Skip to main content
Download PDF

Postoperative pain management in non-traumatic emergency general surgery: WSES-GAIS-SIAARTI-AAST guidelines

World Journal of Emergency Surgery volume 17, Article number: 50 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team.

Material and methods

An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript.

Conclusion

Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies.

Introduction

Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous disease spectrum and a varied that may present with several underlying diseases [1]. In the last decades, this cohort of patients has progressively included more vulnerable, frail, and elderly people. Hypovolemia, hypoxia, sepsis, and most often severe pain are frequent, and the perioperative treatment may be challenging [2]. The surgical treatment should be supplemented by high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses [3]. Acute postoperative pain (APP) is still a major burden for most healthcare systems. About 70% of the 240 million postsurgical patients every year suffer from moderate-to-severe pain [4]. Uncontrolled APP may result in significant clinical and psychological changes that may be associated with higher subsequent risk of several medical complications due to immobility, poor respiratory mobility, and failure of nutritional progress, including pneumonia, infections, deep vein thrombosis, cardiovascular events, and depression [5]. Pain relief is fundamental in multimodal strategies to improve surgical outcome, together with preoperative assessment, information and optimization, reduction of surgical stress, rapid mobilization, and early oral nutrition [6]. The APP management may be pursued by several professionals and in many places a multidisciplinary team is not available. For this reason, precise indications must be provided to physicians managing postsurgical patients and specifically to emergency general surgeons to implement their tools in assisting emergency surgical patients.

International and national guidelines recommend in case of moderate-to-severe pain a few analgesic techniques, including intravenous (i.v.), per oral (p.o.) or subcutaneous (s.c.) routes, as well as epidural analgesia (EA), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), and continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNB) [7]. Administration may aim for both local pain control and systemic effects, often with a combination to achieve optimal results. While an appropriate pain management has been optimized in the perioperative pathways after elective surgery, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a non-standardized practice [8]. Several specific conditions may warrant a customized approach, including the presence of sepsis and infection, contamination at local sites and the type of intervention done or planned for the specific condition at hand. The common major emergency procedures and their consequences represent a massive healthcare burden, and there is tremendous potential for quality improvement [9].

Some recent data support the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to develop better clinical decision support tools based on machine learning [10]. Some studies tried to move from patient-controlled analgesia to AI-assisted patient-controlled analgesia [11].

The aim of the present guidelines is to suggest the appropriate pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention and to give to surgeons and physicians working in different settings a list of indications in order to prescribe the best analgesia possible in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), participated in the project and approved the final manuscript.

Materials and methods

The bibliographer conducted a computerized search in different databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase). Citations were included up to June 2021 using the primary search strategy: acute postoperative pain, emergency surgery, pain assessment, acetaminophen, NSAIDs, ketamine, opioids, epidural anesthesia, peripheral nerve blocks, continuous wound infusion, local infiltration combined with AND/OR with synonyms and MeSH terms. We considered acute pain management after major abdominal pathology requiring urgent emergency laparotomy or laparoscopy, including reoperations after elective gastrointestinal surgery and reoperations after previous abdominal surgery. No language restriction was imposed. Duplicates and animal studies were removed. The dates were selected to allow comprehensive published abstracts of clinical trials, consensus conferences, comparative studies, congresses, guidelines, government publication, multicenter studies, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, large case series, original articles, and randomized controlled trials. Narrative review articles were also analyzed to identify other studies. Abstracts were screened, and irrelevant studies were removed; then, a full-text assessment of the articles was performed. Case reports were excluded. In case of disagreement between the two reviewers (FC and FCo), the consensus was reached by discussion. If there was no consensus, another two reviewers were sought (FCa and FFo). PRISMA guidelines flowchart [12] is reported in Fig. 1. Level of evidence (LoE) was graded in high, moderate, low, and very low. The grade of recommendation (GoR) graded as strong, moderate, and weak was calculated, keeping into consideration the GRADE model [13]. An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. At each round, the manuscript was revised and improved. The final version about which agreement was reached resulted in the present manuscript.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart

Full size image

Notes on the use of the guideline

These guidelines present evidence-based methods for optimal management of acute postoperative pain management in emergency general surgery patients. The practice indications which were promulgated in this work do not represent a standard of practice. These are suggested plans of care based on the best available evidence and experts’ consensus, but they do not exclude other approaches as being within the standard of practice. For example, they should not be used to compel adherence to a given medical management method, which method should be finally determined by the treating health care provider after considering the conditions at the relevant medical institution (staff levels, experience, equipment, etc.) and the characteristics of the individual patient. However, the treatment results’ responsibility rests with those directly engaged and not with the consensus group.

Pain assessment and management

Statements

  • Postoperative pain must be recognized and treated as soon as possible and as best as possible in all patients (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Emergency general surgery may be associated with more severe postoperative pain; specific attention should be given to this patient group (GoR 2, LoE B) (moderate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Postoperative pain assessment, at rest and—if possible—on movement, is strongly recommended, to improve patient management after emergency surgery (moderate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Preemptive analgesia is a viable option in reducing postoperative opioid consumption (GoR 2, LoE B) (moderate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Adequate education for the patient and, if possible, of the family about the surgical and anesthesiologic treatment, options, plan, and aims of pain management should be performed whenever it is possible (GoR 1, LoE B) (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Perioperative pain management should be implemented considering patient history, comorbidities, ongoing chronic therapy, and potential risk for substance abuse (GoR 1, LoE B) (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Validated pain scales should be included into treatment planning, ongoing evaluation, and adjusting process (GoR 1, LoE B) (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Pain management should be adjusted to ensure the greatest effect and the lowest side effects possible (GoR 1, LoE B) (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

Emergency general surgery (EGS) is related to a worse acute postoperative pain compared to elective surgery [14,15,16,17,18]. Patient- and family-centered education is regarded as very important during the preoperative and postoperative periods [14, 15, 17, 19,20,21,22]. Telling patients how a drug is chosen, its properties and effects, understanding its side effects, and shared in the decisions helps reduce APP. A recent study proved that a lower educational level worsens pain [23].

An accurate evaluation including psychiatric comorbidities, namely dementia and delirium, may facilitate APP management since pain assessment techniques in these conditions may be much more time-consuming [19, 21, 24]. Assessment tools that incorporate a behavioral component for pain scoring have demonstrated validity in patients with dementia [25]. Special attention should be paid to the treatment of anxiety [26], evaluation of depression [26], and catastrophizing [15, 17]. Uncontrolled pain syndrome is manifested by tachycardia, arterial hypertension, increased rigidity of the muscles of the anterior abdominal wall and chest muscles, which leads to alteration of the ventilation and hypoxemia, difficulties in coughing and definitively to an increased risk of respiratory infectious complications. Enhanced sympathetic stimulation inhibits peristalsis and at the same time increases the tone of the smooth muscles of the intestine, which is fraught with the development of postoperative paresis. In addition, postoperative pain syndrome prevents early mobilization of patients and also contributes to their emotional and physical suffering, sleep disturbances. A sudden increase in pain, especially associated with the appearance of tachycardia, hypotension, hyperthermia, requires an urgent comprehensive assessment of the patient’s condition, since this may be a harbinger of postoperative complications (bleeding, anastomotic leaks, deep vein thrombosis, etc.).

All these conditions may contribute to worsening APP outcome. Coping strategies could be used specially to contrast catastrophizing thoughts.

The assessment of preoperative chronic pain is necessary because it is demonstrated that previous chronic pain history since may be associated to a worse APP [22]. Moreover, high APP pain level may lead to persistent postoperative pain [16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 27].

Accurate APP’s assessment, which is essential, is usually underestimated, underevaluated, and underperformed [14,15,16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 28,29,30,31,32]. Some tools such as visual analog scale (VAS) score for some aspects seem to be inappropriate in measuring APP since it does not give a multidimensional pain evaluation. Hence, predictor index or questionnaire should be adopted to give the best APP evaluation.

Consideration should be given to APP follow-up evaluation and adequate therapy during the postoperative period. In fact, pain drugs are often administered not at regular intervals [18, 33] nor according to pain scales [15, 18, 33]. Local policy must include standard interval at which a patient is assessed and reassessed for pain. After a pain intervention is completed, reassess patients for both pain control and adverse reactions to the intervention at an appropriate interval based on the anticipated effect. When a significant change in worsening pain level is reported, reevaluate the patient for possible postoperative complications. A combined nurse service with clinician supervision seems to provide better outcomes in APP management [14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 34, 35]. It is proven that 24 h/day monitoring with a regular assessment/documentation guarantees a better pain treatment [14, 20].

