Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Local anesthetics are used in various sites and mechanisms to maximize perioperative analgesia and reduce opioid use and side effects. Pain management in the bariatric setting is challenging and the efficacy of local anesthetics intraoperatively is under current evaluation.

Objectives: To determine the safety and efficacy of a new intra-abdominal anesthetic technique performed during laparoscopic bariatric operations: visceral block.

Methods: During this prospective randomized double-blinded pilot study, 16 patients undergoing bariatric surgery were treated with the injection of ropivacaine to the anterior esophagogastric junction fat, and 15 were injected with saline as control.

Results: The procedure was shown to be safe, and no adverse events nor side effects were encountered. A non-statistically significant trend toward the use of a non-opioid analgesia was documented during the first postoperative hours.

Conclusions: Visceral block is a safe and feasible intraoperative procedure. A trend toward its efficacy warrants future larger scale studies.

Background: Pain control in trauma is an integral part of treatment in combat casualty care. More soldiers injured on the battlefield need analgesics for pain than life-saving interventions (LSIs). Early treatment of pain improves outcomes after injury, while inadequate treatment leads to higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Objective: To describe the experience of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Medical Corps with prehospital use of analgesia.

Methods: All cases documented in the IDF-Trauma Registry between January 1997 and December 2019 were examined. Data collection included analgesia administered, mechanism of injury, wound distribution, and life-saving interventions performed.

Results: Of 16,117 patients, 1807 (11.2%) had at least one documented analgesia. Demographics included 91.2% male; median age 21 years. Leading mechanism of injury was penetrating (52.9%). Of injured body regions reported, 46.2% were lower extremity wounds. Most common types of analgesics were morphine (57.2%) and fentanyl (27%). Over the two decades of the study period, types of analgesics given by providers at point of injury (POI) had changed. Fentanyl was introduced in 2013, and by 2019 was given to 39% of patients. Another change was an increase of casualties receiving analgesia from 5–10% until 2010 to 34% by 2019. A total of 824 LSIs were performed on 556 patients (30.8%) receiving analgesia and no adverse events were found in any of the casualties.

Conclusions: Most casualties at POI did not receive any analgesics. The most common analgesics administered were opioids. Over time analgesic administration has gained acceptance and become more commonplace on the battlefield.

Background: Pain management is fundamental in the treatment of a trauma casualty. Adequate pain management is associated with decreased long-term morbidity and chronic pain. Nonetheless, pain is frequently not documented nor adequately treated in the prehospital setting, a phenomenon described as oligoanalgesia. Gender bias has been suggested as a risk factor for oligoanalgesia.

Objectives: To examine the association between casualty gender and pain management in the prehospital trauma setting.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the Israel Defense Forces Trauma Registry between 2015 and 2020. Univariable analysis followed by multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between casualty gender and pain management. For adult patients for whom gender was known, pain scores were documented.

Results: A total of 1044 casualties were included in the study; 894 (85.6%) were male. Females and males differed in several demographic and injury characteristics, including age in years (mean 36 vs. 27.6, P value < 0.001) and injury mechanism (16%% vs. 34.5% penetrating injury, P value < 0.001). Female casualties were less likely to be treated for pain (odds ratio [OR] 0.708, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.5–1, P = 0.05). However, after adjustment for various factors, including pain severity, this association was insignificant (OR 0.748, 95%CI 0.46–1.23, P = 0.25).

Conclusions: In this prehospital study, gender bias in pain management was not apparent. As women’s role on the battlefield continues to increase, further studies regarding the role of

Background: Pain following brain surgery is a significant problem. Infiltration of the scalp with local intradermal anesthetics was suggested for postoperative pain control but was assessed only in the first hour postoperatively.

Objectives: To evaluate wound infiltration with a single dose of metamizol (dipyrone) for postoperative pain control in patients undergoing awake craniotomy.

Methods: This open, prospective, non-randomized observational study, conducted in anesthesiology and neurosurgical departments of a teaching hospital, included 40 patients undergoing awake craniotomy for the removal of brain tumor. Intraoperative anesthesia included wound infiltration with lidocaine and bupivacaine, conscious sedation using remifentanil and propofol, and a single dose of metamizol (dipyrone) for postoperative pain control. Outcome was assessed by the Numerical Pain Scale on arrival at the postoperative care unit, and 2, 4 and 12 hours after the end of surgery.

