Marie N. Hanna

Does Patient Perception of Pain Control Affect Patient Satisfaction Across Surgical Units in a Tertiary Teaching Hospital

In this study, the relationship between patients’ perceptions of pain control during hospitalization and their overall satisfaction with care was examined. Satisfaction data were collected from the federally mandated Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey for 4349 adult patients admitted to any surgical unit over an 18-month period. Patients’ perceptions of pain control and staff’s efforts to control pain were associated with their overall satisfaction scores. These perceptions varied widely among services and nursing units. Interestingly, patient satisfaction was more strongly correlated with the perception that caregivers did everything they could to control pain than with pain actually being well controlled. The odds of a patient being satisfied were 4.86 times greater if pain was controlled and 9.92 times greater if the staff performance was appropriate. Hospitals may improve their patients’ satisfaction by focusing on improving the culture of pain management.

Regional techniques and outcome: what is the evidence?

Purpose of review Despite some controversy regarding the strength of the available data, the use of regional anesthesia and analgesia does provide improvement in patient outcomes. Although the majority of available data have examined the effect of epidural anesthesia and analgesia on patient outcomes, an increasing number of studies recently have investigated the effect of peripheral regional techniques on patient outcomes. Recent findings Data generally indicate that the perioperative use of regional anesthesia and analgesia may be associated with improvement in both major (e.g. mortality, major morbidity) outcomes and rehabilitation. The majority of evidence favors an ability of epidural analgesia to reduce postoperative cardiovascular and pulmonary complications and there is also consistent evidence that epidural analgesia with local anesthetics is associated with faster resolution of postoperative ileus after major abdominal surgery. Overall, regional analgesic techniques provide statistically superior analgesia compared with systemic opioids. Summary Perioperative use of regional analgesic techniques may provide improvement in conventional outcomes, although the benefit appears to be limited to high-risk patients and those undergoing high-risk procedures. The benefits conferred by perioperative regional anesthetic techniques need to be weighed against any potential risks and this should be assessed on an individual basis.

Efficacy of bicarbonate in decreasing pain on intradermal injection of local anesthetics: a meta-analysis.

Objective: Intradermal injection of local anesthetic often results in pain on injection due in part to the acidic pH of commercially prepared solutions, which are optimized to prolong shelf life. Although there are other possible explanations (eg, noxious properties of local anesthetics, pressure effect of infiltration), the etiology is most likely multifactorial. Although addition of bicarbonate to local anesthetics may decrease pain on intradermal injection, the extent of this analgesic effect is uncertain. We performed a meta-analysis of available trials investigating pain during intradermal injection of buffered local anesthetic preparations. Methods: We searched the National Library of Medicines PubMed database for all relevant articles published on the topic through November 2006. Inclusion criteria included double-blind, randomized controlled trials and use of a visual analog scale to measure pain on infiltration of local anesthetic buffered with sodium bicarbonate compared with that of unbuffered local anesthetic. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 4.2.7 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2004). A random-effects model was used. Results: Our search resulted in 86 abstracts, of which 12 articles met all inclusion criteria. Overall, there were 609 observations for buffered local anesthetic and 615 for unbuffered local anesthetic. Use of buffered local anesthetic resulted in a statistically lower weighted mean difference in visual analog scale of −1.17 (95% confidence interval, −1.68 to −0.67) compared with unbuffered local anesthetic. Conclusions: Our systematic review suggests that the use of buffered local anesthetics seems to be associated with a statistical decrease in pain of infiltration when compared with unbuffered local anesthetic.

Perioperative pain management education: A short structured regional anesthesia course compared with traditional teaching among medical students

Background and Objectives: Previous research has demonstrated that a brief course on pain management improved knowledge and attitudes toward analgesic use among medical students. The purpose of this study is to compare a structured clinical instruction course on regional anesthesia techniques for perioperative pain management with traditional teaching given to senior medical students. Methods: During a 1-month clerkship in anesthesiology, 40 fourth-year medical students were randomly and equally divided into 2 groups. The study group received a 2-hour structured course on regional anesthesia techniques for pain management, whereas the control group received a 1-hour lecture tutorial on regional anesthesia techniques for perioperative pain management and 1 hour of bedside teaching on acute pain management. Each student completed an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) 2 weeks after completion of the course. Results: The study group performed better on each of the 11 items of the OSCE and on the total performance scores (mean ± SD of 36.2 ± 7.3 for study group versus 14.8 ± 8.4 for the control group; P < .05). All students rated the clinical course highly valuable (4.7 ± 0.5). Conclusion: A structured clinical instructional course on regional techniques for perioperative pain management given to fourth-year medical students can significantly improve their understanding and knowledge compared with traditional teaching.

Survey of the utilization of regional and general anesthesia in a tertiary teaching hospital.

