Randomized Clinical Trials and Observational Tribulations: Providing Clinical Evidence for Personalized Surgical Pain Management Care Models

Author:

Abraham Ivo1ORCID,Lewandrowski Kai-Uwe234ORCID,Elfar John C.5,Li Zong-Ming5,Fiorelli Rossano Kepler Alvim6ORCID,Pereira Mauricio G.7,Lorio Morgan P.8,Burkhardt Benedikt W.9,Oertel Joachim M.10,Winkler Peter A.11,Yang Huilin12,León Jorge Felipe Ramírez13,Telfeian Albert E.14,Dowling Álvaro15,Vargas Roth A. A.16,Ramina Ricardo17,Asefi Marjan18,de Carvalho Paulo Sérgio Teixeira19,Defino Helton15,Moyano Jaime20,Montemurro Nicola21ORCID,Yeung Anthony22,Novellino Pietro23,

Affiliation:

1. Pharmacy Medicine, and Clinical Translational Sciences, University of Arizona, Roy P. Drachman Hall, Rm. B306H, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

2. Center for Advanced Spine Care of Southern Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85712, USA

3. Department of Orthopaedics, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá 111321, Colombia

4. Department of Orthopedics, Hospital Universitário Gaffre e Guinle, Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro 20270-004, Brazil

5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine—Tucson Campus, Health Sciences Innovation Building (HSIB), University of Arizona, 1501 N. Campbell Avenue, Tower 4, 8th Floor, Suite 8401, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

6. Department of General and Specialized Surgery, Gaffrée e Guinle University Hospital, Federal University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UNIRIO), Rio de Janeiro 20270-004, Brazil

7. Faculty of Medicine, University of Brasilia, Federal District, Brasilia 70919-900, Brazil

8. Advanced Orthopaedics, 499 E. Central Pkwy, Ste. 130, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701, USA

9. Wirbelsäulenzentrum/Spine Center—WSC, Hirslanden Klinik Zurich, Witellikerstrasse 40, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland

10. Klinik für Neurochirurgie, Universität des Saarlandes, Kirrberger Straße 100, 66421 Homburg, Germany

11. Department of Neurosurgery, Charite Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany

12. Orthopaedic Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No. 899 Pinghai Road, Suzhou 215031, China

13. Minimally Invasive Spine Center Bogotá D.C. Colombia, Reina Sofía Clinic Bogotá D.C. Colombia, Department of Orthopaedics, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Bogotá 110141, Colombia

14. Department of Neurosurgery, Rhode Island Hospital, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI 02903, USA

15. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto 14071-550, Brazil

16. Department of Neurosurgery, Foundation Hospital Centro Médico Campinas, Campinas 13083-210, Brazil

17. Neurological Institute of Curitiba, Curitiba 80230-030, Brazil

18. Department of Biology, Nano-Biology, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27413, USA

19. Pain and Spine Minimally Invasive Surgery Service, Gaffre e Guinle University Hospital, Rio de Janeiro 20270-004, Brazil

20. La Sociedad Iberolatinoamericana De Columna (SILACO), the Spine Committee of the Ecuadorian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (Comité de Columna de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Ortopedia y Traumatología), Quito 170521, Ecuador

21. Department of Neurosurgery, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, University of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy

22. Desert Institute for Spine Care, Phoenix, AZ 85020, USA

23. Guinle and State Institute of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Rio de Janeiro 20270-004, Brazil

Abstract

Proving clinical superiority of personalized care models in interventional and surgical pain management is challenging. The apparent difficulties may arise from the inability to standardize complex surgical procedures that often involve multiple steps. Ensuring the surgery is performed the same way every time is nearly impossible. Confounding factors, such as the variability of the patient population and selection bias regarding comorbidities and anatomical variations are also difficult to control for. Small sample sizes in study groups comparing iterations of a surgical protocol may amplify bias. It is essentially impossible to conceal the surgical treatment from the surgeon and the operating team. Restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria may distort the study population to no longer reflect patients seen in daily practice. Hindsight bias is introduced by the inability to effectively blind patient group allocation, which affects clinical result interpretation, particularly if the outcome is already known to the investigators when the outcome analysis is performed (often a long time after the intervention). Randomization is equally problematic, as many patients want to avoid being randomly assigned to a study group, particularly if they perceive their surgeon to be unsure of which treatment will likely render the best clinical outcome for them. Ethical concerns may also exist if the study involves additional and unnecessary risks. Lastly, surgical trials are costly, especially if the tested interventions are complex and require long-term follow-up to assess their benefit. Traditional clinical testing of personalized surgical pain management treatments may be more challenging because individualized solutions tailored to each patient’s pain generator can vary extensively. However, high-grade evidence is needed to prompt a protocol change and break with traditional image-based criteria for treatment. In this article, the authors review issues in surgical trials and offer practical solutions.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Subject

Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

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