EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 4 (2018) SICOT-J, 4 (2018) 49 Full HTML
Open Access
Review
Issue
SICOT-J
Volume 4, 2018
Article Number 49
Number of page(s) 10
Section Shoulder
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2018042
Published online 22 November 2018

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2018

Licence Creative CommonsThis is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Pain assessment is fundamental in orthopedic surgery to evaluate disease severity as well as postoperative improvement. When evaluating new surgical interventions and analgesic methods, clinical trials often use acute postoperative pain as an outcome. Recent quality improvement guidelines of acute postoperative pain from the American Pain Society [1], a review [2] and a study protocol [3] of acute postoperative pain after shoulder surgery have defined outcomes to be included in postoperative pain trials, such as “pain intensity” [4,5]. However, recommendations for outcome measurements and recordings are lacking [6]. For example, pain intensity may be reported through various pain rating scales. As a result, trials have assessed postoperative pain in a wide variety of ways [2,7,8].

A standardized, validated method of assessing acute postoperative pain would improve the quality of clinical studies and facilitate future systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the methods used in recent literature, focusing on ratings of pain intensity, time points and number of measurements, analgesic consumption, and time to first analgesic request or first pain.

Materials and methods

Data sources and searches

The databases PubMed and CINAHL were used to identify studies on shoulder surgery and postoperative pain. Subject-specific terms relating to any type of shoulder surgery were identified in the MeSH tree, PubMed, and in Headings, CINAHL. Any subject-specific terms unavailable in the indexed headings were searched as free text in title and abstract, such as subacromial decompression. All relevant MeSH terms/headings not exclusive to surgery or pathology of the shoulder, such as arthroscopy or bursitis, were combined with a shoulder-related MeSH term/heading. For MeSH terms introduced in 2012 or later, the previous MeSH term indexing was added to the search. To include articles with incomplete indexing processes in PubMed, a free text search in title and abstract was conducted for the last 2 years, using the subject-specific terms.

Selection of included studies

The identified articles from the systematic literature search were imported to Covidence, a web-based systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) [9]. Two reviewers, JKR and KTB, assessed the articles individually, and consensus was sought through discussion in case of disagreement. The inclusion criteria were: shoulder surgery, report of any kind of pain assessment within the first postoperative week, and published in English from 30 June 2012 to 30 June 2017. As this search provided more relevant studies for inclusion than first anticipated, this review focused on arthroscopic shoulder surgery including rotator cuff surgery, and pain as the primary outcome. If no primary outcome was specified, the first outcome mentioned in the study's material and methods section was considered primary. Finally, the bibliographies of the included studies and related review articles were manually reviewed for other relevant studies, which were then included if they met the inclusion criteria.

Data collection

From the included studies, the following data was recorded: first author, year of publication, study design, surgical procedure, intervention, total number of patients, primary outcomes, and pain-related outcomes. Details regarding the methods of pain assessment were recorded as follows: data collection by staff (telephone or personal interviews) or by patients themselves (pain diaries or questionnaires), pain scale used, phrasing of pain anchors, measurement at rest or during activity, measurement of present/average/worst pain, time-points of measurements on postoperative day (POD) 1 and number of measurements daily until POD7, analgesic consumption, time to first analgesic request or first pain.

Results

A total of 711 non-duplicate articles eligible for screening of title and abstract were identified, of which 153 were further assessed in full text; 47 studies met the inclusion criteria (Figure 1). The 47 included studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 33), non-randomized comparative studies (n = 6), quasi-RCT (n = 1), cohort studies (n = 4), case series (n = 2), and one up-and-down dose finding study (Tab. 1). The study populations were patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery exclusively (n = 29) or in combination with other arthroscopic shoulder surgery (n = 18). The number of patients analyzed in the studies ranged from 24 to 1624 (mean 122). Interventions (Tab. 1) were performed by orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, physiotherapists, nurses, and industry pharmacists.

thumbnail Figure 1

Flowchart.
Table 1

The 47 included studies containing arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery with pain as the primary outcome.

Primary outcome

Pain intensity was measured using a rating scale in all 47 studies (Tab. 1), and was the primary outcome in 37 studies. Analgesic consumption was reported in 34 studies and was the primary outcome in 6 studies [10–15]. The time to first pain or analgesic request was reported in 11 studies and was the primary outcome in 5 studies [10,16–19] (one of which also had analgesic consumption as a primary outcome [10]). In 8 studies, a rescue analgesic was given based on pain scale ratings [10–12,15,17,20–22].

