New approach for treatment of prolonged postoperative pain: APS Out-Patient Clinic.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Persistent postoperative pain (PPP) is a significant clinical problem. Several patient-related risk factors for PPP have been identified, including a previous chronic pain problem, young age, female gender and psychological vulnerability. Intra- and postoperative risk factors include surgical complications such as infections, haematoma, nerve damage and repeated surgery. As the length of hospital stay has been shortened, some patients may be discharged despite ongoing pain and insufficient analgesic medication. The challenge is to identify patients at high risk of developing PPP and to create a targeted care pathway to ensure effective and safe pain treatment especially in the subacute postoperative phase at home. This observational study describes the first two years of the Acute Pain Service Out-Patient Clinic (APS-OPC) at the Helsinki University Hospital.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, known risk factors, and details of treatment of PPP for the first 200 patients referred to our APS-OPC were retrospectively collected from the medical records. The APS-OPC clinic functions in close collaboration with the Multidisciplinary Pain Clinic (MPC), and the number of patients in need of physiotherapist, psychologist or psychiatrist counselling was recorded, as well as the number of patients referred to the MPC for further PPP management.

RESULTS

Patients were referred to the APS-OPC from different surgical specialities, the two most common being thoracic and orthopaedic surgery. Seventy per cent of the patients (139/200) presented symptoms indicating neuropathic postsurgical pain. The patients had, on average, five risk factors for PPP. The median time from surgery to the first contact to the APS-OPC was two months, and the median duration of follow-up was 2.8 months (0-16 months). The median number of contacts with APS-OPC was 3 (range 1-14). Every fourth patient needed only one contact to the APS-OPC. Nineteen per cent of the patients had an appointment with the physiotherapist and 20% with a psychologist or psychiatrist. At discharge after surgery, 54% of the patients were using weak opioids, 32% strong opioids and 71% gabapentinoids; at discharge from the APS-OPC, these numbers were 20%, 6% and 43%, respectively. Twenty-two per cent of the patients were referred to the MPC for further pain management.

CONCLUSIONS

The APS-OPC provides a fluent fast-track method of ensuring effective multimodal analgesia in the subacute recovery phase after surgery. Even strong opioids can be safely used after discharge and then tapered off in close supervision of the APS-OPC anaesthesiologist. As the APS-OPC was implemented in close collaboration with the MPC, the multidisciplinary resources are easily available during the course of the APS-OPC treatment.

IMPLICATIONS

The first two years of the APS-OPC have shown that a significant number of surgical patients benefit from continuing active pain management after discharge from hospital. This fast-track service provides physician-supervised titration of analgesics to improve pain relief in the subacute phase. An important task of the APS-OPC is to ensure that strong opioids are not inappropriately continued after recovery. Another goal of the APS-OPC is to identify patients in need of multidisciplinary pain management services to prevent chronification.