While over 40 neonatal pain assessment scales have been published, owing to a lack of consensus and standardized metrics, there are more than 100 assessment indicators with varying descriptors and quality differences. This study aims to reach a consensus on optimal and comprehensive variables for neonatal pain assessment, leading to the development of a multidimensional neonatal pain response variable set. This study consisted of three phases: (1) A literature review was conducted to identify influencing factors and assessment indicators of neonatal pain response. (2) Panel meetings involving neonatal healthcare professionals evaluated and screened factors and indicators to develop an initial draft of the variable set. (3) Through two rounds of Delphi study achieved consensus, and determined the neonatal pain response variable set. Through a literature review and a panel meeting, the identified factors and indicators were categorized into contextual, physiological, and behavioral variables, forming an initial draft of the variable set. Sixteen professionals participated in two rounds of the Delphi study, with response rates exceeding 70%, and authority coefficients surpassing 0.7 in both rounds. The final iteration of the variable set includes 9 contextual variables, 2 physiological variables, and 5 behavioral variables.   Conclusion: Neonatal pain response variable set developed in this study is scientific, comprehensive, and multidimensional, aligning with the characteristics of neonatal pain response and clinically applicable. The inclusion of contextual variables enhances the ability to confront the complexity of clinical environments and individual differences. It can provide a practical and theoretical basis for clinical research on neonatal pain assessment. What is Known: • Neonatal pain assessment relies on scales used by healthcare professionals currently. But there is no \"gold standard\" for neonatal pain assessment. • While over 40 neonatal pain assessment scales have been published, owing to a lack of consensus and standardized metrics, there are more than 100 assessment indicators with varying descriptors and quality differences. Most of scales overlook the clinical environment complexity individual differences in pain responses, diminishing the accuracy and applicability. What is New: • In addition to the commonly used physiological and behavioral variables in the scales, we have incorporated contextual variables to better address the complexity of clinical environments and individual differences in pain responses. • Through an evidence-based approach, developed a neonatal pain response variable set comprising 9 contextual variables, 2 physiological variables, and 5 behavioral variables.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this cross-sectional study is to examine the prevalence of pain phenotypes in breast cancer survivors (BCS). A secondary aim entails examining whether health related quality of life differs between the main pain phenotypes in BCS.
METHODS: BCS who experienced chronic pain were asked to complete the numeric pain rating scale for pain, Margolis pain diagram, and short form 36 (SF-36). Following administration of questionnaires and quantitative sensory examinations were applied. To determine the prevalence of the predominant type of pain, a recently proposed classification system by the Cancer Pain Phenotyping (CANPPHE) Network was used.
RESULTS: Of the 86 female participants, 19 (22.09%) had dominant neuropathic pain, 18 (20.93%) had dominant nociceptive pain and 14 (16.28%) had dominant nociplastic pain. 35 participants (40.70%) were classified as having mixed pain. One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the four pain groups for the SF-36 general health (F = 3.205, p = 0.027), social functioning (F = 4.093, p = 0.009), and pain (F = 3.603, p = 0.017) subscale scores.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that pain in BCS was mostly of mixed phenotype, followed by predominantly neuropathic and nociplastic pain. Furthermore, it was found that, compared to BCS with predominant neuropathic and nociceptive pain, BCS with predominant nociplastic pain have lower health related quality of life in the areas of bodily pain and social functioning.

Recent advancements in nurse anesthesiology fellowship training programs have helped to establish advanced pain management services for rural communities. Consensus guidelines to direct the rural provider toward the most valid and reliable measures for pain assessment and functional outcomes evaluation are not presently available. The primary aim of this initiative was to establish consensus guidelines for a comprehensive outcome evaluation program with specific time intervals for assessments that can be utilized by all rural pain clinics. The American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology Nonsurgical Pain Management Advisory Panel members provided formative and expert feedback for this initiative. The Delphi model was utilized to achieve consensus through multiple rounds of surveys. Items achieving >70% agree/strongly agree were kept; items with >70% disagree/strongly disagree were rejected; items meeting neither advanced to the following round for evaluation until consensus was met. During round I, consensus was reached for: (1) the use of the Numerical Rating Scale for pain severity; and (2) timing of pain severity & functional pain outcomes on each office visit and before/after each intervention. Round II, consensus was achieved for: (1) the use of Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale as a suitable instrument when literacy or communication pose a barrier but not as a primary assessment; and (2) the use of the Brief Pain Index-Short Form for functional outcome measures. During round III, consensus was reached for: (1) the use of the Oswestry Disability Index as a functional outcome measure; and (2) pain reassessment being performed within 14 days of intervention. This initiative provides rural pain clinics with a comprehensive outcome evaluation program with specific time intervals for assessments.

