The Effectiveness of Virtual and Augmented Reality in Surgical Pain Management: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Satisfactory management of postoperative pain remains challenging. Nonpharmacological modalities such as virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) offer potential benefits and are becoming increasingly popular. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of VR/AR interventions on postoperative pain and recovery. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to July 27, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English, evaluating the use of VR/AR interventions for surgical pain relief. Study selection and data extraction were performed by pairs of reviewers independently and in duplicate, and potential risk of bias was determined using the Risk of Bias-version 2 (RoB 2) tool. Our outcomes included pain relief, reduction of anxiety, satisfaction, and adverse effects. Due to substantial heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis without meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: We included 35 trials among 2257 citations, categorized as surgery (n = 12), minor procedures (n = 15), and postoperative physiotherapy (n = 8). Surgical group included various surgeries, with 11 using immersive VR predominantly in the postoperative period, and most reporting no differences in pain, but potential for reduced anxiety and sedation requirements. In the minor procedures group, most studies reported decreased pain and anxiety during the procedural performance. Two studies reported increased heart rate, while 2 others reported better hemodynamic stability. Home-based AR physiotherapy achieved (n = 6) similar pain and functional outcomes after knee replacement, with 1 large study (n = 306) reporting reduction of mean costs by $2745 for provision of 12 weeks physiotherapy. There were some concerns around potential bias for most studies, as the nature of interventions make it challenging to blind assessors and participants. No important adverse effects were noted using VR/AR technology. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from RCTs indicates that the use of immersive VR during minor procedures may reduce procedural pain, decrease anxiety, and improve satisfaction. However, small studies, inconsistent effect, and variation in the application of interventions are important limitations. Evidence to support the application of AR/VR for major surgeries is limited and needs to be further investigated. Use of home-based physiotherapy with AR likely has economic advantages, and facilitates virtual care for appropriate patients who can access and use the technology safely.

Use of corticosteroids for adult chronic pain interventions: sympathetic and peripheral nerve blocks, trigger point injections - guidelines from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, the International Pain and Spine Intervention Society, and the North American Spine Society.

BACKGROUND: There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit. METHODS: Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. RESULTS: This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections. CONCLUSIONS: In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.

Opioid-free general anesthesia: considerations, techniques, and limitations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the role of opioids during general anesthesia and examine their advantages and risks in the context of clinical practice. We define opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) as the absolute avoidance of intraoperative opioids. RECENT FINDINGS: In most minimally invasive and short-duration procedures, nonopioid analgesics, analgesic adjuvants, and local/regional analgesia can significantly spare the amount of intraoperative opioid needed. OFA should be considered in the context of tailoring to a specific patient and procedure, not as a universal approach. Strategies considered for OFA involve several adjuncts with low therapeutic range, requiring continuous infusions and resources, with potential for delayed recovery or other side effects, including increased short-term and long-term pain. No evidence indicates that OFA leads to decreased long-term opioid-related harms. SUMMARY: Complete avoidance of intraoperative opioids remains questionable, as it does not necessarily ensure avoidance of postoperative opioids. Multimodal analgesia including local/regional anesthesia may allow OFA for selected, minimally invasive surgeries, but further research is necessary in surgeries with high postoperative opioid requirements. Until there is definitive evidence regarding procedure and patient-specific combinations as well as the dose and duration of administration of adjunct agents, it is imperative to practice opioid-sparing approach in the intraoperative period.

A prospective cohort study of chronic postsurgical pain after ambulatory surgeries.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence and factors associated with chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) after ambulatory surgeries have not been well studied. Our primary objective was to determine the incidence of CPSP and secondary objectives included assessment of intensity of CPSP, incidence of moderate-to-severe CPSP, and exploration of factors associated with CPSP. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of ambulatory surgery patients having procedures with a potential to cause moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. All patients had participated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) showing no difference in achieving satisfactory analgesia in a recovery unit with either morphine or hydromorphone. CPSP was defined as chronic pain that developed or increased in intensity after the surgical procedure and is localized to the surgical field or within the innervation territory of a nerve in the surgical field, and has persisted for 3 months post-surgery, with the exclusion of other causes of pain. Incidences of CPSP were reported as rate (%) with 95% CI, and intensity using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (95% CI). We used logistic regression to explore factors associated with CPSP adjusting for baseline catastrophizing and depression. RESULTS: Among 402 RCT patients, 208 provided data for the 3-month outcome. Incidence of CPSP was 18.8% (39/208), 95% CI = 13.7%-24.7% and 78% (28/39) of them had moderate-to-severe CPSP. Average CPSP intensity was 5.5, 95% CI = 4.7-6.4. Every unit increase in pain over the first 24 h was significantly associated with increased odds of moderate-to-severe CPSP at 3 months; odds ratio = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.04-1.58. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in five patients develop CPSP after ambulatory surgeries with the majority of them having moderate-to-severe pain. Considering that acute pain after discharge is associated with CPSP and that there are no formal care pathways to address this need, studies need to focus on evaluating feasible strategies to provide continuing care.

Noninferiority trials in acute pain research: a valid approach or a slippery slope?

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation with Sensorimotor Training for the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 2 of the Upper Limb Case Report.

