Martin Schoenthaler1, Arkadiusz Miernik2, Klaus Offner3, Wojciech Konrad Karcz4, Dieter Hauschke5, Sabina Sevcenco6, Franklin Emmanuel Kuehhas6, Christian Bach7, Noor Buchholz8, Konrad Wilhelm1. 1. Department of Urology, , University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 2. 1Department of Urology, , University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, , University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 4. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, , University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 5. Institute of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom. 8. Department of Urology, The Royal London Hospital, Bartshealth NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate and evaluate the applicability of a new score to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption in urological and surgical patients across different categories of pain medications and the invasiveness of medical interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS) was determined for two cohorts of patients split into three groups with surgeries involving clinically distinct levels of invasiveness (n = 2 x 60). Nonparametric statistical analyses were performed to determine differences between the CACS among the different groups and to assess the correlation between CACS and numeric rating scale (NRS) values for pain intensity. RESULTS: The score was determined for postoperative days 1 and 2 and revealed median scores of 0 (0-11), 3 (0-22) and 10 (6-17) for UA (urological patients from group A), UB (group B) and UC (group C), respectively, and 4 (0-20), 8 (0-38) and 17 (7-68) for SA (surgical patients from group A, SB (group B) and SC (group C), respectively. CACS enabled reliable differentiation between groups involving different levels of invasiveness (p < 0.001). CACS and peak NRS values showed variable degrees of correlation, as expressed by levels of significance ranging from p < 0.001 to p = 0.34 (NS). CONCLUSIONS: The CACS is a valid and easily applicable tool to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption in urological and surgical patients. It can be used as a surrogate parameter to assess postsurgical pain and the invasiveness of surgical procedures. These aspects may be measured to compare surgical procedures, in both clinical trials and clinical practice settings.
OBJECTIVE: To validate and evaluate the applicability of a new score to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption in urological and surgical patients across different categories of pain medications and the invasiveness of medical interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cumulative analgesic consumption score (CACS) was determined for two cohorts of patients split into three groups with surgeries involving clinically distinct levels of invasiveness (n = 2 x 60). Nonparametric statistical analyses were performed to determine differences between the CACS among the different groups and to assess the correlation between CACS and numeric rating scale (NRS) values for pain intensity. RESULTS: The score was determined for postoperative days 1 and 2 and revealed median scores of 0 (0-11), 3 (0-22) and 10 (6-17) for UA (urological patients from group A), UB (group B) and UC (group C), respectively, and 4 (0-20), 8 (0-38) and 17 (7-68) for SA (surgical patients from group A, SB (group B) and SC (group C), respectively. CACS enabled reliable differentiation between groups involving different levels of invasiveness (p < 0.001). CACS and peak NRS values showed variable degrees of correlation, as expressed by levels of significance ranging from p < 0.001 to p = 0.34 (NS). CONCLUSIONS: The CACS is a valid and easily applicable tool to describe postsurgical analgesic consumption in urological and surgical patients. It can be used as a surrogate parameter to assess postsurgical pain and the invasiveness of surgical procedures. These aspects may be measured to compare surgical procedures, in both clinical trials and clinical practice settings.
Authors: Konrad Wilhelm; Simon Hein; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Arkadiusz Miernik; Martin Schoenthaler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-05-14 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Alexander Harald Ralf Frank; Philipp Groene; Viktor von Ehrlich-Treuenstätt; Christian Heiliger; Jens Werner; Konrad Karcz Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: Konrad Wilhelm; Ioana Maria Cazana; Martin Schoenthaler; Arndt Katzenwadel; Johannes Spaeth; Arkadiusz Miernik Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 4.226