• Ian Gilron, Nicholas Lao, Meg Carley, Daenis Camiré, Henrik Kehlet, Timothy J Brennan, and Jason Erb.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Centre for Neuroscience Studies, and School of Policy Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.
• Anesthesiology. 2024 Mar 1; 140 (3): 442449442-449.

BackgroundGiven the widespread recognition that postsurgical movement-evoked pain is generally more intense, and more functionally relevant, than pain at rest, the authors conducted an update to a previous 2011 review to re-evaluate the assessment of pain at rest and movement-evoked pain in more recent postsurgical analgesic clinical trials.MethodsThe authors searched MEDLINE and Embase for postsurgical pain randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses published between 2014 and 2023 in the setting of thoracotomy, knee arthroplasty, and hysterectomy using methods consistent with the original 2011 review. Included trials and meta-analyses were characterized according to whether they acknowledged the distinction between pain at rest and movement-evoked pain and whether they included pain at rest and/or movement-evoked pain as a pain outcome. For trials measuring movement-evoked pain, pain-evoking maneuvers used to assess movement-evoked pain were tabulated.ResultsAmong the 944 included trials, 504 (53%) did not measure movement-evoked pain (vs. 61% in 2011), and 428 (45%) did not distinguish between pain at rest and movement-evoked pain when defining the pain outcome (vs. 52% in 2011). Among the 439 trials that measured movement-evoked pain, selection of pain-evoking maneuver was highly variable and, notably, was not even described in 139 (32%) trials (vs. 38% in 2011). Among the 186 included meta-analyses, 94 (51%) did not distinguish between pain at rest and movement-evoked pain (vs. 71% in 2011).ConclusionsThis updated review demonstrates a persistent limited proportion of trials including movement-evoked pain as a pain outcome, a substantial proportion of trials failing to distinguish between pain at rest and movement-evoked pain, and a lack of consistency in the use of pain-evoking maneuvers for movement-evoked pain assessment. Future postsurgical trials need to (1) use common terminology surrounding pain at rest and movement-evoked pain, (2) assess movement-evoked pain in virtually every trial if not contraindicated, and (3) standardize movement-evoked pain assessment with common, procedure-specific pain-evoking maneuvers. More widespread knowledge translation and mobilization are required in order to disseminate this message to current and future investigators.Copyright © 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.

34 keywords...

hide…