Ketorolac for Pain Management After Abdominal Surgical Procedures in Infants

2002 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
RANDALL S. BURD ◽  
JOSEPH D. TOBIAS
2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. E183-S204
Author(s):  
Christopher Gharibo

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of “elective” interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures. Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. Objectives: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. Methods: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. Results: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included emergent, urgent, and elective procedures. Examples of emergent and urgent procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, urgent procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. Limitations: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus. Key words: Coronavirus, COVID-19, interventional pain management, COVID risk factors, elective surgeries, interventional techniques, chronic pain, immunosuppression


2016 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Cem ATABEY ◽  
Emre ZORLU ◽  
Huseyin KURT ◽  
Selcuk GOCMEN ◽  
Dilek NSAL ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 438-455
Author(s):  
Amanda Francielle Santos ◽  
Rafaela Ribeiro Machado ◽  
Caíque Jordan Nunes Ribeiro ◽  
José Marden Mendes Neto ◽  
Luciane Katrine Teixeira da Luz ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 102 (6) ◽  
pp. e595-e596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza J. Mehran ◽  
Linda W. Martin ◽  
Carla M. Baker ◽  
Gabriel E. Mena ◽  
David C. Rice

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 461-461
Author(s):  
Namrata Patil ◽  
Luis De Leon ◽  
Michael Jaklitsch ◽  
Raphael Bueno ◽  
Philip Hartigan

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e021684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Breil ◽  
Michael Boettcher ◽  
Georg F Hoffmann ◽  
Markus Ries

ObjectiveAppendicitis is considered the most frequent surgical emergency in children. While the management of paediatric appendicitis is evolving, the precise amount of unpublished completed trials, potentially introducing bias into meta-analyses, is unknown. Controversial issues include the appropriate choice of surgical procedures, criteria for diagnosis of appendicitis, the role of antibiotic treatment and pain management. Selective reporting may introduce bias into evidence-based clinical decision-making, and the current, precise extent of unpublished results in paediatric appendicitis is unknown. We therefore assessed the publication status of completed clinical studies involving children registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.DesignCross sectional analysis. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology criteria were applied for design and analysis.Setting and participantsClinicalTrials.gov was queried for completed studies which were matched to publications on ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed or Google Scholar. If no publication could be identified, principal investigators were contacted.Interventions/exposureObservational analysis.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe proportion of published and unpublished studies was calculated. Subgroup analysis included studies on surgical procedures, diagnosis, antibiotic treatment and pain management.ResultsOut of n=52 completed clinical studies involving children with appendicitis, n=33 (63%) were published and n=19 (37%) were unpublished. Eighty-three per cent (n=43/52) of clinical trials assessed the above-listed controversial issues. Diagnostic studies were most rigorously published (91% of trials reported), data on surgical procedures, antibiotic and pain management were less transparent. Sixty-six per cent of interventional studies and 60% of randomised studies were published. Median time-to-publication, for example, the delay between completion of the trial until public availability of the results was 24 (IQR 12–36), range 2–92 months.ConclusionDespite the importance of appendicitis in clinical practice for the paediatric surgeon, there remains scientific uncertainty due to unpublished clinical trial results with room for improvement in the future. These data are helpful in framing the shifting paradigms in paediatric appendicitis because it adds transparency to the debate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 125-125
Author(s):  
S. Wright ◽  
P. Mehta ◽  
J. Parry ◽  
H. Kazkaz

Background:Mechanisms of pain associated with joint hypermobility are poorly understood and include nociceptive pain from structural joint changes along with soft tissue injuries linked to impaired proprioception; central sensitisation associated with chronic pain and muscle weakness alongside deconditioning. Anxiety and depression are also thought to play a role in patients presenting with pain and hypermobility. We have observed an increase in the rate of orthopaedic surgical procedures undertaken in patients attending the hypermobility clinics compared to those attending the general rheumatology and chronic pain clinics. There is limited published data regarding orthopaedic interventions in patients with hypermobility related disorders especially those with confirmed genetic mutations.Objectives:We aimed to evaluate the characteristics of patients in our hypermobility cohort focusing on those who had received prior surgical intervention in order to understand the underlying mechanism behind their presentations.Methods:A retrospective review of medical records was conducted of patients attending a hypermobility clinic at our tertiary referral centre, University College London Hospital, between January 2018 and December 2018.Results:There were 350 patients (300 females, 50 males) with a mean age of 36 years (range 18-71 years). 63% had a diagnosis of Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder or Hypermobility Syndrome and 37% had a type of Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS) (hypermobile, classical, vascular or other rare type). 46 patients (13%) had documented genetic mutations. 83 patients (24%) had undergone orthopaedic interventions including 9 who had EDS with confirmed genetic mutations. 54% of patients who had surgical intervention were under the age of 40. The total number of surgical procedures in the cohort was 227 (equating to 0.6485 interventions per patient). Of those requiring operative intervention, the average number of interventions per patient was 2.73. One third of patients had surgery on two or more joint groups, including 8 patients (2%) who had surgery in four or more joint groups. Knees (24%) and hips (23%) were the most common sites for operative intervention with 9% having surgery on their shoulders. 29% of pts had significant hypermobility with a Beighton score of 7 and above but there was no correlation between Beighton score and number of surgical procedures. Only 2% of cases were referred from an orthopaedic team thereby excluding a referral bias.Conclusion:Patients with hypermobility related disorders have a significant number of orthopaedic surgical procedures on multiple sites and at a young age, with indication of mechanical pathology playing an important role in their symptoms. The Beighton score does not appear to be a reliable predictor of surgical intervention. This is not surprising given that the score only covers 5 joint areas and excludes common surgical sites such as the hips and shoulders. Early diagnosis and a holistic non-operative approach combining physiotherapy and chronic pain management is essential to reduce the need for multiple surgical procedures.References:[1]Chopra P, Tinkle B, Hamonet C, Brock I, Gompel A, Bulbena A, et al. Pain management in the Ehlers-Danlos syndromes. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2020 Jan 27];175(1):212–9. Available from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28186390[2]Shirley ED, Demaio M, Bodurtha J. Ehlers-danlos syndrome in orthopaedics: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment implications. Sports Health [Internet]. 2012 Sep [cited 2019 Jan 30];4(5):394–403. Available from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016112Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Green

<p>Multimodal pain management is the use of combinations of medications from different classes or medications with different routes of delivery to optimize pain relief. The adjunctive use of multiple analgesic agents is associated with better pain relief and fewer adverse effects. Intravenous acetaminophen offers a relatively low risk, safe adjunct to multimodal therapy. A comparative retrospective chart review showed that adult patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy or cholecystectomy surgery who received intravenous acetaminophen in the operating room had a reduced opioid requirement directly after surgery, in the post anesthesia care unit. A total of 34 doses of opioids (Fentanyl and Dilaudid) were given to the group who received the intravenous acetaminophen as compared to 65 doses of the same opioids given to the group that did not. Since only two surgical procedures were studied, the results may not be applicable to other surgical procedures. Additionally, the small sample size (60 patient charts) was a noted limitation. Data is consistent with previous studies supporting the use of intravenous acetaminophen to help reduce the amount of opioid use postoperatively Because of its relatively safe profile, intravenous acetaminophen should be thoughtfully considered when addressing pain management in the operative setting.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document