In addition to psychiatric comorbidities, chronic pain, and patient dealing with substances of abuse, special attention should be paid to OSAS patients, since a correlation with APP is not fully understood [36, 37]. In this category of patients, antalgic therapy recommendation aims to reduce as much as possible the use of opioids to prevent possible cardiopulmonary complications. Furthermore, literature advises to be aware of age, body mass index (BMI) and gender: Younger age [16, 18, 23] and female gender [16, 18, 33] could be risk factors for APP. Some studies show that low BMI is associated with better pain outcomes [37]. Also knowing about the patient’s smoking habits could improve APP [23].

Preemptive and preventive NSAIDs seem to reduce both pain and morphine use. Clinically significant adverse events from nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) administered before surgery are possibly under-reported; for this reason, it is impossible to define with high level of evidence the safety of either preemptive or preventive NSAIDs [38].

Non-opioids drugs

Statements

  • Opiates usage should be reduced as much as possible in postoperative pain management strategies (strong recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Multimodal pain management should always be considered to improve analgesia while reducing individual class-related side effects; a pharmacological step-up approach including major opiates when necessary should be adopted (strong recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Whenever contraindications are absent, acetaminophen, NSAIDs (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence), and gabapentinoids administration (moderate recommendation, moderate quality evidence) are recommended in multimodal analgesia.

  • Acetaminophen administered at the beginning of postoperative analgesia may be better and safer than other drugs (strong recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Acetaminophen used in multimodal and preemptive therapy is associated with a reduction of opiates side effects and improved postoperative outcomes (strong recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Coxib administration may be considered if there are no contraindications (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Multimodal analgesia involves the use of different classes of analgesic medications (NSAIDs, COX2 inhibitors, gabapentinoids, or acetaminophen in combination with morphine IV-PCA) with different mechanisms of action on the peripheral and/or central nervous system.

The different combinations of these drugs lead to additive or synergistic effects on pain relief and can potentially reduce the side effects of mono-modal interventions. The drugs used for this purpose include:

  • Acetaminophen (paracetamol): it is effective as an analgesic mainly if used in combination with NSAIDs or morphine. Its use reduces opioids use [39,40,41]

  • NSAIDs: are indicated for the treatment of moderate pain when used alone. Their use in multimodal analgesia reduces morphine consumption and related side effects [40]

  • Opiates: are the first-line therapy to treat pain in these patients. They also reduce anxiety and dyspnea [42, 43]. PCA is recommended when iv route is needed in patients with adequate cognitive functions, starting with bolus injection in opioid naïve patients [7].

  • Gabapentinoids such as gabapentin and pregabalin can be considered as a component in multimodal analgesia. They act by decreasing the release of neurotransmitters in the synapse, thus providing a nociceptive blocking activity.

  • Alpha-2-agonists: in addition to their anti-hypertensive effect, they have been shown to have a sympatholytic effect by inhibiting norepinephrine release, thus reducing the opiates requirements.

Acetaminophen in a multimodal regimen is a valid and effective option. A study conducted in nearly 800,000 patients undergoing common major surgical elective and emergency procedures showed that this drug in a multimodal therapy regimen provides a cost-effective strategy to improve outcomes and patient satisfaction with a side-effect profile that is superior to opioids alone in moderate–severe APP [44]. The use of acetaminophen is associated with shorter length of stay, decrease in opioid-related complication rates, and lower costs in a heterogeneous population of patient who underwent to elective and emergency cardiovascular, colorectal, general, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, or spine surgery [45]. A case–control cohort study of 1231 patients undergoing gynecologic and abdominal surgery showed that ibuprofen and acetaminophen (600 mg every 6 h and 500 mg every 6 h) could offer an adequate postoperative pain control with a supply of opioids (hydrocodone or oxycodone) if needed [46]. A single study suggests the use of IV acetaminophen in the beginning of postoperative analgesia since its antalgic properties are better and safer than IV tramadol in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy [47].

Different efficacy can be assessed according to the timing in the administration of acetaminophen, in the context of multimodal analgesia, as a preemptive analgesia. Acetaminophen used in multimodal and preemptive therapy (1 g before laparotomy with naproxen 250 mg and pregabalin 150 mg) was associated with a reduction of opiate side effects as well as a fewer length of stay, lower opioid-related complication rates, and lower costs compared to patients who had not received this treatment [48].

Intravenous acetaminophen (i.v. acetaminophen every 6 h from 6 h after surgery up to 72 h) can be associated with thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA); a study has been shown to provide a superior postoperative pain management compared to TEA alone in a randomized controlled trial with 120 patients who underwent distal gastrectomy [49].

Caution is needed in the frail patient, especially in the context of coexisting liver disease. For an amount of acetaminophen infusion sufficient to ensure a significant reduction in postoperative pain compared with groups without treatment (P = 0.008), an increase in alanine aminotransferase has been observed (P = 0.043) [50].

Perioperative NSAIDs utilization results regarding the reduction of hospital stay and lowering morbidity have been demonstrated in elective surgery [51]. The literature suggests a potential correlation with dehiscence, technical failures, and wound healing inhibition in emergency general surgery patients with colon or rectal anastomoses [52]. There is not enough evidence to establish the effectiveness of NSAIDs beyond their safety profile.

In terms of efficacy for the individual NSAID drugs, no direct comparisons trial is available. Effectiveness analysis was conducted on the single NSAID once at a time. In the case of abdominal emergency surgery, it was found that perioperative administration of Ibuprofen IV 800 mg every 6 h decreased morphine requirements and pain score and it has been found safe and well tolerated [53]. The literature might suggest also considering the use of HPβCD-diclofenac in a multimodal approach to analgesia. HPβCD-diclofenac in postoperative setting reduces postoperative opioid requirements during the whole postoperative course (all P < 0.005 vs placebo) [54]. The combination of NSAIDs with acetaminophen improves the quality of pain relief compared to the appointment of each of the drugs separately [55]..

The use of coxib is effectiveness in a major surgery context [56, 57] since it provides analgesia and opioid-sparing effects in the 2–3 days immediately following major gastrointestinal surgeries employing laparotomy and reduces the VAS scores both at rest and with movement, reducing also opioids adverse effects in patients following liver resection. A word of caution must be spent regarding the associated use of coxib and NSAIDs as their combination seems to increase the incidence of myocardial infarction and to affect kidney function [58, 59].

Results about the use of gabapentinoids in postoperative management in EGS are heterogeneous and conflicting [60].

Preemptive anesthesia with other medications such as gabapentinoids to treat postoperative pain could lower opioid consumption and pain scores.

Due to the paucity of the literature, it is not possible to provide specific indications for the use of ketamine in emergency abdominal surgery. According to the literature, a single dose or infusion of ketamine appears to reduce pain score, and opioid consumption in the 48 h following surgery, especially in patients who have undergone major chest, abdominal, and orthopedic surgery [61,62,63]. Evidence is reported from various types of surgery, including abdominal surgery, on the administration of ketamine added in an opioid intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with a reduction in pain, opiate consumption, and PONV up to 24–72 h after surgery [64, 65]. Ketamine is recommended in severe pain management, and subanesthetic doses considered to have evidence of efficacy in acute pain are boluses < 0.35 mg/kg and infusions at 0.5-1 mg/kg/h, with no intensive monitoring required [61]. The recommended dose in severe APP management using an IV-PCA is 1–5 mg. It should not be used in uncontrolled cardiovascular disease, pregnancy, active psychosis, severe liver dysfunction, high intracranial, and ocular pressure [61]. A prospective cohort study shows that perioperative adding of ketamine IV (0.25 mg/kg bolus followed by 0.25 mg/kg/h, maximum 1 mg/kg) to opioids did not improve postoperative pain after colorectal surgery perception nor decrease morphine equivalents maybe due to an inappropriate dose compared to bupivacaine 0.0625% and fentanyl 2 µg/ml [66].

The use of dexmedetomidine in major abdominal surgery can be considered. Dexmedetomidine in combination with fentanyl-based intravenous PCA (dexmedetomidine infusion rate: 0.07 μg/kg/h with a bolus dose of 0.007 μg/kg, and fentanyl infusion rate: 0.3 μg/kg/h with a bolus dose of 0.03 μg/kg allowed every 15-min lockout time) had the same antalgic effects of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) without hemodynamic instability and with a less invasive technique [67]. However, no precise indication can be given for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery.

