Are preoperative experimental pain assessments correlated with clinical pain outcomes after surgery? A systematic review

Author:

Sangesland Anders1,Støren Carl1,Vaegter Henrik B.12

Affiliation:

1. Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences , University of Southern Denmark , odense , Denmark

2. Pain Research Group, Pain Center South, Odense University Hospital , Odense , Denmark

Abstract

Abstract Background Pain after surgery is not uncommon with 30% of patients reporting moderate to severe postoperative pain. Early identification of patients prone to postoperative pain may be a step forward towards individualized pain medicine providing a basis for improved clinical management through treatment strategies targeting relevant pain mechanisms in each patient. Assessment of pain processing by quantitative sensory testing (QST) prior to surgery has been proposed as a method to identify patients at risk for postoperative pain, although results have been conflicting. Since the last systematic review, several studies investigating the association between postoperative pain and more dynamic measures of pain processing like temporal summation of pain and conditioned pain modulation have been conducted. Objectives According to the PRISMA guidelines, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether assessment of experimental pain processing including measures of central pain mechanisms prior to surgery was associated with pain intensity after surgery. Methods Systematic database searches in PubMed and EMBASE with the following search components: QST, association, and postoperative pain, for studies that assessed the association between QST and pain after surgery were performed. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts to assess their relevance for inclusion. Studies were included if (1) QST was performed prior to surgery, (2) pain was assessed after surgery, and (3) the association between QST and pain after surgery was investigated. Forty-four unique studies were identified, with 30 studies on 2738 subjects meeting inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of the include studies was assessed and data extraction included study population, type of surgery, QST variables, clinical pain outcome measure and main result. Results Most studies showed moderate to high risk of bias. Type of surgery investigated include 7 studies on total knee replacement, 5 studies on caesarean section, 4 studies on thoracic surgery, 2 studies on herniotomy, 2 studies on hysterectomy/myomectomy, 1 study on tubal ligation, 1 study on gynecologic laparoscopy, 1 study on arthroscopic knee surgery, 1 study on shoulder surgery, 1 study on disc herniation surgery, 1 study on cholecystectomy,1 study on percutaneous nephrolithotomy,1 study on molar surgery, 1 study on abdominal surgery, and 1 study on total knee replacement and total hip replacement. The majority of the preoperative QST variables showed no consistent association with pain intensity after surgery. Thermal heat pain above the pain threshold and temporal summation of pressure pain were the QST variables, which showed the most consistent association with acute or chronic pain after surgery. Conclusions QST before surgery does not consistently predict pain after surgery. High quality studies investigating the presence of different QST variables in combination or along with other pain-related psychosocial factors are warranted to confirm the clinical relevance of QST prior to surgery. Implications Although preoperative QST does not show consistent results, future studies in this area should include assessment of central pain mechanisms like temporal summation of pressure pain, conditioned pain modulation, and responses to pain above the pain threshold since these variables show promising associations to pain after surgery.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Neurology (clinical)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3