This case report describes the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with sensorimotor training (SMT) to treat an individual with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type 2 with allodynia of the right hand/wrist. After the 9-week intervention, there was a clinically meaningful reduction in pain intensity which continued to 3 months after intervention. Further, clinically meaningful improvements in wrist and hand function and allodynia were observed. Although the use of rTMS for CRPS has been reported, this unique report provides valuable insight into the clinical utility of rTMS plus SMT for the treatment of CRPS and related symptoms.

Opioid reduction and enhanced recovery in orthopaedic surgery (OREOS): a protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Knee arthritis is a leading cause of limited function and long-term disability in older adults. Despite a technically successful total knee arthroplasty (TKA), around 20% of patients continue to have persisting pain with reduced function, and low quality of life. Many of them continue using opioids for pain control, which puts them at risk for potential long-term adverse effects such as dependence, overdose and risk of falls. Although persisting pain and opioid use after TKA have been recognised to be important issues, individual strategies to decrease their burden have limitations and multi-component interventions, despite their potential, have not been well studied. In this study, we propose a multi-component pathway including personalized pain management, facilitated by a pain management coordinator. The objectives of this pilot trial are to evaluate feasibility (recruitment, retention, and adherence), along with opioid-free pain control at 8 weeks after TKA. METHODS: This is a protocol for a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial using a 2-arm parallel group design. Adult participants undergoing unilateral total knee arthroplasty will be considered for inclusion and randomised to control and intervention groups. Participants in the intervention group will receive support from a pain management coordinator who will facilitate a multicomponent pain management pathway including (1) preoperative education on pain and opioid use, (2) preoperative risk identification and mitigation, (3) personalized post-discharge analgesic prescriptions and (4) continued support for pain control and recovery up to 8 weeks post-op. Participants in the control group will undergo usual care. The primary outcomes of this pilot trial are to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and adherence to the interventions, and key secondary outcomes are persisting pain and opioid use. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial for the implementation of a multicomponent pain pathway to improve pain control and reduce harms using a coordinated approach, while keeping an emphasis on patient centred care and shared decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04968132).

Reducing rebound pain severity after arthroscopic shoulder surgery under general anesthesia and interscalene block: a two-centre randomized controlled trial of pre-emptive opioid treatment compared with placebo.

PURPOSE: Although a single-injection interscalene block provides effective early postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery, patients may experience "rebound pain" when the block resolves. Our objective was to determine if oral hydromorphone (2 mg) given six hours after a single-injection interscalene block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery leads to a clinically significant reduction in the severity of rebound pain. METHODS: After approval from research ethics boards, we conducted a two-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial. Patients received preoperative interscalene block, general anesthesia, and either hydromorphone or placebo six hours after the block. The primary outcome was the worst pain score in the first 24 hr postoperatively, measured on an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants were randomly assigned to either the hydromorphone or placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean (standard deviation) worst pain score within 24 hr between the hydromorphone and placebo groups (6.5 [2.4] vs 5.9 [2.3]; mean difference, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 1.8). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the pain trajectory, opioid use, or incidence of nausea and vomiting between the groups. The mean time to worst pain was 14.6 hr, and the mean time to first rescue analgesia was 11.3 hr after interscalene block. CONCLUSION: Hydromorphone 2 mg given six hours after interscalene block did not reduce the severity of rebound pain postoperatively compared with placebo in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); registered 19 October 2016.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Bien qu'un bloc interscalénique à injection unique fournisse une analgésie postopératoire précoce efficace après une chirurgie de l'épaule, les patient·es peuvent ressentir une « douleur de rebond ¼ lorsque le bloc se résorbe. Notre objectif était de déterminer si l'hydromorphone orale (2 mg) administrée six heures après une injection unique de bloc interscalénique pour une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule entraînait une réduction cliniquement significative de la gravité de la douleur de rebond. MéTHODE: Après l'approbation des comités d'éthique de la recherche, nous avons mené une étude de supériorité dans deux centres, en groupes parallèles, à double insu, randomisée et contrôlée par placebo. Les patient·es ont reçu un bloc interscalénique préopératoire, une anesthésie générale et de l'hydromorphone ou un placebo six heures après le bloc. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le pire score de douleur au cours des premières 24 heures postopératoires, mesuré sur une échelle d'évaluation numérique de 11 points (0 à 10). RéSULTATS: Au total, 73 personnes ont participé à l'étude et ont été aléatoirement assignées au groupe hydromorphone ou au groupe placebo. Il n'y avait pas de différence statistiquement significative dans le score moyen (écart type) de la pire douleur dans les 24 heures entre les groupes hydromorphone et placebo (6,5 [2,4] vs 5,9 [2,3]; différence moyenne, 0,6; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, −0,5 à 1,8). De même, nous n'avons trouvé aucune différence significative dans la trajectoire de la douleur, la consommation d'opioïdes ou l'incidence de nausées et vomissements entre les groupes. Le temps moyen jusqu'à la pire douleur était de 14,6 heures, et le temps moyen jusqu'à la première analgésie de secours était de 11,3 heures après le bloc interscalénique. CONCLUSION: L'hydromorphone 2 mg administrée six heures après le bloc interscalénique n'a pas réduit la gravité de la douleur de rebond postopératoire par rapport au placebo chez les patient·es bénéficiant d'une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); enregistrée le 19 octobre 2016.