Opioid drugs

Statement

  • In the treatment of moderate-to-severe pain, unresponsive to other medications and in which regional anesthesia techniques are not indicated, the use of major opiate is indicated (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

  • Initial infusion of opioids using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia should be avoided in opioid naïve patients (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

  • Sedation levels, respiratory status, and the possible development of adverse events in patients on systemic treatment with opioids must be regularly assessed (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence).

  • If indicated, infusion of opiates using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia should be preferred to spinal patient-controlled analgesia in postoperative pain management whenever the intravenous route is viable (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Opioids are strong and fast acting analgesics that are very effective and convenient in use for severe APP. Unfortunately, opioids are also associated with an important side effect and the risk of drug dependency. We are now facing a worldwide opioid crisis that causes 22,000 deaths annually in the USA alone. Although opioids have a central place in management of severe APP, it is therefore important to select an appropriate opioid for a time period as short as possible.

The use of PCA with major opiates after EGS is effective and useful [68]. Although the literature confirms the superiority of treatment for severe APP with opiates PCA, there is no clear evidence about which opiate drug should be preferred. Morphine, which is by far the most widely used drug, is not the ideal molecule as it has high renal clearance with potential accumulation and adverse effects [69, 70]. The alternatives are fentanyl, oxycodone, and sufentanil. As regards the type of molecule to be used, the literature does not exclusively address an opiate: Oxycodone (0.7 mg/kg—background continuous infusion of 1 to 2 mL/h 1 mL bolus with a 15-min lockout) is comparable to fentanyl (fentanyl 12 mg/kg,—background continuous infusion of 1 to 2 mL/h 1 mL bolus with a 15-min lockout) in the relief of postoperative pain following laparotomy. Oxycodone only seems to provide a slightly better postoperative pain relief and less sedation, but it is also associated with more side effects than fentanyl [71]. No significant pain scores differences at 5 and 30 min postoperatively were registered between oxycodone and fentanyl treatment in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy [72]. The use of sublingual sufentanil tablet system has been compared to PCA. Sufentanil seems to be an appropriate choice due to its high affinity for the μ opioid receptor, its high therapeutic index, and the absence of clinically relevant active metabolites [4]. The sublingual sufentanil tablets (SSTs) is a noninvasive combination of a drug and a medical device which contains a cartridge of 40 tablets (sufentanil 15 µg) with a lockout interval of 20 min that seems to have better safety and tolerability in patients with open abdominal surgery or major orthopedic surgery [73]. In open abdominal surgery, SST 30mcg is effective for the management of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain [74]. The literature regarding SST administration in EGS is scarce, so no definitive indication can be given.

In some context, opiates are rarely given during the postoperative period to treat moderate-to-severe acute pain (13%, while other analgesics were administered in the 86.4%) [75]. However, in perioperative conditions of moderate-to-severe pain unresponsive to other treatment opioids represent a viable and effective option. Side effects of opioid analgesics are dose-dependent, and at high doses, they can induce hyperalgesia [76].

Whenever PCA is not available or cannot be administered due to due to clinical or social barriers, transdermal fentanyl patch (25 μg/h) may be used. These patches should be affixed 12–14 h before surgery and avoid the continuous IV infusion of fentanyl after surgery. Transdermal administration is shown to reach a higher constant concentration without any evidence of respiratory depression [77]. There are no differences in pain score between transdermal fentanyl patch and IV fentanyl and the use of rescue analgesics after laparoscopic cholecystectomy [77].

Route of drugs administration

Statement

  • Oral administration of analgesic drugs should be preferred over intravenous route whenever feasible, and drugs absorption may be reasonably warranted (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

  • The intramuscular route should be avoided in postoperative pain management (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

  • Epidural and regional anesthesia is recommended in emergency general surgery, whenever feasible and if not delaying the emergency procedures (intermediate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Neuraxial administration of magnesium, benzodiazepines, neostigmine, tramadol, and ketamine should be avoided (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

  • Patients with neuraxial anesthesia must be monitored and assessed adequately (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Available evidence suggests that intravenous administration of opioids or NSAIDs is not superior for postoperative analgesia compared with oral administration. Emergency abdominal surgeries usually affect the ability to take medications orally or enterally. Moreover, drug absorption after oral administration is a highly complex process, depending on both physicochemical properties of the drug and physiological conditions of the body. Postoperative ileus is an inevitable consequence of abdominal surgery caused by pharmacological agents (anesthetics, opioids) in the perioperative period, neural mechanisms, and intestinal inflammation due to the manipulation during the surgery—which is the most important pathophysiological mechanism. In emergency conditions, inflammatory cascade of events leads to a higher inflammatory background. [15].

Furthermore, drugs are absorbed in unionized state, which is dependent upon GI pH; also, the changing of gastric emptying rate and intestinal transit time can affect drug absorption. The perioperative period after major abdominal surgeries is characterized by a slower gastric emptying rate with a higher risk of aspiration and an impaired intestinal transit time. For these reasons, the oral route of administration is frequently not suitable in the acute postoperative.

Oral medication in an acute postoperative setting could be administered before surgery—in a preventive way—or in the postoperative period through the sublingual route.

PCA showed a better pain relief in abdominal surgery compared to intravenous morphine continuous infusion (2 mg/h as basal infusion and 3–5 mg IV bolus administration every time when required to obtain NRS below 3/10) [78]. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) either intravenous or epidural provides superior postoperative pain control and patient satisfaction, even if it increased amount of opioid consumption [79].

A study has tried to confirm this by correlating EA and reduced complications after colectomy and support a possible role for epidural analgesia in a multimodal analgesic regimen after open colectomy [80]. Emergency colorectal resection for colorectal cancer in colonic obstruction without peritonitis and in patients with elective surgical intervention can be considered similar. For this reason, the approach in pain management can be mutualized from literature evidence obtained in elective patients. One main point to be considered is the cautious usage of opiates in those patients who may present dynamical ileus due to intestinal overdistension. These patients may have difficulties in recovering intestinal motility, and opiates may exacerbate the ileus.

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) use has been associated with a lower incidence of paralytic ileus, attenuation of the surgical stress response, improved intestinal blood flow, improved analgesia, and reduction of opioid use [81]. PCEA is suggested in fragile patients because this approach would seem to decrease stress response and minimize immune dysfunction improving plasma cortisol (Cor), interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-17 levels, and helper T-cell differentiation in esophageal carcinoma patients. PCEA stress response effects are most pronounced upon combination TEA/PCEA treatment [82]. On the other hand, in the elderly patient, as in the young patient, this type of analgesia was associated with more frequent episodes of numbness and motor weakness/deficits, hypotension, and nausea/vomiting comparing it to morphine PCA. Therefore, a retrospective analysis suggests using different PCEA strategies of administration regimens or adverse effects prevention for young and elderly patients [83]. We also suggest caution in males who underwent EA because of the possibility of urinary retention which slows patient recovery and may impair renal function. Urinary retention after EA had a higher incidence, and routine transurethral bladder drainage with early removal to prevent urinary tract infection is suggested [84].

TEA for pain management in APP seems to be useful also in emergency major abdominal surgery. The most part of the literature showed benefits in oncological elective surgery [51, 85, 86].

TEA does not exclude a multimodal approach, for example, in combination with intravenous acetaminophen. It seems to provide a superior postoperative pain management compared with TEA alone [49]. The type of drug infused and its concentration to provide a differential sensory block with the same effectiveness have been evaluated. Both epidural infusions of 0.125% ropivacaine with 1 μg/ml fentanyl and 0.125% bupivacaine with 1 μg/ml fentanyl in major abdominal surgery showed the same antalgic effect with minimal motor block [87]. A prospective randomized study showed that ropivacaine with nalbuphine is more effective than ropivacaine with butorphanol for immediate postoperative pain relief in patients undergoing emergency exploratory laparotomy [88].

Perioperative nerve block and local infiltration

Statement

  • Regional anesthesia techniques are effective in both adults and children in site-specific surgery (strong recommendation, high-quality evidence).

