Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Objective and Quantitative Assessment of Postoperative Pain in Digestive Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enhanced Recovery after Surgery

Abstract

Background: Pain is associated with subjective factors, making it difficult to assess. The PainVision™ system has been developed to quantitatively assess pain and compare postoperative pain intensity. We investigated the utility of PainVision in assessing postoperative pain in digestive surgery patients.

Methods: Pain scores were measured with the visual analogue scale (VAS), the PainVision™ system, and the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SFMPQ) in patients undergoing open or laparoscopic hepatectomy, gastrectomy, and cholecystectomy.

Results: As measured by the PainVision™ system, postoperative pain intensity was lower in patients who underwent laparoscopic operations compared with open hepatectomy. Over 50% of patients who underwent open hepatectomy through a right subcostal incision had continuous dull, heavy, and tender postoperative pain per the SFMPQ. In open hepatectomy patients, pain intensity by the PainVision™ system was significantly lower on postoperative day (POD) 7 and 10 than POD 1; pain intensity was also influenced by other variables, including body mass index, length of the skin incision, and operative time. Preemptive use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs significantly reduced postoperative pain in open hepatectomy patients.

Conclusions: PainVision effectively quantifies pain intensity after digestive surgery. Objective assessment of postoperative pain may lead to early mobility and improved quality of life.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S, et al. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27:117–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ikeno S, Kawamata M. PainVision. Masui. 2009;58:1267–72.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Maekawa N, Morimoto M, Uchida T, et al. Can we revaluate pain with PainVision, a device for quantitative analysis of perception and pain? A feasibility study of pain in herpes zoster patients. J Jpn Soc Clin Anesth. 2009;29:824–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McCormack HM, Horne DJ, Sheather S. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: a critical review. Psychol Med. 1998;18:1007–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, Spafford PA, et al. The faces pain scale-revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain. 2001;93:173–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Matsumura H, Imai R, Gondo M, et al. Evaluation of pain intensity measurement during the removal of wound dressing material using ‘the PainVision™ system’ for quantitative analysis of perception and pain sensation in healthy subjects. Int Wound J. 2012;9:451–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hebbard PD, Barrington MJ, Vasey C. Ultrasound-guided continuous oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane blockade: description of anatomy and clinical technique. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2010;35:436–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Melzack R. The short-form McGill pain questionnaire. Pain. 1987;30:191–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mendoza T, Mayne T, Rublee D, et al. Reliability and validity of a modified brief pain inventory short form in patients with osteoarthritis. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:353–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hurd T, Gregory L, Jones A, et al. A multi-centre in-market evaluation of ALLEVYN gentle border. Wounds. 2009;5:32–44.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fan ST, Lai EC, Lo CM, et al. Hospital mortality of major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma associated with cirrhosis. Arch Surg. 1995;130:198–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Hirakata Hospital, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan

    Masaki Kaibori, Hiroya Iida, Morihiko Ishizaki, Kosuke Matsui, Tatsuma Sakaguchi, Hideyuki Matsushima, Junichi Fukui, Kentaro Inoue, Yoichi Matsui & Masanori Kon

  2. Next-Generation Minimally Invasive Surgery, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan

    Masaki Kaibori

Authors
  1. Masaki Kaibori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroya Iida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Morihiko Ishizaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kosuke Matsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tatsuma Sakaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hideyuki Matsushima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Junichi Fukui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kentaro Inoue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yoichi Matsui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Masanori Kon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masaki Kaibori .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Ryoji Fukushima

  2. Department of Surgery, Kansai Medical University, Hirakata, Osaka, Japan

    Masaki Kaibori

Appendices

Authors’ Contributions

MK and HI contributed equally to this work. MK and HI conducted the data analysis and drafted the manuscript. MI, KM, and M. Kon conceived the study, participated in its design, and helped draft the manuscript. TS, HM, and JF participated in the study design and contributed to the data collection. KI participated in the study design and advised the analysis. YM contributed to study data collection. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the findings and read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Compliance With Ethical Standards

1.1 Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

  1. 1.

    All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

  2. 2.

    This chapter does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaibori, M. et al. (2018). Objective and Quantitative Assessment of Postoperative Pain in Digestive Surgery. In: Fukushima, R., Kaibori, M. (eds) Enhanced Recovery after Surgery. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6796-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6796-9_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-6795-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-6796-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation