-
Annals of Plastic Surgery Jun 2024Ultrasound-guided regional field blocks are not widely used in outpatient plastic surgeries. The efficacy of truncal blocks (PEC1 + SAP) has not been established in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Local Infiltration Anesthesia Versus Ultrasound-Guided Pectoralis (PEC1) + Serratus Anterior Plane (SAP) Blocks on Postanesthetic Care Unit Pain Control in Patients Undergoing Primary Submuscular Augmentation Mammoplasty.
BACKGROUND
Ultrasound-guided regional field blocks are not widely used in outpatient plastic surgeries. The efficacy of truncal blocks (PEC1 + SAP) has not been established in plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of these newer anesthetic techniques compared with traditional blind local anesthetic infiltration in patients undergoing breast augmentation.
METHODS
This retrospective institutional review board-approved cohort study compared the outcomes of the different practices of 2 plastic surgeons at the same accredited outpatient surgery center between 2018 and 2022. Group 1 received an intraoperative blind local infiltration anesthetic. Group 2 underwent surgeon-led, intraoperative, ultrasound-guided PEC1 (Pectoralis 1) + SAP (serratus anterior plane) blocks. Patients who underwent any procedure other than primary submuscular augmentation mammoplasty were excluded from the study. The outcomes measured included operative time, opioid utilization in morphine milligram equivalents (MME), pain level at discharge, and time spent in the post anesthetic care unit (PACU).
RESULTS
Sixty patients met the inclusion criteria for each group for a total of 120 patients. The study groups were similar to each other. Patients receiving PEC1 + SAP blocks (group 2) had significantly lower average MME requirements in the PACU (3.04 MME vs 4.52 MME, P = 0.041) and required a shorter average PACU stay (70.13 minutes vs 80.38 minutes, P = 0.008). There were no significant differences in the pain level at discharge, operative time, or implant size between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Surgeon-led, intraoperative, ultrasound-guided PEC1 + SAP blocks significantly decreased opioid utilization in the PACU by 33% and patient time in the PACU by 13%, while achieving similar patient pain scores and operating times.
Topics: Humans; Female; Retrospective Studies; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Adult; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Anesthesia, Local; Mammaplasty; Pain Management; Pectoralis Muscles; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthetics, Local; Cohort Studies
PubMed: 38857002
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003948 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Jun 2024Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) can be used for postsurgical analgesia after breast reconstruction. We examined real-world clinical and economic benefits of LB versus...
BACKGROUND
Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) can be used for postsurgical analgesia after breast reconstruction. We examined real-world clinical and economic benefits of LB versus bupivacaine after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction.
METHODS
This retrospective cohort study used the IQVIA claims databases to identify patients undergoing primary DIEP flap breast reconstruction in 2016-2019. Patients receiving LB and those receiving bupivacaine were compared to assess opioid utilization in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and healthcare resource utilization during perioperative (2 weeks before surgery to 2 weeks after discharge) and 6-month postdischarge periods. A generalized linear mixed-effects model and inverse probability of treatment weighting method were performed.
RESULTS
Weighted baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts (LB, n = 669; bupivacaine, n = 348). The LB cohort received significantly fewer mean MMEs versus the bupivacaine cohort during the perioperative (395 versus 512 MMEs; rate ratio [RR], 0.771 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.677-0.879]; = 0.0001), 72 hours after surgery (63 versus 140 MMEs; RR, 0.449 [95% CI, 0.347-0.581]; < 0.0001), and inpatient (154 versus 303 MMEs; RR, 0.508 [95% CI, 0.411-0.629]; < 0.0001) periods; postdischarge filled opioid prescriptions were comparable. The LB cohort was less likely to have all-cause inpatient readmission (odds ratio, 0.670 [95% CI, 0.452-0.993]; = 0.046) and outpatient clinic/office visits (odds ratio, 0.885 [95% CI, 0.785-0.999]; = 0.048) 3 months after discharge than the bupivacaine cohort; other all-cause healthcare resource utilization outcomes were not different.
CONCLUSIONS
LB was associated with fewer perioperative MMEs and all-cause 3-month inpatient readmissions and outpatient clinic/office visits than bupivacaine in patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction.
