BackgroundVariability in anatomy in the knees supports the use of aggressive lesioning techniques such as bipolar-radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA). There are no randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of bipolar-RFA.MethodsSixty-four patients with KOA who experienced >50% pain relief from prognostic superomedial, superolateral and inferomedial genicular nerve blocks were randomly assigned to receive either genicular nerve local anesthetic and steroid injections with sham-RFA or local anesthetic and steroid plus bipolar-RFA. Participants and outcome adjudicators were blinded to allocation. The primary outcome was Visual Analog Scale pain score 12 months postprocedure. Secondary outcome measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) and Patient Global Improvement-Indexes (PGI-I).ResultsBoth groups experienced significant reductions in pain, with no significant differences observed at 12 months (reduction from 5.7±1.9 to 3.2±2.6 in the RFA-group vs from 5.0±1.4 to 2.6±2.4 in the control-group (p=0.40)) or any other time point. No significant changes were observed between groups for WOMAC and PGI-I at the primary endpoint, with only the control group experiencing a significant improvement in function at 12-month follow-up (mean reduction from 91.2±38.2 to 67.1±51.9 in the RFA-group (p=0.06) vs from 95.8±41.1 to 60.6±42.8 in the control group (p=0.001); p=0.85 between groups).ConclusionOur failure to find efficacy for genicular nerve RFA, coupled with evidence showing that a plenitude of nerves supply the knee joint and preliminary studies indicating superiority of lesioning strategies targeting more than three nerves, suggest controlled trials using more aggressive lesioning strategies are warranted.Trial registration numberTCTR20170130003.

ObjectivePain diaries are a valuable self-assessment tool; however, their use in chronic non-cancer pain has received limited attention. In this study, we examined the effect of pain diary use on pain intensity, interference, and intrapersonal change in patients with chronic non-cancer pain.MethodA convergent mixed-methods design was used to prospectively evaluate a cohort of 72 patients. Daily pain intensity and weekly pain-interference were self-reported using pain diaries for a 4-week period. Outcomes were assessed by examining changes in pain scores (primary outcome) as well as the Brief Pain Inventory and Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2. In addition, qualitative data obtained from pain diary entries and focus-group interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis.ResultsPain intensity and average pain scores were significantly lower after using the diaries. Participants reported less pain interference in mood, walking ability, normal work, and enjoyment of life. No differences were found in SF-MPQ-2 scores. Qualitative analysis indicated that better pain recognition and more effective communication with care providers led to improved self-management and more effectual treatment plans.ConclusionUse of a pain diary in patients with chronic non-cancer pain was associated with reduced pain intensity and improved mood as well as function. Further controlled trials examining the long-term effects of pain diaries are warranted.

Background Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation are strong stimuli that cause a reflex increase in blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and serum catecholamine level. These can lead to myocardial infarction or cerebrovascular accidents. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and lidocaine combined with propofol in attenuating the hemodynamic response following laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation. Methods This study was a randomized controlled study and adhered to the CONSORT guidelines. One-hundred and six patients undergoing elective general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation were divided randomly into two groups. Group D received dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg− 1) before induction. Group LP received lidocaine (1.5 mg kg− 1) before induction with additional propofol (0.5 mg kg− 1) before laryngoscopy. The primary endpoint was hemodynamic including systolic (S) BP, diastolic (D) BP, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and HR measured before and after induction and ≤ 10 min after intubation. Secondary outcome was complications/adverse effects. Results After induction, the mean SBP, DBP, MAP and HR decreased significantly from baseline in both groups except for mean HR in group LP at 1 min. Differences in mean values of SBP, DBP, and MAP were significantly lower in group D after intubation at 4–10 min (P <  0.05). Group LP had a non-inferior effect in blunting BP at all time points except 1 and 2 min after induction, and 2 min after intubation. The mean difference in HR in group D was significantly lower than that in group LP at all time points (P <  0.001). Group D had significantly more episodes of bradycardia (18.87% vs. 0%, P = 0.001) and hypotension (52.83% vs. 15.09%, P < 0.001) than did group LP. Conclusion Lidocaine (1.5 mg kg− 1) with additional propofol (0.5 mg kg− 1) had a non-inferior effect compared with dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg− 1) in attenuating the hemodynamic response following laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation, and had fewer adverse effects. Trial registration Thai Clinical Trial Registry, (TRTC20190206002). Retrospectively registered 4 February 2019.

Background: Strong opioids are mainly utilized to attenuate pain in cancer patients. Adherence to analgesic drugs significantly promotes adequate pain management and improves quality of life. We aimed to identify the factors influencing non-adherence to strong opioids in cancer patients. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional, two-phased, mixed methods design was conducted prospectively to evaluate a cohort of 101 cancer patients who are currently prescribed strong opioids from a pain clinic in Thailand between January and March 2018. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the following sections: general characteristics; the Medication Taking Behavior in Thai (MTB-Thai) for assessing adherence to medications; and factors influencing nonadherence, which were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. In addition, face-to-face in depth interviews were conducted with patients showing non-adherence to strong opioids (MTB-Thai score ≤21) and analyzed using thematic content analysis.  Results: Of 101 cancer pain patients that completed the questionnaire, 39.6% showed non-adherence to strong opioids. Illness understanding (P=0.047) and the use of more than three types of pain medication (P=0.032) were significant factors influencing non-adherence. Qualitative analysis indicated that fear of long-term outcomes, opioid side effects, ineffective pain control, attempts to make the regimen more acceptable, poor understanding, and non-acceptance of disease related to non-adherence. Conclusion: Non-adherence to opioids for cancer patients is a common problem. Awareness of patient factors, medication-related factors, and illness-related factors will provide the knowledge and adequate advice that may enhance adherence to medications.