Background: Although the subspecialty of regional anesthesiology has become an important focus during residency training, there are many factors that might influence a residents experience in regional anesthesia (RA). There are few data examining the utilization of regional techniques in an anesthesiology residency program. We undertook a prospective observational study to determine the frequency and reasons for not choosing RA in cases for which it was considered an option. Methods: All scheduled operative procedures that were amenable to neuraxial or major peripheral regional anesthetic techniques were surveyed. Data recorded included the type of intraoperative anesthetic used, type of anesthesiology faculty performing the regional block (regional anesthesiologist vs general anesthesiologist), and reasons for not choosing RA when a regional anesthetic technique was feasible. Results: Of the 2301 surgical procedures amenable to a regional technique, 839 (36.5%) involved use of regional anesthetic, and 1462 (63.5%) involved only a general anesthetic. Of the subjects receiving RA, 32% were performed by general anesthesiology faculty, and 68% were performed by regional anesthesiology faculty. The most common type of regional anesthetic performed by the general anesthesiology faculty was neuraxial blockade (95.2%) (vs 52.5% by regional anesthesiology faculty). Of the cases not involving RA, the reasons were anesthesiology related (40%), surgeon related (34%), patient related (12%), and medical contraindication related (14%). Conclusions: Our prospective observational study suggests that anesthesiology-related reasons may be an important factor for not undertaking these techniques. Although we did not specifically examine the effect on resident education, our study does provide some evidence to support program directors and department chiefs to set up their regional rotations with faculty most likely to perform RA.

The Efficacy and Safety of Epidural-Based Analgesia in a Case Series of Patients Undergoing Lung Transplantation

OBJECTIVE Successful pain management after lung transplantation is critical to ensure adequate respiratory effort and graft expansion. The authors investigated whether thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) provided adequate pain control after lung transplantation without added morbidity. DESIGN Retrospective review. SETTING University teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS One hundred twenty-three patients who presented to this institution for lung transplantation from January 2008 to June 2013. INTERVENTIONS Patient demographics, postoperative pain scores, and epidural-related complications were abstracted from the institutional electronic database. The authors used the previously validated Quality of Recovery (QoR) score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as measures of recovery. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Of the 123 patients who underwent lung transplantation in this time frame, 119 patients had thoracic epidurals placed for postoperative analgesia. The mean age was 49.4 years (range, 18-73), and 60 (50.4%) were male. The most common indications for transplant were pulmonary fibrosis (33.6%), cystic fibrosis (26.1%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (20.2%). The median length of stay in the intensive care unit and duration of mechanical ventilation were 21 and 1.2 days, respectively. Eight (6.7%) patients experienced postoperative pulmonary compromise (eg, pneumonia, prolonged intubation). No serious complications were associated with TEA placement. On days 1, 3, and 7 after TEA placement, the mean QoR was 7.6, 9.4, and 9.7, and the mean VAS was 2.5, 2.1, and 2.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this case series, the authors observed excellent analgesia and no serious complications associated with TEA. Therefore, an epidural-centric approach to pain control after lung transplantation should be considered in appropriate patients.

Postoperative Pain Management in the Elderly Undergoing Thoracic Surgery

The management of postoperative pain in the elderly represents a considerable challenge because these patients are generally at higher risk for postoperative complications. There are several analgesic options, some of which may influence perioperative morbidity in this high-risk group of patients. Although use of regional analgesia, particularly epidural analgesia is associated with some benefits, including a decrease in perioperative morbidity, there are side effects and complications (eg, medication-related side effects, epidural hematoma, infection) from these and other techniques, and the clinician should evaluate the benefits and risks of each technique on an individual basis. Nevertheless, the available data suggest that use of regional analgesic techniques (ie, epidural and paravertebral catheters) is associated with a decrease in perioperative pulmonary complications.

Methodological Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Postoperative Epidural Analgesia Validation of the Epidural Analgesia Trial Checklist as a Specific Instrument to Evaluate Methodology

Background: The overall benefits of epidural analgesia are controversial, in part because of the varying quality of methodology in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed a systematic review of available RCTs to examine the methodological quality of epidural analgesia trials. Current instruments for evaluating the quality of methodology are generic; thus, we also developed a specific assessment tool named Epidural Analgesia Trial Checklist (EATC). Methods: The National Library of Medicines PubMed database was searched (1966 to January 2006) for RCTs of epidural analgesia. All RCTs that had epidural infusion analgesia in at least 1 study arm and as primary intervention for randomization were included. Two independent reviewers were given blinded full-text paper versions of each article and reviewed all articles for inclusion in this study. Study characteristics were extracted from accepted RCTs, and reviewers completed the standardized 7-item Jadad score, 22-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist, and 8-item EATC for evaluation of methodological quality. Results: A total of 321 articles met all inclusion criteria. The overall median (first, third quartiles) Jadad, CONSORT, and EATC scores were 2 (1, 3), 10 (8, 11), and 4 (3, 6) (of maximum scores of 5, 22, and 8), respectively. For all assessments, we found significantly higher methodological study quality for articles with a larger study population size, those written by a first author affiliated with an anesthesiology department, and studies published after release of the CONSORT statement with a significant overall increase in methodological quality over time. There was no effect on methodological quality with regard to region of publication or number of centers. There was relatively high interrater agreement when using the EATC (&kgr; = 0.92). The items most frequently lacking from the studies captured using the EATC were appropriate description/definition of adverse effects (11.8% of all studies properly reported this), proper presentation of visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores (31.2%), and assessment of VAS pain both at rest and with activity (39.9%). Conclusions: Methodology scores for epidural analgesia RCTs have improved over time. The EATC seems to correlate well with other commonly used generic assessments for methodological RCT quality and be useful for assessing methodological quality of epidural RCTs. Future epidural analgesia RCTs should focus on improving appropriate description/definition of adverse effects, proper presentation of VAS pain scores, and assessment of VAS pain both at rest and with activity.

