The midfacial segment pain: little known disorder in need of scientific evaluation.

Despite its inclusion in the International Classification of Orofacial Pain, tension-type orofacial pain has little support in the scientific literature. However, a similar-in-phenotype orofacial pain perceived in the middle segment of the face has been described by few case series from mostly ear, nose and throat clinics. The authors of these descriptions used the term 'midfacial segment pain'. Patients had no significant sinonasal disorder in these studies, but experienced symmetrical pain perceived mostly over the maxillary and ethmoid sinuses. No aura or autonomic symptoms were present apart from mild nasal congestion or rhinorrhoea in some individuals. This description appears similar to tension-type headache, but with midfacial location. In this viewpoint, we indicate a need to fill this gap in scientific knowledge and propose a multicentre interdisciplinary study that would give a detailed description of this type of orofacial pain.

Evaluating a psychological support service focused on the needs of critical care and theatres staff in the first wave of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: In response to COVID-19, the authors used clinical psychology resources from their hospital's Pain Medicine Department to provide direct support to critical areas. AIMS: The degree to which the service met the needs of staff and managers between March and August 2020 was evaluated. METHODS: A total of 51 staff were referred. Most were nurses (43%), followed by theatre practitioners (36%), healthcare assistants (9%), consultants (8%), administrative (2%) and support staff (2%). Working status, reason for referral and presenting difficulties at first appointment and outcome were recorded. Staff were sent an anonymous survey following intervention. FINDINGS: Staff reported high rates of burnout, anxiety and low mood, with 22% experiencing exacerbation of pre-existing mental health problems. All staff reported benefit from the intervention and managers provided positive feedback. CONCLUSION: Establishing a supportive service that included psychology benefited both staff and managers at the peak of the pandemic. Recommendations are provided.

Temporary sympathectomy in chronic refractory angina: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Temporary sympathectomy by injection of bupivacaine at the site of the left stellate ganglion is used in the management of refractory angina at several UK centres. Although patients frequently report significant reduction in symptoms, efficacy has not been established by double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of the procedure for the first time by a double-blind RCT. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred to the authors' National Health Service (NHS) angina centre who were candidates for temporary sympathectomy were invited to participate in a trial. A total of 65 patients were randomised to receive either bupivacaine or saline injections. Identical syringes were prepared remotely, blinding patients and staff from randomisation. Cardiac autonomic function was measured 3 hours pre- and post-injection using new heart rate variability (HRV) analyses. Angina episodes were recorded contemporaneously by patients in study diaries in the 7-day periods pre- and post-injection. RESULTS: In 51 patients suitable for analysis, no significant differences between the active and placebo groups were found in patient-recorded frequency or intensity of angina episodes pre- and post-injection. However, across both groups combined, a significant difference was found in the frequency of angina episodes pre- and post-injection. CONCLUSION: The reduction in frequency of angina episodes produced by this procedure may not be due to drug pharmacology. It may be a placebo response or due to the mechanical effects of the injection of fluid. There is a need for further work using a larger patient cohort considering both mechanical and psychological factors.