12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Are joint and soft tissue injections painful? Results of a national French cross-sectional study of procedural pain in rheumatological practice

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Joint, spinal and soft tissue injections are commonly performed by rheumatologists in their daily practice. Contrary to other procedures, e.g. performed in pediatric care, little is known about the frequency, the intensity and the management of procedural pain observed in osteo-articular injections in daily practice.

          Methods

          This observational, prospective, national study was carried out among a French national representative database of primary rheumatologists to evaluate the prevalence and intensity of pain caused by intra-and peri-articular injections, synovial fluid aspirations, soft tissue injections, and spinal injections. For each physician, data were collected over 1 month, for up to 40 consecutive patients (>18-years-old) for whom a synovial fluid aspiration, an intra or peri-articular injection or a spinal injection were carried out during consultations. Statistical analysis was carried out in order to compare patients who had suffered from pain whilst undergoing the procedure to those who had not. Explanatory analyses were conducted by stepwise logistic regression with the characteristics of the patients to explain the existence of pain.

          Results

          Data were analysed for 8446 patients (64% female, mean age 62 ± 14 years) recruited by 240 physicians. The predominant sites injected were the knee (45.5%) and spine (19.1%). Over 80% of patients experienced procedural pain which was most common in the small joints (42%) and spine (32%) Pain was severe in 5.3% of patients, moderate in 26.6%, mild in 49.8%, and absent in 18.3%. Pain was significantly more intense in patients with severe pain linked to their underlying pathology and for procedures performed in small joints.

          Preventative or post-procedure analgesia was rarely given, only to 5.7% and 36.3% of patients, respectively. Preventative analgesia was more frequently prescribed in patients with more severe procedural pain.

          Conclusion

          Most patients undergoing intra-or peri-articular injections, synovial fluid aspirations and spine injections suffer from procedural pain. Most patients experience usually mild procedural pain and procedural pain management is uncommonly provided by physicians. Specific research and guidelines for the management of procedural pain related to rheumatologic care should be established to improve the quality of care provided by physicians.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pain behaviors observed during six common procedures: results from Thunder Project II.

          Patients frequently display behaviors during procedures that may be pain related. Clinicians often rely on the patient's demonstration of behaviors as a cue to presence of pain. The purpose of this study was to identify specific pain-related behaviors and factors that predict the degree of behavioral responses during the following procedures: turning, central venous catheter insertion, wound drain removal, wound care, tracheal suctioning, and femoral sheath removal. Prospective, descriptive study. Multiple units in 169 hospitals in United States, Canada, England, and Australia. A total of 5,957 adult patients who underwent one of the six procedures. None. A 30-item behavior observation tool was used to note patients' behaviors before and during a procedure. By comparing behaviors exhibited before and during the procedure as well as behaviors in those with and without procedural pain (as noted on a 0-10 numeric rating scale), we identified specific procedural pain behaviors: grimacing, rigidity, wincing, shutting of eyes, verbalization, moaning, and clenching of fists. On average, there were significantly more behaviors exhibited by patients with vs. without procedural pain (3.5 vs. 1.8 behaviors; t = 38.3, df = 5072.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-1.8). Patients with procedural pain were at least three times more likely to have increased behavioral responses than patients without procedural pain. A simultaneous regression model determined that 33% of the variance in amount of pain behaviors exhibited during a procedure was explained by three factors: degree of procedural pain intensity, degree of procedural distress, and undergoing the turning procedure. Because of the strong relationship between procedural pain and behavioral responses, clinicians can use behavioral responses of verbal and nonverbal patients to plan for, implement, and evaluate analgesic interventions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Multicentre study of cancer pain and its treatment in France.

            To describe the treatment of cancer pain in France and to evaluate the predictive factors for inadequate management. Multicentre, representative cross sectional survey. 20 treatment centres, including cancer centres, university hospitals, state hospitals, private clinics, and one homecare setting (in which patients are supported at home). 605 patients with cancer. Patients rated prevalence and severity of pain and functional impairment related to pain. Doctors reported patients' cancer characteristic, performance status, pain severity, and analgesic drugs ordered. 57% (340/601) of patients with cancer reported pain due to their disease, and, of those with pain, 69% (224/325) rated their worst pain at a level that impaired their ability to function. 30% (84/279) were reported as receiving no drugs for their pain. Of the 270 patients in pain for whom information on treatment was available 51% (137/270) were not receiving adequate pain relief, according to an index based on the World Health Organisation's guidelines. French doctors were found to underestimate the severity of their patients' pain. Younger patients, patients without metastatic disease, patients with a better performance status, and patients who rated their pain as more severe than their doctors did were at greater risk for undertreatment of their pain. In the light of the high prevalence and the severity of pain among patients with cancer, the assessment and treatment of cancer pain in France remain inadequate, emphasising the need for changes in patient care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Patients' perceptions and responses to procedural pain: results from Thunder Project II.

              Little is known about the painfulness of procedures commonly performed in acute and critical care settings. To describe pain associated with turning, wound drain removal, tracheal suctioning, femoral catheter removal, placement of a central venous catheter, and nonburn wound dressing change and frequency of use of analgesics during procedures. A comparative, descriptive design was used. Numeric rating scales were used to measure pain intensity and procedural distress; word lists, to measure pain quality. Data were obtained from 6201 patients: 176 younger than 18 years and 5957 adults. Mean pain intensity scores for turning and tracheal suctioning were 2.80 and 3.00, respectively (scale, 0-5), for 4- to 7-year-olds and 52.0 and 28.1 (scale, 0-100) for 8- to 12-year-olds. For adolescents, mean pain intensity scores for wound dressing change, turning, tracheal suctioning, and wound drain removal were 5 to 7 (scale, 0-10); mean procedural distress scores were 4.83 to 6.00 (scale, 0-10). In adults, mean pain intensity scores for all procedures were 2.65 to 4.93 (scale, 0-10); mean procedural distress scores were 1.89 to 3.47 (scale, 0-10). The most painful and distressing procedures were turning for adults and wound care for adolescents. Procedural pain was often described as sharp, stinging, stabbing, shooting, and awful. Less than 20% of patients received opiates before procedures. Procedural pain varies considerably and is procedure specific. Because procedures are performed so often, more individualized attention to preparation for and control of procedural pain is warranted.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central
                1471-2474
                2010
                25 January 2010
                : 11
                : 16
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Service de Médecine Interne et Thérapeutique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Université Paris Descartes, Unité INSERM U987, Paris, France
                [2 ]Centre d'évaluation et de traitement de la Douleur, Hôpital St Antoine, Paris, France
                [3 ]DOCS International, Issy les Moulineaux, France
                [4 ]BMS, Rueil-Malmaison, France
                Article
                1471-2474-11-16
                10.1186/1471-2474-11-16
                2837625
                20100351
                3df1e5e7-bea9-478a-bf62-d9485b902779
                Copyright ©2010 Perrot et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 25 August 2009
                : 25 January 2010
                Categories
                Research article

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article