We aimed to validate the CMPS-SF according to COSMIN and GRADE guidelines. Four trained evaluators assessed 208 videos (pre-operative-M1, peak of pain-M2, 1 h after the peak of pain and analgesia (rescue)-M3, and 24 h post-extubation-M4) of 52 dogs, divided into negative controls (n = 10), soft tissue surgeries (n = 22), and orthopedic surgeries (n = 20). The videos were randomized and blinded as to when they were filmed, and were evaluated in two stages, 21 days apart. According to confirmatory analysis, the CMPS-SF is a unidimensional scale. Intra-observer reliability was between 0.80 and 0.99 and inter-observer reliability between 0.73 and 0.86. Criterion validity was confirmed by the correlation between the CMPS-SF and other unidimensional scales (≥0.7). The differences between the scores were M2 ≥ M3 > M4 > M1 (responsiveness), and the scale presented construct validity (higher postoperative pain scores in dogs undergoing surgery versus control). Internal consistency was 0.7 (Cronbach\'s α) and 0.77 (McDonald\'s ω), and the item-total correlation was between 0.3 and 0.7, except for \"A(ii)-Attention to wound\". Specificity and sensitivity were 78-87% and 74-83%, respectively. The cut-off point for rescue analgesia was ≥5 or ≥4 excluding item B(iii) mobility, and the GRADE classification was high, confirming the validity of the scale.

The potential to classify low back pain as being characterised by dominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic mechanisms is a clinically relevant issue. Preliminary evidence suggests that these low back pain phenotypes might respond differently to treatments; however, more research must be done before making specific recommendations. Accordingly, the low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium was established as a group of 36 clinicians and researchers from 13 countries (five continents) and 29 institutions, to apply a modified Nominal Group Technique methodology to develop international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations to provide guidance for identifying the dominant pain phenotype in patients with low back pain, and potentially adapt pain management strategies. The BACPAP consortium\'s recommendations are also intended to provide direction for future clinical research by building on the established clinical criteria for neuropathic and nociplastic pain. The BACPAP consortium\'s consensus recommendations are a necessary early step in the process to determine if personalised pain medicine based on pain phenotypes is feasible for low back pain management. Therefore, these recommendations are not ready to be implemented in clinical practice until additional evidence is generated that is specific to these low back pain phenotypes.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate preoperative management of patients with chronic moderate to severe shoulder pain who are candidates for surgery owing to rotator cuff disease or glenohumeral osteoarthritis may improve surgery and patient outcomes, but published evidence in this regard is scarce. Therefore, the availability of recommendations on preoperative interventions based on expert consensus may serve as guidance.
METHODS: A Delphi study was conducted to develop a preoperative management algorithm based on a national expert consensus. A Delphi questionnaire was developed by a scientific committee following a systematic review of the relevant literature published during the past 10 years using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) criteria. It consisted of 48 statements divided into 5 blocks (block I, assessment and diagnosis of preoperative pain; block II, preoperative function and psychosocial aspects; block III, therapeutic objectives; block IV, treatment; and block V, follow-up and referral), and 28 experienced shoulder surgeons from across the country were invited to answer.
RESULTS: All participants responded to the Delphi questionnaire in the first round, and 25 responded in the second round (89.3% of those invited). Overall, 46 of 49 final statements reached a consensus, on the basis of which a final preoperative management algorithm was defined by the scientific committee. First, surgeons should assess shoulder pain intensity and characteristics, shoulder functionality, and psychosocial aspects using specific validated questionnaires. Preoperative therapeutic objectives should include shoulder pain control, depression and/or nocturnal sleep improvement, opioid consumption adjustment, and substance abuse cessation. Postoperative objectives regarding the degree of shoulder pain reduction or improvement in functionality and/or quality of life should be established in agreement with the patient. Treatment of preoperative chronic moderate to severe shoulder pain should comprise nonpharmacologic as well as pharmacologic interventions. Follow-up of the shoulder pain levels, treatment adherence, and mental health status of these patients may be carried out by the surgical team (surgeon and anesthesiologist) together with the primary care team. Patients with very intense shoulder pain levels may be referred to a pain unit following specific protocols.
CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative management algorithm for patients with chronic moderate to severe shoulder pain who are candidates for surgery owing to rotator cuff disease or glenohumeral osteoarthritis was defined based on a national expert consensus. Main points include comprehensive patient management starting with an objective assessment of shoulder pain and function, as well as quality of life; establishment of preoperative and postoperative therapeutic targets; prescription of individualized therapeutic interventions; and multidisciplinary patient follow-up. Implementation of these recommendations into clinical practice may result in better preoperative shoulder pain management and more successful surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is increasing. Previous studies have demonstrated an association between obesity and adverse events after lumbar fusion. There is limited evidence on the effect of obesity on minimally invasive SI joint fusion (SIJF) outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of obesity on patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing SIJF surgery using triangular titanium implants (TTI).
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study based on four prospective clinical trials (INSITE [NCT01681004], SIFI [NCT01640353], iMIA [NCT01741025], and SALLY [NCT03122899]).
METHODS: Adult patients ≥18 years of age who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) sacroiliac joint (SIJ) fusion between 2012 and 2021.
METHODS: Visual analog scale (VAS Pain), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).
METHODS: Participants were classified using the National Institutes of Health body mass index (BMI). Patients with a BMI of 30 to 39 with no significant comorbidity are considered obese, patients with a BMI of 35 to 39 with a significant comorbidity or a BMI of 40 or greater are considered morbidly obese. All subjects underwent either minimally invasive SIJ fusion with TTI or nonsurgical management (INSITE and iMIA studies only). All subjects completed SIJ pain scale scores (measured with a 100-point VAS) and disability scores (measured with ODI) at baseline and at scheduled visits to 24 months. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine the impact of BMI category on score changes.
RESULTS: In the SIJF group, mean SIJ pain improved at 24 months by 53.3 points (p<.0001). Over the 24-month follow-up period, BMI category did not impact mean improvement in SIJ pain scale score (repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) p=.44). In the SIJF group, mean ODI at 24 months improved by 25.8 points (p<.0001). BMI category did not impact mean improvement in ODI (ANOVA p=.60). In the nonsurgical management (NSM) group, mean improvements in SIJ pain scale and ODI were clinically small (8.7 and 5.2 points, respectively) and not affected by BMI category (ANOVA p=.49 and .40).
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates similar benefits and risks of minimally invasive SIJ fusion with TTI across all BMI categories. This analysis suggests that obese patients benefit from minimally invasive SIJ fusion and should not be denied this procedure based solely on elevated BMI.

UNASSIGNED: In Head and Neck surgery Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) is evolving as a key treatment option for benign and malignant lesions in the oropharynx. Even so, postoperative pain is one of the primary early complaints following TORS. Well established evidence-based procedure specific pain treatment guidelines are available for a variety of other surgical specialties. However, there are no guidelines for TORS.
UNASSIGNED: This review describes the available data of early pain intensity following TORS during rest and procedure related activity.
UNASSIGNED: Literature concerning pain in the immediate postoperative phase following TORS were obtained from two literature databases.
UNASSIGNED: Most data on pain intensity following TORS are based upon a numeric rating scale, e.g. the Visual Analogue Scale and/or analgesic demands. Only one randomized clinical trial is available reflecting that the literature is mainly based on retrospective and a few prospective studies. Only one study analyzed pain during relevant functionality, i.e. swallowing. Overall, the studies suffer from a non-standardized approach and there is a need for transparent information concerning the timing of pain ratings and methodology.
UNASSIGNED: The evidence for optimal pain control is limited, particularly during surgical relevant activity. Postoperative pain rating during activity is a fundamental element in pain trials in order to enhance recovery thereby calling for future consensus on assessment methodology.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with hip fractures frequently present at the emergency department (ED). Despite high pain scores, prehospital pain management is often inadequate and insufficient. In the Netherlands, the emergency medical services (EMS) exhibit a high level of training, supported by a comprehensive pain treatment protocol. This study aimed to assess adherence to the protocol and hypothesized that prehospital pain management in hip fracture patients was both sufficient and adequate.
