MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313340546 · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000004442

Chronic Postsurgical Pain After Solid Organ Transplantation: A Dreaded Complication in Recipients and Living Donors

2022· article· en· W4313340546 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Faouzi Saliba

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)ComplicationTransplantationChronic painPsychosocialSurgeryNephrectomyOrgan transplantationKidneyInternal medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) must be distinguished from acute postoperative pain and is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain as pain that develops after a surgical procedure and persists for at least 3 mo after surgery, excluding all other causes of pain or preexisting pain problems.1 CPSP varies in intensity from discomfort to functional limitation and could be persistent or intermittent. Anxiety, surgical trauma, stress, side effects of drugs (mostly in relation to opioid use), and an underestimation of the magnitude of the problem by physicians, family, and relatives complicate the management.2 Merely 2% to 10% of individuals undergoing surgery will develop severe persisting pain leading to chronic physical disability and psychosocial distress.2 After solid organ transplantation (SOT), the prevalence of CPSP is estimated to be 20% but varies according to the type of organ transplant.3 CPSP has been reported after heart and lung transplantation with a prevalence of 54% and 18%, respectively, after kidney (25.8%) and liver (35% in nonusers of opioids before transplant, 10% were severe CPSP), mainly occurring in recipients on opioids or benzodiazepines before transplant.4-6 CSP has a striking psychological burden when occurring in the context of a living donation from a healthy donor. Holtzman et al7 reported CPSP after the hepatectomy in 31% and 27% of the donors, respectively, at 6 and 12 mo of follow-up. The prevalence of CPSP following living donor laparoscopic nephrectomy was 5.7% in the series by Bruintjes et al8 and 41% in a prospective cohort of living donor nephrectomy reported by Fleishman et al.9 This substantial variation might be related to the definition of CPSP, the design of the study, and various pain tool assessment. Management of CPSP consists of the use of single or combination drugs, mainly paracetamol, non–steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and tramadol, but often requires the need for opioids. Several reports evaluated chronic opioid consumption before and after transplantation and its impact on mortality.4-6 Chuan et al10 performed a retrospective analysis of 140 SOT patients followed by a transitional pain service (TPS) at the Toronto General Hospital that provides a multidisciplinary care pathway preoperatively and postoperatively. Opioid consumption calculated in milligram morphine equivalent (MME) per day was the main outcome measure. The TPS used 6 well-known various screening tools, scores, or questionnaires to quantify and assess the various physical, psychological, and social consequences of CPSP (Neuropathic Pain Screening Tool, Brief Pain Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Sensitivity to Pain Traumatization Scale, and Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire) at the first and last TPS visits. The authors showed that self-reported total pain, the use of opioid medication, opioid dosing consumption, and rating of intensity and quality of pain decreased from the first TPS visit to the last TPS visit. The main significant changes over the treatment at the TPS were the reduction of opioid dose consumption and improvement in total pain traumatization score. The study by Chuan et al10 has the merit to address the beneficial issue on transplant patients of a long follow-up by a specialized pain care service. Despite that, currently, some centers have a pain care referent or department, often run by an anesthesiologist or addictologist, and few are dedicated to long-term follow-up of SOT recipients. Nevertheless, some points deserve to be elucidated. This was a very select cohort of 140 patients in a large organ transplant center performing merely 700 transplants per year. In this cohort, 35% of the patients had a history of addiction, 53% had a history of mental health difficulties, and 67% were on opioid medication at the pretransplant visit. It is well known that these factors, in addition to a few others, including patient characteristics, comorbidities, and alterations in central pain processing, are the main risk factors of posttransplant opioid consumption.4,5,7,11 This must be distinguished from CPSP and opioid use acquired after transplant surgery, considering both patient and medical team perception, in which technical issues related to surgery (previous surgery, severe acute postoperative pain, tissue adhesions, nerve injury) might influence the development of CPSP. Several reports highlighted an association between chronic opioid consumption, the daily dose of opioid consumption, before organ transplant or during the first year posttransplant, and increased morbidity and mortality.5,11,12 Data from the US kidney transplant registry showed an association between long-term opioid prescription doses of ≥90 MME/d and mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.61; 95% CI, 1.24-2.10) and graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio 1.33; 95% CI, 1.05-1.67).12 Similar data were reported after a heart transplant.11 In the study of Chuan et al,10 34% of the patients were on an opioid dose prescription of >50 MME/d posttransplant, and the management by the TPS led to a significant reduction in the daily dose. Nevertheless, the tools used by the TPS in terms of management, interventions and medications, and the patient willingness to integrate such programs are not elucidated. Finally, whether the benefit of opioid reduction or discontinuation improved long-term patient and graft survival is worth evaluating. High-dose opioid consumption appears as a marker, possibly reflecting underlying conditions, comorbidities, and behaviors. The Centers for Disease Control guidelines recommend specific caution and careful reassessment of individual benefits and risks when considering increasing dosages to ≥50 MME/d.13 In summary, a multidisciplinary approach involving anesthesiologist, psychiatrists, psychologists, addictologists, physiotherapists, and referent nursing personnel is often required for the long-term follow-up of patients with CPSP. Targeted evaluation of high-risk patients at time of transplant, by the transplant team and a TPS, is mandatory. Chronic opioid consumption before transplant is a major risk factor for posttransplant consumption and might affect long-term morbidity and mortality. A specialized multidisciplinary pain care team might help improve pre- and postoperative pain management in transplant centers and long-term outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207