PubMed: 38855138
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005874 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Jun 2024Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have demonstrated success in reducing hospital stay and opioid consumption, but are less well studied in patients...
BACKGROUND
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have demonstrated success in reducing hospital stay and opioid consumption, but are less well studied in patients undergoing tissue expander-based breast reconstruction (TEBR). This study evaluates the effectiveness of an ERAS postoperative protocol for TEBR at a high-volume center.
METHODS
All patients undergoing immediate tissue expander reconstruction after the introduction of ERAS were prospectively included from April 2019 to June 2023. An equivalent number of similar patients were retrospectively reviewed before this date as the non-ERAS control. Data included demographics, operative details, postoperative length of stay, inpatient and discharge narcotic quantities, inpatient pain assessments, postoperative radiation, and complications within 90 days.
RESULTS
There were 201 patients in each cohort with statistically similar demographics. Patients in the ERAS cohort were more likely to undergo prepectoral reconstruction (83.1% versus 4.5%, < 0.001), be discharged by day 1 (96.5% versus 70.2%, < 0.001) and consume lower inpatient milligram morphine equivalent (MME) median (79.8 versus 151.8, < 0.001). Seroma rates (17.4% versus 3.5%, < 0.001) and hematoma incidence (4.5% versus 0%, = 0.004) were higher in the ERAS cohort. Adjusting for implant location, ERAS was associated with a 60.7 MME reduction (β=-60.7, < 0.001) and a shorter inpatient duration by 0.4 days (β =-0.4, < 0.001). Additionally, prepectoral reconstruction significantly decreased MME (β=-30.9, = 0.015) and was the sole predictor of seroma development (odds ratio = 5.2, = 0.009).
CONCLUSIONS
ERAS protocols significantly reduce opioid use and hospital stay after TEBR.
PubMed: 38855130
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005879 -
Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Jun 2024Preoperative opioid users (POU) experience worse outcomes and higher complication rates compared to opioid naïve patients (ONP) following shoulder arthroplasty. This...
BACKGROUND
Preoperative opioid users (POU) experience worse outcomes and higher complication rates compared to opioid naïve patients (ONP) following shoulder arthroplasty. This study evaluates the effects of socioeconomic status (SES), as measured by the distressed communities index (DCI), on pre- and postoperative opioid use and its influence on clinical outcomes such as readmission and revision surgery.
METHODS
A retrospective review of patients who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty (CPT code 23472) from 2014-2022 at a single academic institution was performed. Exclusion criteria included arthroplasty for fracture, active malignancy, and revision arthroplasty. Demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), DCI, and clinical outcomes including 90-day readmission and revision surgery were collected. Patients were classified according to the DCI score of their zip code. Using the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program database, patient pre- and postoperative opioid use in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) was gathered.
RESULTS
Individuals from distressed communities utilized more opioids within 90 days preoperatively compared to patients from prosperous, comfortable, mid-tier, and at-risk populations respectively. Patients from distressed communities also used significantly more opioids within 90 days postoperatively compared to prosperous, comfortable, and mid-tier respectively. Of patients from distressed communities, 35.1% developed prolonged opioid use (filling prescriptions >30 days after surgery), significantly more than all other cohorts. Among all patients, 3.5% were readmitted within 90 days and were more likely to be prolonged opioid users (38.9 vs 21.3%, p<0.001). Similarly, 1.5% of patients underwent revision surgery. Those who underwent revision were significantly more likely to be prolonged opioid users (38.2 vs 21.7%, p=0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
Shoulder arthroplasty patients from distressed communities use more opioids within 90 days before and after their surgery and are more likely to become prolonged opioid users placing them at risk for readmission and revision surgery. Identifying patients at an increased risk for excess opioid use is essential to employ appropriate strategies that minimize the detrimental effects of prolonged use following surgery.
PubMed: 38852706
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.04.016 -
Journal of Chromatography. A Aug 2024Efficient rare earth element (REE) separations are becoming increasingly important to technologies ranging from renewable energy and high-performance magnets to applied...
