Performance and usability of pre-operative prediction models for 30-day peri-operative mortality risk: a systematic review.

Estimating pre-operative mortality risk may inform clinical decision-making for peri-operative care. However, pre-operative mortality risk prediction models are rarely implemented in routine clinical practice. High predictive accuracy and clinical usability are essential for acceptance and clinical implementation. In this systematic review, we identified and appraised prediction models for 30-day postoperative mortality in non-cardiac surgical cohorts. PubMed and Embase were searched up to December 2022 for studies investigating pre-operative prediction models for 30-day mortality. We assessed predictive performance in terms of discrimination and calibration. Risk of bias was evaluated using a tool to assess the risk of bias and applicability of prediction model studies. To further inform potential adoption, we also assessed clinical usability for selected models. In all, 15 studies evaluating 10 prediction models were included. Discrimination ranged from a c-statistic of 0.82 (MySurgeryRisk) to 0.96 (extreme gradient boosting machine learning model). Calibration was reported in only six studies. Model performance was highest for the surgical outcome risk tool (SORT) and its external validations. Clinical usability was highest for the surgical risk pre-operative assessment system. The SORT and risk quantification index also scored high on clinical usability. We found unclear or high risk of bias in the development of all models. The SORT showed the best combination of predictive performance and clinical usability and has been externally validated in several heterogeneous cohorts. To improve clinical uptake, full integration of reliable models with sufficient face validity within the electronic health record is imperative.

[Multidisciplinary treatment of orofacial pain]. / Multidisciplinaire behandeling van aangezichtspijn.

The diagnosis and treatment of orofacial pain can be complex. The differential diagnosis is very extensive. Therefore, multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment are often indicated. The diagnosis of chronic pain also entails the investigation of psychological factors. This is because psychological problems can play a role in the chronification of pain, but they can also be a consequence of chronic pain. Patients with persistent orofacial complaints should be seen by a medical team consisting of an oral and maxillofacial surgeon, a neurologist, an anaesthesiologist/pain specialist, a dentist-gnathologist, an orofacial physical therapist, and a psychologist or psychiatrist specialising in orofacial pain. Treatment options should be discussed, taking into account literature concerning their effectiveness. The general conclusion is that much research remains to be done into the causes of, and treatments for, orofacial pain.

Methadone is superior to fentanyl in treating neuropathic pain in patients with head-and-neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain is still inadequately treated in up to 60% of cancer patients. Based on the additional effect on the N-Methyl-d-Aspartate receptor, we expected that methadone (Met) could provide better pain relief than fentanyl (Fen) in cancer pain with a neuropathic pain component. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial was performed with 52 strong opioids naive patients with head-and-neck cancer with substantial pain (pain Numerical Rating Scale [NRS] > 4) and a neuropathic pain component (Douleur Neuropathique [DN4] > 4). Twenty-six patients were treated with Met and 26 with Fen. Patients were evaluated at 1, 3 and 5 weeks. The primary outcomes were reduction in average pain, clinical success (defined as 50% average pain decrease) and reduction in pain interference. Secondary outcomes were global perceived effect (GPE) and side-effects. FINDINGS: Reduction in NRS was higher with the use of Met at 1, 3 and 5 weeks (pain change 2.9, 3.1 and 3.1) compared to Fen (1.4, 1.7 and 2.0). This difference was significant at 1 (p = 0.011) and at 3 weeks (p = 0.03). Clinical success (>50% improvement) was higher with Met at 1 week (15% versus 50%, p = 0.012). The change in pain interference, the GPE and side-effect profile were not significantly different between the groups. INTERPRETATION: This is the first study to compare the effects of Met to Fen in cancer patients with a neuropathic pain component. Based on the results of this study, Met should be considered in the treatment of oncological pain with a neuropathic component.

Clinical course of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies set in primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Non-specific low back pain is a relatively common and recurrent condition for which at present there is no effective cure. In current guidelines, the prognosis of acute non-specific back pain is assumed to be favourable, but this assumption is mainly based on return to function. This systematic review investigates the clinical course of pain in patients with non-specific acute low back pain who seek treatment in primary care. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Included were prospective studies, with follow-up of at least 12 months, that studied the prognosis of patients with low back pain for less than 3 months of duration in primary care settings. Proportions of patients still reporting pain during follow-up were pooled using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were used to identify sources of variation between the results of individual studies. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were eligible for evaluation. In the first 3 months, recovery is observed in 33% of patients, but 1 year after onset, 65% still report pain. Subgroup analysis reveals that the pooled proportion of patients still reporting pain after 1 year was 71% at 12 months for studies that considered total absence of pain as a criterion for recovery versus 57% for studies that used a less stringent definition. The pooled proportion for Australian studies was 41% versus 69% for European or US studies. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review indicate that the assumption that spontaneous recovery occurs in a large majority of patients is not justified. There should be more focus on intensive follow-up of patients who have not recovered within the first 3 months.

