Borderline personality disorder and chronic pain: a practical approach to evaluation and treatment.

Patients with chronic pain present a spectrum of complexity that can be overwhelming for the individual practitioner. These patients require thoughtful care and a comprehensive treatment plan. This complexity should be acknowledged, not avoided, and the patient should be engaged, not shunned. A practical approach will assist in developing expertise and proceeding empathically. The presence of a superimposed personality disorder significantly increases the difficulty of caring for these patients. Studies investigating the prevalence of borderline personality disorder in patients with chronic pain averaged 30 %, highlighting the importance of being able to effectively treat this patient population. Appropriate management of these patients should focus on a collaboration to practice productive behaviors despite intense emotional distress. Longitudinal research provides a foundation for an optimistic prognosis that can be enhanced with this rehabilitative approach.

Prevention of pain on injection of propofol: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically determine the most efficacious approach for preventing pain on injection of propofol. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and hand searching from the reference lists of identified papers. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials comparing drug and non-drug interventions with placebo or another intervention to alleviate pain on injection of propofol in adults. RESULTS: Data were analysed from 177 randomised controlled trials totalling 25,260 adults. The overall risk of pain from propofol injection alone was about 60%. Using an antecubital vein instead of a hand vein was the most effective single intervention (relative risk 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.30). Pretreatment using lidocaine (lignocaine) in conjunction with venous occlusion was similarly effective (0.29, 0.22 to 0.38). Other effective interventions were a lidocaine-propofol admixture (0.40, 0.33 to 0.48); pretreatment with lidocaine (0.47, 0.40 to 0.56), opioids (0.49, 0.41 to 0.59), ketamine (0.52, 0.46 to 0.57), or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (0.67, 0.49 to 0.91); and propofol emulsions containing medium and long chain triglycerides (0.75, 0.67 to 0.84). Statistical testing of indirect comparisons showed that use of the antecubital vein and pretreatment using lidocaine along with venous occlusion to be more efficacious than the other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The two most efficacious interventions to reduce pain on injection of propofol were use of the antecubital vein, or pretreatment using lidocaine in conjunction with venous occlusion when the hand vein was chosen. Under the assumption of independent efficacy a third practical alternative could be pretreatment of the hand vein with lidocaine or ketamine and use of a propofol emulsion containing medium and long chain triglycerides. Although not the most effective intervention on its own, a small dose of opioids before induction halved the risk of pain from the injection and thus can generally be recommended unless contraindicated.