Efficient rare earth element (REE) separations are becoming increasingly important to technologies ranging from renewable energy and high-performance magnets to applied radioisotope separations. These separations are made challenging by the extremely similar chemical and physical characteristics of the individual elements, which almost always occupy the 3+ oxidation state under ambient conditions. Herein, we discuss the development of a novel REE separation aimed at obtaining purified samples of neodymium (Nd) on a multi-milligram scale using high-speed counter-current chromatography (HSCCC). The method takes advantage of the subtle differences in ionic radii between neighboring REEs to tune elution rates in dilute acid through implementation of the di-(2-ethylhexyl)phosphoric acid (HDEHP)-infused stationary phase (SP) of the column. A La/Ce/Nd/Sm separation was demonstrated at a significantly higher metal loading than previously accomplished by HSCCC (15 mg, R > 0.85), while the Pr/Nd separation was achieved at lower metal loadings (0.3 mg, R = 0.75 - 0.83). The challenges associated with scaling REE separations via HSCCC are presented and discussed within.
Topics: Countercurrent Distribution; Neodymium; Organophosphates
PubMed: 38852269
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2024.465033 -
Harm Reduction Journal Jun 2024As the opioid public health crisis evolves to include fentanyl and other potent synthetic opioids, more patients are admitted to the hospital with serious complications...
BACKGROUND
As the opioid public health crisis evolves to include fentanyl and other potent synthetic opioids, more patients are admitted to the hospital with serious complications of drug use and frequently require higher levels of care, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, for acute and chronic conditions related to opioid use disorder (OUD). This patient population poses a unique challenge when managing sedation and ensuring adequate ventilation while intubated given their high opioid requirements. Starting a patient on medications such as buprenorphine may be difficult for inpatient providers unfamiliar with its use, which may lead to undertreatment of patients with OUD, prolonged mechanical ventilation and length of stay.
METHODS
We developed a 7-day buprenorphine low dose overlap initiation (LDOI) schedule for patients with OUD admitted to the ICU (Table 1). Buprenorphine tablets were split by pharmacists and placed into pre-made blister packs as a kit to be loaded into the automated medication dispensing machine for nursing to administer daily. An internal quality review validated the appropriate dosing of split-dose tablets. To simplify order entry and increase prescriber comfort with this new protocol, we generated an order set within our electronic health record software with prebuilt buprenorphine titration orders. This protocol was implemented alongside patient and healthcare team education and counseling on the LDOI process, with follow-up offered to all patients upon discharge.
RESULTS
Here we report a series of 6 ICU patients started on buprenorphine using the LDOI schedule with split buprenorphine tablets. None of the 6 patients experienced precipitated withdrawal upon buprenorphine initiation using the LDOI schedule, and 5/6 patients were successfully extubated during the buprenorphine initiation. Four of six patients had a decrease in daily morphine milligram equivalents, with 3 patients transitioning to buprenorphine alone.
CONCLUSION
Initiating buprenorphine via LDOI was found to be successful in the development of a protocol for critically ill patients with OUD. We examined LDOI of buprenorphine in intubated ICU patients and found no events of acute precipitated withdrawal. This protocol can be used as a guide for other institutions seeking to start critically ill patients on medication treatment for OUD during ICU admission.
Topics: Humans; Buprenorphine; Opioid-Related Disorders; Intensive Care Units; Male; Analgesics, Opioid; Female; Opiate Substitution Treatment; Adult; Middle Aged; Narcotic Antagonists; Intubation, Intratracheal
PubMed: 38849912
DOI: 10.1186/s12954-024-01028-4 -
The Spine Journal : Official Journal of... Jun 2024Perioperative pain management affects cost and outcomes in elective spine surgery.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT
Perioperative pain management affects cost and outcomes in elective spine surgery.
PURPOSE
This study investigated the association between liposomal bupivacaine (LB) and outpatient spine surgery outcomes, including perioperative, postoperative, and postdischarge opioid use and healthcare resource utilization.
STUDY DESIGN
This was a retrospective comparative study.