  • Abdominal wall blocks can be considered a technique with an opioid-sparing effect (intermediate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Transversus abdominal plane (TAP) block in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery is proved to be a safe and effective method to treat postoperative pain (intermediate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence); a rectus sheath block is a viable alternative to the TAP block (intermediate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Local wound infusion is suggested as a component of multimodal analgesia (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

  • The use of continuous local wound infusion catheters is associated with a significant decrease in visual analogue scores for pain at rest and with activity (weak recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Use of continuous local wound infusion catheters consistently reduces the need for opioids, both as rescue and total dose (weak recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • A pre-peritoneal catheter is not associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (weak recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Pre-peritoneal catheters must have a planned removal process including institution of appropriate analgesia (moderate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

The use of perineural/local analgesia techniques is indicated in case of major interventions characterized by moderate-to-severe pain (NRS > 6) affecting the chest and abdominal wall [89]. The most frequently used peripheral nerves block (PNB) is the use of the rectus sheath block and the transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block. Regarding the timing of the block, it is suggested to perform rectus sheath block before surgery in pain management for laparoscopic abdominal surgery [90].

TAP block in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery is proved to be a safe and effective in treating postoperative pain with a statistically significant decrease in VAS at 12 h after the surgery [91, 92].

As far as the use of adjuvants is concerned, there is evidence in the literature suggesting the use of perineural dexamethasone with ropivacaine for thoracic paravertebral block in patient undergoing thoracotomy since it improves postoperative analgesia quality. NRS scores, rate of analgesic usage, ambulation time, and intestinal function recovery time were significantly reduced in patients with local wound infusion (LWI) compared to placebo at each postoperative time point (6, 12, 24 and 48 h; P < 0.05). And the NRS scores of patients with LWI at 12 h post-surgery were significantly reduced compared with the PCA group (P < 0.05) [93, 94].

Local anesthetics would directly block transmission of pain from nociceptive afferents from the wound surface; local anesthetic may also inhibit local inflammatory response to injury [95].

Postoperative pain management associated constipation

Constipation does not affect everyone who has surgery, but it is a relatively common side effect of pain medications, anesthesia, and a lack of mobility. The anesthetic regimen administered during surgery is likely to have an effect on constipation during recovery. Both the type of anesthesia and the surgical duration affect the likelihood of postoperative constipation. Surgeries that last longer in duration tend to be associated with a higher predisposition to constipation. Post-surgery constipation is often a result of opioid pain medications; given either as part of the anesthesia or for pain relief following the surgery, opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients receiving opioids is persistent and the most frequently reported side effect [96, 97].

Multimodal analgesia combines regional analgesia, non-opioid analgesics [acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 specific inhibitor], lidocaine infusions, gabapentinoids, and ketamine. Numerous studies have shown the opioid-sparing effect of this approach resulted in an accelerated GI recovery and improved outcomes. However, an optimal combination of these elements has not yet been elucidated [98, 99].

Caffeine is widely known as a stimulant to colonic motor activity in animals and humans. Clinical trials have shown that caffeinated drinks decrease the time to flatus and first bowel movement and if given as soon as 2 h after surgery, it may accelerate GI recovery and reduce LOS [100, 101].

Lastly, the use of regional anesthesia over general anesthesia whenever possible may help in reducing the number of drugs used and thus may reduce the likelihood of constipation after surgery.

Patients not amenable for interventions or already operated but not suitable for further interventions to manage affecting disease or complications

Unlike patients with treatable conditions or where active organ support is chosen for their care, there remains a group of frail patients or those for whom surgical intervention would be non-beneficial and there is a defined role for analog-sedative medications in the treatment of this cohort.

Pain assessment

  • Periodic assessment of pain score is mandatory using validated systems to evaluate the response to treatments and to allow adjustments (strong recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Observational pain scales are less reliable than patient reported metrics. However, in the non-communicative patient, observational pain scales should still be applied (strong recommendation, low quality evidence)

Different pain assessment tools have been validated: NRS (Numeric Rating Scale), VAS (visual analog scale) and VRS (Verbal Rating Scale) or the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CCPOT) in case of critically ill patients. There is no evidence of the superiority of one specific tool, and the choice should be made according to patient status (developmental, cognitive, educational, cultural status, and language differences). It remains that patient self-assessment of pain is the most valuable tool. Patient’s opinion must be listened and his/her feelings trusted [102,103,104].

Drug therapy

  • Multimodal analgesia is suggested to treat moderate-to-severe pain in patients not amenable for surgical interventions or already operated on but not suitable for further interventions (strong recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • The combination of systemic multimodal analgesia with regional analgesia is suggested in patients already operated on but not suitable for further interventions (strong recommendation, intermediate quality evidence)

  • Patients not amenable for surgical interventions or already operated on but not suitable for further interventions should be considered for palliation to achieve the control of all other related symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, dyspnea, agitation, and delirium (strong recommendation, intermediate quality evidence)

In patients not suitable for further intervention due to the clinical conditions or due to the disease itself, multimodal analgesia is effective and should be adopted in postoperative pain management. The different combinations of the known drugs with their additive or synergistic effects on pain relieve reduce the side effects of mono-modal interventions and increase the effect on pain reduction (Table 1).

Table 1 Initial opioids titration in opioid-naive patients during palliate care
Full size table

Nausea and vomiting

  • Nausea and vomiting should be managed with medications that target dopaminergic pathways (i.e., haloperidol, risperidone, metoclopramide, prochlorperazine) (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Octreotide should be utilized in the treatment of nausea and vomiting due to bowel obstruction caused by cancer (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • We suggest adding a second agent (i.e., ondansetron) to control nausea and vomiting when the first-line medications are unable to control the symptoms (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

Aforementioned drugs are routinely used as therapies for nausea because of their inhibition of receptors in the brain’s chemoreceptor trigger zone. Studies have not shown newer 5-HT3 medications to be superior to older dopaminergic agents in treating nausea at the end of life [105,106,107,108].

All medications that may be added as second agent in treating refractory nausea are listed in Table 2 together with the setting of use and doses and route of administration.

Table 2 Additional agents for the treatment of nausea and vomiting
Full size table

Delirium

  • Whenever appropriate, the evaluation of delirium should be done using standardized assessment tools validated in critically ill patients like Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Possible causes of delirium, including drug-induced delirium, must be minimized, and pain control should be optimized before the pharmacological approach is implemented (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • The use of i.v. haloperidol or droperidol in hyperactive (RASS + 1/ + 4) or hypoactive (RASS 0/-3) delirium with or without hallucinations is recommended (intermediate recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

Delirium is common in the last weeks/days of life, so it must be considered in every patient in palliative care showing a change in behavior. Symptoms can affect different areas of cognition (memory, orientation, language, visuospatial ability, or perception) and may include hallucinations and disturbances in the sleep–wake cycle and can cause distress in both the patients experiencing it and those around them (DSM-5 [109]). Validated tools have been developed to allow screening of delirium to help non-specialists to address a diagnosis [110, 111].

Reversible causes account for 30–50% cases of delirium, especially drugs and poorly controlled pain. Drugs potentially responsible for delirium include benzodiazepines, corticosteroids, anticholinergics, opioids, and other drugs with psychoactive properties. Other possible reversible causes are metabolic disturbances (electrolyte imbalances, dehydration, hypo- or hyperglycemia), hypoxia, anemia, sepsis [112].

Overall, only 50% of delirium cases are reversible. The other half requires medical management which focuses on reducing agitation and perceptual abnormalities. Haloperidol is the drug of choice in the pharmacological treatment of delirium. An initial dose of 0,5-2 mg in. slow iv bolus may be used off-label. Haloperidol is associated with extrapyramidal side effects and lengthening of QT [110, 111].

Dyspnea

  • The assessment of respiratory distress should be done using a standardized assessment tool and the presence of suggestive objective signs. We recommend a stepwise approach to the treatment of dyspnea (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence)

  • When death is not imminent, the treatment of the etiology of dyspnea is recommended (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Noninvasive ventilation to control dyspnea is suggested only until a properly deep sedation is reached or when sedation is inadequate. We recommend noninvasive ventilation only in predisposed settings with trained medical staff (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence).

  • Opioid usage as first-line treatment for dyspnea is recommended (high recommendation, intermediate quality evidence)

Dyspnea is the subjective awareness of altered respiratory function which usually results in respiratory distress. Respiratory distress is the totality of behavioral modifications that can be observed and measured (use of respiratory accessory muscles, nasal flaring, tachypnea, tachycardia, paradoxical breathing, fearful facial expression). Dyspnea is usually present in dying patients. When possible, being a subjective symptom, it must be assessed directly with the patient using standardized assessment tools [110].

