A double-masked randomized trial of postoperative local anesthetic for pain control in pediatric strabismus surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine to what extent local anesthetic reduces postoperative pain after pediatric strabismus surgery. METHODS: In this double-masked, randomized clinical trial of 50 children 13-91 months of age undergoing strabismus surgery, subjects were randomly assigned to one of three treatments given at the conclusion of surgery: topical lidocaine gel and sub-Tenon's (balanced salt solution) placebo (n = 16), topical placebo (hypromellose) and sub-Tenon's bupivacaine 0.75% (n = 17), or topical and sub-Tenon's placebo (n = 17). Pain was otherwise managed systemically in the usual fashion by the masked anesthesia team and assessed at regular postoperative intervals by a masked observer using an objective, validated pain scale. RESULTS: Average pain in the first 30 minutes was 6.57, 6.36, and 6.58 in the lidocaine, bupivacaine, and placebo groups, respectively, and was significantly lower (P = 0.016) for bupivacaine vs placebo. The bupivacaine group had significantly lower scores for pain after 30 minutes, total pain, and peak pain versus the lidocaine group. CONCLUSIONS: Sub-Tenon's bupivacaine may reduce postoperative pain in children undergoing strabismus surgery.

How much are patients willing to pay to avoid intraoperative awareness?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine how much patients are willing to pay to avoid intraoperative awareness? DESIGN: Observational study SETTING: University-affiliated metropolitan hospital. PATIENTS: 60 patients who completed a questionnaire (39 F, 21 M). The mean age was 43 years and the median household income range of 45,000-60,000 US dollars. INTERVENTIONS: Patients completed an interactive computer-generated questionnaire on the value of preventing intraoperative awareness and their willingness to pay for a "depth of anesthesia" monitor. Their willingness to pay for the prevention of postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, postoperative grogginess, and sleepiness was also determined as a means of comparison. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were willing to pay (WTP) 34 US dollars, 10 US dollars to 42 US dollars (median, interquartile range) for a monitor that would assist an anesthesia care provider assess the depth of anesthesia in an effort to avoid awareness. This increased to 43 US dollars, 20 US dollars to 77 US dollars (p < 0.0,001) (median, interquartile range), if the insurance company was making the payment and the WTP value only decreased minimally to 33 US dollars if the incidence of awareness was reduced 10-fold. CONCLUSION: The incidence of intraoperative awareness and WTP value for monitoring awareness have a nonlinear relationship (a risk averse utility function), which suggests that patients assign an intrinsic base value for a rare or very rare possibility of an event. Other healthcare economic analyses (such as cost effectiveness) do not take this factor into account and assume a linear value relationship (i.e., if something occurs ten times less frequently, it has ten times less value). IMPLICATION: The median value for patients' WTP for a monitor that might prevent awareness under anesthesia was 34 US dollars given an incidence of 5/1,000 cases. The incidence of awareness and WTP value have a nonlinear relationship suggesting that patients assign an intrinsic base value for the possibility of awareness.