4.0 Article

Longitudinal Perioperative Pain Assessment in Head and Neck Cancer Surgery

Journal

ANNALS OF OTOLOGY RHINOLOGY AND LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 126, Issue 9, Pages 646-653

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0003489417723034

Keywords

head and neck cancer; reconstructive surgery; perioperative pain; neuropathic pain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate perioperative pain in patients undergoing major head and neck cancer surgery and identify associations between preoperative and postoperative pain characteristics. Methods: Patients undergoing head and neck surgery with regional/free tissue transfer were enrolled. Preoperative pain and validated screens for symptoms (neuropathic pain, anxiety, depression, fibromyalgia) were assessed. Postoperatively, patients completed a pain diary for 4 weeks. Results: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. Seventy-eight percent had pain prior to surgery, and for 38%, the pain had neuropathic characteristics. Thirteen patients (48%) completed at least 2 weeks of the postoperative pain diary. Patients with moderate/severe preoperative pain report significantly greater pain scores postoperatively, though daily pain decreased at a similar linear rate for all patients. Patients with more severe preoperative pain consumed greater amounts of opioids postoperatively, and this correlated with daily postoperative pain scores. Patients who screened positive for neuropathic pain also reported worse postoperative pain. Conclusion: Longitudinal perioperative pain assessment in head and neck patients undergoing surgery suggests that patients with worse preoperative pain continue to endorse worse pain postoperatively and require more narcotics. Patients with preoperative neuropathic pain also report poor pain control postoperatively, suggesting an opportunity to identify these patients and intervene with empiric neuropathic pain treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available