Methods for data collection

Staff-administered pain questionnaires were applied in 27 out of 47 included studies [11–14,16–21,23–39]. Nine studies [10,18,39–45] used a patient-administered pain questionnaire, and 12 studies [15,46–56] did not specify their method. One study used a staff-assessed method in the hospital and a self-assessed method after patient discharge [18].

Ratings of pain intensity

Of the 47 studies, 26 used the visual analog scale (VAS), 17 used the numeric rating scale (NRS), 4 used a Likert scale, and a single study used a combined VAS and Faces Pain Scale (Tab. 1).

The VAS, NRS, and Likert scale all used similar minimum anchors such as “no pain”. To describe higher pain levels, the scales used 14 different anchors in total (Figure 2) with “worst pain imaginable” [11,12,15,26,36,38,43,48,51,54] being the preferred anchor. The second most frequent anchor was “worst pain” [10,28,33,34] and then successively “most severe pain imaginable” [19,20,37], “severe pain” [18,32,46], and “worst possible pain” [29,41,47]. Twelve studies did not report the used anchors [13,16,17,27,31,35,40,49,50,55–57].

Pain ratings were specified to be at rest or during activity in 11 studies [10,13,16,23,26–28,32,44,55,58], of which 3 studies [10,16,26] specified pain to be exclusively measured at rest. Eight out of the 11 studies described pain during activity and the definitions were: movement during cough and mobilization [27], motion attempts [28], shoulder movements [58] during activities such as dressing or during transfer from lying to sitting [23], passive motion [55], during overhead activities and sleep [44]; two studies did not specify the activity [13,32]. The remaining 36 studies did not specify whether pain was measured during activity or at rest.

The following 6 studies asked patients to rate pain as either present pain, least pain, worst pain, or average pain during a specified period of time, namely average pain score for the day [25], daily average pain [40], overnight pain [29], level of pain during sleep [45], overall pain [32], and average of least and worst pain [13]. The remaining studies did not report these details of the pain recordings.

thumbnail Figure 2

Maximum pain level anchors used n = 47 studies. “Worst imaginable pain” was grouped with “worst pain imaginable”.

Number of measurements and time points

The total number of pain recordings within the first seven PODs was extracted from 45 studies (Figure 3); two studies did not report the total number of recordings [15,54]. The mean number of recordings within the first postoperative week was 6.3 (0–21).

The distribution of recordings during the first seven PODs could be extracted from 45 studies (Figure 4). The majority of pain recordings were made on POD1, totaling 60% of cumulated number of recordings within the first postoperative week, equivalent to a mean of 5.1 (0–11) recordings. The number of pain recordings decreased from POD2 to POD6 with a small increase in POD7. The time points in POD1 were specified in 32 of the included studies and represented 28 different time points (Figure 5) [10–12,14,19–21,23,26–28,30,31,33–38,43,46–52,54–57,59]. The most frequently used time points were: post-anaesthesia care unit, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively.

thumbnail Figure 3

Total number of pain recordings during the first postoperative week n = 45 studies.
thumbnail Figure 4

Percentage of pain recordings within the first seven postoperative days. The data represent 268 recordings, by any applied pain rating scale, extracted from 45 studies.
thumbnail Figure 5

Number of studies using a specific time point, first 24-hour postoperative pain recordings. Data from 32 studies are included with a total of 162 measurements, equaling a mean of 5.1 pain recordings per study on POD1. *Erden et al. measured pain within time intervals 0–3, 4–7, 8–11, 12–15, 16–19, 20–24 hours. To include the data, the middle range was chosen as time of measurement. **Jo et al. recorded pain 5 hours postoperatively and then three times daily (at 0:00 am, 9:00 am, and 5:00 pm). Since we do not know what time of day the patients were operated, only the first recording after 5 hours is included in the graph. ***Ryu et al. measured pain hourly until request of rescue analgesic which was requested at a mean of 11 hours and 45 minutes postoperatively on which basis we added these 11 pain recordings to the graph.