Results: On arrival at the postoperative care unit, patients reported NPS[1] scores of 1.2 ± 1.1 in a scale of 0–10 (mean ± SD) (median = 1, range 0–4). The scores were 0.8 ± 0.9, 0.9 ± 0.9, and 1 ± 0.9 at 2 hours, 4 hours, and 12 hours after the end of surgery, respectively. Based on patients' complaints and NPS lower then 3, 27 patients did not require any supplementary analgesia during the first 12 postoperative hours, 11 patients required a single dose of oral metamizol or intramuscular diclofenac, one patient was given 2 mg of intravenous morphine, and one patient required two separate doses of metamizol.

Conclusions: Although the clinical setup prevents the use of placebo local analgesia as a control group, the results suggest the possible role of local intradermal infiltration of the scalp combined with a single dose of metamizol to control postoperative pain in patients undergoing craniotomy.

Background: The long-standing and ongoing controversy regarding administration of analgesia to patients with acute abdominal pain prior to final diagnosis has not yet been resolved, despite considerable research. Consequently, wide variations in clinical practice exist.

Objectives: To determine the motives, attitudes and practices of emergency physicians, internists and surgeons in Israeli emergency departments regarding the administration of analgesia before diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain.

Methods: Questionnaires were completed by 122 physicians in 21 EDs[1] throughout Israel and the replies were analyzed.

Results: Most EDs did not have a clear policy on analgesia for undifferentiated abdominal pain, according to 65% of the responders. More internists (75%) than surgeons (54%) (P = 0.02) and more emergency physicians (81%) than all other physicians (60%) (P = 0.05) held this opinion. Most respondents (64%) supported administration of analgesia pre-diagnostically. Support for analgesia was significantly stronger among internists (75%) compared to surgeons (52%) (P = 0.03). Despite this wide support, most respondents (68%) indicated that analgesia was rarely or never given pre‑diagnostically and, when it was, more surgeons (58%) than other physicians made that decision. Most internists (73%) and all surgeons reported that patients receive analgesia only after being examined by surgeons. Time allocated to the ED (part‑ or full‑time) significantly (P = 0.02) influenced decision-making, with 51% of part-time physicians vs. 25% of full-time opposing prompt administration of analgesia. Opinions on who should decide were divided according to medical specialty, with surgeons and internists almost opposed, as well as by physician age and percent of his/her time spent working in the ED. More surgeons than internists (P = 0.0005) reported that analgesia sometimes interfered with making a diagnosis. Most physicians (90%) stated that opiates impede diagnosis, to some extent. However, 58% of them supported the administration of opiates, more or less frequently. Intramuscular diclofenac was the most preferred analgesic, followed by intravenous morphine and pethidine; individual preferences extended beyond the list of actually administered drugs.

Conclusions: There is no consensus on the administration of analgesia for undiagnosed acute abdominal pain in EDs in Israel. Physicians’ attitudes are influenced by training, experience, and percent of personal time allocated to work in the ED.

The treatment of acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing therapeutic and diagnostic procedures in the emergency department has improved dramatically in recent years. The availability of non-invasive monitoring devices and the use of short-acting sedative and analgesic medications enable physicians to conduct safe and effective sedation and analgesia treatment. In today's practice of pediatric emergency medicine, sedation and analgesia has been considered as the standard of care for procedural pain. In most pediatric emergency departments throughout North America, "procedural sedation and analgesia" treatment is being performed by non-anesthesiologists (qualified emergency physicians and nurses). In 2003, the Israel Ministry of Health published formal guidelines for pediatric sedation by non-anesthesiologists; this important document recognizes for the first time the need for pediatric sedation and analgesia in the operating room. We describe the basic principles of procedural sedation and analgesia in children and urge physicians working in pediatric emergency rooms in Israel to expand their knowledge and be more involved in the treatment of pediatric procedural pain.

Background: The World Health Organization considers a country's morphine consumption to be an important indicator of progress in pain relief. Despite the strong consensus favoring the use of opioids in many types of pain, limited data are available for gauging the trends in opioid usage in specific medical institutions, such as hospitals

Objectives: To assess the possibility that monitoring opioid consumption can shed light on directions and trends in the treatment of pain in a hospital setting.

Methods: Data on opioid consumption, number of inpatient days, and number of operations performed each year during the period 1990–1999 were obtained from records kept in the hospital’s pharmacy and archives.

Results: During that decade the overall opioid consumption in the hospital increased from the equivalent of 3.7 mg of oral morphine per inpatient day to 7.3 mg, and from 56 mg per surgical procedure to 100 mg. In 1990, injected opioids accounted for 93% of the overall consumption, whereas in 1999 they accounted for only 44%. Yet, the proportion of injected meperidine to injected morphine increased only from 43% to 51%.

Conclusions: These results suggest that the ongoing monitoring of opioid consumption can highlight trends and directions and possibly emphasize strengths and weaknesses in the treatment of pain in hospitals.