RESUMEN
Background: The global incidence of persistent pain after surgery is approximately 10%, with considerable clinical and socioeconomic impacts. Despite identifying many risk factors in its development and the challenging management of the often neuropathic pain complaints, preoperative recognition of high-risk patients in various surgical populations using a standardized risk factor assessment questionnaire is lacking. This study evaluates the predictive value of a short holistic risk factor screening questionnaire as a first step in preventing and treating persistent pain in adults undergoing elective surgery. Methods: This prospective observational pragmatic trial will include 560 adults undergoing elective surgery. The primary endpoint is the evaluation of the predictive value of the screening questionnaire, including the optimal cut-off determination in terms of sensitivity and specificity for inclusion in a perioperative high-vigilance program. Secondary endpoints are postoperative pain (intensity and characterization using the NRS and DN4), postoperative analgesic usage, and well-being using the EQ-5D-5 L. To assess the performance of the designed screening questionnaire in the identification of psychosocial pain aspects, HADs, and STAI-trait are being surveyed. Additionally, the multidimensional pain inventory (MPI, part 1) is being used to assess the impact of pain on daily life in patients. Discussion: This pragmatic clinical trial will evaluate a short preoperative screening questionnaire to predict persistent postoperative pain after elective surgery in adults. Suppose high-risk patients could be identified earlier using this short preoperative holistic screening questionnaire. In that case, it might contribute to a more widespread implementation of standardized preoperative assessment and awareness for preventing persistent postoperative pain. Trial Registration: Local ethics committee: B3002022000112. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05526976. Registered on: 02 September 2022. Start of recruitment: 22 December 2022. Trial Status: This paper is based on protocol version 4.0. The first patient was assigned to the research project on the 22 of December 2022. We anticipate including the last patient in October 2023 and plan to finalize the study by January 2024.
RESUMEN
Background: A qualitative evaluation study of the prematurely terminated PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain (PELICAN) study was performed. The PELICAN study aimed to examine pain management for localized neuropathic pain (LNP), as epidemiological figures have shown a high percentage of LNP patients in Belgium. The study compared systemic and topical medications according to pain relief, adverse effects, and several measures of quality of life. Objective: Achieving better study patient recruitment through qualitative research. To investigate and determine the causes of the observed recruitment problems in the PELICAN study, pain centers involved in the study as well as nonrecruiting pain centers were included. Furthermore, it aimed to highlight the positive and negative lessons learned from the conducted study and the number of obstacles the team had to overcome. Methods: A qualitative study, using a mixed methods approach, was performed. Multiple pain centers in Belgium completed an online survey, after which a structured interview was conducted to elaborate the responses in more detail. The broad topics of these meetings were feedback about the study, reviewing survey answers, and actions undertaken to enhance recruitment. Results: Different factors contributed to the low recruitment rate in the PELICAN study, such as limited and late referral from the general practitioners to the Belgian pain centers, insufficient internal referrals from nonpain specialists, lack of specific expertise on LNP in some centers, scarcity of staff, limited reimbursement to administer complex analgesic schemes, overestimation of the patient population, and the reluctance of patients to participate in pain research. Additionally, shortcomings in the implemented study design and the need for more logistical investments were identified. Conclusion: The findings of the qualitative study demonstrate the need for further, more varied LNP research in Belgium, not limited to pharmacological studies. It also sheds important light on the recruitment obstacles that may be faced during these studies. Future studies could support this research by offering better proposals for feasibility and recruitment, for instance, by designing and conducting a compelling pilot study or applying social media during the recruitment phase. Clinical Trials. This trial is registered with NCT03348735. EUDRACT number 2018-003617-17.