Background: Strong opioids are mainly utilized to attenuate pain in cancer patients. Adherence to analgesic drugs significantly promotes adequate pain management and improves quality of life. We aimed to identify the factors influencing non-adherence to strong opioids in cancer patients. Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional, two-phased, mixed methods design was conducted prospectively to evaluate a cohort of 101 cancer patients who are currently prescribed strong opioids from a pain clinic in Thailand between January and March 2018. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included the following sections: general characteristics; the Medication Taking Behavior in Thai (MTB-Thai) for assessing adherence to medications; and factors influencing nonadherence, which were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. In addition, face-to-face in depth interviews were conducted with patients showing non-adherence to strong opioids (MTB-Thai score ≤21) and analyzed using thematic content analysis.  Results: Of 101 cancer pain patients that completed the questionnaire, 39.6% showed non-adherence to strong opioids. Illness understanding (P=0.047) and the use of more than three types of pain medication (P=0.032) were significant factors influencing non-adherence. Qualitative analysis indicated that fear of long-term outcomes, opioid side effects, ineffective pain control, attempts to make the regimen more acceptable, poor understanding, and non-acceptance of disease related to non-adherence. Conclusion: Non-adherence to opioids for cancer patients is a common problem. Awareness of patient factors, medication-related factors, and illness-related factors will provide the knowledge and adequate advice that may enhance adherence to medications.

Background Opioids are currently prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), and some patients use opioids continuously for long-term treatment. Stakeholders’ awareness about long-term opioid therapy is essential for improving the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family caregivers about long-term opioid use in CNCP management. Methods This study was a qualitative study and adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Pain specialists (n = 12), patients (n = 14), and family members (n = 9) were recruited to the study by purposive sampling at the Pain Clinic of Ramathibodi Hospital. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, verbatim transcribed, conceptually coded, and analyzed using Atlas.ti 8.0. Results All groups of participants described opioids as non-first-line drugs for pain management. Opioids should be prescribed only for severe pain, when non-opioid pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological therapies are not effective. Patients reported that the benefits of opioids were for pain relief, while physicians and most family members highlighted that opioid use should improve functional outcomes. Physicians and family members expressed concerns about opioid-related side effects, harm, and adverse events, while patients did not. Patients confirmed that they would continue using opioids for pain management under supervision. However, physicians stated that they would taper off or discontinue opioid therapy if patients’ pain relief or functional improvement was not achieved. Both patients and family members were willing to consider non-pharmacological therapies if potential benefits existed. Patient education, doctor–patient/family relationships, and opioid prescription policies were proposed to enhance CNCP management. Conclusion Long-term opioid therapy for CNCP may be beneficial in patients who have established realistic treatment goals (for both pain relief and functional improvement) with their physicians. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the risks and benefits, adverse events, and drug-related aberrant behaviors are necessary. Integrated multimodal multidisciplinary therapies and family member collaborations are also important for improving CNCP management.

Background: Opioids are currently prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), and some patients use opioids continuously for long-term treatment. Stakeholders’ awareness about long-term opioid therapy is essential for improving the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family caregivers about long-term opioid use in CNCP management.Methods: This study was a qualitative study and adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Pain specialists (n = 12), patients (n = 14), and family members (n = 9) were recruited to the study by purposive sampling at the Pain Clinic of Ramathibodi Hospital. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, verbatim transcribed, conceptually coded, and analyzed using Atlas.ti 8.0.Results: All groups of participants described opioids as non-first-line drugs for pain management. Opioids should be prescribed only for severe pain, when non-opioid pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological therapies are not effective. Patients reported that the benefits of opioids were for pain relief, while physicians and most family members highlighted that opioid use should improve functional outcomes. Physicians and family members expressed concerns about opioid-related side effects, harm, and adverse events, while patients did not. Patients confirmed that they would continue using opioids for pain management under supervision. However, physicians stated that they would taper off or discontinue opioid therapy if patients’ pain relief or functional improvement was not achieved. Both patients and family members were willing to consider non-pharmacological therapies if potential benefits existed. Patient education, doctor–patient/family relationships, and opioid prescription policies were proposed to enhance CNCP management.Conclusion: Long-term opioid therapy for CNCP may be beneficial in patients who have established realistic treatment goals (for both pain relief and functional improvement) with their physicians. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the risks and benefits, adverse events, and drug-related aberrant behaviors are necessary. Integrated multimodal multidisciplinary therapies and family member collaborations are also important for improving CNCP management.