The use of non-medical strategies to decrease respiratory distress should be considered like optimal positioning in sitting position, increased ambient air flows, use of fans, cold air. Noninvasive ventilation techniques as oxygen therapy include high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation to relief or mitigating dyspnea [110] by reducing the work of breathing in the absence of formal contraindication (intestinal occlusion and vomiting). Aspiration of airways if rattle is present. Anti-secretory medications may or may not be useful or required to decrease pulmonary secretions [113, 114].

Sedation with benzodiazepines or propofol can be considered as second line if dyspnea is not resolved with adequate doses of opioids since fear and anxiety can be con causes of the dyspnea in the dying patient [115].

Conclusions

Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies.

Availability of data and supporting materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

APP:

Acute postoperative pain

i.v.:

Intravenous

p.o.:

Per oral

s.c.:

Subcutaneous

EA:

Epidural analgesia

PCA:

Patient-controlled analgesia

CPNB:

Continuous peripheral nerve blocks

EGS:

Emergency general surgery

NSAIDs:

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

TEA:

Thoracic epidural anesthesia

PCEA:

Patient-controlled epidural analgesia

TAP:

Transversus abdominal plane

LWI:

Local wound infusion

OIC:

Opioid-induced constipation

CCPOT:

Care Pain Observation Tool

HFNC:

High-flow nasal cannula

CPAP:

Continuous positive airway pressure

COX:

Cyclooxygenase

References

  1. Boyd-Carson H, et al. A review of surgical and peri-operative factors to consider in emergency laparotomy care. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(S1):e75-82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jhanji S, Pearse RM. The use of early intervention to prevent postoperative complications. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009;15(4):349–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nilsson U, Gruen R, Myles PS. Postoperative recovery: the importance of the team. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(S1):e158–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sacerdote P, Coluzzi F, Fanelli A. Sublingual sufentanil, a new opportunity for the improvement of postoperative pain management in Italy. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016;20(7):1411–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meissner W, et al. Improving the management of post-operative acute pain: priorities for change. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(11):2131–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fishman SM., Bonica’s Management of Pain. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. 701 p.

  7. Chou R, Al. E. Management of postoperative pain: A clinical practice guideline from the Ameri-can pain society, the American society of regional anesthesia and pain medicine, and the Ameri-can society of anesthesiologists’ committee on regional anesthesia. J Pain. 2016;17(2):131–57.

  8. Paduraru M, Ponchietti L, Casas IM, Svenningsen P, Zago M. Enhanced Recovery after Emergency Surgery: A Systematic Review. Bull Emerg Trauma. 2017;5(2):70–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Stewart B, Khanduri P, McCord C, Ohene‐Yeboah M, Uranues S, Rivera FV, et al. Global disease burden of conditions requiring emergency surgery. BJS (British J Surg. 2014;101(1):e9–22.

  10. Mcgrath H, Flanagan C, Zeng L, Lei Y. Future of Artificial Intelligence in Anesthetics and Pain Management. J Biosci Med. 2019;7(11):111–8.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wang R, Wang S, Duan N, Wang Q. From patient-controlled analgesia to artificial intelligence-assisted patient-controlled analgesia: practices and perspectivess. Front Med. 2020;7(May):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Re-porting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):263.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ; GRADE Working Group. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995–998.

  14. Liu D, Ma J, Zhang Z, Yu A, Chen X, Feng C, et al. Management of postoperative pain in medical in-stitutions in Shandong Province in China. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;12;95(6).

  15. Van Boekel RLM, Vissers KCP, van der Sande R, Bronkhorst E, Lerou JGC, Steegers MAH. Moving beyond pain scores: multidimensional pain assessment is essential for adequate pain manage-ment after surgery. PLoS One. 2017;12(5).

  16. Farić N, Barać I, Paarić S, Lovrić I, Ilakovac V. Acute postoperative pain in trauma patients-the fifth vital sign. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2017;5(3):310–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang Y, Liu Z, Chen S, Ye X, Xie W, Hu C, et al. Identifying at-risk subgroups for acute postsurgical pain: a classification tree analysis. Pain Med. 2018;19(11):2283–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Murray AA, Retief FW. Acute postoperative pain in 1 231 patients at a developing country refer-ral hospital: Incidence and risk factors. South Afr J Anaesth Analg. 2016;22(1):26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Khatib SK, Razvi SS, Kulkarni SS, Parab S. A multicentre survey of the current acute post-operative pain management practices in tertiary care teaching hospitals in Maharashtra. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61(3):215–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Montes A, Aguilar JL, Benito MC, Caba F, Margarit C. Management of postoperative pain in Spain: a nationwide survey of practice. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017;61(5):480–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Medrzycka-Dabrowka W, Dąbrowski S, Gutysz-Wojnicka A, Gawroska-Krzemińska A, Ozga D. Barriers perceived by nurses in the optimal treatment of postoperative pain. Open Med. 2017;10(12):239–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Polanco-Garcia M, Garcia-Lopez J, Fabregas N, Meissner W, Puig M. Postoperative pain man-agement in spanish hospitals: a cohort study using the PAIN-OUT registry. J Pain. 2017;18(10):1237–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Peng LH, Jing JY, Qin PP, Su M. A multi-centered cross-sectional study of disease burden of pain of inpatients in southwest China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016;129(8):936–41. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.179788.PMID:27064038;PMCID:PMC4831528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mędrzycka-Dąbrowska WA, Dąbrowski S, Basiński A, Pilch D. Perception of barriers to postopera-tive pain management in elderly patients in Polish hospitals with and without a “Hospital With-out Pain” Certificate–a multi-center study. Arch Med Sci. 2016 A.

  25. Ferrari R, Martini M, Mondini S, Novello C, Palomba D, Scacco C, et al. Pain assessment in non-communicative patients: the Italian version of the Non-Communicative Patient’ s Pain Assessment Instrument ( NOPPAIN ). Aging Clin Exp Res. 2009;21(4):298–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bradshaw P, Hariharan S, Chen D. Does preoperative psychological status of patients affect post-operative pain? A prospective study from the Caribbean. Br J Pain [Internet]. 2016;10(2):108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Guimaraes-Pereira L, Valdoleiros I, Reis P, Abelha F. Evaluating persistent postoperative pain in one tertiary hospital: incidence, quality of life, associated factors, and treatment. Anesth Pain Med [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2019 Oct 31];6(2).

  28. Cakir U, Cete Y, Yigit O, Bozdemir MN. Improvement in physician pain perception with using pain scales. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg [Internet]. 2018;44(6):909–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chabowski M, Junke M, Juzwiszyn J, Milan M, Malinowski M, Janczak D. Adaptation to illness in relation to pain perceived by patients after surgery. J Pain Res. 2017;23(10):1447–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dragojevic-Simic V, Rancic N, Stamenkovic D, Simic R. Utilization of parenteral morphine by ap-plication of ATC/DDD methodology: retrospective study in the referral teaching hospital. Front Public Health. 2017;31:5.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Myles PS, Myles DB, Galagher W, Boyd D, Chew C, MacDonald N, et al. Measuring acute postoper-ative pain using the visual analog scale: the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state. Br J Anaesth. 2017;1.

  32. Ledowski T, Schneider M, Gruenewald M, Goyal RK, Teo SR, Hruby J. Surgical pleth index: pro-spective validation of the score to predict moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123(2):e328–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Borys M, Zyzak K, Hanych A, Domagała M, Gałkin P, Gałaszkiewicz K, et al. Survey of postoperative pain control in different types of hospitals: a multicenter observational study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18:18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Du C, Li H, Qu L, Li Y, Bao X. Personalized nursing care improves psychological health, quality of life, and postoperative recovery of patients in the general surgery department. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2019;12(7):9090–6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haghighi MJ, Shahdadi H, Moghadam MP, Balouchi A. The Impact of Evidence-Based Practices on Postoperative Pain in Patients undergoing Gastrointestinal Surgery in Amiralmomenin Hospital in Zabol During 2014–2015. J Clin Diagn Res 2016 Jul;10(7):IC01–4.

  36. Strutz P., Aranake-Chrisinger A., Willingham M., Kronzer V.L., Abdallah A.B., Haroutounian S., et al. Obstructive sleep apnea as an independent predictor of postoperative delirium and pain: An observational study of a surgical cohort. Anesth Analg. 2018;1.

