Postoperative analgesia for upper gastrointestinal surgery: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia is commonly used for upper gastrointestinal surgery. Intrathecal morphine is an appealing opioid-sparing non-epidural analgesic option, especially for laparoscopic gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: Following ethics committee approval, we extracted data from the electronic medical records of patients at Royal North Shore Hospital (Sydney, Australia) that had upper gastrointestinal surgery between November 2015 and October 2020. Postoperative morphine consumption and pain scores were modelled with a Bayesian mixed effect model. RESULTS: A total of 427 patients were identified who underwent open (n = 300), laparoscopic (n = 120) or laparoscopic converted to open (n = 7) upper gastrointestinal surgery. The majority of patients undergoing open surgery received a neuraxial technique (thoracic epidural [58%, n = 174]; intrathecal morphine [21%, n = 63]) compared to a minority in laparoscopic approaches (thoracic epidural [3%, n = 4]; intrathecal morphine [12%, n = 14]). Intrathecal morphine was superior over non-neuraxial analgesia in terms of lower median oral morphine equivalent consumption and higher probability of adequate pain control; however, this effect was not sustained beyond postoperative day 2. Thoracic epidural analgesia was superior to both intrathecal and non-neuraxial analgesia options for both primary outcomes, but at the expense of higher rates of postoperative hypotension (60%, n = 113) and substantial technique failure rates (32%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that thoracic epidural analgesia was superior to intrathecal morphine, and intrathecal morphine was superior to non-neuraxial analgesia, in terms of reduced postoperative morphine requirements and the probability of adequate pain control in patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal surgery. However, the benefits of thoracic epidural analgesia and intrathecal morphine were not sustained across all time periods regarding control of pain. The study is limited by its retrospective design, heterogenous group of upper gastrointestinal surgeries and confounding by indication.

Current approaches to acute postoperative pain management after major abdominal surgery: a narrative review and future directions.

Poorly controlled postoperative pain is associated with increased morbidity, negatively affects quality of life and functional recovery, and is a risk factor for persistent pain and longer-term opioid use. Up to 10% of opioid-naïve patients have persistent opioid use after many types of surgeries. Opioid-related side-effects and the opioid abuse epidemic emphasise the need for alternative, opioid-minimising, multimodal analgesic strategies, including neuraxial (epidural/intrathecal) techniques, truncal nerve blocks, and lidocaine infusions. The preference for minimally invasive surgical techniques has changed anaesthetic and analgesic requirements in abdominal surgery compared with open laparotomy, leading to a decline in popularity of epidural anaesthesia and an increasing interest in intrathecal morphine and truncal nerve blocks. Limited research exists on patient quality of recovery using specific analgesic techniques after intra-abdominal surgery. Poorly controlled postoperative pain after major abdominal surgery should be a research priority as it affects patient-centred short-term and long-term outcomes (including quality of life scores, return to function measurements, disability-free survival) and has broad community health and economic implications.

Radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints: guidelines for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The RADICAL trial has been funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation (RFD) for low back pain. Recommendations have been published which aim to standardise selection of patients and RFD technique. However, it is important to ensure these recommendations are acceptable to clinicians within the context of the trial. The aim of this work was to develop standardised criteria for the trial entry and RFD technique for implementation within the RADICAL trial. METHODS: Fourteen pain clinicians completed a survey, which involved reviewing the current recommendations and indicating whether they disagreed with any of the recommendations and if so why. Responses were collated and presented at a half-day workshop with 14 attendees. During the workshop, the National Low Back and Radicular Pain Pathway (NLBRPP) guidelines for patient selection and an article by Eldabe and colleagues presenting recommendations on the RFD technique were reviewed. Attendees discussed whether each component of the recommendations should be mandatory, mandatory with alteration or clarification or optional within the RADICAL trial. RESULTS: Attendees agreed during the workshop that 5 of the 10 criteria for patient selection described in the NLBRPP should be mandatory within the RADICAL trial. Three were agreed as mandatory criteria but required further clarification, one of which involved defining a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block as ⩾60% pain relief. Two criteria had optional components. After reviewing the recommendations on the RFD technique from Eldabe and colleagues, seven components were agreed as mandatory, three were mandatory with alterations and three were optional. CONCLUSION: When evaluating complex interventions, such as RFD, it is important to ensure agreement and clarity on the clinical protocol, so that the intervention can be reproduced, if found to be effective.

A survey of neuraxial analgesic preferences in open and laparoscopic major abdominal surgery amongst anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand.

Practising anaesthetists who are Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists were surveyed with the objective of gaining insight into current analgesic preferences, with particular regard to neuraxial techniques, when managing patients having major open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Major abdominal surgery is common and effective analgesia is fundamental to optimal postoperative recovery. A multitude of analgesic options exist, with epidurals recommended in recent Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols. We believe the place of epidurals is increasingly questioned in the setting of continuous improvement in surgical technique, with increasing laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery. Evidence for various techniques is mixed and benefit-risk profiles exist for all alternatives. An opioid epidemic and abuse crisis has directed attention towards opioid minimisation strategies. The survey was completed by 28% (275) of the 975 Fellows who received it, with good representation across the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists' general membership. Respondents manage laparoscopic major abdominal surgery more frequently than open procedures, with approximately one-third of respondents each providing anaesthesia for two open laparotomies versus four to eight laparoscopic cases per month. Respondents reported a high perceived benefit of neuraxial analgesia, which was discordant with their clinical practice. Less than half of the respondents used epidural or spinal analgesia in open surgery (48% versus 49% of respondents, respectively). A minority (16%) of respondents use a neuraxial technique in major laparoscopic surgery, with a strong preference for intrathecal morphine (74%) when they choose to do so. Further investigation of the role of intrathecal analgesia is warranted given the shift towards laparoscopic major abdominal surgery, the perceived benefits of neuraxial techniques and the need for opioid-sparing analgesic strategies.

Chronic pain, loss and the future - Development and evaluation of an innovative, interactive pain education tool.

BACKGROUND: The development of chronic pain can result in multiple losses to an individual, which can negatively impact their quality of life. Presentation of the concepts of loss and grief as an interactive educational tool may help those who live with chronic pain gain a deeper understanding of their condition. This in turn may enable more effective management of their pain. This study aims to explore the effectiveness of such a tool through the perceptions and experiences of people living with chronic pain. METHODS: An interactive pain education tool was developed and distributed with an evaluation questionnaire. Participants were invited to re-evaluate the tool three months later. Responses to the questionnaire were provided using a Likert scale and free text comments. Descriptive statistics were used to present quantitative results and inductive thematic analysis was applied to the free text comments. RESULTS: The pain education tool was well received by participants, the majority of whom found the process of using the tool a positive experience. Responses showed the tool helped participants express themselves and promoted self-reflection. The tool provided access to the reflections of others, which helped validate and legitimise their feelings and gain the understanding that their response to pain was normal. This in turn helped promote self-compassion and a sense of belonging, reducing feelings of isolation associated with chronic pain. CONCLUSION: The outcomes of this study show the pain education tool can help individuals gain a new and more positive perspective on themselves and their pain experience, therefore helping them live with and manage their chronic pain.