Postoperative Pain Management in children: guidance from the Pain Committee of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology (ESPA Pain Management Ladder Initiative) Part II

Most patients who undergo surgical procedures experience acute postoperative pain, but evidence suggests that less than half report adequate postoperative pain relief. Many preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative interventions and management strategies are available for reducing and managing postoperative pain. The American Pain Society, with input from the American Society of Anesthesiologists, commissioned an interdisciplinary expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline to promote evidence-based, effective, and safer postoperative pain management in children and adults. The guideline was subsequently approved by the American Society for Regional Anesthesia. As part of the guideline development process, a systematic review was commissioned on various aspects related to various interventions and management strategies for postoperative pain. After a review of the evidence, the expert panel formulated recommendations that addressed various aspects of postoperative pain management, including preoperative education, perioperative pain management planning, use of different pharmacological and nonpharmacological modalities, organizational policies, and transition to outpatient care. The recommendations are based on the underlying premise that optimal management begins in the preoperative period with an assessment of the patient and development of a plan of care tailored to the individual and the surgical procedure involved. The panel found that evidence supports the use of multimodal regimens in many situations, although the exact components of effective multimodal care will vary depending on the patient, setting, and surgical procedure. Although these guidelines are based on a systematic review of the evidence on management of postoperative pain, the panel identified numerous research gaps. Of 32 recommendations, 4 were assessed as being supported by high-quality evidence, and 11 (in the areas of patient education and perioperative planning, patient assessment, organizational structures and policies, and transitioning to outpatient care) were made on the basis of low-quality evidence. Show more

The Faces Pain Scale (FPS; Bieri et al., Pain 41 (1990) 139) is a self-report measure used to assess the intensity of children's pain. Three studies were carried out to revise the original scale and validate the adapted version. In the first phase, the FPS was revised from its original seven faces to six, while maintaining its desirable psychometric properties, in order to make it compatible in scoring with other self-rating and observational scales which use a common metric (0-5 or 0-10). Using a computer-animated version of the FPS developed by Champion and colleagues (Sydney Animated Facial Expressions Scale), psychophysical methods were applied to identify four faces representing equal intervals between the scale values representing least pain and most pain. In the second phase, children used the new six-face Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) to rate the intensity of pain from ear piercing. Its validity is supported by a strong positive correlation (r=0.93, N=76) with a visual analogue scale (VAS) measure in children aged 5-12 years. In the third phase, a clinical sample of pediatric inpatients aged 4-12 years used the FPS-R and a VAS or the colored analogue scale (CAS) to rate pain during hospitalization for surgical and non-surgical painful conditions. The validity of the FPS-R was further supported by strong positive correlations with the VAS (r=0.92, N=45) and the CAS (r=0.84, N=45) in this clinical sample. Most children in all age groups including the youngest were able to use the FPS-R in a manner that was consistent with the other measures. There were no significant differences between the means on the FPS-R and either of the analogue scales. The FPS-R is shown to be appropriate for use in assessment of the intensity of children's acute pain from age 4 or 5 onward. It has the advantage of being suitable for use with the most widely used metric for scoring (0-10), and conforms closely to a linear interval scale. Show more

Epidural analgesia is considered by many to be the best method of pain relief after major surgery. It is used routinely in many thoracic surgery centres. Although effective, side-effects include hypotension, urinary retention, incomplete (or failed) block, and, in rare cases, paraplegia. Paravertebral block (PVB) is an alternative technique that may offer comparable analgesic effectiveness and a better side-effect profile. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of all relevant randomized trials comparing PVB with epidural analgesia in thoracic surgery. Data were abstracted and verified by both authors. Studies were tested for heterogeneity, and meta-analyses were done with random effects or fixed effects models. Weighted mean difference (WMD) was used for numerical outcomes and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes, both with 95% CI. We identified 10 trials that had enrolled 520 thoracic surgery patients. All of the trials were small (n<130) and none were blinded. There was no significant difference between PVB and epidural groups for pain scores at 4-8, 24 or 48 h, WMD 0.37 (95% CI: -0.5, 121), 0.05 (-0.6, 0.7), -0.04 (-0.4, 0.3), respectively. Pulmonary complications occurred less often with PVB, OR 0.36 (0.14, 0.92). Urinary retention, OR 0.23 (0.10, 0.51), nausea and vomiting, OR 0.47 (0.24, 0.53), and hypotension, OR 0.23 (0.11, 0.48), were less common with PVB. Rates of failed block were lower in the PVB group, OR 0.28 (0.2, 0.6). PVB and epidural analgesia provide comparable pain relief after thoracic surgery, but PVB has a better side-effect profile and is associated with a reduction in pulmonary complications. PVB can be recommended for major thoracic surgery. Show more