Analgesic consumption

In the 34 studies reporting analgesic consumption, different methods were used. Some studies used more than one method due to variations in analgesic protocols, such as different scheduled analgesics and rescue analgesics. In most cases, only the rescue analgesics were recorded (in mg or number of doses) [14,21,24,47,49], or the number of patients requesting [34,54,56] (or not requesting) analgesics [19]. For patients using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA, usually with intravenous opioid), the number of attempts, number of doses, and/or cumulated dose (for example during 24 hours) were reported [31,37,41,48,50,52,57]. Some studies reported total consumption of morphine/opioids [12,13,47] or cumulated amount of all analgesics [10,15] during a specific period of time.

Time to first analgesic request or first pain

This was the least used primary pain outcome. Studies reporting this outcome were mainly, but not limited to, trials of peripheral nerve blocks. Four studies used time to first pain [10,13,15,34], and seven studies used time to first request of analgesics [12,16–19,37,52]. Different starting points were used when reporting time to first analgesic request or first pain: time from injection of the local anesthetic solution [16,18], time from extubation [52], time from closure [15], and time from arrival at the post-anesthesia care unit [37].

Discussion

When screening the 711 abstracts for the current study, many of the first discarded 558 studies were found to use questionnaires with joint-specific or health-related quality of life composite scores (such as DASH score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Oxford shoulder score, and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index). Since data on pain assessment could not be extracted from these composite scores, these studies were unsuitable for further analysis of postoperative pain. Currently this issue is being investigated by others, for example Gagnier et al. [3] who has published a study protocol with the purpose of creating a core outcome set for clinical trials of people with shoulder pain as the lack of uniformity in outcome measures across clinical trials limits interstudy comparison and the ability to pool data for meta-analyses.

The majority of included studies used the VAS to measure pain intensity. The literature generally indicates that the VAS and the NRS are interchangeable, and some studies report coherence between the VAS and NRS pain rating scales [4,60,61]; others found no coherence at specific pain levels [62]. On basis of international guidelines, literature recommendations [1,62,63,65], and practical applications where the NRS is seemingly easier to administer than the VAS [63,64] (since it requires no remedies), this study recommends using the NRS to measure pain intensity.

Though the majority of included studies reported the chosen pain rating scale, such as the VAS or NRS, a description of scale use is rare to find, thus obscuring whether the scales were used as originally intended. In at least two of the included studies, the actual use of the VAS was described as a Faces Pain Scale and the NRS, respectively [24,35].

The pain rating scales used 14 different anchors when phrasing maximum pain levels. Although there was little variation in the phrasing, the lack of consistency is noticeable. Hawker et al.'s [63] review article from 2011 reported that the VAS was designed using the anchor “severe pain”, whereas the NRS was designed with the anchors “pain as bad as you can imagine” and “worst pain imaginable.” Being able to compare future studies, it is important they apply the same scale and anchors, i.e., “no pain” and “worst pain imaginable.”

Few studies reported if pain was measured during activity or at rest. Recording pain during activity increases sensitivity due to higher pain scores, and reflects patients' functional levels. Based on international recommendations [1,65], it is recommended to report both pain at rest and during activity. Focus is thus drawn on pain during deep breathing and coughing to reduce risks of cardiopulmonary and thromboembolic complications after surgery [4].

The majority of pain recordings within the first postoperative week were recorded on POD1. When looking at the time points on POD1, 28 different time points were used in 32 studies. Naturally, some of the variation is a result of peaks of interest, reflecting different interventions. However, some standardization seems possible. It is thus recommended not to report “post-anesthesia care unit” as a time point but rather to use the most common time points of 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours, preferably starting from injection of local anesthetic or from extubation, dependent on the intervention investigated. Too many measurements will cause problems if not using the proper statistical methods, but this is beyond the scope of this review.

It is important to include the outcome of analgesic consumption, as the pain intensity ratings do not necessarily reflect the patients' wishes for additional opioids [66,67]. Some studies showed discrepancies between pain levels and analgesic consumption, with one outcome being statistically significant and the other not [10,11,13,18,21,41,48,50,52]. It is therefore advisable to report both analgesic intake as well as pain intensity ratings [68].

Reporting morphine equivalent doses, as was done in some studies, bears the risk of error in the conversion factors, but may be necessary if the protocol involves more than one opioid and facilitates interstudy comparison.

Time to first analgesic request or first pain is related to the “time to remedication,” often used in studies with nerve blocks, illustrating when patients will need further attention [5]. Time to first pain would be more sensitive, as onset of pain may precede the first analgesic request, especially in patients reluctant to consume medication. It is important to use the recommended starting points here as well, such as time from injection or extubation.

