| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
Department of Anesthesiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA
To the Editor:
Apfelbaum et al. remind us that we have not solved the issue of postoperative pain (1). They randomly surveyed 250 postsurgical patients, identifying that 82% reported some pain after surgery, with 39% of them experiencing "severe to extreme" pain. Their survey appears to have included only patients receiving parenteral or oral opioids: 23% of those patients reported experiencing adverse side effects.
Their report is frustrating because of the lack of acknowledgment of highly effective analgesic modalities developed in the last 20 years. Specifically, epidural opioid/local anesthetic infusions are superior to other forms of analgesia (2), especially following thoracotomy (3) and upper abdominal (4) surgery. For outpatients, regional techniques also provide significant postoperative analgesia without the side effects associated with opioids, both as single injections (5) and continuous infusions (68). The information supporting the use of these regional techniques has become so extensive that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have made recommendations for procedure specific analgesic regimens emphasizing regional analgesia (9). These regimens, available on their Web page (www.oqp.med.va.gov/cpg/cpghtm), identify the use of regional techniques for many procedures based on the evidence-based data that supports significantly lower pain scores.
Why havent these modalities been included in the experience of the patients surveyed by Apfelbaum et al.? Is it because of reimbursement problems? Is it an issue of manpower? Do we not want to spend the time? Are we not familiar with the techniques (10)? More information is needed. What are the impediments to providing the level of care that we know can produce better results? Clearly, there are more questions here, and certainly challenges, for all of us in our profession to implement the technology that we have available to solve a problem that has persisted for far too long.
Footnotes
Dr. Apfelbaum did not send a response.
References
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. Russon and R. Blanco Accidental Intraneural Injection into the Musculocutaneous Nerve Visualized with Ultrasound Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2007; 105(5): 1504 - 1505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. T. Horlocker and D. J. Wedel Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia: In Search of the Holy Grail Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2007; 104(5): 1009 - 1011. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Marhofer and V. W. S. Chan Ultrasound-Guided Regional Anesthesia: Current Concepts and Future Trends Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2007; 104(5): 1265 - 1269. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
V. W. S. Chan, R. Brull, C. J. L. McCartney, D. Xu, S. Abbas, and P. Shannon An Ultrasonographic and Histological Study of Intraneural Injection and Electrical Stimulation in Pigs Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2007; 104(5): 1281 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|