RESEARCH ARTICLE
Application of Pain Quantitative Analysis Device for Assessment of Postoperative Pain after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
Yutaka Mifune*, Atsuyuki Inui 1, Issei Nagura 2, Ryosuke Sakata 1, Tomoyuki Muto 1, Yoshifumi Harada 1, Fumiaki Takase 1, Masahiro Kurosaka 1, Takeshi Kokubu 1
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2015Volume: 9
First Page: 89
Last Page: 93
Publisher ID: TOORTHJ-9-89
DOI: 10.2174/1874325001509010089
Article History:
Received Date: 21/11/2014Revision Received Date: 17/3/2015
Acceptance Date: 20/3/2015
Electronic publication date: 15/5/2015
Collection year: 2015
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
Abstract
Purpose :
The PainVision™ system was recently developed for quantitative pain assessment. Here, we used this system to evaluate the effect of plexus brachialis block on postoperative pain after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
Methods :
Fifty-five patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were included in this study. First 26 cases received no plexus brachialis block (control group), and the next 29 cases received the plexus brachialis block before surgery (block group). Patients completed the visual analog scale at 4, 8, 16, and 24 hours after surgery, and the intensity of postoperative pain was assessed with PainVision™ at 16 hours. The postoperative use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents was also recorded.
Results :
The pain intensity at 16 hours after surgery assessed by PainVision™ was significantly lower in the block group than in the control group (block, 252.0 ± 47.8, control, 489.0 ± 89.1, P < 0.05). However, there were no differences in the VAS values at 16 hours between the 2 groups (block, 4.3 ± 0.6, control, 5.7 ± 0.4, P = N.S.). The pain intensity and VAS at 16 hours after surgery were highly correlated (r = 0.59, P = 0.006 in the block group and r = 0.62, P = 0.003 in the control group). The effect size of the assessment by PainVision™ was bigger than that of VAS (r=0.31 in VAS and 0.51 in Pain vision).
Conclusion :
The PainVision™ system could be useful to evaluate postoperative pain because it enables the quantification and comparison of pain intensity independent of individual pain thresholds.
