METHODS: A prospective observational study was undertaken at two tertiary care hospitals in Australia. Seventy-two (72) adults (mean age, 63±11 years) were included following cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy. Participants completed the Patient Identified Cardiac Pain using numeric and visual prompts (PICP), the McGill Pain Questionnaire-Short Form version 2 (MPQ-2) and the Medical Outcome Study 36-item version 2 (SF-36v2) Bodily Pain domain (BP), which were administered prior to hospital discharge, 4 weeks and 3 months postoperatively.
RESULTS: Participants experienced a high incidence of mild (n=45, 63%) to moderate (n=22, 31%) pain prior to discharge, which reduced at 4 weeks postoperatively: mild (n=28, 41%) and moderate (n=5, 7%) pain; at 3 months participants reported mild (n=14, 20%) and moderate (n=2, 3%) pain. The most frequent location of pain was the anterior chest wall, consistent with the location of the surgical incision and graft harvest. Most participants equated "pressure/weight" to "aching" or a "heaviness" in the chest region (based on descriptor of pain in the PICP) and the pain topography was persistent at 4 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Each pain measurement tool provided different information on pain location, severity and description, with significant change (p<0.005) over time.
CONCLUSION: Mild-to-moderate pain was frequent after sternotomy, improved over time and was mostly located over the incision and mammary (internal thoracic) artery harvest site. Persistent pain at 3 months remained a significant problem in the community within this surgical population.
AIM: The main aim of the present study was to design a new tool called neck pain functional limitation scale (NPFLS) for measuring disability related to neck pain and observe its reliability, concurrent validity and criterion validity.
SETTING AND DESIGN: This study was performed at the institutional hospital.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 157 subjects (neck pain group) and 25 control subjects (control group) without neck pain were recruited for this study. NPFLS was framed as a new tool for this study, which consisted of 5 domains - pain intensity, activities of daily living, social activities, functional activities and psychological factors. Neck Bournemouth questionnaire (NBQ) was used as a gold standard to measure the concurrent validity and criterion validity of the NPFLS.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Criterion validity and concurrent validity between the neck Bournemouth questionnaire (NBQ) and NPFLS scores were tested statistically using Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation test. The reliability was tested by examining the internal consistency to calculate the Cronbach's alpha value for each item in NPFLS.
RESULTS: No significant difference between NPFLS and NBQ was observed using Mann-Whitney U Test, with P value greater than 0.05 (P= 0.557). Besides that, NPFLS had a high concurrent validity (r= 0.916) and good internal consistency with high Cronbach's alpha value of (r= 0.948), which demonstrated strong correlation between the items of NPFLS and NBQ.
CONCLUSION: NPFLS demonstrated good reliability, high concurrent validity and criterion validity in this study. NPFLS can be used to assess neck pain and disability among patients with neck pain.
METHODS: In an international, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, symptomatic individuals classified CEAP C0s to C4s were randomized in either treatment arm and treated for 8 weeks. Lower limb symptoms (discomfort, pain and heaviness) were assessed using Visual Analog Scales (VAS), and quality of life (QoL) was measured with the CIVIQ-20 Questionnaire.
RESULTS: A total of 1139 patients were included in the study. Both MPFF treatment regimens were well tolerated and associated with a significant reduction in lower limb symptoms. A non-inferiority of MPFF 1000-mg oral suspension once daily compared to MPFF 500-mg tablet twice daily (P<0.0001) was found for lower limb discomfort (-3.33 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.37 cm for MPFF 500 mg), leg pain (-3.27 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.31 cm for MPFF 500 mg) and leg heaviness (-3.41 cm for MPFF 1000 mg and -3.46 cm for MPFF 500 mg). The patients' QoL was improved by about 20 points on the CIVIQ scale in both groups (19.33 points for MPFF 1000 mg and 20.28 points for MPFF 500 mg).
CONCLUSIONS: MPFF 1000-mg oral suspension and MPFF 500-mg tablets treatments were associated with similar reductions in lower limb symptoms and QoL improvement. The new once daily MPFF1000-mg oral suspension has a similar safety profile to two tablets of MPFF 500 mg, with the advantage of one daily intake, potentially associated with improved patient adherence and easier CVD management.
METHOD: A randomized controlled open-label study was performed at the cardiothoracic intensive care unit of Penang Hospital, Malaysia. A total of 28 patients who underwent cardiac surgeries were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine or morphine. Both groups were similar in terms of preoperative baseline characteristics. Efficacy measures included sedation scores and pain intensity and requirements for additional sedative/analgesic. Mean heart rate and arterial blood pressure were used as safety measures. Other measures were additional inotropes, extubation time and other concurrent medications.
RESULTS: The mean dose of dexmedetomidine infused was 0.12 [SD 0.03] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹, while that of morphine was 13.2 [SD 5.84] μg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹. Dexmedetomidine group showed more benefits in sedation and pain levels, additional sedative/analgesic requirements, and extubation time. No significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures, except heart rate, which was significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group.
CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine was at least comparable to morphine in terms of efficacy and safety among cardiac surgery patients. Further studies with larger samples are recommended in order to determine the significant effects of the outcome measures.
Aim: To analyse various pain scales commonly used to determine the effect of different pain control methods during debonding of orthodontic brackets. Study Design. A comparative cross-sectional study performed on a sample of 60 patients (n = 60) including 14 males and 46 females who were ready for debonding and who were divided into three groups, i.e., finger pressure (FP), elastomeric wafer (EW), and stress relief (SR).
Materials and Methods: A 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to record the pain intensity for each tooth. Another scale known as Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) was used to evaluate the patient's general attitude towards pain perception. The armamentarium and operator were kept same for all the patients. Statistical analysis used was the Kruskal-Wallis test, used for intergroup and intragroup comparison of pain scores.
Results: Lowest total pain score was recorded in the FP group (P=0.043) on intergroup comparison, while on intragroup comparison, higher pain scores were recorded in lower anterior region (P=0.02) in all three groups. There was no significant difference between the pain scores reported by the male and female subjects.
Conclusion: FP is an effective method of pain control. And teeth in the anterior region of lower and upper arches are more sensitive to pain. In terms of cognitive-affective constructs, although the VAS has been widely used in previous studies, the PCS has been detailed to show the most reliable association with physical discomfort and emotional distress.
METHODS: A parallel-group unblinded randomized controlled trial involving 300 patients was conducted in two hospital orthopedics clinics in Malaysia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive cognitive behavioral-based group therapy (n = 150) or no further intervention (n = 150). The primary outcome was the change from baseline in knee pain as determined by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 6 months. The data collected were analyzed by covariate-adjusted mixed design repeated measures analysis of variance. All analyses were performed under the terms of intention-to-treat.
RESULTS: At 6 months, mean change from baseline in the KOOS knee pain score was 0.6 points (95% CI -1.73 to 2.94) in the control group and 8.9 points (95% CI 6.62 to 11.23) (denoting less knee pain intensity) in the intervention group (significant treatment effect p < 0.0001). Patients treated with such an approach also experienced significant improvement in functional ability when performing activities of daily living and had improved ability to cope with depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing.
CONCLUSION: The intervention module delivered by healthcare professionals had a sustained effect on knee OA pain and functionality over 6 months, thereby leading to an overall improvement in psychological well-being, thus benefitting most of the Malaysian knee OA patients.