Laparoscopic Total Pancreatectomy With Islet Autotransplantation and Intraoperative Islet Separation as a Treatment for Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis

Importance Pain management of patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) can be challenging. Laparoscopy has been associated with markedly reduced postoperative pain but has not been widely applied to total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT). Objective To examine the feasibility of using laparoscopic TPIAT (L-TPIAT) in the treatment of CP. Design, Setting, and Participants Thirty-two patients with CP presented for TPIAT at a tertiary hospital from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015. Of the 22 patients who underwent L-TPIAT, 2 patients converted to an open procedure because of difficult anatomy and prior surgery. Pain and glycemic outcomes were recorded at follow-up visits every 3 to 6 months postoperatively. Main Outcomes and Measures Operative outcomes included operative time, islet isolation time, warm ischemia time, islet equivalent (IE) counts, estimated blood loss, fluid resuscitation, and blood transfusions. Postoperative outcomes included length of stay, all-cause 30-day readmission rate, postoperative complications, mortality rate, subjective pain measurements, opioid use, random C-peptide levels, insulin requirements, and glycated hemoglobin level. Results Of the 32 patients who presented for TPIAT, 20 underwent L-TPIAT (8 men and 12 women; mean [SD] age, 39 [13] years; age range, 21-58 years). Indication for surgery was CP attributable to genetic mutation (n = 9), idiopathic pancreatitis (n = 6), idiopathic pancreatitis with pancreas divisum (n = 3), and alcohol abuse (n = 2). Mean (SD) operative time was 493 (78) minutes, islet isolation time was 185 (37) minutes, and warm ischemia time was 51 (62) minutes. The mean (SD) IE count was 1325 (1093) IE/kg. The mean (SD) length of stay was 11 (5) days, and the all-cause 30-day readmission rate was 35% (7 of 20 patients). None of the patients experienced postoperative surgical site infection, hernia, or small-bowel obstruction, and none died. Eighteen patients (90%) had a decrease or complete resolution of pain, and 12 patients (60%) no longer required opioid therapy at a median follow-up period of 6 months. Postoperative random insulin C-peptide levels were detectable in 19 patients (95%) at a median follow-up of 10.4 months. At a median follow-up of 12.5 months, 5 patients (25%) were insulin independent, whereas 9 patients (45%) required 1 to 10 U/d, 5 patients (25%) required 11 to 20 U/d, and 1 patient (5%) required greater than 20 U/d of basal insulin. The mean (SD) glycated hemoglobin level was 7.4% (0.5%). Conclusions and Relevance This study represents the first series of L-TPIAT, demonstrating its safety and feasibility. Our approach enables patients to experience shorter operative times and the benefits of laparoscopy, including reduced length of stay and quicker opioid independence.

Comparison of Air and Liquid for Use in Loss-of-Resistance Technique During Labor Epidurals: A Meta-analysis

Background: Air and saline are commonly used in the loss-of-resistance technique to identify the epidural space. However, it is unclear which method promotes more effective analgesic delivery after subsequent epidural catheter placement. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of air and saline identification methods. We performed a systematic literature search of the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database using terms related to air, saline, epidural, and loss of resistance. Only randomized controlled trials that compared air with saline or local anesthetic were included for analysis. No restrictions were placed on the language of identified articles. Data on pertinent study characteristics and relevant outcomes were extracted from accepted articles. A random effects model was used. Results: The literature search yielded six articles that met all inclusion criteria. A review of the articles reveal 515 subjects for whom air had been used to identify the epidural space and 522 for whom liquid had been used. We were able to obtain pooled estimates for unblocked segments, need for additional medications, and replaced catheters. Use of air was associated with an increased risk for unblocked segments [relative risk (RR) = 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 4.21; p = 0.03], but there was no difference with regard to replaced catheters [RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.26, 1.82; p = 0.45] or additional medication [RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.85, 2.41; p = 0.18]. Conclusion: Our pooled analysis revealed that use of air in the loss-of-resistance technique results in decreased analgesia in one parameter (unblocked segments) but not others (additional medications, replaced catheters). The results should be interpreted with caution, and additional examination with a larger randomized controlled trial is warranted, as the overall number of subjects was relatively small.