A randomised trial validating the efficacy of standardised pain management regimen developed through a quality improvement study in laparoscopic surgery.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Jasmine Dhal, Krishna Asuri, Rashmi Ramachandran, Ashok Deorari, Omprakash Prajapati, Virinder Kumar Bansal
{"title":"A randomised trial validating the efficacy of standardised pain management regimen developed through a quality improvement study in laparoscopic surgery.","authors":"Jasmine Dhal, Krishna Asuri, Rashmi Ramachandran, Ashok Deorari, Omprakash Prajapati, Virinder Kumar Bansal","doi":"10.4103/jmas.jmas_532_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-operative pain mainly determines patient satisfaction but largely remains unaddressed owing to a lack of a uniform standardised perioperative pain management regimen, despite several existing recommendations on multimodal analgesic regimens.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This study included patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair between 31 May 2019 and 31 December 2021. Phase 1 comprised an observational study for assessment of baseline post-operative pain and a root cause analysis for development of a standardised pain management regimen, followed by Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle(s) until the aim was achieved, i.e. post-operative pain scores on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ≤3 at 0 h, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 12 h, at discharge, 1 week, 6 weeks and 3 months, in at least 70% of patients. Phase 2 included a randomised trial to test the standardised pain management regimen.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Phase 1 ( n = 20), suboptimal pain control was noted till 6 h postoperatively in the majority. The first PDSA cycle ( n = 20) achieved the aim of the quality improvement (QI) study, and the regimen was standardised. Interim analysis revealed significantly lower median pain scores ( P < 0.05) at all-time intervals. In Phase 2, sixty patients were randomised, 30 in each arm. The number of patients with acceptable pain (VAS ≤3) at 1 h was significantly ( P = 0.038) higher in the QI arm, correlating with significantly lower median pain scores ( P = 0.01). However, pain scores at other intervals were comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A standardised pain management regimen may significantly benefit early post-operative pain following laparoscopic surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":48905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Minimal Access Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jmas.jmas_532_25","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Post-operative pain mainly determines patient satisfaction but largely remains unaddressed owing to a lack of a uniform standardised perioperative pain management regimen, despite several existing recommendations on multimodal analgesic regimens.

Patients and methods: This study included patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy or inguinal hernia repair between 31 May 2019 and 31 December 2021. Phase 1 comprised an observational study for assessment of baseline post-operative pain and a root cause analysis for development of a standardised pain management regimen, followed by Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle(s) until the aim was achieved, i.e. post-operative pain scores on Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ≤3 at 0 h, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 6 h, 12 h, at discharge, 1 week, 6 weeks and 3 months, in at least 70% of patients. Phase 2 included a randomised trial to test the standardised pain management regimen.

Results: In Phase 1 ( n = 20), suboptimal pain control was noted till 6 h postoperatively in the majority. The first PDSA cycle ( n = 20) achieved the aim of the quality improvement (QI) study, and the regimen was standardised. Interim analysis revealed significantly lower median pain scores ( P < 0.05) at all-time intervals. In Phase 2, sixty patients were randomised, 30 in each arm. The number of patients with acceptable pain (VAS ≤3) at 1 h was significantly ( P = 0.038) higher in the QI arm, correlating with significantly lower median pain scores ( P = 0.01). However, pain scores at other intervals were comparable.

Conclusion: A standardised pain management regimen may significantly benefit early post-operative pain following laparoscopic surgery.

一项随机试验验证了通过腹腔镜手术质量改进研究开发的标准化疼痛管理方案的有效性。
背景:术后疼痛主要决定患者满意度,但由于缺乏统一的标准化围手术期疼痛管理方案,尽管已有几种多模式镇痛方案的建议,但在很大程度上仍未得到解决。患者和方法:本研究包括2019年5月31日至2021年12月31日期间接受腹腔镜胆囊切除术或腹股沟疝修补术的患者。第一阶段包括一项观察性研究,用于评估基线术后疼痛和根本原因分析,以制定标准化的疼痛管理方案,然后进行计划-做-研究-行动(PDSA)周期,直到目标实现,即至少70%的患者在0小时、1小时、2小时、4小时、6小时、12小时、出院时、1周、6周和3个月时的视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分≤3。第二阶段包括一项随机试验,以测试标准化疼痛管理方案。结果:在第一阶段(n = 20),大多数患者术后6小时疼痛控制不佳。第一个PDSA周期(n = 20)达到了质量改善(QI)研究的目的,并使方案标准化。中期分析显示,疼痛中位评分在所有时间间隔内均显著降低(P < 0.05)。在第二阶段,60名患者被随机分配,每组30名。QI组在1 h时可接受疼痛(VAS≤3)的患者数量显著(P = 0.038)增加,与中位疼痛评分显著降低相关(P = 0.01)。然而,其他时间间隔的疼痛评分具有可比性。结论:标准化的疼痛管理方案可显著改善腹腔镜手术后早期疼痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
151
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Minimal Access Surgery (JMAS), the official publication of Indian Association of Gastrointestinal Endo Surgeons, launched in early 2005. The JMAS, a quarterly publication, is the first English-language journal from India, as also from this part of the world, dedicated to Minimal Access Surgery. The JMAS boasts an outstanding editorial board comprising of Indian and international experts in the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书