Limitations

Despite a wide-ranging search strategy, the risk of missing relevant studies cannot be excluded. However, the considerable variation regarding outcomes and reported methods indicates that a comprehensive search was conducted. Also, two databases were searched for relevant literature, thus strengthening the study. It is assumed that the findings from the current study can be generalized to other populations with acute postoperative pain as there is no apparent reason to assume that postoperative pain following rotator cuff surgery is measured differently from other types of surgery, but this may be a subject for further investigations.

Conclusion

A large variety in the reporting of postoperative pain outcomes in the 47 included studies was shown. Based on this study and international guidelines, future postoperative pain trials are recommended to include the following outcomes: pain intensity using the NRS with the anchors “no pain” and “worst pain imaginable,” recorded during activity and at rest at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. Analgesic consumption should also be included and reported as cumulated rescue analgesic medication in mg, if possible converted to morphine equivalents.

Assuming that postoperative pain following rotator cuff surgery is not measured differently from other types of surgery, the applications of this study may be expanded to clinical trials involving patients undergoing other surgical procedures.

Conflict of interest

The authors have not received grant support or research funding and do not have any proprietary interests in the materials described in the article.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Vicki Elisabeth Vallund (Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Aarhus, Denmark) for English language revision.

References

  1. Rothaug J, Zaslansky R, Schwenkglenks M, Komann M, Allvin R, Backstrom R, et al. (2013) Patients' perception of postoperative pain management: validation of the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire. J Pain 14, 1361–1370. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Green SE, Beaton DE, Jain NB, Lenza M, et al. (2015) Core domain and outcome measurement sets for shoulder pain trials are needed: systematic review of physical therapy trials. J Clin Epidemiol 68, 1270–1281. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gagnier JJ, Page MJ, Huang H, Verhagen AP, Buchbinder R (2017) Creation of a core outcome set for clinical trials of people with shoulder pain: a study protocol. Trials 18, 336. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Breivik H, Borchgrevink P, Allen S, Rosseland L, Romundstad L, Hals E, et al. (2008) Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth 101, 17–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barden J, Edwards J, Mason L, McQuay H, Moore R (2004) Outcomes in acute pain trials: systematic review of what was reported? Pain 109, 351. [Google Scholar]
  6. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. (2017) The COMET Handbook: Version 1.0. Trials 20; 18(Suppl 3), 280. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bjørnholdt KT, Jensen JM, Bendtsen TF, Søballe K, Nikolajsen L (2014) Local infiltration analgesia versus continuous interscalene brachial plexus block for shoulder replacement pain: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25, 1245–1252. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bjørnholdt KT, Mønsted PN, Søballe K, Nikolajsen L (2014) Dexamethasone for pain after outpatient shoulder surgery: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 58, 751–758. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at http://www.covidence.org/. [Google Scholar]
  10. Abdallah FW, Dwyer T, Chan VW, Niazi AU, Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Oldfield S, et al. (2016) IV and Perineural dexmedetomidine similarly prolong the duration of analgesia after interscalene brachial plexus block: a randomized, three-arm, triple-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Anesthesiology 124, 683–695. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ahn S, Byun SH, Park K, Ha JL, Kwon B, Kim JC (2016) Analgesic efficacy of preemptive pregabalin administration in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Anaesth 63, 283–189. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Aksu R, Biçer C, Ülgey A, Bayram A, Güneş I, Güney A, et al. (2015) Comparison of interscalene brachial plexus block and intra-articular local anesthetic administration on postoperative pain management in arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Braz J Anesthesiol 65, 222–229. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheng J, Kahn RL, YaDeau JT, Tsodikov A, Goytizolo EA, Guheen CR, et al. (2016) The fibromyalgia survey score correlates with preoperative pain phenotypes but does not predict pain outcomes after shoulder arthroscopy. Clin J Pain 32, 689–694. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cho CH, Lee SW, Lee YK, Shin HK, Hwang I (2015) Effect of a sleep aid in analgesia after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Yonsei Med J 56, 772–777. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lehmann LJ, Loosen G, Weiss C, Schmittner MD (2015) Interscalene plexus block versus general anaesthesia for shoulder surgery: a randomized controlled study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25, 255–261. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Alemanno F, Ghisi D, Westermann B, Bettoni A, Fanelli A, La Colla L, et al. (2016) The use of vitamin B1 as a perineural adjuvant to middle interscalene block for postoperative analgesia after shoulder surgery. Acta Biomed 87, 22–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Alemanno F, Westermann B, Bettoni A, Candiani A, Cesana BM (2014) Buprenorphine versus tramadol as perineural adjuvants for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair under middle interscalene block: a retrospective study. Minerva Anestesiol 80, 1198–1204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Desmet M, Vanneste B, Reynvoet M, Van Cauwelaert J, Verhelst L, Pottel H, et al. (2015) A randomised controlled trial of intravenous dexamethasone combined with interscalene brachial plexus blockade for shoulder surgery. Anaesthesia 70, 1180–1185. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Woo JH, Kim YJ, Kim DY, Cho S (2015) Dose-dependency of dexamethasone on the analgesic effect of interscalene block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery using ropivacaine 0.5%: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 32, 650–655. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Choi EM, Kim EM, Chung MH, Park JH, Lee HK, Choi YR, et al. (2015) Effects of ultrasound-guided stellate ganglion block on acute pain after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Pain Physician 18, E379– E388. [Google Scholar]
  21. Han SS, Lee YH, Oh JH, Aminzai S, Kim SH (2013) Randomized, controlled trial of multimodal shoulder injection or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 2877–2883. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhai W, Wang X, Rong Y, Li M, Wang H (2016) Effects of a fixed low-dose ropivacaine with different volume and concentrations on interscalene brachial plexus block: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 16, 80. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Alfuth M, Strietzel M, Vogler T, Rosenbaum D, Liem D (2016) Cold versus cold compression therapy after shoulder arthroscopy: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 2209–2215. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Cho CH, Song KS, Min BW, Jung GH, Lee YK, Shin HK (2015) Efficacy of interscalene block combined with multimodal pain control for postoperative analgesia after rotator cuff repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23, 542–547. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Cuff DJ, O'Brien KC, Pupello DR, Santoni BG (2016) Evaluation of factors affecting acute postoperative pain levels after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy 32, 1231–1236. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Dhir S, Sondekoppam RV, Sharma R, Ganapathy S, Athwal GS (2016) A comparison of combined suprascapular and axillary nerve blocks to interscalene nerve block for analgesia in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: an equivalence study. Reg Anesth Pain Med 41, 564–571. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Erden S, Demir SG, Kanatlı U, Danacı F, Carboğa B (2017) The effect of standard pain assessment on pain and analgesic consumption amount in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Appl Nurs Res 33, 121–126. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim JY, Song KS, Kim WJ, Park YH, Kang H, Woo YC, et al. (2016) Analgesic efficacy of two interscalene blocks and one cervical epidural block in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 931–939. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lane S, Blundell C, Mills S, Charalambous CP (2014) Same day discharge following inter-scalene block administration for arthroscopic shoulder surgery: implementing a change in practice. J Perioper Pract 24, 232–234. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee JJ, Kim DY, Hwang JT, Lee SS, Hwang SM, Kim GH, et al. (2014) Effect of ultrasonographically guided axillary nerve block combined with suprascapular nerve block in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized controlled trial. Arthroscopy 30, 906–914. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee SM, Park SE, Nam YS, Han SH, Lee KJ, Kwon MJ, et al. (2012) Analgesic effectiveness of nerve block in shoulder arthroscopy: comparison between interscalene, suprascapular and axillary nerve blocks. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20, 2573–2578. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Merolla G, Dellabiancia F, Ingardia A, Paladini P, Porcellini G (2015) Co-analgesic therapy for arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair pain using a dietary supplement containing Boswellia serrata and Curcuma longa: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled study. Musculoskelet Surg 99, 43–52. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Park JY, Bang JY, Oh KS (2016) Blind suprascapular and axillary nerve block for post-operative pain in arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 3877–3883. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Salviz EA, Xu D, Frulla A, Kwofie K, Shastri U, Chen J, et al. (2013) Continuous interscalene block in patients having outpatient rotator cuff repair surgery: a prospective randomized trial. Anesth Analg 117, 1485–1492. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Schwartzberg RS, Reuss BL, Rust R (2013) Efficacy of continuous subacromial bupivacaine infusion for pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22, 1320–1324. