Management of Post-craniotomy Pain in Elective Cases: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND

Craniotomy is associated with significant postoperative discomfort. Standardized pain management and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol could improve patient-reported outcomes and lower medical expenses.

AIM

The aim of this study is to prospectively assess the effectiveness of an ERAS protocol for neurosurgery in the treatment of postoperative pain following elective craniotomies.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 128 patients were assigned to the ERAS group and received care in accordance with the neurosurgical ERAS regulations, while 130 other participants were assigned to the control group and received traditional postoperative assistance. The participants' postoperative pain ratings using the numerical rating scale (NRS) were this study's main outcome of interest. The verbal NRS uses the numbers 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no sensation of pain and 10 indicating the most severe pain. On postoperative day (POD) 1, the patients' postoperative pain level at the surgical site was evaluated using the NRS. This was repeated every day until the patient either reported feeling no sensation of pain or was discharged home.

RESULTS

The mean value of pain on the day of surgery was 4.43 ± 0.43 and 4.72 ± 0.68 for patients in the ERAS and control groups, respectively. The pain values were higher in the control group compared to the ERAS group. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.478). The mean value of pain on POD1 was 3.13 ± 0.21 and 4.45 ± 0.95 for patients in the ERAS and control groups, respectively. These pain values were higher in the control group compared to the ERAS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.011). The mean value of pain on POD2 was 2.86 ± 0.3 and 4.33 ± 0.37 for patients in the ERAS and control groups, respectively. The values of pain were higher in the control group compared to the ERAS group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.003). The mean value of pain on POD3 was 2.33 ± 0.52 and 4.04 ± 0.15 for patients in the ERAS and control groups, respectively. The pain values were higher in the control group compared to the ERAS group. The difference was meaningful statistically (p < 0.001). The mean value of pain on POD4 was 2.26 ± 0.9 and 2.84 ± 0.13 for the ERAS and control groups, respectively. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.274). The ERAS group had a significantly higher proportion of participants rating their pain between 1 and 3 (68.9%) and a lower proportion rating their pain between 4 and 7 (28.2%), compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Differences in the highest pain ratings (8-10) between the groups were not statistically significant. The duration of hospital stay, beginning from surgery to discharge, was lesser among study participants in the ERAS group, and this finding was statistically significant (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study imply that the ERAS protocol may aid pain management following elective craniotomies. Additionally, the ERAS protocol decreased the overall expense of medical care and the cumulative/postoperative length of hospital stay.