The prevalence of postoperative pain in a sample of 1490 surgical inpatients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of postoperative pain, an assessment was made of 1490 surgical inpatients who were receiving postoperative pain treatment according to an acute pain protocol. METHODS: Measurements of pain (scores from 0 to 100 on a visual analogue scale) were obtained three times a day on the day before surgery and on days 0-4 postoperatively; mean pain intensity scores were calculated. Patients were classified as having no pain (score 0-5), mild pain (score 6-40), moderate pain (score 41-74) or severe pain (score 75-100). RESULTS: Moderate or severe pain was reported by 41% of the patients on day 0, 30% on days 1 and 19%, 16% and 14% on days 2, 3 and 4. The prevalence of moderate or severe pain in the abdominal surgery group was high on postoperative days 0-1 (30-55%). A high prevalence of moderate or severe pain was found during the whole of days 1-4 in the extremity surgery group (20-71%) and in the back/spinal surgery group (30-64%). CONCLUSION: We conclude that despite an acute pain protocol, postoperative pain treatment was unsatisfactory, especially after intermediate and major surgical procedures on an extremity or on the spine.

Efficacy of radiofrequency procedures for the treatment of spinal pain: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The use of radiofrequency (RF) procedures in the peripheral nervous system to treat chronic spinal pain has been the subject of controversy. Publications concerned only uncontrolled studies, and irreversible nervous tissue damage was believed to be responsible for the effect, if any. In recent years, randomized, controlled studies have appeared, which have attested to an increasing use of these techniques. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials on RF procedures for spinal pain. METHODS: We performed a standardized literature search for randomized, controlled trials. Three adjudicators independently registered trial methodology and outcome using validated and subject-related instruments. Interadjudicator disagreement was resolved by discussion. It was found necessary to devise additional parameters of study assessment. RESULTS: Six trials met the inclusion criteria. This small number, along with clinical and technical heterogeneity precluded statistical analysis. All studies, whether high or low quality, reported positive outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that there is moderate evidence that RF lumbar facet denervation is more effective for chronic low back pain than placebo. Limited evidence exists for efficacy of RF neurotomy in chronic cervical zygapophyseal joint pain after flexion-extension injury. There is limited evidence that RF heating of the dorsal root ganglion is more effective than placebo in chronic cervicobrachialgia. We recommend the systematic application of our additional parameter assessments for future evaluations of RF studies. These additional parameters should also be used in the preparation of future trial protocols of RF procedures for the treatment of chronic pain.

Long-lasting analgesic effect of radiofrequency treatment of the lumbosacral dorsal root ganglion.

OBJECT: The authors conducted a study to establish the benefit of radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the lumbosacral dorsal root ganglion (DRG) as a therapy to reduce symptomatic pain in patients with chronic spinal pain radiating to the leg. METHODS: Two hundred seventy-nine patients were evaluated after undergoing their first RF treatment of the DRG. A four-point pain perception scale was used. Short-term effect was documented after 2 months. The influence of surgical history on outcome was examined by using chi-square analysis. The mean duration of analgesic effect was calculated by applying a probit survival analysis. Two months after undergoing RF treatment, 59% of patients reported satisfactory pain reduction. No serious adverse effects were noted. Surgical history was shown to have no significant effect on outcome. The long-term half-life time of pain reduction was 44.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RF in the treatment of DRG appears to be a useful and safe therapy in patients with chronic spinal pain that radiates to the leg. The initial success rate is approximately 60%. It seems to lead to a time-limited effect on the target structure, and the mean duration of pain reduction is approximately 3.7 years. The mechanism of action remains unclear.

Epidurography in premature infants.

A caudal epidural catheter was inserted in 20 premature, high risk infants for abdominal or thoracic surgery under combined caudal epidural and general anaesthesia. Epidurography was used to confirm the position of the catheter which was found to be misplaced in three patients. The catheter penetrated the dura in one case, in another the tip was located in an epidural vessel and in the third the catheter was seen to be curled up within the epidural space. It was concluded that epidurographic control is essential with this method of anaesthesia in very small infants, in whom it was found to provide considerable advantages despite serious risks.

Post-dural puncture headache in young patients. A comparative study between the use of 0.52 mm (25-gauge) and 0.33 mm (29-gauge) spinal needles.

In a prospective study of 80 patients under 40 years of age, given spinal anaesthesia through either a 0.52 mm (25-gauge) needle or a 0.33 mm (29-gauge) needle, the incidence of post-dural puncture headache and backache was compared. There were no headaches in the 0.33 mm needle group, while in the 0.52 mm needle group an incidence of 25% was found. The incidence of backache was the same in both groups. The technique of performing spinal anaesthesia was evaluated and concluded to be slightly more difficult with a 0.33 mm needle, as estimated by the number of redirections of the needle needed to obtain cerebrospinal fluid. There were no differences between the two needles with respect to obtaining adequate spinal anaesthesia and spread of blockade.