Acute Pain Medicine: Novel Analgesic Techniques

E. Viscusi, T. Witkowski
{"title":"Acute Pain Medicine: Novel Analgesic Techniques","authors":"E. Viscusi, T. Witkowski","doi":"10.1097/ASA.0b013e31822a11ee","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Patients with postoperative pain continue to have unmet needs. Despite guidelines for pain management and improving technology, patient experiences with pain have not significantly improved after surgery. Although more effective application of current therapies would likely improve patient experience, available technologies still leave much to be desired. Although effective, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) is a burdensome technology. Further, medication errors, pump programming errors, and other technology-related problems may lead to patient injury and under or over dosing. Continuous epidural analgesia by catheter has frequent failures and it requires a high level of staffing. Moreover, recent efforts to reduce the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism by the use of anticoagulants has placed limitations on the use of indwelling epidural catheters. No large series have examined the failure rates of continuous peripheral nerve blocks. Current standard therapies in postoperative pain management largely depend on cumbersome technologies requiring pumps and indwelling catheters. In addition to the opportunities for failure and medical errors, these technologies are inherently complex and place a heavy labor burden on the healthcare team. Patients spend an inordinate amount of time tethered to equipment that limits ambulation, physical therapy, and activities of daily living. Opioids remain commonly used in postoperative pain management. Unfortunately, the well-known side effects (nausea, vomiting, sedation, respiratory depression, confusion, constipation) are not only dangerous but cause significant patient misery. Patients treated with opioids typically attempt to find a balance between analgesia and side effects. Patients will often choose less complete pain relief to avoid opioid side effects. Almost all patients require parenteral therapy at some point during the perioperative period. Unfortunately, the choices for injectable nonopioid pain therapies are limited. Clearly, improvements are needed. There is ample room for new and emerging technologies.","PeriodicalId":91163,"journal":{"name":"Refresher courses in anesthesiology","volume":"39 1","pages":"149–155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/ASA.0b013e31822a11ee","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Refresher courses in anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ASA.0b013e31822a11ee","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patients with postoperative pain continue to have unmet needs. Despite guidelines for pain management and improving technology, patient experiences with pain have not significantly improved after surgery. Although more effective application of current therapies would likely improve patient experience, available technologies still leave much to be desired. Although effective, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) is a burdensome technology. Further, medication errors, pump programming errors, and other technology-related problems may lead to patient injury and under or over dosing. Continuous epidural analgesia by catheter has frequent failures and it requires a high level of staffing. Moreover, recent efforts to reduce the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism by the use of anticoagulants has placed limitations on the use of indwelling epidural catheters. No large series have examined the failure rates of continuous peripheral nerve blocks. Current standard therapies in postoperative pain management largely depend on cumbersome technologies requiring pumps and indwelling catheters. In addition to the opportunities for failure and medical errors, these technologies are inherently complex and place a heavy labor burden on the healthcare team. Patients spend an inordinate amount of time tethered to equipment that limits ambulation, physical therapy, and activities of daily living. Opioids remain commonly used in postoperative pain management. Unfortunately, the well-known side effects (nausea, vomiting, sedation, respiratory depression, confusion, constipation) are not only dangerous but cause significant patient misery. Patients treated with opioids typically attempt to find a balance between analgesia and side effects. Patients will often choose less complete pain relief to avoid opioid side effects. Almost all patients require parenteral therapy at some point during the perioperative period. Unfortunately, the choices for injectable nonopioid pain therapies are limited. Clearly, improvements are needed. There is ample room for new and emerging technologies.
急性疼痛药物:新型镇痛技术
术后疼痛患者的需求仍未得到满足。尽管有疼痛管理的指导方针和不断改进的技术,但手术后患者的疼痛体验并没有显著改善。虽然更有效地应用现有疗法可能会改善患者的体验,但现有技术仍有很多不足之处。静脉自控镇痛(IV-PCA)虽然有效,但却是一项繁琐的技术。此外,用药错误、泵编程错误和其他与技术相关的问题可能导致患者受伤和剂量不足或过量。导管持续硬膜外镇痛经常失败,需要高水平的人员配备。此外,最近通过使用抗凝剂减少术后静脉血栓栓塞发生率的努力限制了硬膜外留置导尿管的使用。没有大型的系列研究检查连续周围神经阻滞的失败率。目前术后疼痛管理的标准疗法很大程度上依赖于需要泵和留置导管的繁琐技术。除了可能出现故障和医疗错误之外,这些技术本身就很复杂,给医疗团队带来了沉重的劳动负担。患者花费过多的时间拴在限制行走、物理治疗和日常生活活动的设备上。阿片类药物仍然普遍用于术后疼痛管理。不幸的是,众所周知的副作用(恶心、呕吐、镇静、呼吸抑制、精神错乱、便秘)不仅危险,而且会给患者带来极大的痛苦。接受阿片类药物治疗的患者通常试图在镇痛和副作用之间找到平衡。患者通常会选择不完全的疼痛缓解来避免阿片类药物的副作用。几乎所有患者在围手术期的某一时刻都需要肠外治疗。不幸的是,可注射的非阿片类药物治疗疼痛的选择是有限的。显然,需要改进。新兴技术有很大的发展空间。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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