BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) is a non-pharmacological method to distract from pain during painful procedures. However, it was never tested in young children with burn injuries undergoing wound care.AimWe aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the study process and the use of VR for procedural pain management.MethodsFrom June 2016 to January 2017, we recruited children from 2 months to 10 years of age with burn injuries requiring a hydrotherapy session in a pediatric university teaching hospital in Montreal. Each child received the projector-based VR intervention in addition to the standard pharmacological treatment. Data on intervention and study feasibility and acceptability in addition to measures on pain (Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability scale), baseline (Modified Smith Scale) and procedural (Procedure Behavior Check List) anxiety, comfort (OCCEB-BECCO [behavioral observational scale of comfort level for child burn victims]), and sedation (Ramsay Sedation Scale) were collected before, during, and after the procedure. Data analyses included descriptive and non-parametric inferential statistics.ResultsWe recruited 15 children with a mean age of 2.2±2.1 years and a mean total body surface area of 5% (±4). Mean pain score during the procedure was low (2.9/10, ±3), as was the discomfort level (2.9/10, ±2.8). Most children were cooperative, oriented, and calm. Assessing anxiety was not feasible with our sample of participants. The prototype did not interfere with the procedure and was considered useful for procedural pain management by most health care professionals.ConclusionThe projector-based VR is a feasible and acceptable intervention for procedural pain management in young children with burn injuries. A larger trial with a control group is required to assess its efficacy.

Combination of morphine with ibuprofen did not provide adequate pain relief for children with MSK-I in the ED. None of the study medication provided an optimal pain management because most of children did not reach a mild pain score (NCT02064894).

Appropriate pain measurement relies on the use of valid, reliable tools. The aim of this study was to determine and compare the psychometric properties of 3 self-reported pain scales commonly used in the pediatric emergency department (ED). The inclusion criteria were children aged 6 to 17 years presenting to the ED with a musculoskeletal injury and self-reported pain scores ≥30 mm on the mechanical Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Self-reported pain intensity was assessed using the mechanical VAS, Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), and Colour Analogue Scale (CAS). Convergent validity was assessed by Pearson correlations and the Bland-Altman method; responsiveness to change was assessed using paired sample t tests and standardized mean responses; and reliability was estimated using relative and absolute indices. A total of 456 participants were included, with a mean age of 11.9 years ± 2.7 and a majority were boys (252/456, 55.3%). Correlations between each pair of scales were 0.78 (VAS/FPS-R), 0.92 (VAS/CAS), and 0.79 (CAS/FPS-R). Limits of agreement (95% confidence interval) were -3.77 to 2.33 (VAS/FPS-R), -1.74 to 1.75 (VAS/CAS), and -2.21 to 3.62 (CAS/FPS-R). Responsiveness to change was demonstrated by significant differences in mean pain scores among the scales (P < 0.0001). Intraclass correlation coefficient and coefficient of repeatability estimates suggested acceptable reliability for the 3 scales at, respectively, 0.79 and ±2.29 (VAS), 0.82 and ±2.07 (CAS), and 0.76 and ±2.82 (FPS-R). The scales demonstrated good psychometric properties for children with acute pain in the ED. The VAS and CAS showed a strong convergent validity, whereas FPS-R was not in agreement with the other scales.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of the Buzzy device combining cold and vibration for needle-related procedural pain in children. Materials and Methods: Databases search was conducted from inception to December 2017 to identify randomized controlled trials using the Buzzy device for pain management in children undergoing needle-related procedures. Selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and quality of evidence were independently performed by 2 reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. Results: A total of 9 studies involving 1138 participants aged between 3 and 18 years old were included in the systematic review and 7 were suitable for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis compared the Buzzy device with a no-treatment comparator and the effect of the device was significant in reducing self-report procedural pain (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.52 to −0.70; P<0.0001), parent-reported procedural pain (SMD: −0.94; 95% CI: −1.62 to −0.27; P=0.006), observer-report procedural pain (SMD: −1.19; 95% CI: −1.90 to −0.47; P=0.001), observer-reported procedural anxiety (SMD −1.37; 95% CI: −1.77 to −0.96; P<0.00001), and parent-reported procedural anxiety (SMD −1.36; 95% CI: −2.11 to −0.61; P=0.0004). There was no significant difference for the success of the procedure at first attempt and the occurrence of adverse events. Discussion: The Buzzy device seems to be a promising intervention for procedural pain management in children. However, the comparative effect is uncertain due to the presence of significant heterogeneity and very low-quality evidence. There is a need to improve the methodological quality and rigor in the design of future trials to conclude to the efficacy of the Buzzy device.

No abstract