Tag: postoperative pain

Posted on

Clinical Outcomes of Liposomal Bupivacaine Erector Spinae Block in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery

Neurosurgery 92:590–598, 2023

Postoperative pain is a barrier to early mobility and discharge after lumbar surgery. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) has been shown to decrease postoperative pain and narcotic consumption after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) when injected into the marginal suprafascial/subfascial plane-liposomal bupivacaine (MSSP-LB). Erector spinae plane (ESP) infiltration is a relatively new analgesic technique that may offer additional benefits when performed in addition to MSSP-LB.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postoperative outcomes of combining ESP-LB with MSSP-LB compared with MSSP-LB alone after single-level TLIF.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients undergoing single-level TLIFs under spinal anesthesia, 25 receiving combined ESP-LB and MSSP-LB and 25 receiving MSSP-LB alone. The primary outcome was length of hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain score, time to ambulation, and narcotics usage.

RESULTS: Baseline demographics and length of surgery were similar between groups. Hospitalization was significantly decreased in the ESP-LB + MSSP-LB cohort (2.56 days vs 3.36 days, P = .007), as were days to ambulation (0.96 days vs 1.29 days, P = .026). Postoperative pain area under the curve was significantly decreased for ESP-LB + MSSP-LB at 12 to 24 hours (39.37 ± 21.02 vs 53.38 ± 22.11, P = .03) and total (44.46 ± 19.89 vs 50.51 ± 22.15, P = .025). Postoperative narcotic use was significantly less in the ESP-LB + MSSP-LB group at 12 to 24 hours (13.18 ± 4.65 vs 14.78 ± 4.44, P = .03) and for total hospitalization (137.3 ± 96.3 vs 194.7 ± 110.2, P = .04).

CONCLUSION: Combining ESP-LB with MSSP-LB is superior to MSSP-LB alone for single level TLIFs in decreasing length of hospital stay, time to ambulation, postoperative pain, and narcotic use.

Posted on

Development and validation of a clinical prediction score for poor postoperative pain control following elective spine surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 34:3–12, 2021

Thirty percent to sixty-four percent of patients experience poorly controlled pain following spine surgery, leading to patient dissatisfaction and poor outcomes. Identification of at-risk patients before surgery could facilitate patient education and personalized clinical care pathways to improve postoperative pain management. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to develop and internally validate a prediction score for poorly controlled postoperative pain in patients undergoing elective spine surgery.

METHODS A retrospective cohort study was performed in adult patients (≥ 18 years old) consecutively enrolled in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network registry. All patients underwent elective cervical or thoracolumbar spine surgery and were admitted to the hospital. Poorly controlled postoperative pain was defined as a mean numeric rating scale score for pain at rest of > 4 during the first 24 hours after surgery. Univariable analysis followed by multivariable logistic regression on 25 candidate variables, selected through a systematic review and expert consensus, was used to develop a prediction model using a random 70% sample of the data. The model was transformed into an eight-tier risk-based score that was further simplified into the three-tier Calgary Postoperative Pain After Spine Surgery (CAPPS) score to maximize clinical utility. The CAPPS score was validated using the remaining 30% of the data.

RESULTS Overall, 57% of 1300 spine surgery patients experienced poorly controlled pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Seven significant variables associated with poor pain control were incorporated into a prediction model: younger age, female sex, preoperative daily use of opioid medication, higher preoperative neck or back pain intensity, higher Patient Health Questionnaire–9 depression score, surgery involving ≥ 3 motion segments, and fusion surgery. Notably, minimally invasive surgery, body mass index, and revision surgery were not associated with poorly controlled pain. The model was discriminative (C-statistic 0.74, 95% CI 0.71–0.77) and calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit, p = 0.99) at predicting the outcome. Low-, high-, and extreme-risk groups stratified using the CAPPS score had 32%, 63%, and 85% predicted probability of experiencing poorly controlled pain, respectively, which was mirrored closely by the observed incidence of 37%, 62%, and 81% in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS Inadequate pain control is common after spine surgery. The internally validated CAPPS score based on 7 easily acquired variables accurately predicted the probability of experiencing poorly controlled pain after spine surgery.

