The effect of intra-operative passive movement therapy on non-surgical site pain after breast reconstructive surgery: a preliminary study.

Pain distant to an operative site is under-reported but sometimes more severe than pain from the surgical site. Intra-operative passive movement could possibly reduce this pain. This preliminary study was designed to assess the practicalities of conducting a randomised controlled trial of this therapy in anaesthetised patients. The study design was pragmatic. Forty-two patients undergoing breast reconstruction were randomly assigned to receive either intra-operative passive movement or standard care. Twenty-four hours after surgery, median (IQR [range]) morphine consumption was 33 (11-42 [0-176]) mg in the passive movement group compared with 74 (15-118 [0-238]) mg with standard care (p = 0.126), while participants reported median (IQR [range]) visual analogue scores in areas distant from the surgical site of 0 (0-4 [0-34]) mm in the passive movement group compared with 10 (2-30 [0-57]) mm in those receiving standard care (p = 0.002). A full trial of intra-operative passive movement therapy to reduce postoperative is feasible and warranted.

Oral vs intravenous paracetamol for lower third molar extractions under general anaesthesia: is oral administration inferior?

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol formulations provide effective analgesia after surgery [Duggan ST, Scott LJ. Intravenous paracetamol (acetominophen). Drugs 2009; 69: 101-13; Toms L, McQuay HJ, Derry S, Moore RA. Single dose oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for postoperative pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008: CD004602]. I.V. paracetamol is superior to oral for pain rescue (Jarde O, Boccard E. Parenteral versus oral route increases paracetamol efficacy. Clin Drug Invest 1997; 14: 474-81). By randomized, double-blinded trial, we aimed to determine whether preoperative oral paracetamol provides inferior postoperative analgesia to preoperative i.v. paracetamol. METHODS: One hundred and thirty participants received either oral paracetamol and i.v. placebo (Group OP), or oral placebo and i.v. paracetamol (Perfalgan™) (Group IP). Oral preparations were given at least 45 min before surgery; i.v. preparations after induction of anaesthesia. Pain was assessed by a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) 1 h from the end of surgery. Rescue analgesia was given on request. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients completed the study. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or intraoperative variables between the groups. The study was designed to reveal whether OP is inferior to IP, with an inferiority margin of 20%. The number of patients reporting satisfactory analgesia at 1 h with VAS ≤ 30 mm were 15 (OP) and 17 (IP), respectively. The secondary outcome measure of the mean (standard deviation) VAS (mm) for the whole of each group was 52 (22) for OP and 47 (22) for IP. Analysis of confidence intervals indicates that oral paracetamol is not inferior to i.v. paracetamol. The median survival (90% CI) to rescue analgesia request was 54.3 (51.2-57.4) min in Group OP and 57.3 (55.4-59.2) min in Group IP; there was no significant difference in this measure. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of lower third molar extraction, oral paracetamol is not inferior to i.v. for postoperative analgesia. ISRCTN Registration http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN77607163.