PATIENT SAMPLE
Eligibility criteria included adults with ≥6 months of continuous data before and after outpatient spine procedures including discectomy, laminectomy, or lumbar fusion. Patients receiving LB were matched 1:3 to patients receiving non-LB analgesia by propensity scores.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Outcomes included (1) opioid use in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) during the perioperative and postdischarge periods and (2) postdischarge readmission and emergency department (ED) visits up to 3 months after surgery. Generalized linear mixed-effects modeling with appropriate distributions was used for analysis.
METHODS
Deidentified data from the IQVIA linkage claims databases (2016-2019) were used for the analysis. This study was funded by Pacira BioSciences, Inc.
RESULTS
In total, 381 patients received LB and 1143 patients received non-LB analgesia. Baseline characteristics were well balanced after propensity score matching. The LB cohort used fewer MMEs versus the non-LB cohort before discharge (80 vs 132 MMEs [mean difference, -52 MMEs; p=.0041]). Following discharge, there was a nonsignificant reduction in opioid use in the LB cohort versus the non-LB cohort within 90 days (429 vs 480 MMEs [mean difference, -50 MMEs; p=.289]) and from >90 days to 180 days (349 vs 381 MMEs [mean difference, -31 MMEs; p=.507]). The LB cohort had significantly lower rates of ED visits at 2 months after discharge versus the non-LB cohort (3.9% vs 7.6% [odds ratio, 0.50; p=.015]). Postdischarge readmission rates did not differ between cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of LB for outpatient spine surgery was associated with reduced opioid use at the hospital and nonsignificant reduction in opioid use at all postoperative timepoints examined through 90 days after surgery versus non-LB analgesia. ED visit rates were significantly lower at 60 days after discharge. These findings support reduced cost and improved quality metrics in patients treated with LB versus non-LB analgesia for outpatient spine surgery.
PubMed: 38843956
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2024.05.005 -
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related... May 2024Pain after orthopaedic trauma is complex, and many patients who have experienced orthopaedic trauma are at increased risk for prolonged opioid utilization after the...
BACKGROUND
Pain after orthopaedic trauma is complex, and many patients who have experienced orthopaedic trauma are at increased risk for prolonged opioid utilization after the injury. Patient-centered interventions capable of delivering enhanced education and opioid-sparing pain management approaches must be implemented and evaluated in trauma care settings to improve pain outcomes and minimize opioid-related risks.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES
Does personalized pain education and management delivered by coaches (1) improve pain-related outcomes, (2) reduce opioid consumption, and (3) improve patient-reported outcome measures (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] scores) compared to written discharge instructions on pain management and opioid safety?
METHODS
This clinical trial aimed to examine the effect of a personalized pain education and management intervention, delivered by paraprofessional coaches, on pain-related outcomes and opioid consumption compared with usual care (written discharge instructions on pain management and opioid safety). Between February 2021 and September 2022, 212 patients were randomized to the intervention (49% [104]) or control group (51% [108]). A total of 31% (32 of 104) and 47% (51 of 108) in those groups, respectively, were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 12 weeks or had incomplete datasets, leaving 69% (72 of 104) and 53% (57 of 108) for analysis in the intervention and control group, respectively. Patients randomized to the intervention worked with the paraprofessional coaches throughout hospitalization after their orthopaedic injury and at their 2-, 6-, and 12-week visits with the surgical team after discharge to implement mindfulness-based practices and nonpharmacological interventions. Most participants in the final sample of 129 identified as Black (73% [94 of 129]) and women (56% [72 of 129]), the mean Injury Severity score was 8 ± 4, and one-third of participants were at medium to high risk for an opioid-use disorder based on the Opioid Risk Tool. Participants completed surveys during hospitalization and at the 2-, 6-, and 12-week follow-up visits. Surveys included average pain intensity scores over the past 24 hours measured on the pain numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 and PROMIS measures (physical functioning, pain interference, sleep disturbance). Opioid utilization, measured as daily morphine milligram equivalents, was collected from the electronic health record, and demographic and clinical characteristics were collected from self-report surveys. Groups were compared in terms of mean pain scores at at the 12-week follow-up, daily morphine milligram equivalents both during inpatient and at discharge, and mean PROMIS scores at 12 weeks of follow-up. Additionally, differences in the proportion of participants in each group achieving minimum clinically important differences (MCID) on pain and PROMIS scores were examined. For pain scores, an MCID of 2 points on the pain numeric rating scale assessing past 24-hour pain intensity was utilized.