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Wiegel M, Moriggl B, Schwarzkopf P, Petroff D, Reske AW (2017) Anterior suprascapular nerve block versus interscalene brachial plexus block for shoulder surgery in the outpatient setting: a randomized controlled patient- and assessor-blinded trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med 42, 310–318. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Woo JH, Kim YJ, Baik HJ, Han JI, Chung RK (2014) Does intravenous ketamine enhance analgesia after arthroscopic shoulder surgery with ultrasound guided single-injection interscalene block?: a randomized, prospective, double-blind trial. J Korean Med Sci 29, 1001–1006. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Wei Y, Li M, Rong Y, Guo X (2014) Effective background infusion rate of ropivacaine 0.2% for patient-controlled interscalene brachial plexus analgesia after rotator cuff repair surgery. Chin Med J 127, 4119–4123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Vorsanger GJ, Klopfer AM, Xiang J, Benson CJ, Moskovitz BL, Rosenthal NR (2013) Immediate-release tapentadol or oxycodone for treatment of acute postoperative pain after elective arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomized, phase IIIb study. J Opioid Manag 9, 281–290. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. D'Ambrosi R, Palumbo F, Paronzini A, Ragone V, Facchini RM (2016) Platelet-rich plasma supplementation in arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a randomized clinical trial. Musculoskeletal Surg 100, 25–32. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  41. Khashan M, Dolkart O, Amar E, Chechik O, Sharfman Z, Mozes G, et al. (2016) Effect of preemptive intra-articular morphine and ketamine on pain after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136, 233–239. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kraeutler MJ, Reynolds KA, Long C, McCarty EC (2015) Compressive cryotherapy versus ice-a prospective, randomized study on postoperative pain in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair or subacromial decompression. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24, 854–859. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Shin HJ, Na HS, Oh AY, Hwang JW, Kim BG, Park HP, et al. (2016) A prospective, randomized and controlled study of interscalene brachial plexus block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a comparison of C5 and conventional approach, a CONSORT-compliant article. Medicine 95, e4921. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tham ER, Briggs L, Murrell GA (2013) Ultrasound changes after rotator cuff repair: is supraspinatus tendon thickness related to pain? J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22, e8-e15. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yeo DYT, Walton JR, Lam P, Murrell GAC (2017) The relationship between intraoperative tear dimensions and postoperative pain in 1624 consecutive arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. Am J Sports Med 45, 788–793. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  46. Basat H, Uçar DH, Armangil M, Güçlü B, Demirtaş M (2016) Post operative pain management in shoulder surgery: Suprascapular and axillary nerve block by arthroscope assisted catheter placement. Indian J Orthop 50, 584–589. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Faria-Silva R, de Rezende DC, Ribeiro JM, Gomes TH, Oliveira BA, Pereira FM, et al. (2016) Association of clonidine and ropivacaine in brachial plexus block for shoulder arthroscopy. Braz J Anesthesiol 66, 335–340. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Jo CH, Shin JS, Huh J (2014) Multimodal analgesia for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24, 315–322. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee HJ, Kim YS, Park I, Ha DH, Lee JH (2015) Administration of analgesics after rotator cuff repair: a prospective clinical trial comparing glenohumeral, subacromial, and a combination of glenohumeral and subacromial injections. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 24, 663–668. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Lee JJ, Yoo YS, Hwang JT, Kim DY, Jeon SJ, Hwang SM, et al. (2015) Efficacy of direct arthroscopy-guided suprascapular nerve block after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23, 562–566. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Merivirta R, Äärimaa V, Aantaa R, Koivisto M, Leino K, Liukas A, et al. (2013) Postoperative fentanyl patch versus subacromial bupivacaine infusion in arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Arthroscopy 29, 1129–1134. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Perdreau A, Joudet T (2015) Efficacy of multimodal analgesia injection combined with corticosteroids after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101, 337–345. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. Rubenis I, Lam PH, Murrell GA (2015) Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using the undersurface technique: a 2-year comparative study in 257 patients. Orthop J Sports Med 3, 1–9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  54. Ryu T, Kil BT, Kim JH (2015) Comparison between ultrasound-guided supraclavicular and interscalene brachial plexus blocks in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a prospective, randomized, parallel study. Medicine 94, e1726. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Saritas TB, Borazan H, Okesli S, Yel M, Otelcioglu Ş; (2015) Is intra-articular magnesium effective for postoperative analgesia in arthroscopic shoulder surgery? Pain Res Manag 20, 35–38. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  56. Shin SW, Byeon GJ, Yoon JU, Ok YM, Baek SH, Kim KH, et al. (2014) Effective analgesia with ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block for postoperative pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Anesth 28, 64–69. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Yun MJ, Oh JH, Yoon JP, Park SH, Hwang JW, Kil HY (2012) Subacromial patient-controlled analgesia with ropivacaine provides effective pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20, 1971–1977. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Wiesmann T, Feldmann C, Müller HH, Nentwig L, Beermann A, El-Zayat BF, et al. (2016) Phrenic palsy and analgesic quality of continuous supraclavicular vs. interscalene plexus blocks after shoulder surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 60, 1142–1151. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim BG, Han JU, Song JH, Yang C, Lee BW, Baek JS (2017) A comparison of ultrasound-guided interscalene and supraclavicular blocks for post-operative analgesia after shoulder surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 61, 427–435. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Ahlers SJ, Van Gulik L, Van Der Veen AM, Van Dongen H, Bruins P, Belitser S, et al. (2008) Comparison of different pain scoring systems in critically ill patients in a general ICU. Crit Care 12, 15. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bahreini M, Jalili M, Moradi-Lakeh M (2015) A comparison of three self-report pain scales in adults with acute pain. J Emerg Med 48, 10–18. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hartrick CT, Kovan J, Shapiro S (2003) The numeric rating scale for clinical pain measurement: a ratio measure? Pain Pract 3, 310–316. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  63. Hawker GA, Mian S, Kendzerska T, French M (2011) Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res 63, 240–252. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  64. Goransson KE, Heilborn U, Selberg J, von Scheele S, Djarv T (2015) Pain rating in the ED-a comparison between 2 scales in a Swedish hospital. Am J Emerg Med 33, 419–422. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  65. Gordon DB, Polomano R, Pellino T, Turk D, McCracken L, Sherwood G, et al. (2010) Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ-R) for quality improvement of pain management in hospitalized adults: preliminary psychometric evaluation. J Pain 11, 1172–1186. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  66. van Boekel RLM, Vissers KCP, van der Sande R, Bronkhorst E, Lerou JGC, Steegers MAH (2017) Moving beyond pain scores: Multidimensional pain assessment is essential for adequate pain management after surgery. PLoS One 12, e0177345. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. van Dijk JF, Kappen TH, Schuurmans MJ, van Wijck AJ (2015) The relation between patients' NRS pain scores and their desire for additional opioids after surgery. Pain Pract 15, 604–609. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  68. Juul RV, Knosgaard KR, Olesen AE, Pedersen KV, Kreilgaard M, Christrup LL, et al. (2016) A model-based approach for joint analysis of pain intensity and opioid consumption in postoperative pain. AAPS J 18, 1013–1022. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cite this article as: Rasmussen JK, Nikolajsen L, Bjørnholdt KT (2018) Acute postoperative pain after arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery: A review of methods of pain assessment. SICOT-J, 4, 49.

All Tables

Table 1

The 47 included studies containing arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery with pain as the primary outcome.

In the text

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1

Flowchart.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 2

Maximum pain level anchors used n = 47 studies. “Worst imaginable pain” was grouped with “worst pain imaginable”.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 3

Total number of pain recordings during the first postoperative week n = 45 studies.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 4

Percentage of pain recordings within the first seven postoperative days. The data represent 268 recordings, by any applied pain rating scale, extracted from 45 studies.
In the text
thumbnail Figure 5

Number of studies using a specific time point, first 24-hour postoperative pain recordings. Data from 32 studies are included with a total of 162 measurements, equaling a mean of 5.1 pain recordings per study on POD1. *Erden et al. measured pain within time intervals 0–3, 4–7, 8–11, 12–15, 16–19, 20–24 hours. To include the data, the middle range was chosen as time of measurement. **Jo et al. recorded pain 5 hours postoperatively and then three times daily (at 0:00 am, 9:00 am, and 5:00 pm). Since we do not know what time of day the patients were operated, only the first recording after 5 hours is included in the graph. ***Ryu et al. measured pain hourly until request of rescue analgesic which was requested at a mean of 11 hours and 45 minutes postoperatively on which basis we added these 11 pain recordings to the graph.
In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.