  37. Strutz PK, et al. The relationship between obstructive sleep apnoea and postoperative deliri-um and pain: an observational study of a surgical cohort. Anaesthesia. 2019;74(12):1542–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Doleman B, Leonardi-Bee J, Heinink TP, Boyd-Carson H, Carrick L, Mandalia R, Lund JN, Williams JP. Pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs for postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;6(6):CD012978. d.

  39. Hyllested M, Jones S, Pedersen JL, Kehlet H. Comparative effect of paracetamol, NSAIDs or their combination in postoperative pain management: a qualitative review. Br J Anaesth. 2002;88(2):199–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/88.2.199 (PMID: 11878654).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Elia N, Lysakowski C, Tramè M. Does multimodal analgesia with acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, or selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and patient-controlled analgesia morphine offer advantages over morphine alone? Meta-Anal Randomized Trials Anesthesiol. 2005;103(6):1296–304.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. McDaid C, Maund E, Rice S, Wright K, Jenkins B, Woolacott N. Paracetamol and selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the reduction of morphine-related side effects after major surgery: a systematic review. In: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme: Executive Summaries. 2003.

  42. Abernethy AP, Currow DC, Frith P, Fazekas BS, McHugh A, Bui C. Randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial of sustained release morphine for the management of refractory dyspnoea. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):523–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bruera E, MacEachern T, Ripamonti C, Hanson J. Subcutaneous morphine for dyspnea in cancer patients. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119(9):906–7. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-119-9-199311010-00007 (PMID: 8215003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Ladha, Karim S., et al. Variations in the use of perioperative multimodal analgesic therapy. Anes-thesiology J Am Soc Anesthesiol 124.4 (2016): 837–845.

  45. Shaffer EE, Pham A, Woldman RL, Spiegelman A, Strassels SA, Wan GJ, et al. Estimating the effect of intravenous acetaminophen for postoperative pain management on length of stay and inpa-tient hospital costs. Adv Ther. 2016;33(12):2211–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mark J, Argentieri DM, Gutierrez CA, Morrell K, Eng K, Hutson AD, et al. Ultrarestrictive opioid prescription protocol for pain management after gynecologic and abdominal surgery. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(8).

  47. Bandey S, Singh V. Comparison between IV paracetamol and tramadol for postoperative analge-sia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(8):UC05–9.

  48. Amiri H, Mirzaei M, Pournaghi M, Fathi F. Three-agent preemptive analgesia, pregabalin-acetaminophen-naproxen, in laparotomy for cancer: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Pain Med. 2016 Mar 15; 7(2).

  49. Kinoshita J, Fushida S, Kaji M, Oyama K, Fujimoto D, Hirono Y, et al. A randomized controlled trial of postoperative intravenous acetaminophen plus thoracic epidural analgesia vs. thoracic epi-dural analgesia alone after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2019;22(2):392–402.

  50. Horita E, Takahashi Y, Takashima K, Saito K, Takashima Y, Munemoto Y. Effectiveness of scheduled postoperative intravenous acetaminophen for colon cancer surgery pain. J Pharm Health Care Sci. 2018;6:4.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Shida D, Tagawa K, Inada K, Nasu K, Seyama Y, Maeshiro T, et al. Modified enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for patients with obstructive colorectal cancer. BMC Surg. 2017;16:17.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Haddad NN, Bruns BR, Enniss TM, Turay D, Sakran JV, Fathalizadeh A, et al. Perioperative use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of anastomotic failure in emergency general surgery. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017;83(4):657.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Gago Martínez A, Escontrela Rodriguez B, Planas Roca A, Martínez RA. Intravenous Ibuprofen for treatment of post-operative pain: a multicenter, double blind, placebo-controlled, random-ized clinical trial. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5): e0154004.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Gan TJ, Singla N, Daniels SE, Hamilton DA, Lacouture PG, Reyes CR, et al. Postoperative opioid sparing with injectable hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin-diclofenac: pooled analysis of data from two Phase III clinical trials. J Pain Res. 2016;20(10):15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ong CKS, Seymour RA, Lirk P, Merry AF. Combining paracetamol (acetaminophen) with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs: a qualitative systematic review of analgesic efficacy for acute postoperative pain. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(4):1170–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Essex MN, Xu H, Parsons B, Xie L, Li C. Parecoxib relieves pain and has an opioid-sparing effect fol-lowing major gastrointestinal surgery. Int J Gen Med. 2017;28(10):319–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Liu Y, Song X, Sun D, Wang J, Lan Y, Yang G, et al. Evaluation of intravenous parecoxib infusion pump of patient-controlled analgesia compared to fentanyl for postoperative pain management in laparoscopic liver resection. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:8224–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Bhala N., Emberson J., Merhi A. et al. Vascular and upper gastrointestinal eff ects of non-steroidal anti-infl ammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual. Lancet [Internet]. 2013;6736(13):1–11.

  59. Lee A, Mg C, Jc C, Jf K, Jp K. Effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on postoperative renal function in adults with normal renal function ( Review ). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(2).

  60. Savard X, D M, Pinard A, Sc M. Perioperative use of gabapentinoids for the management of postoperative acute pain. Anesthesiology. 2020;(2):265–79.

  61. Laskowski K, Stirling A, McKay WP, Lim HJ. A systematic review of intravenous ketamine for post-operative analgesia. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth. 2011;58(10):911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Jouguelet-Lacoste J, La Colla L, Schilling D, Chelly JE. The use of intravenous infusion or single dose of low-dose ketamine for postoperative analgesia: a review of the current literature. Pain Med. 2015;16(2):383–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Wang L, Johnston B, Kaushal A, Cheng D, Zhu F, Martin J. Ketamine added to morphine or hydro-morphone patient-controlled analgesia for acute postoperative pain in adults: a systematic re-view and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Can J Anaesth. 2016 Mar.

  64. Assouline B, Tramèr M, Kreienbühl L, Elia N. Benefit and harm of adding ketamine to an opioid in a patient-controlled analgesia device for the control of postoperative pain: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analyses. Pain. 2016;157(12):2854–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Grass F, Cachemaille M, Martin D, Fournier N, Hahnloser D, Blanc C, et al. Pain perception after colorectal surgery: a propensity score matched prospective cohort study. Biosci Trends. 2018;12(1):47–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Abdelgalil AS, Shoukry A, Kamel M, Heikal A, Ahmed N. Analgesic potentials of preoperative oral pregabalin, intravenous magnesium sulfate, and their combination in acute postthoracotomy pain. Clin J Pain. 2019;35(3):247–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kim N, Kwon T, Bai S, Noh S, Hong J, Lee H, et al. Effects of dexmedetomidine in combination with fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia on pain attenuation after open gastrectomy in comparison with conventional thoracic epidural and fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Int J Med Sci. 2017;14(10):951–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Hemmerling, Thomas M. Pain management in abdominal surgery. Langenbeck’s Archiv Surg 2018;403.7(2018):791–803.

  69. Gottschalk A, Ford J, Durieux ME, Tiouririne M. Review article: the role of the perioperative period in recurrence after cancer surgery. Anesth Analg. 2010;110(6):1636–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Laulin J, Maurette P, Rivat C. The role of ketamine in preventing fentanyl-induced hyperalgesia and subsequent acute morphine tolerance. Anesth Analg. 2002;94:1263–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Ding Z, Wang K, Wang B, Zhou N, Li H, Yan B. Efficacy and tolerability of oxycodone versus fenta-nyl for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after gastrointestinal laparotomy: a prospec-tive, randomized, double-blind study. Med. 2016;95(39): e4943.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Choi EK, Kwon N, Park S-J. Comparison of the effects of oxycodone versus fentanyl on airway re-flex to tracheal extubation and postoperative pain during anesthesia recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Medicine (United States). 2018;97(13).

  73. Pogatzki-Zahn, Esther, et al. Real-world use of the sufentanil sublingual tablet system for patient-controlled management of acute postoperative pain: a prospective noninterventional study. Curr Med Res Opin 2020;36.2(2020):277–284.

  74. Hutchins JL, Leiman D, Minkowitz HS, Jove M, DiDonato KP, Palmer PP. An open-label study of sufentanil sublingual tablet 30 Mcg in patients with postoperative pain. Pain Med [Internet]. 2018;19(10):2058–68.

