative variables were comparable across the groups. The odds of achieving SAME were similar between the groups (odds ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.57-1.80). There were no differences in the side-effects of severe itching, respiratory depression, or sedation. Patient satisfaction, discharge times, and post-discharge outcomes, including pain and nausea/vomiting over 24 h, were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between morphine and hydromorphone regarding analgesia and common side-effects. The appearance of dose-limiting side-effects is idiosyncratic; the clinical decision must be based on individual responses. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02223377.

Cervical epidural analgesia in current anaesthesia practice: systematic review of its clinical utility and rationale, and technical considerations.

Cervical epidural analgesia (CEA) is an analgesic technique, potentially useful for surgeries involving the upper body. Despite the inherent technical risks and systemic changes, it has been used for various surgeries. There have been no previously published systematic reviews aimed at assessing its clinical utility. This systematic review was performed to explore the perioperative benefits of CEA. The review was also aimed at identifying the rationale of its use, reported surgical indications and the method of use. We performed a literature search involving PubMed and Embase databases, to identify studies using CEA for surgical indications. Out of 467 potentially relevant articles, 73 articles were selected. Two independent investigators extracted data involving 5 randomized controlled trials, 17 observational comparative trials, and 51 case reports (series). The outcomes studied in most comparative studies were on effects of local anaesthetics and other agents, systemic effects, and feasibility of CEA. In one randomized controlled study, CEA was observed to decrease the resting pain scores after pharyngo-laryngeal surgeries. In a retrospective study, CEA was shown to decrease the cancer recurrence after pharyngeal-hypopharyngeal surgeries. The limited evidence, small studies, and the chosen outcomes do not allow for any specific recommendations based on the relative benefit or harm of CEA. Considering the potential for significant harm, in the face of better alternatives, its use must have a strong rationale mostly supported by unique patient and surgical demands. Future studies must aim to assess analgesic comparator effectiveness for clinically relevant outcomes.

Acute epidural haematoma following epidural steroid injection in a patient with spinal stenosis.

Extradural haematoma is a rare but known complication of neuraxial procedures. Although the literature quotes an incidence of 1:150,000 and 1:220,000 after epidural and spinal procedures, respectively, there is only a limited number of case reports described in pain practice. This case report describes an unusual occurrence of thoracic extradural haematoma following a lumbar epidural steroid injection. An entirely unique feature was its occurrence at a level distant to the site of injection, which has not been reported previously unless associated with catheterisation. We would like to highlight this report as it raises several pertinent and challenging questions; both for regional anaesthesia and pain practice.