Validation of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain Scores in Children Less than 3 Months of Age: Comparison of VAS versus the Behavioral DAN Pain Scores in the Emergency Department

2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (5Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. S170-S170
Author(s):  
A. J. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Pain Scores

An Audit of Pain Control Pathways following Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 248-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Espeed Khoshbin ◽  
Ali N. Al-Jilaihawi ◽  
Nicholas B. Scott ◽  
Dhruva Prakash ◽  
Alan J. B. Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Thoracoscopic Surgery ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Audit Commission ◽  
Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery ◽  
Daily Pain

Objective To compare different modes of pain management following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) to our national standard. Methods This is an audit based on patient's experiences. One hundred consecutive patients who underwent VATS with or without pleurodesis were managed by one of the following pain relief pathways: (A) thoracic paravertebral block + morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), (B) percutaneous thoracic paravertebral catheter +/– morphine PCA, (C) thoracic epidural +/– morphine PCA, (D) morphine PCA alone, and (E) intravenous or subcutaneous morphine as required. Pain score was documented up to four times per day for each patient. The incidence of severe pain was defined as visual analog scale ≥7. The results were compared with the standard set by the audit commission for postoperative pain relief in the UK. The mean daily pain scores were calculated retrospectively for all patients. Results There were no statistically significant differences in mean daily pain scores irrespective of having a pleurodesis. The percentage of patients experiencing severe pain was 34% [mean visual analog scale = 8 (standard deviation = 1.0)]. This was almost seven times the standard. Among these pathways, B had the least percentage incidence of severe pain (16.7%) followed by A (25.0%) D (33.3%), C (35.7%), and E (52.4%). Conclusions We are not compliant with the standards set by the audit commission. Pain management in theater recovery needs to be targeted. In the light of these results, we recommend the use of percutaneous thoracic paravertebral catheter +/– morphine PCA for postoperative VATS pain relief.

scholarly journals A comparison of pain registration by Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale – a cross-sectional study of primary triage registration

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jofrid Kollltveit ◽  
Malin Osaland ◽  
Marianne Reimers ◽  
Magnus Berle
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Emergency Admission ◽  
Numeric Rating Scale ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Numeric Rating

BackgroundPain is a subjective sensation; self-reporting is important for quantifying pain intensity. There are several different validated tools for this, such as Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale. In the clinic, these terms are often used as equivalent. The objective of this study was to examine correlation and agreement between the pain registration tools in triage in an emergency department.Materials and MethodsThe study was performed in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Haukeland University Hospital in the period June-August 2019. We registered the pain score with two tools in 200 unselected patients in emergency admission with pain. In addition, we registrered gender, age, triage and general department affiliation.ResultsWe found a strong correlation between the pain registration tools by Spearmans correlation test (rho=0,930, p<0,001). There were no significant difference between the pain registration tools within the subgroups. Bland-Altman analysis show agreement between the two pain registration tools.ConclusionsIn an Emergency Department triage is it acceptable to use Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale as equivalent, as long as the correct terminology is used.

scholarly journals Reproducibility of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain Scores to Mechanical Pressure

CRANIO® ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Goddard ◽  
Hiroyuki Karibe ◽  
Charles McNeill
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Mechanical Pressure ◽  
Pain Scores

Total subaxial reconstruction

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent C. Traynelis
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Anterior Decompression ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Excellent Outcome ◽  
Arm Pain ◽  
Subaxial Cervical Spine ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
The Mean

Object Certain cervical spinal conditions require decompression and reconstruction of the entire subaxial cervical spine. There are limited data concerning the clinical details and outcomes of patients treated in this manner. The object of this study was to describe the specific technique employed to perform a total subaxial reconstruction and review the postoperative outcomes following surgery. Methods The author performed a review of data prospectively collected in 27 consecutive patients undergoing complete anterior decompression and reconstruction of the anterior cervical spine and followed by posterior instrumented arthrodesis with or without decompression. Results There were 16 men and 11 women whose mean age was 59 years (range 35–86 years). The minimum follow-up was 12 months and the mean follow-up period for all patients was 26 months. One patient underwent C2–7 surgery, and in all others the procedure crossed the cervicothoracic junction. Following surgery patients remained intubated for an average of 3.3 days (range 1–22 days). The mean hospital length of stay was 11 days (range 3–45 days). One patient died 6 weeks following an uneventful surgery. Pneumonia developed in 5 patients, 1 patient experienced a minor pulmonary embolism, and 2 patients had posterior wound infections. No patient was neurologically worse following surgery. A single patient presented with a C-8 radiculopathy 6 weeks after surgery. At final follow-up no patient complained of dysphagia when specifically questioned about this potential problem. In all patients solid fusions developed at each treated levels. Preoperatively the mean sagittal Cobb angle was 15.4° (kyphosis) and the postoperative mean angle was −10.9° (lordosis) representing a total average correction of over 25° (p < 0.0001). The mean preoperative Neck Disability Index was 27.6; this score decreased to 15.5 (p = 0.0008) postoperatively. The mean pre- and postoperative visual analog scale neck pain scores were 6.0 and 2.1, respectively (p = 0.0004), and mean visual analog scale arm pain scores decreased by 3.7 following surgery (p = 0.001). Based on Odom criteria, the author found that 8 patients had an excellent outcome and 14 patients a good outcome. There were 4 patients in whom the outcome was judged to be fair and the single death was recorded as a poor outcome. The mean preoperative Nurick score was 2.68. Postoperatively the group improved to an average score of 1.5; the difference between the 2 was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Conclusions Segmental anterior decompression and reconstruction of the entire subaxial cervical spine, combined with an instrumented posterolateral fusion, can be performed with acceptable morbidity and is of significant benefit in selected patients.

