Postoperative pain after cesarean section: an audit of practice after implementation of the PROSPECT recommendations

IF 0.1 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
N. Gharae, E. Roofthooft, N. Fileticci, S. Devroe, P. Vanhove, S. Rex, M. Van de Velde
{"title":"Postoperative pain after cesarean section: an audit of practice after implementation of the PROSPECT recommendations","authors":"N. Gharae, E. Roofthooft, N. Fileticci, S. Devroe, P. Vanhove, S. Rex, M. Van de Velde","doi":"10.56126/72.3.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cesarean section (CS) is the most frequently performed surgical intervention worldwide. Post- cesarean pain is often underestimated and undertreated and can impair rapid maternal recovery, mother and child bonding and breastfeeding. Recently, PROSPECT recommendations on postoperative pain for CS were published and they include systematic paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous dexamethasone, neuraxial morphine/dia- morphine or an abdominal wall block or wound infiltration, abdominal wall binders, non-closure of the peritoneum and a Joel-Cohen incision. Opioids are administered as rescue. In UZ Leuven, these PROSPECT recommendations were implemented at the end of 2020. To evaluate the efficacy of these PROSPECT recommendations, a prospective audit was performed from January 1 st , 2021 till April 30 th , 2021. All patients with a CS were prospectively followed for correct implementation of the pain protocol and for pain scores in rest and at mobilization. Rescue opioid consumption as well as patient satisfaction were recorded. 185 consecutive patients that had undergone a CS were included in the audit. In 55 patients the pain protocol was not followed mostly due to no or reduced administration of NSAIDs. Patient satisfaction was high, especially in patients in which the protocol was followed. Pain scores at rest and at mobilization were low and the percentage of patients having pain scores above 30 mm VAS remained low. Rescue opioid consumption was low. We conclude that the implementation of the PROSPECT based pain protocol after CS was effective in controlling pain, reducing opioid consumption and resulted in high patient satisfaction especially if the protocol was correctly followed. Omission of NSAIDs is occurring relatively frequent, but mostly because of valid medical reasons to omit NSAIDs.","PeriodicalId":7024,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56126/72.3.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Cesarean section (CS) is the most frequently performed surgical intervention worldwide. Post- cesarean pain is often underestimated and undertreated and can impair rapid maternal recovery, mother and child bonding and breastfeeding. Recently, PROSPECT recommendations on postoperative pain for CS were published and they include systematic paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous dexamethasone, neuraxial morphine/dia- morphine or an abdominal wall block or wound infiltration, abdominal wall binders, non-closure of the peritoneum and a Joel-Cohen incision. Opioids are administered as rescue. In UZ Leuven, these PROSPECT recommendations were implemented at the end of 2020. To evaluate the efficacy of these PROSPECT recommendations, a prospective audit was performed from January 1 st , 2021 till April 30 th , 2021. All patients with a CS were prospectively followed for correct implementation of the pain protocol and for pain scores in rest and at mobilization. Rescue opioid consumption as well as patient satisfaction were recorded. 185 consecutive patients that had undergone a CS were included in the audit. In 55 patients the pain protocol was not followed mostly due to no or reduced administration of NSAIDs. Patient satisfaction was high, especially in patients in which the protocol was followed. Pain scores at rest and at mobilization were low and the percentage of patients having pain scores above 30 mm VAS remained low. Rescue opioid consumption was low. We conclude that the implementation of the PROSPECT based pain protocol after CS was effective in controlling pain, reducing opioid consumption and resulted in high patient satisfaction especially if the protocol was correctly followed. Omission of NSAIDs is occurring relatively frequent, but mostly because of valid medical reasons to omit NSAIDs.
剖宫产术后疼痛:实施PROSPECT建议后的实践审计
剖宫产(CS)是世界上最常见的外科干预措施。剖宫产后的疼痛往往被低估和治疗不足,会影响产妇的快速康复、母子关系和母乳喂养。最近,发表了关于CS术后疼痛的PROSPECT建议,其中包括系统性对乙酰氨基酚和非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)、静脉注射地塞米松、轴索吗啡/二吗啡或腹壁阻滞或伤口浸润、腹壁粘合剂、腹膜不闭合和Joel Cohen切口。阿片类药物是作为抢救用药的。在鲁汶大学,这些PROSPECT建议于2020年底实施。为了评估这些前瞻性建议的有效性,从2021年1月1日至2021年4月30日进行了前瞻性审计。对所有CS患者进行前瞻性随访,以正确执行疼痛方案,并在休息和活动时进行疼痛评分。记录了救援阿片类药物的消耗量以及患者的满意度。185名连续接受CS的患者被纳入审计。在55名患者中,疼痛方案没有得到遵守,主要是由于没有服用或减少服用非甾体抗炎药。患者满意度很高,尤其是在遵守方案的患者中。休息和活动时的疼痛评分较低,疼痛评分超过30mm VAS的患者比例仍然较低。救援阿片类药物的消费量很低。我们得出的结论是,CS后实施基于PROSPECT的疼痛方案在控制疼痛、减少阿片类药物消耗方面是有效的,并导致患者的高满意度,尤其是在正确遵循该方案的情况下。非甾体抗炎药的省略相对频繁,但主要是因为省略非甾体消炎药的正当医学原因。
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
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: L’Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica est le journal de la SBAR, publié 4 fois par an. L’Acta a été publié pour la première fois en 1950. Depuis 1973 l’Acta est publié dans la langue Anglaise, ce qui a été résulté à un rayonnement plus internationaux. Depuis lors l’Acta est devenu un journal à ne pas manquer dans le domaine d’Anesthésie Belge, offrant e.a. les textes du congrès annuel, les Research Meetings, … Vous en trouvez aussi les dates des Research Meetings, du congrès annuel et des autres réunions.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信