Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13

The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37

Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management.

A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia).

This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table ​Table1).1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents.



Table 1

Glossary of ICD-11 terms.



The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. ​(Fig.1):1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Ustun and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017.



Figure 1

Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to ...




2. Classification of chronic pain
Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized.

Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment.

2.1. Chronic primary pain
Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective.

/pdf/a-classification-of-chronic-pain-for-icd-11-371qu7054y.pdf

A classification of chronic pain for ICD-11.

In this study, we assessed the influence of three analgesic techniques on postoperative knee rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Forty-five patients scheduled for elective TKA under general anesthesia were randomly divided into three groups. Postoperative analgesia was provided with i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine in Group A, continuous 3-in-1 block in Group B, and epidural analgesia in Group C. Immediately after surgery, the three groups started identical physical therapy regimens. Pain scores, supplemental analgesia, side effects, degree of maximal knee flexion, day of first walk, and duration of hospital stay were recorded. Patients in Groups B and C reported significantly lower pain scores than those in Group A. Supplemental analgesia was comparable in the three groups. Compared with Groups A and C, a significantly lower incidence of side effects was noted in Group B. Significantly better knee flexion (until 6 wk after surgery), faster ambulation, and shorter hospital stay were noted in Groups B and C. However, these benefits did not affect outcome at 3 mo. We conclude that, after TKA, continuous 3-in-1 block and epidural analgesia provide better pain relief and faster knee rehabilitation than i.v. PCA with morphine. Because it induces fewer side effects, continuous 3-in-1 block should be considered the technique of choice. Implications: In this study, we determined that, after total knee arthroplasty, loco-regional analgesic techniques (epidural analgesia or continuous 3-in-1 block) provide better pain relief and faster postoperative knee rehabilitation than i.v. patient-controlled analgesia with morphine. Because it causes fewer side effects than epidural analgesia, continuous 3-in-1 block is the technique of choice.

Effects of Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Morphine, Continuous Epidural Analgesia, and Continuous Three-in-One Block on Postoperative Pain and Knee Rehabilitation After Unilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe incidence, etiology, and evolution of complications after interscalene brachial plexus block (ISB) are not well-known. The authors prospectively monitored 521 patients for complications during the first 9 months after ISB.MethodsA total of 521 adults scheduled for elective shoulder sur

Acute and nonacute complications associated with interscalene block and shoulder surgery: a prospective study.

https://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924(09)00787-8/pdf

Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC Extract in Patients with Intractable Cancer-Related Pain

Study design Cross-sectional open population based study (nested in a prospective cohort study) Objective To explore the association of the different individual radiographic features, including osteophytes and disc space narrowing, with self-reported low back pain (LBP) Different definitions of lumbar disc degeneration with self-reported LBP and disability were considered in a large open population sample Furthermore, in order to disentangle the discrepancies in reported strength of the associations, we characterized the frequency of the different individual radiographic features of lumbar disc degeneration and definitions of lumbar disc degeneration, as well as their association with LBP status, by age, gender, and vertebral level Summary of background data Currently within the literature, there have been no studies that have explored different definitions of lumbar disc degeneration and their association with LBP within one study sample Methods The intervertebral disc spaces (L1/2 to L5-S1) were evaluated for the presence and severity of anterior osteophytes and disc space narrowing using a semiquantitative score (grade 0-3) Logistic regression was used to determine the association between these individual radiographic features of lumbar disc degeneration and different definitions of lumbar disc degeneration for LBP Results Lumbar radiographs were scored for 1204 men, and 1615 women Osteophytes were the most frequent radiographic feature observed, with men having the greatest frequency Disc space narrowing was more frequent in women than men Both radiographic features increased in frequency with ageDisc space narrowing appeared more strongly associated with LBP than osteophytes, especially in men (odds ratio [OR] = 19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14-28) Disc space narrowing at 2 or more levels appeared more strongly associated with LBP than disc space narrowing at only 1 level (OR = 24; 95% CI: 16-34) After excluding level L5-S1, the strength of almost all associations increased Conclusion We are the first to report different possible lumbar disc degeneration definitions and their associations with LBP Disc space narrowing at 2 or more levels appeared more strongly associated with LBP than other radiographic features, especially after excluding level L5-S1

D C Moore

Papers

The management of pain.