| Literature DB >> 35628840 |
Jakub Zieliński1, Monika Morawska-Kochman1, Krzysztof Dudek2, Michał Czapla3,4, Tomasz Zatoński1.
Abstract
The aim of this randomized, controlled trial was to determine whether children undergoing otolaryngological procedures (adenoidectomy, adenotonsillotomy, or tonsillectomy) benefit from pre-emptive analgesia in the postoperative period.Entities:
Keywords: adenoidectomy; children; pain; pain management; postoperative pain; pre-emptive analgesia; tonsillectomy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35628840 PMCID: PMC9146866 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11102713
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Figure 1Flow diagram presenting the research participants.
Characteristics of the studied children.
| Variable | Statistics |
|---|---|
| Gender | N (%) |
| Female | 23 (45.1%) |
| Male | 28 (54.9%) |
| Age (years): | |
| Mean ± SD | 5.6 ± 2.8 |
| Me (Q1–Q3) | 5 (4–7) |
| Min–Max | 2–15 |
| Pre-emptive | |
| Yes | 26 (51.0%) |
| No | 25 (49.0%) |
Abbreviations: Me—median.
Characteristics of children in groups that differ in pain prevention.
| Variable | Pre-Emptive Analgesia | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| Gender: | 0.877 | ||
| Female, | 12 (46.2) | 11 (44.0) | |
| Male, | 14 (53.8) | 14 (56.0 | |
| Age, years | 0.258 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 6.0 ± 2.7 | 5.2 ± 2.8 | |
| Me (Q1–Q3) | 5 (4–8) | 5 (3–6) | |
| Min–Max | 3–13 | 2–15 | |
| Body weight (kg) | 0.172 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 28.0 ± 14.0 | 23.1 ± 11.1 | |
| Me (Q1–Q3) | 23 (20–29) | 20 (17–24) | |
| Min–Max | 15–68 | 13–63 | |
| Height (cm) | 0.113 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 123 ± 18 | 115 ± 17 | |
| Me (Q1–Q3) | 120 (107–130) | 111 (104–126) | |
| Min–Max | 102–160 | 85–160 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 0.449 | ||
| Mean ± SD | 17.6 ± 3.6 | 16.9 ± 3.4 | |
| Me (Q1–Q3) | 16.4 (15.3–18.8) | 15.9 (14.6–19.9) | |
| Min–Max | 13.3–29.4 | 12.4–24.6 | |
Abbreviations: Me—median; p-value, p—level of significance; n—number of participants, BMI—body mass index.
Assessment of perceived pain in groups of children differing in pain prophylaxis.
| Pain Measurement Scale | Pre-Emptive Analgesia | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | ||
| WB 1 h | 2 ((0–2) | 4 (2–8) | 0.001 |
| WB 2 h | 2 (0–4) | 2 (0–4) | 0.401 |
| WB 4 h | 2 (0–4) | 4 (2–6) | 0.002 |
| WB 6 h | 0 (0–2) | 4 (2–4) | 0.003 |
| VAS 1 h | 2.5 (1–4) | 6 (3–8) | 0.001 |
| VAS 2 h | 2 (1–5) | 3 (1–5) | 0.839 |
| VAS 4 h | 2 (1–3) | 4 (3–6) | 0.001 |
| VAS 6 h | 1 (1–2) | 4 (2–5) | 0.002 |
| FLACC 1 h | 0 (0–4) | 2 (0–4) | 0.289 |
| FLACC 2 h | 0 (0–2) | 0 (0–2) | 0.847 |
| FLACC 4 h | 0 (0–1) | 0 (0–1) | 0.779 |
| FLACC 6 h | 0 (0–0) | 0 (0–0) | 1.000 |
Abbreviations: n—number of participants; p-value, p—level of significance; WB—Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale; VAS—Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); FLACC—Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability Scale.
Rank correlation coefficients (Spearman’s Rho) between pain scales.
| WB | VAS | FLACC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st hour | WB | × | 0.854 *** | 0.474 *** |
| VAS | × | 0.528 *** | ||
| FLACC | × | |||
| 2nd hour | WB | × | 0.894 *** | 0.318 * |
| VAS | × | 0.328 * | ||
| FLACC | × | |||
| 4th hour | WB | × | 0.956*** | 0.323 * |
| VAS | × | 0.327 * | ||
| FLACC | × | |||
| 6th hour | WB | × | 0.915 *** | 0.515 *** |
| VAS | × | 0.511 *** | ||
| FLACC | × |
Abbreviations: WB—Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale; VAS—Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); FLACC—Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability Scale. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.
The values of the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) assessing the compliance of the results of pain level measurements on the WB, VAS, and FLACC scales.
| Patients | VAS vs. FLACC | WB vs. FLACC | VAS vs. WB |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 0.287 | 0.324 | 0.876 |
| Pre-emptive | 0.364 | 0.457 | 0.851 |
| No pre-emptive | 0.249 | 0.258 | 0.860 |
Abbreviations: WB—Wong–Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale; VAS—Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); FLACC—Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability Scale.
Figure 2Bland–Altman charts comparing pain levels as assessed by WB, VAS, and FLACC.