Pain management after tonsillectomy—by demand or by-the-clock—is there a difference?

Author:

Gostian Magdalena1ORCID,Stilkerich Lisa2,Pauly Anne3,Waldfahrer Frank2,Balk Matthias2,Rupp Robin2ORCID,Allner Moritz2,Iro Heinrich2,Gostian Antoniu-Oreste2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Malteser Waldkrankenhaus St. Marien, Erlangen, Germany

2. Department of Otolaryngology, Head & Neck Surgery, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-Europäische Metropolregion Nürnberg, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany

3. Clinic Pharmacy, Friedrich-Alexander-University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

Abstract

Purpose To improve pain management after tonsillectomy (TE) by comparing individual analgesic management by demand versus a fixed-scheduled analgesic treatment protocol in a prospective trial. Patients and Methods Forty consecutive patients received individual pain treatment by demand (control group) followed by 40 patients who were treated by a fixed-scheduled four-staged escalating analgesic protocol (intervention group) after TE. Minimum and maximum pain as well as pain on ambulation (NRS 0-10) on the first postoperative day were defined as primary objectives. Secondary endpoints comprised the analgesic score, treatment-related side effects/pain-associated impairments, wish for more pain medication, and patient satisfaction. Patients were surveyed using the standardized and validated “Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Treatment” (QUIPS) questionnaire. Results Patients of the control group reported comparable minimum (2.03 ± 1.42 vs 2.38 ± 1.79, P = 0.337, r = 0.110) and maximum pain (6.65 ± 2.10 vs 6.93 ± 1.86, P = 0.536, r = 0.07) and pain on ambulation (4.73 ± 2.26 vs 5.18 ± 2.19, P = 0.370, r = 0.10) compared to the intervention group. Patients in both groups were comparably well satisfied with the pain treatment (7.53 ± 2.40 vs 7.73 ± 2.30, P = 0.704, r = 0.04), experienced similar side effects and functional impairments ( P > 0.050, Φ < 0.3), and did not ask for much more analgesic medication ( P = 0.152, Φ = 0.160). Conclusion Pain control following TE was not distinctly affected by applying a fixed-scheduled analgesic treatment protocol compared to individual analgesic therapy. In conclusion, analgesic treatment after TE remains unsatisfying. Consequently, further efforts are needed to achieve a standardized and effective approach to the underlying pathophysiological causes of pain following TE.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Otorhinolaryngology

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