Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine最新文献

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, conflicts of interest (COIs) can compromise the scientific integrity in these trials. This study characterized COIs in RCTs on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain, focusing on the prevalence, disclosure, and monetary value of COIs.

Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed RCTs published from January 1, 2013 to July 27, 2023. Primary outcomes included the presence, disclosure, and monetary value of COIs, while secondary outcomes assessed the presence of direct/indirect COIs, sponsor access to data, and associations between COIs and select variables, including journal impact factor, publication year, and study outcomes.

Results: Of 38 RCTs, 30 (78.9%) reported COIs. On average, 35.6% of authors per RCT had at least one COI, with a mean of 0.7 COIs per author. The mean annual monetary value of COIs was US$41,157.83 per author per RCT. 29 RCTs (76.3%) had undisclosed COIs, with an average of 24.2% of authors per RCT having undisclosed COIs. Sponsor access to data was reported in 67.6% of RCTs. No associations were observed between the mean percentage of authors with COIs and the monetary value of COIs and select dependent variables (impact factor, publication year, and study outcomes).

Conclusions: A substantial majority of RCTs reported COIs with many authors having undisclosed conflicts, highlighting the need for stringent COI disclosure guidelines to maintain research integrity. Expanding COI registry systems globally and increasing non-industry funding are crucial steps toward enhancing transparency and reducing biases in medical research.

Background: Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) experience significant postoperative pain and routinely require opioids, yet they often lack knowledge regarding appropriate use and handling of these medications. Evidence suggests that educational interventions in various formats may help reinforce proper usage and improve postoperative pain control. The aim of this study is to compare the institution standard of care (webinar) with two novel educational interventions-one in-person and the other a video recording-that focus specifically on the use of opioids and pain control.

Methods: This prospective, randomized pilot study included 42 patients undergoing TKA. Patients were randomized into one of three groups: (1) webinar: 50 min virtual session standard of care at Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), (2) in-person education, or (3) video education. The primary outcomes of this study were the number of opioid refill requests through postoperative day (POD) 30 and POD 60. The secondary outcomes evaluated Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores, opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (OME), surveys on medication usage and opioid knowledge, reported medication storage and disposal. We hypothesize that the novel educational interventions, presented either in-person or by video, will lead to a decrease in opioid refills within 60 days compared with current education delivered through virtual webinar.

Results: No significant differences were found among groups in the number of opioid refill requests, average NRS pain score, or OME consumption at any time point. Opioid refill requests ranged from 0% to 16.7% at POD 30 (Fisher's exact test, p=0.625) and from 0% to 8.3% at POD 60 (p=1.000). The median opioid refill request was zero requests per group from POD 21 to 60 (webinar 0 (0.0, 0.0), in-person 0 (0.0, 0.0), video 0 (0.0, 0.0), Kruskal-Wallis test, p=0.381). Average NRS pain scores were 5 or below for all groups on POD 1, 7 and 14. By POD 7, all groups had an average daily intake OME of 14 or below.

Conclusions: Overall, patients in each group did well with postoperative pain management after TKA and had minimal opioid refill requests. There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes of NRS pain scores or opioid usage among groups suggesting that educational interventions were similarly effective. As a pilot trial, study demonstrated successful recruitment and retention of participants, and important feedback was elicited from patients regarding education, as well. Of note, this was a pilot study and was likely underpowered to detect a difference.

Trial registration number: NCT05593341.

Background and objectives: Most Regional Anesthesiology and Acute Pain Medicine (RAAPM) fellowship programs transitioned to virtual interviews in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, the RAAPM fellowship match started in 2023 in order to make the application process more equitable. In this study, we surveyed RAAPM fellowship program directors (PDs) to determine how such major events of the early 2020s shaped the fellowship application process.

Methods: A 16-question survey was distributed to US RAAPM program directors. The survey aimed to assess whether PDs prefer the fellowship match over the previous rolling application format and to gauge PDs' confidence in using virtual interviews to evaluate applicants.

Results: 56 (71%) RAAPM program directors completed the survey. 79% of respondents participated in the inaugural match. 59% of PDs preferred the fellowship match over the rolling application format. The interview was rated the most important selection criterion. Of the 93% of PDs who switched to virtual interviews during the pandemic, only 4 PDs (7%) resumed in-person interviews in some capacity. Majority of PDs believed that virtual interviews were not inferior to in-person interviews for assessing applicants; 48% of respondents preferred virtual interviews over in-person interviews.

Conclusions: Most RAAPM programs continued to conduct virtual interviews exclusively. Majority of program directors preferred the fellowship match. PDs ranked the interview as the most important selection factor. Most PDs thought virtual interviews were not inferior to in-person interviews, but they remained divided on which format they prefer.

Objective: To investigate long-term explantation risks and causes for the explantation of neuromodulation devices for the treatment of chronic pain from different manufacturers.

Methods: This retrospective analysis included patients implanted with a system for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) or dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation at Sahlgrenska University Hospital between January 2012 and December 2022. Patient characteristics, explantation rates and causes for explantation were obtained by reviewing medical records.

Results: In total, 400 patients were included in the study. Including all manufacturers, the cumulative explantation risk for any reason was 17%, 23% and 38% at 3, 5 and 10 years, respectively. Explantation risk due to diminished pain relief at the same intervals was 10%, 14% and 23%. A subgroup comparison of 5-year explantation risk using Kaplan-Meier analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between the manufacturers. In multivariable Cox regression analyses, there was no difference in explantation risk for any reason, but for explantation due to diminished pain relief, a higher risk was noted for Medtronic (preferably older types of SCS devices) and DRG stimulation. No other predictive factor for explantation was found.

Conclusions: Although SCS and DRG stimulation are well-established and safe treatments for chronic pain, the long-term explantation risk remains high. The difference between manufacturers highlights the importance of technological evolution for improving therapy outcomes. Increased stringency in patient selection and follow-up strategies, as well as further development of device hardware and software technology for increased longevity, could possibly reduce long-term explantation risks.

Background: During the postoperative period of elective cesarean section, intrathecal morphine is effective in the multimodal analgesic regimen, but can cause significant adverse effects. Bilateral posterior quadratus lumborum block could be alternatively used. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of both strategies as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen.

Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled study. 104 parturients were randomly selected to receive intrathecal morphine or posterior quadratus lumborum block during cesarean section under spinal anesthesia. The primary endpoint was patient-controlled 24-hour cumulative intravenous morphine use. Secondary endpoints were 48-hour cumulative morphine use, static/dynamic pain scores, functional recovery (ObsQoR-11 questionnaire) and adverse effects.

Results: There was no statistical difference in the mean cumulative morphine dose at 24-hour between groups (posterior quadratus lumborum block group, 13.7 (97.5% CI 10.4 to 16.9) mg; intrathecal morphine group, 11.1 (97.5% CI 8.4 to 13.8) mg, p=0.111). Pain scores did not show any difference between groups, excepted at 6 hours for the pain at cough/movement in favor of the posterior quadratus lumborum block group (p=0.013). A better recovery quality was observed at 24 hours in the posterior quadratus lumborum block group (p=0.009). Pruritus was more frequent in intrathecal morphine group parturients (35% vs 2%) CONCLUSIONS: No difference in cumulative morphine dose at 24 hours was observed in posterior quadratus lumborum block group compared with intrathecal morphine group. Posterior quadratus lumborum block can be considered an alternative to intrathecal morphine in cesarean postoperative analgesia, especially in cases of intolerance to morphine.

Trial registration number: NCT04755712.