Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention

Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook, by David Silverman, Los Angeles, Sage, 2010, 456 pp., AU$65.00, ISBN 978-1-84860-033-1, ISBN 978-1-94960-034-8. Available in Australia and New Zeal...

Doing qualitative research: a practical handbook

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.

We conducted a large nationwide postal survey to estimate the prevalence of chronic pain with or without neuropathic characteristics in the French general population. A questionnaire aimed at identifying chronic pain (defined as daily pain for at least 3 months), evaluating its intensity, duration and body locations, was sent to a representative sample of 30,155 subjects. The DN4 questionnaire was used to identify neuropathic characteristics. Of the questionnaires, 24,497 (81.2%) were returned and 23,712 (96.8%) could be assessed. Seven thousand five hundred and twenty-two respondents reported chronic pain (prevalence=31.7%; [95%CI: 31.1-32.3]) and 4709 said the pain intensity was moderate to severe (prevalence=19.9%; [95%CI: 19.5-20.4]). Neuropathic characteristics were reported by 1631 respondents with chronic pain (prevalence=6.9%; [95%CI: 6.6-7.2]), which was moderate to severe in 1209 (prevalence=5.1% [95%CI: 4.8-5.4]). A higher prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics was associated with middle age (50-64 years), manual professions and those living in rural areas. It was more frequently located in the lower limbs and its intensity and duration were higher in comparison with chronic pain without neuropathic characteristics. This large national population-based study indicates that a significant proportion of chronic pain patients report neuropathic characteristics. We identified distinctive socio-demographic profile and clinical features indicating that chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics is a specific health problem.

/pdf/prevalence-of-chronic-pain-with-neuropathic-characteristics-1sscp7ap0z.pdf

Prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics in the general population

Chronic pain is a major source of suffering. It interferes with daily functioning and often is accompanied by distress. Yet, in the International Classification of Diseases, chronic pain diagnoses are not represented systematically. The lack of appropriate codes renders accurate epidemiological investigations difficult and impedes health policy decisions regarding chronic pain such as adequate financing of access to multimodal pain management. In cooperation with the WHO, an IASP Working Group has developed a classification system that is applicable in a wide range of contexts, including pain medicine, primary care, and low-resource environments. Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months. In chronic pain syndromes, pain can be the sole or a leading complaint and requires special treatment and care. In conditions such as fibromyalgia or nonspecific low-back pain, chronic pain may be conceived as a disease in its own right; in our proposal, we call this subgroup "chronic primary pain." In 6 other subgroups, pain is secondary to an underlying disease: chronic cancer-related pain, chronic neuropathic pain, chronic secondary visceral pain, chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, chronic secondary headache and orofacial pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. These conditions are summarized as "chronic secondary pain" where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom. Implementation of these codes in the upcoming 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases will lead to improved classification and diagnostic coding, thereby advancing the recognition of chronic pain as a health condition in its own right.

/pdf/chronic-pain-as-a-symptom-or-a-disease-the-iasp-39blnehtpo.pdf

Chronic pain as a symptom or a disease: the IASP Classification of Chronic Pain for the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11).

In the past ten years there has been recognition that chronic post-surgical pain is a significant problem. This is a complex area of research and although the quality of studies has improved many difficulties remain. Several recent publications have examined risk factors. Severe acute postoperative pain emerges as a factor that we may be able to influence. There is a need for education of the medical profession and the general public, so that effective measures are introduced and unnecessary and inappropriate operations minimized.

/pdf/chronic-post-surgical-pain-10-years-on-mp126kx6bx.pdf

Chronic post-surgical pain: 10 years on

Introduction and Objectives: Many studies have reported putative factors for the development of chronic pain after surgery. However, advances in knowledge about the etiology and prognosis of chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) could be gained by improving methodology within studies of surgical pain. The purpose of this study was to review predictive factors and to propose core risk factor and outcome domains for inclusion in future epidemiological studies investigating CPSP.

Methods: Using the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials as a framework we reviewed risk factor and outcome domains, methodological issues and standardized measurement tools based on findings from narrative and systematic reviews, primary clinical and epidemiological studies and published guidelines for chronic pain clinical trials.

Results: Five “core” risk factor domains (demographic, pain, clinical, surgery-related, and psychological) and 4 outcome domains (pain, physical functioning, psychological functioning, and global ratings of outcome) were identified. Important methodological issues, related to the definition and timing of follow-up to assess transition from acute to chronic pain are discussed. We also propose the use of validated, standardized measurement tools to capture risk factor and outcome domains at multiple time points.

Discussion: There is potential to advance the field of CPSP research by striving for consensus among pain experts; this would advance current evidence by improving our ability to compare findings from different studies and would facilitate the aggregation of surgical cohort datasets to allow international comparisons. We propose these findings as a starting point to build a comprehensive framework for epidemiological studies investigating chronic pain after surgery.

Chronic pain after surgery

Surgery and trauma are recognised as important causes of chronic pain, although their overall contribution has not been systematically studied. This paper reports on the contribution of surgery and trauma to chronic pain among 5130 patients attending 10 outpatient clinics located throughout North Britain. Surgery contributed to pain in 22.5% of patients, and was particularly associated with the development of pain in the abdomen and with anal, perineal and genital pain. Trauma was a cause of pain in 18.7% of patients, and was most common in pain in the upper limb, the spine and the lower limb. Patients with chronic pain associated with trauma are on average younger than those with chronic post-surgical pain. Further, and unusually for pain conditions, the trauma patients show an excess of males over females. These findings indicate that it can be unhelpful for pain classification systems to combine surgery and trauma in a single category. The results also point to areas for potentially fruitful research into the aetiology of chronic pain. In particular, studies are needed to identify the operative procedures associated with the development of pain so that preventive measures can be implemented.

Cut and thrust: antecedent surgery and trauma among patients attending a chronic pain clinic

Objective : To study the process of care of dying patients in general hospitals. Design : Non-participant observer (MM) carried out regular periods of continuous comprehensive observation in wards where there were dying patients, recording the quantity and quality of care given. Observations were made in 1983. Setting : 13 wards (six surgical, six medical, and one specialist unit) in four large teaching hospitals (bed capacity 504-796) in west of Scotland. Subjects : 50 dying patients (29 female, 21 male) with mean age of 66 (range 40-89); 29 were dying from cancer and 21 from non-malignant disease. Results : Final period of hospitalisation ranged from 6 hours to 24 weeks. More than half of all patients retained consciousness until shortly before death. Basic interventions to maintain patients9 comfort were often not provided: oral hygiene was often poor, thirst remained unquenched, and little assistance was given to encourage eating. Contact between nurses and the dying patients was minimal;20distancing and isolation of patients by most medical and nursing staff were evident; this isolation increased as death approached. Conclusions : Care of many of the dying patients observed in these hospitals was poor. We need to identify and implement practical steps to facilitate high quality care of the dying. Much can be learned from the hospice movement, but such knowledge and skills must be replicated in all settings.

/pdf/care-of-dying-patients-in-hospital-5fu9nr4mmg.pdf

Care of dying patients in hospital

https://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924(05)00419-7/pdf

W.A. Macrae

Papers

Chronic post-surgical pain: 10 years on

Chronic pain after surgery

Cut and thrust: antecedent surgery and trauma among patients attending a chronic pain clinic

Care of dying patients in hospital

The Pain System