Reliability of the visual analog scale in children with acute pain in the emergency department

Pain ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 153 (4) ◽  
pp. 839-842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benoit Bailey ◽  
Jocelyn Gravel ◽  
Raoul Daoust
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Acute Pain ◽  
Analog Scale

scholarly journals Preemptive use of adjunctive IV lidocaine for enhanced recovery after abdominal hysterectomy for overweight and obese women: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 1095
Author(s):  
Nahla Waer Shady ◽  
Hassan Ahmed Farouk ◽  
Hany Farouk Sallam
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Bolus Dose ◽  
Abdominal Hysterectomy ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Obese Women ◽  
Intravenous Lidocaine ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lidocaine Group ◽  
Pain Scores

Background: This investigation planned to evaluate the clinical results of adjunctive IV lidocaine bolus dose plus infusion for one hour after surgery in patients who underwent an abdominal hysterectomy in obese and overweight women.Methods: We performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NC03748108), with patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy divided into 2 groups: one group received intravenous lidocaine single bolus dose preoperatively and IV infusions till one hour after the surgical procedure, and the opposite received normal saline infusion (placebo). We assessed postoperative results, including pain scores rankings on a visual analog scale (VAS) in rest and movement, administration frequency of pethidine. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, the period of hospital stay (LOS), time to ambulate, and patient satisfaction at forty-eight hours had been evaluated. Chi-square test and Monte Carlo test have been used for comparison among groups.Results: There were 120 patients in our study. The visual analog scale (VAS), pain scores, length of hospital stay (LOS), and administration frequency of pethidine were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. The total amount of consumed pethidine was significantly lower in the lidocaine than the placebo group. There was a significant reduction in post-operative pain which was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) after 2,4,8,12, and 24 hours either during movement or during rest in the lidocaine group compared to the placebo group, p=(0. 0001,0.0001,0.0001,0.0001 and 0.0001).Conclusions: The administration of adjuvant intravenous lidocaine infusion reduces pain during the postoperative period after abdominal hysterectomy, is associated with early recovery, decreased postoperative opioid analgesic requirement, and better patient satisfaction in overweight and obese women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. 

scholarly journals Topical capsaicin versus topical ibuprofen in acute musculoskeletal injuries: A randomized, double-blind trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 102490792097536
Author(s):  
Sultan Tuna Akgol Gur ◽  
Sinem Dogruyol ◽  
Abdullah Osman Kocak ◽  
Tugba Sanalp Menekse ◽  
Ilker Akbas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Musculoskeletal Injuries ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Scale Scores ◽  
Systemic Side Effects ◽  
Anti Inflammatory ◽  
Topical Capsaicin

Background: Acute musculoskeletal pain is one of the common causes of emergency admissions. Topical analgesics are an easily tolerated option in the treatment of these pains. Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of topical capsaicin and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in acute musculoskeletal injuries. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blinded study, patients were allocated to two groups—the topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (n = 60) and topical capsaicin (n = 59). For both groups, the first dose treatment was applied as a thin layer in the emergency department to a maximum area of 5 × 5 cm. The remaining doses were administered at home by the patients for 72 h. The initial visual analog scale scores were compared with the 60th and 120th minute as well as the 24th and 72nd hour values. Differences between the visual analog scale scores, clinical response to the treatment, and side effects were evaluated. Results: The proportional reduction in visual analog scale scores for topical capsaicin was significantly higher, especially at 36 and 72 h. These rates were 0.75 (95% confidence interval: 0.77–1.42; p = 0.029) and 9.08 (95% confidence interval: 1.02–17.14; p = 0.028) at 36 h, respectively. At 72 h, they were 1.27 (95% confidence interval: 0.48–2.05; p = 0.002) and 17.07 (95% confidence interval: 8.39–25.76; p < 0.001), respectively. In the topical capsaicin group, the clinical response to treatment was significantly higher (p = 0.001). Treatment-related systemic side effects were experienced only in the topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug group (1.7%). Conclusion: Topical capsaicin can be used safely in patients presenting to the emergency department with acute pain with its high analgesic efficacy and absence of systemic side effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document