Posted on

Intrathecal Morphine Following Lumbar Fusion: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Neurosurgery, Volume 85, Issue 2, August 2019, Pages 189–198

Despite the potential for faster postoperative recovery and the ease of direct intraoperative injection, intrathecal morphine is rarely provided in lumbar spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intrathecal morphine following lumbar fusion.

METHODS: We randomly assigned 150 patients undergoing elective instrumented lumbar fusion to receive a single intrathecal injection of morphine (0.2 mg) or placebo (normal saline) immediately prior to wound closure. The primary outcome was pain on the visual- analogue scale during the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included respiratory depression, treatment-related side effects, postoperative opioid requirements, and length of hospital stay. An intention-to-treat, repeated-measures analysis was used to estimate outcomes according to treatment in the primary analysis.

RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. Intrathecal morphine reduced pain both at rest (32% area under the curves [AUCs] difference, P < .01) and with movement (22% AUCs difference, P < .02) during the initial 24 h after surgery. The risk of respiratory depression was not increased by intrathecal morphine (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 1.68; P = .66). Although postoperative opioid requirements were reduced with intrathecal morphine (P < .03), lengths of hospital stay were similar (P = .32). Other than a trend towards increased intermittent catheterization among patients assigned to intrathecal morphine (P = .09), treatment-related side effects did not significantly differ. The early benefits of intrathecal morphine on postoperative pain were no longer apparent after 48 h.

CONCLUSION: A single intrathecal injection of 0.2 mg of morphine safely reduces postoperative pain following lumbar fusion.

Posted on

Effects of methylene blue on postoperative low-back pain and functional outcomes after lumbar open discectomy: a triple-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial

Surgical technique and effectiveness of microendoscopic discectomy for large uncontained lumbar disc herniations

J Neurosurg Spine 24:7–15, 2016

Despite advances in surgical and anesthesiology techniques, many patients continue to experience postoperative pain after lumbar disc operations. This study aims to investigate the effects of methylene blue (MB) on preventing postoperative low-back pain (LBP) with or without radicular pain and improving the quality of life (QOL) in patients undergoing lumbar open discectomy.

Methods This is a prospective, randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which was conducted at Shiraz University of Medical Sciences between July 2011 to January 2012. Of a total of 130 patients, 115 were eligible for participation; 56 received 1 ml of MB solution at a concentration of 0.5% (MB group) and 59 received an equivalent volume of normal saline (control group). Primary outcomes were the control of LBP with or without radicular pain, which was evaluated preoperatively and at 24 hours and 3 months after surgery with the use of a visual analog scale (VAS), and the improvement of QOL, which was assessed preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively by means of the Persian translation of the Oswestry Disability Index questionnaire.

Results The mean VAS scores for LBP were significantly lower in the MB group compared with the control group at 24 hours (1.25 ± 0.97 vs 2.80 ± 0.69, p < 0.001) and 3 months (1.02 ± 1.29 vs 2.07 ± 1.10, p = 0.019) after treatment. The mean radicular pain scores decreased significantly in the 2 groups at 24 hours after surgery, but the mean radicular pain score was significantly lower in the MB-treated patients than the control group. However, the difference between radicular pain scores in the MB group (1 ± 1.1) and the control group (1.2 ± 1) was not statistically significant (p = 0.64). The reduction in LBP was greater in the MB group than the control group (8.11 ± 1.74 vs 6.07 ± 1.52, p = 0.023, CI 95% –1.37 to –0.10). The functional QOL improved significantly 3 months after the operation in both groups (p < 0.001). Moderate disability occurred more frequently in the control group than in the MB group (14.5% vs 7.7%, p = 0.004). No toxicity, adverse effects, or complications were found in the group of patients treated with MB injection.

Conclusions A single dose of MB (1 ml 0.5%) for coating the dura and surrounding tissues (facet and muscle) shows promising results in terms of safety, reduction of postoperative pain, and functional outcome compared with placebo.

Proudly powered by WordPress