METHODS: This was a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with suspected hip fractures. The median differences in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores between the initial score in the ambulance and upon arrival at the ED were compared. Furthermore, adherence to the ambulance pain protocol was studied.
RESULTS: From September 2016 to March 2021, 436 ambulance-transported hip fracture patients were included, of whom 81% received analgesics by EMS. The median initial pain score measured by EMS was 8; this number decreased to 5 at ED presentation, a significant decrease (ρ < 0.001). In case a prehospital NRS pain score was assessed, 66.5% of the patients were treated according to the protocol. In 80% of patients, the protocol was not followed correctly, primarily due to missing NRS pain scores.
CONCLUSIONS: In suspected hip fracture patients, initial prehospital pain scores were high and most patients received analgesics from EMS. This resulted in a significant decrease in pain. In nearly 67% of patients in whom an NRS pain score was assessed in the prehospital phase, pain management was according to protocol. However, in 80% of the total population the pain protocol was not adhered to, mainly due to missing NRS pain scores.

BACKGROUND: The S1 guideline on long/post-COVID of the AWMF [German Association of the Medical Scientific Societies] registration number 020-027) was updated in August 2022.
METHODS: Under the coordination of the German Society of Pneumology, the guideline was updated by 21 scientific associations, two professional associations and clinical centers each and one institute and statutory accident insurance each. Each scientific association was responsible for its own chapter. The German Pain Society prepared the chapter \"Pain\". The coordinators of each chapter performed a selective literature search and also received approval for the chapter within their scientific association. During an internal period of comments, all representatives of the participating institutions could comment on all chapters. The AWMF task force commented on the draft of the guideline, which was then finally approved by the boards of all participating institutions.
RESULTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases the risk of persistent headache and musculoskeletal pain. Long/Post-COVID pain is frequently associated with fatigue and cognitive problems. A specialist assessment might be considered if symptoms with limitations of daily activities persist 3 months after the infection. The diagnostic workup of long/post-COVID-associated pain should be performed according to the standards of pain medicine. Management should follow the pain guidelines of the AWMF.
CONCLUSIONS: The updated S1 guideline on long/post-COVID is a clinical manual which offers orientation for diagnostics and treatment despite limited data.
UNASSIGNED: HINTERGRUND: Die Aktualisierung der S1-Leitlinie „Long/Post-COVID“ der AWMF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften), Registernummer 020–027 wurde im August 2022 vorgenommen.
METHODS: Die Leitlinie wurde unter Koordination der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Pneumologie von 21 wissenschaftlichen Fachgesellschaften, je zwei Berufsverbänden und klinischen Zentren, einem Institut und einer gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung entwickelt. Die Fachgesellschaften waren für ihre jeweiligen Kapitel verantwortlich. Die Deutsche Schmerzgesellschaft bearbeitete daher das Kapitel „Schmerzen“. Die Kapitelverantwortlichen führten eine selektive Literatursuche durch und konsentierten das Kapitel in ihren Fachgesellschaften. Während einer internen Kommentierungsphase konnten alle Fachgesellschaftsvertreter Kommentare zu allen Kapiteln abgeben. Der fertiggestellte Leitlinienentwurf wurde von der AWMF Task Force kommentiert und danach von allen beteiligten Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen verabschiedet.
UNASSIGNED: COVID erhöht das Risiko, anhaltende Kopf- und muskuloskeletale Schmerzen zu entwickeln. Long/Post-COVID-Schmerzen sind häufig mit Fatigue und kognitiven Störungen assoziiert. Eine weiterführende spezialärztliche Abklärung kann angezeigt sein, wenn nach durchgemachter SARS-CoV-2-Infektion einschränkende Symptome länger als drei Monate persistieren. Die Diagnostik von Long/Post-COVID-assoziierten Schmerzen sollte gemäß schmerzmedizinischen Standards durchgeführt und entsprechend den Schmerzleitlinien der AWMF behandelt werden.
UNASSIGNED: Die aktualisierte S1-Leitlinie „Long/Post-COVID“ ist ein klinischer Leitfaden, der trotz einer noch begrenzten Datenlage eine diagnostische und therapeutische Orientierung liefert.