RESULTS
We found no difference between the intervention and control in terms of mean pain score at 12 weeks nor in the proportions of patients who achieved the MCID of 2 points for 24-hour average pain scores (85% [61 of 72] versus 72% [41 of 57], respectively, OR 2.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 5.3]; p = 0.08). No differences were noted in daily morphine milligram equivalents utilized between the intervention and control groups during hospitalization, at discharge, or in prescription refills. Similarly, we observed no differences in the proportions of patients in the intervention and control groups who achieved the MCID on PROMIS Physical Function (81% [58 of 72] versus 63% [36 of 57], respectively, OR 2.2 [95% CI 0.9 to 5.2]; p = 0.06). We saw no differences in the proportions of patients who achieved the MCID on PROMIS Sleep Disturbance between the intervention and control groups (58% [42 of 72] versus 47% [27 of 57], respectively, OR 1.4 [95% CI 0.7 to 3.0]; p = 0.31). The proportion of patients who achieved the MCID on PROMIS Pain Interference scores did not differ between the intervention and the control groups (39% [28 of 72] versus 37% [21 of 57], respectively, OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.5 to 2.1]; p = 0.95).
CONCLUSION
In this trial, we observed no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of pain outcomes, opioid medication utilization, or patient-reported outcomes after orthopaedic trauma. However, future targeted research with diverse samples of patients at increased risk for poor postoperative outcomes is warranted to ascertain a potentially meaningful patient perceived effect on pain outcomes after working with coaches. Other investigators interested in this interventional approach may consider the coach program as a framework at their institutions to increase access to evidence-based nonpharmacological interventions among patients who are at increased risk for poor postoperative pain outcomes. Smaller, more focused programs connecting patients to coaches to learn about nonpharmacological pain management interventions may deliver a larger impact on patient's recovery and outcomes.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level I, therapeutic study.
PubMed: 38843502
DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003121 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Autonomic Nerve Block; Adult; Bias; Pelvic Neoplasms; Abdominal Neoplasms; Cancer Pain; Abdominal Pain; Pain Management; Nerve Block; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38842054
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015229.pub2 -
BMC Palliative Care Jun 2024Palliative care (PC) in most African countries remains under-assessed. Benin has piloted the implementation of a set of indicators proposed by the WHO to measure PC...
CONTEXT
Palliative care (PC) in most African countries remains under-assessed. Benin has piloted the implementation of a set of indicators proposed by the WHO to measure PC development.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the current status of PC in Benin.
METHODS
A workshop with stakeholders was organized to assess the WHO indicators in the Beninese context. Indicators were rated based on relevance and feasibility, data sources were agreed upon, and a survey was adapted. Data were collected between March and May 2023.
RESULTS
There is emerging community involvement in PC through the presence of patients' rights promoters, as well as a political commitment expressed in the National PC strategy, the inclusion of PC services in the list of basic health services, and an assigned national authority -within the Ministry of Health-responsible for PC. Although no PC-oriented research has been documented, the celebration of the National PC Conference represents the first step to ground PC delivery in evidence. The reported annual consumption of opioids is 0.18 (ME) milligrams per capita, 34% of healthcare establishments have essential medicines for pain and PC, and 16.5% of patients with palliative needs have access to oral morphine. To date, no medical or paramedical schools offer PC training, and there is no official specialization in palliative medicine for doctors. PC is provided by 11 specialist teams (0.08/100,000 inhabitants), none of which provides pediatric care.
CONCLUSION
Despite growing political, professional, and community commitments to palliative care, there are challenges in education, research, essential medicines, and access to PC services.
Topics: Benin; Humans; Palliative Care; World Health Organization; Surveys and Questionnaires; Quality Indicators, Health Care
PubMed: 38840116
DOI: 10.1186/s12904-024-01473-9