  75. García-Ramírez PE, González-Rodríguez SG, Soto-Acevedo F, Brito-Zurita OR, Cabello-Molina R, López-Morales CM. Postoperative pain: frequency and management characterization. Co-lombian J Anesthesiol. 2018;46(2):93–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Jarzyna D, Jungquist CR, Pasero C, Nisbet A, Dempsey SJ. American Society for pain management nursing guidelines on monitoring for opioid- induced sedation and respiratory depression. Pain Manag Nurs [Internet]. 2011;12(3):118–145.e10.

  77. Jang JS, Hwang SM, Kwon Y, Tark H, Kim YJ, Ryu BY, et al. Is the transdermal fentanyl patch an effi-cient way to achieve acute postoperative pain control? A randomized controlled trial. Medicine (United States). 2018;97(51).

  78. Zgâia A, Lisencu C, Rogobete A, Vlad C, Achimaş-Cadariu P, Lazăr G, et al. Improvement of recovery parameters using patient-controlled epidural analgesia after oncological surgery. A prospective, randomized single center study. Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care 2017;24(1)29–36. 2017;24(1):29–36.

  79. Regenbogen SE, Mullard AJ, Peters N, Brooks S, Englesbe MJ, Campbell DA, et al. Hospital analge-sia practices and patient-reported pain after colorectal resection. Ann Surg. 2016;264(6):1044–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Cummings K, Zimmerman N, Maheshwari K, Cooper G, Cummings L. Epidural compared with non-epidural analgesia and cardiopulmonary complications after colectomy: a retrospective cohort study of 20,880 patients using a national quality database. J Clin Anesth. 2018;47:12–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Helander EM, Webb MP, Bias M, Whang EE, Kaye AD, Urman RD. Use of regional anesthesia tech-niques: analysis of institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocols for colorectal sur-gery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017;27(9):898–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Gu CY, et al. Effects of epidural anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia on immune func-tion in esophageal carcinoma patients undergoing thoracic surgery. Mol Clin Oncol. 2015;3(1):190–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Koh JC, Song Y, Kim SY, Park S, Ko SH, Han DW. Postoperative pain and patient-controlled epidur-al analgesia-related adverse effects in young and elderly patients: a retrospective analysis of 2,435 patients. J Pain Res. 2017;12(10):897–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Grass F, Slieker J, Frauche P, Solà J, Blanc C, Demartines N, et al. Postoperative urinary reten-tion in colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway. J Surg Res. 2017;207:70–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Jeong O, Ryu SY, Park YK. Postoperative functional recovery after gastrectomy in patients un-dergoing enhanced recovery after surgery. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(14).

  86. Forsmo HM, Erichsen C, Rasdal A, Körner H, Pfeffer F. Enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery (ERAS) in elderly patients is feasible and achieves similar results as in younger patients. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017;2:3.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Patil S, Kudalkar A, Tendolkar B. Comparison of continuous epidural infusion of 0.125% ropivacaine with 1 μg/ml fentanyl versus 0.125% bupivacaine with 1 μg/ml fentanyl for postoperative analgesia in major abdominal surgery. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34(1):29–34.

  88. Babu S, Gupta BK, Gautam GK. A comparative study for post operative analgesia in the emergen-cy laparotomies: thoracic epidural ropivacaine with nalbuphine and ropivacaine with butor-phanol. Anesth Essays Res. 2017;11(1):155–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  89. Fanelli A, Divella M, Compagnone C, Neurorianimazione SC, Gazzerro G, Marinangeli F, et al. Ge-stione e trattamento del Dolore Acuto Post-operatorio (DAP) [Internet]. [cited 2020 May 5] link: http://www.siaarti.it/SiteAssets/Ricerca/buona-pratica-clinica-.

  90. Jeong H-W, Kim CS, Choi KT, Jeong S-M, Kim D-H, Lee J-H. Preoperative versus postoperative rec-tus sheath block for acute postoperative pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a ran-domized controlled study. J Clin Med. 2019;8(7).

  91. El Sherif F, Mohamed S-B, Kamal S. The effect of morphine added to bupivacaine in ultra-sound guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for postoperative analgesia following lower abdominal cancer surgery, a randomized controlled study. J Clin Anesth. 2017;39:4–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Guo J, Li H, Pei Q, Feng Z. The analgesic efficacy of subcostal transversus abdominis plane block with Mercedes incision. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;10:18.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Lee SH, Sim W-S, Kim GE, Kim HC, Jun JH, Lee JY, et al. Randomized trial of subfascial infusion of ropivacaine for early recovery in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016;69(6):604–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Wu Y-F, Li X-P, Yu Y-B, Chen L, Jiang C-B, Li D-Y, et al. Postoperative local incision analgesia for acute pain treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2018;64(2):175–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Hahnenkamp K, Theilmeier G, Van Aken HK, Hoenemann CW. The effects of local anesthetics on perioperative coagulation, inflammation, and microcirculation. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(6):1441–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200206000-00011 (PMID: 12032003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Müller-Lissner S, Bassotti G, Coffin B, Drewes A, Breivi H, Eisenberg E, et al. Opioid-Induced constipation and bowel dysfunction: a clinical guideline. Pain Med. 2016;1–27.

  97. Streicher JM, Bilsky EJ. Peripherally acting μ -opioid receptor antagonists for the treatment of opioid-related side effects: mechanism of action and clinical implications. J Pharm Pract. 2017;

  98. Geltzeiler CB, Rotramel A, Wilson C, Deng L, Whiteford MH, Frankhouse J. Prospective study of colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery in a community hospital. JAMA Surg. 2015;97239(9):955–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Agents P, Helander EM, Webb MP, Bias M. A comparison of multimodal analgesic approaches in institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocols for colorectal surgery. : J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2017;27(9):903–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Kane TD, Tubog TD, Schmidt JR. The use of coffee to decrease the incidence of postoperative ileus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J PeriAnesthesia Nurs [Internet]. 2019;(xxxx). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2019.07.004

  101. Dulskas A, Klimovskij M, Vitkauskiene M. Effect of coffee on the length of postoperative ileus. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;11(D):1064–9.

  102. Myles PS, Myles DB, Galagher W, Boyd D, Chew C, Macdonald N, et al. Measuring acute postoperative pain using the visual analog scale : the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state. Br J Anaesth [Internet]. 2017;118(3):424–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aew466

  103. Mordecai L, Vindrola-padros C, Wood VJ, Swart N, Morris S, Williams A, et al. A novel inpatient complex pain team: protocol for a mixed-methods evaluation of a single-centre pilot study. BMJ Open. 2018;1–8.

  104. Cachemaille M, Grass F, Fournier N, Suter MR, Demartines N, Hu M, et al. Pain Intensity in the first 96 hours after abdominal surgery: a prospective cohort study. 2019;0(0):1–11.

  105. Wood GJ, Shega JW, Lynch B, Von Roenn JH. Management of intractable nausea and vomiting in patients at the end of life: “I was feeling nauseous all of the time … nothing was working.” JAMA. 2007;298(10):1196–207. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.10.1196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Büttner M, Walder B, von Elm E, Tramèr MR. Is low-dose haloperidol a useful antiemetic?: A meta-analysis of published and unpublished randomized trials. Anesthesiology. 2004;101(6):1454–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200412000-00028 (PMID: 15564955).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Weschules DJ, Maxwell T, Reifsnyder J, Knowlton CH. Are newer, more expensive pharmacotherapy options associated with superior symptom control compared to less costly agents used in a collaborative practice setting? Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2006 Mar-Apr;23.

  108. Currow DC, Quinn S, Agar M, Fazekas B, Hardy J, McCaffrey N, Eckermann S, Abernethy AP, Clark K. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of octreotide in malignant bowel obstruction. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2015;49(5):814–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Hosie A, Agar M, Lobb E, Davidson PM, Phillips J. Palliative care nurses’ recognition and assessment of patients with delirium symptoms: a qualitative study using critical incident technique. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(10):1353–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurs.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Downar J, Delaney JW, Hawryluck L, Kenny L. Guidelines for the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(6):1003–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4330-7 (Epub 2016 Apr 8 PMID: 27059793).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Hosker CM, Bennett MI. Delirium and agitation at the end of life. BMJ. 2016;9(353): i3085. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3085 (PMID: 27283962).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Leonard M, Raju B, Conroy M, Donnelly S, Trzepacz PT, Saunders J, Meagher D. Reversibility of delirium in terminally ill patients and predictors of mortality. Palliat Med. 2008;22(7):848–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216308094520 (Epub 2008 Aug 28 PMID: 18755).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Wee B, Hillier R. Interventions for noisy breathing in patients near to death. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;2008(1):CD005177. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005177.pub2. PMID: 18254072; PMCID: PMC6478131.

