Pain catastrophizers undergoing posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for idiopathic scoliosis have lower preoperative SRS-30 scores but do not require increased postoperative narcotics.

IF 1.8 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Spine deformity Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1007/s43390-025-01058-3
Elaine Tran, David Thornberg, Anne-Marie Datcu, Chan-Hee Jo, Brandon Ramo
{"title":"Pain catastrophizers undergoing posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for idiopathic scoliosis have lower preoperative SRS-30 scores but do not require increased postoperative narcotics.","authors":"Elaine Tran, David Thornberg, Anne-Marie Datcu, Chan-Hee Jo, Brandon Ramo","doi":"10.1007/s43390-025-01058-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain catastrophizing has been linked to poorer patient-reported pain outcomes for orthopedic surgery, but its effect on perioperative pain and narcotic use is poorly understood. Our purpose was to determine if pain catastrophizing has a negative effect on perceptions of perioperative pain and narcotic use in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for idiopathic scoliosis (IS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, IRB-approved review of prospectively collected data of IS patients undergoing PSF. Patients were considered PCs when they scored above the 75th percentile in the PCS (total score ≥ 30). Inpatient narcotic consumption was calculated as morphine equivalent per Kg (mEq/Kg).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five hundred seventeen patients (411F, 106M) underwent PSF for IS. Forty-five (8.7%) patients were pain catastrophizers (PCs). PC patients had significantly lower pain, appearance, and mental scores. PCs scored slightly higher on VAS pain scores (2.20 vs 1.92, p = 0.015) in the first 24 h only. There were no differences in opioid use between PC vs. non-PC cohorts for inpatient (2.01 vs 2.14 mEq/Kg, p = 0.4), discharge (5.6 vs 5.87 mEq/Kg, p = 0.3), or total narcotics (7.61 v 8.01 mEq/Kg, p = 0.2). Fifty-five patients out of five hundred seventeen requested narcotic refills with no difference in refill rates between cohorts (p = 0.7076).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found that pain catastrophizers had lower pre-operative SRS-30 scores across all domains except satisfaction. We found no association between pain catastrophizing and increased opioid use in either the inpatient stay or post-discharge. While pain catastrophizing has been associated with lower pre- and post-operative pain scores, it does not appear to predispose to higher narcotic utilization perioperatively.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>II: retrospective comparative study.</p>","PeriodicalId":21796,"journal":{"name":"Spine deformity","volume":" ","pages":"1135-1141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine deformity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43390-025-01058-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pain catastrophizing has been linked to poorer patient-reported pain outcomes for orthopedic surgery, but its effect on perioperative pain and narcotic use is poorly understood. Our purpose was to determine if pain catastrophizing has a negative effect on perceptions of perioperative pain and narcotic use in patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for idiopathic scoliosis (IS).

Methods: A retrospective, IRB-approved review of prospectively collected data of IS patients undergoing PSF. Patients were considered PCs when they scored above the 75th percentile in the PCS (total score ≥ 30). Inpatient narcotic consumption was calculated as morphine equivalent per Kg (mEq/Kg).

Results: Five hundred seventeen patients (411F, 106M) underwent PSF for IS. Forty-five (8.7%) patients were pain catastrophizers (PCs). PC patients had significantly lower pain, appearance, and mental scores. PCs scored slightly higher on VAS pain scores (2.20 vs 1.92, p = 0.015) in the first 24 h only. There were no differences in opioid use between PC vs. non-PC cohorts for inpatient (2.01 vs 2.14 mEq/Kg, p = 0.4), discharge (5.6 vs 5.87 mEq/Kg, p = 0.3), or total narcotics (7.61 v 8.01 mEq/Kg, p = 0.2). Fifty-five patients out of five hundred seventeen requested narcotic refills with no difference in refill rates between cohorts (p = 0.7076).

Conclusion: We found that pain catastrophizers had lower pre-operative SRS-30 scores across all domains except satisfaction. We found no association between pain catastrophizing and increased opioid use in either the inpatient stay or post-discharge. While pain catastrophizing has been associated with lower pre- and post-operative pain scores, it does not appear to predispose to higher narcotic utilization perioperatively.

Level of evidence: II: retrospective comparative study.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
接受后路脊柱融合术(PSF)治疗特发性脊柱侧凸的疼痛灾难患者术前SRS-30评分较低,但术后不需要增加麻醉剂。
背景:疼痛灾难化与骨科手术患者报告的较差疼痛结果有关,但其对围手术期疼痛和麻醉剂使用的影响尚不清楚。我们的目的是确定疼痛灾难化是否对接受后路脊柱融合术(PSF)治疗特发性脊柱侧凸(IS)的患者围手术期疼痛和麻醉使用的感知产生负面影响。方法:对接受PSF的IS患者的前瞻性数据进行回顾性,经irb批准。当PCs评分高于75百分位(总分≥30)时,患者被认为是PCs。住院麻醉用量以吗啡当量/Kg (mEq/Kg)计算。结果:517例患者(411F, 106M)因IS接受PSF治疗。45例(8.7%)患者为疼痛加重者(PCs)。PC患者的疼痛、外观和精神评分明显较低。仅在前24小时内,PCs在VAS疼痛评分上的得分略高(2.20 vs 1.92, p = 0.015)。在住院患者(2.01 vs 2.14 mEq/Kg, p = 0.4)、出院患者(5.6 vs 5.87 mEq/Kg, p = 0.3)或总麻醉药物(7.61 vs 8.01 mEq/Kg, p = 0.2)中,PC组与非PC组的阿片类药物使用没有差异。517名患者中有55名患者要求麻醉药品重新填充,队列之间的重新填充率没有差异(p = 0.7076)。结论:我们发现,除满意度外,疼痛灾难者术前的SRS-30评分在所有领域都较低。我们发现,无论是住院还是出院后,疼痛灾难化与阿片类药物使用增加之间没有关联。虽然疼痛灾难化与术前和术后较低的疼痛评分有关,但它似乎并不倾向于围手术期较高的麻醉使用。证据等级:II:回顾性比较研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
18.80%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Spine Deformity the official journal of the?Scoliosis Research Society is a peer-refereed publication to disseminate knowledge on basic science and clinical research into the?etiology?biomechanics?treatment?methods and outcomes of all types of?spinal deformities. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal's area of interest.The?journal?will enhance the mission of the Society which is to foster the optimal care of all patients with?spine?deformities worldwide. Articles published in?Spine Deformity?are Medline indexed in PubMed.? The journal publishes original articles in the form of clinical and basic research. Spine Deformity will only publish studies that have institutional review board (IRB) or similar ethics committee approval for human and animal studies and have strictly observed these guidelines. The minimum follow-up period for follow-up clinical studies is 24 months.
期刊最新文献
Outcomes after surgical correction of severe scoliosis in patients with osteogenesis imperfecta: a prospective, 2-year minimum follow-up study with radiographic and patient-reported outcomes. Distal hyperlordotic distribution does not increase the risk of mechanical complications in adult spinal deformity patients undergoing long-construct fusion to the pelvis with optimal global sagittal alignment. Comment on "Artificial intelligence-driven 3D surface-topography app for screening and monitoring adolescent scoliosis: early results from a single institution". Comment on "Artificial intelligence automated measurements of spinopelvic parameters in adult spinal deformity a systematic review". It is all about perspectives-poor agreement between the patient, their parent and their physician in perception of spinal appearance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1