  114. Campbell ML. Terminal dyspnea and respiratory distress. Crit Care Clin. 2004;20(3):403–17, viii-ix. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2004.03.015. PMID: 15183210.

  115. Jennings AL, Davies AN, Higgins JP, Gibbs JS, Broadley KE. A systematic review of the use of opioids in the management of dyspnoea. Thorax. 2002;57(11):939–44. https://doi.org/10.1136/thorax.57.11.939.PMID:12403875;PMCID:PMC1746225.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa, 2, 56124, Pisa, Italy

    Federico Coccolini, Dario Tartaglia & Massimo Chiarugi

  2. ICU Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy

    Francesco Corradi, Catia Sbarbaro, Tamara Zoro, Alessandro Isirdi & Francesco Forfori

  3. General Surgery Department, Macerata Hospital, Macerata, Italy

    Massimo Sartelli

  4. Trauma Surgery Department, Riverside University Health System Medical Center, Loma Linda, CA, USA

    Raul Coimbra

  5. Department of Surgery No2, Kharkiv National Medical University, Kharkiv, Ukraine

    Igor A. Kryvoruchko

  6. General Surgery Department, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Ari Leppaniemi

  7. Clinic of Emergency Surgery, University Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia

    Krstina Doklestic

  8. ICU Department, Parma University Hospital, Parma, Italy

    Elena Bignami

  9. Transplant ICU Department, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy

    Giandomenico Biancofiore

  10. Trauma and Acute Care Surgery Unit Hadassah, Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

    Miklosh Bala

  11. General Surgery Department, Monza University Hospital, Monza, Italy

    Ceresoli Marco

  12. General and Emergency Surgery, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Dimitris Damaskos

  13. Trauma/Acute Care Surgery, Scripps Clinic Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Walt L. Biffl

  14. General Surgery Department, Pavia University Hospital, Pavia, Italy

    Paola Fugazzola

  15. ICU Department, Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy

    Domenico Santonastaso & Vanni Agnoletti

  16. ICU Department Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy

    Mirco Nacoti

  17. Trauma and Burn Service, Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital, Mayville, Durban, South Africa

    Timothy C. Hardcastle

  18. General Surgery Department, Legnano Hospital, Legnano, Milano, Italy

    Diego Mariani

  19. Emergency and Colorectal Surgery, Poissy and Saint Germain en Laye Hospitals, Poissy, France

    Belinda De Simone

  20. Emergency Surgery, HUS Helsinki University Hospital, Meilahti Tower Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    Matti Tolonen

  21. Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Foothills Medical Center, Calgary, AB, Canada

    Chad Ball

  22. Department of Surgical Science, University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    Mauro Podda

  23. General Surgery, Cannizzaro University Hospital, Catania, Italy

    Isidoro Di Carlo

  24. General Surgery Department, San Benedetto del Tronto Hospital, San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy

    Salomone Di Saverio

  25. Trauma Center, Groote Schuur Hospital, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Pradeep Navsaria

  26. General Surgery Department, San Donato Hospital, Milan, Italy

    Luigi Bonavina

  27. Department of Surgery, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates

    Fikri Abu-Zidan

  28. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Kjetil Soreide

  29. Division of Trauma Surgery, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

    Gustavo P. Fraga

  30. ICU Department, School of Medical Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil

    Vanessa Henriques Carvalho

  31. Anesthesia Department, School of Medical Sciences, Campinas, Brazil

    Sergio Faria Batista

  32. General Surgery, Giessen University Hospital, Giessen, Germany

    Andreas Hecker

  33. Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences – DIMEC, Alma Mater Studiorum - University of Bologna, General Surgery of the Morgagni - Pierantoni Hospital, Forlì, Italy

    Alessandro Cucchetti & Giorgio Ercolani

  34. General Surgery Department, UCLA Davis University Hospital, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Joseph M. Galante

  35. General Surgery Department, Government Gousiua Hospital, Srinagar, India

    Imtiaz Wani

  36. Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Milano University Hospital, Milan, Italy

    Hayato Kurihara

  37. Emergency Department, Nijmegen Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Edward Tan

  38. Department of Surgical Disciplines, Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Regional Clinical Hospital, Kaliningrad, Russia

    Andrey Litvin

  39. Bologna University, Bologna, Italy

    Rita Maria Melotti

  40. Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy

    Gabriele Sganga

  41. Service de Chirurgie Digestive Et Hépato-Bilio-Pancréatique, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Université Paris Est, Créteil, France

    Nicola De’Angelis

  42. Department of General Surgery, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia

    Dieter G. Weber

  43. Faculty of Medicine of Parakou, University of Parakou, Parakou, Benin

    Adrien M. Hodonou

  44. General Surgery Department, Nijmegen Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Richard tenBroek

  45. General Surgery Department, Santa Maria Della Misericordia Hospital, Rovigo, Italy

    Dario Parini

  46. University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust UK, Portsmouth, UK

    Jim Khan

  47. ICU-HEMS Department, Arezzo Hospital, Arezzo, Italy

    Giovanni Sbrana

  48. ICU Department, Maggiore Hospital, Bologna, Italy

    Carlo Coniglio

  49. ICU Department, P. Giaccone Hospital, Palermo, Italy

    Antonino Giarratano

  50. ICU Department, San Martino Hospital, Genoa, Italy

    Angelo Gratarola

  51. General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Vicenza Hospital, Vicenza, Italy

    Claudia Zaghi

  52. Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, East Medical Center Drive, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Oreste Romeo

  53. Department of General Surgery, Albury Hospital, Albury, Australia

    Michael Kelly

  54. E. Moore Shock and Trauma Centre, Denver, CO, USA

    Ernest E. Moore

  55. General, Emergency and Trauma Surgery Department, Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy

    Fausto Catena

  56. First Department Anaesthesiology Intensive Therapy, Medical University Lublin, Lublin, Poland

    Manu L. N. G. Malbrain

  57. International Fluid Academy, Lovenjoel, Belgium

    Manu L. N. G. Malbrain

Authors
  1. Federico Coccolini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Corradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Massimo Sartelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Raul Coimbra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Igor A. Kryvoruchko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ari Leppaniemi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Krstina Doklestic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elena Bignami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Giandomenico Biancofiore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Miklosh Bala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ceresoli Marco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Dimitris Damaskos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Walt L. Biffl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Paola Fugazzola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Domenico Santonastaso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Vanni Agnoletti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Catia Sbarbaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Mirco Nacoti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Timothy C. Hardcastle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Diego Mariani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Belinda De Simone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Matti Tolonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  23. Chad Ball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  24. Mauro Podda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  25. Isidoro Di Carlo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  26. Salomone Di Saverio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  27. Pradeep Navsaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  28. Luigi Bonavina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  29. Fikri Abu-Zidan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  30. Kjetil Soreide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  31. Gustavo P. Fraga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  32. Vanessa Henriques Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  33. Sergio Faria Batista
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  34. Andreas Hecker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  35. Alessandro Cucchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  36. Giorgio Ercolani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  37. Dario Tartaglia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  38. Joseph M. Galante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  39. Imtiaz Wani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  40. Hayato Kurihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  41. Edward Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  42. Andrey Litvin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  43. Rita Maria Melotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  44. Gabriele Sganga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  45. Tamara Zoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  46. Alessandro Isirdi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  47. Nicola De’Angelis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  48. Dieter G. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  49. Adrien M. Hodonou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  50. Richard tenBroek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  51. Dario Parini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  52. Jim Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  53. Giovanni Sbrana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  54. Carlo Coniglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  55. Antonino Giarratano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  56. Angelo Gratarola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  57. Claudia Zaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  58. Oreste Romeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  59. Michael Kelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  60. Francesco Forfori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  61. Massimo Chiarugi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  62. Ernest E. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  63. Fausto Catena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  64. Manu L. N. G. Malbrain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

FC drafted the manuscript, and all authors drafted critical revision and contributed to important scientific knowledge giving the final approval. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Federico Coccolini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare to have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coccolini, F., Corradi, F., Sartelli, M. et al. Postoperative pain management in non-traumatic emergency general surgery: WSES-GAIS-SIAARTI-AAST guidelines. World J Emerg Surg 17, 50 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00455-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-022-00455-7

Keywords

World Journal of Emergency Surgery

ISSN: 1749-7922