Chronic pain is a major source of suffering. It interferes with daily functioning and often is accompanied by distress. Yet, in the International Classification of Diseases, chronic pain diagnoses are not represented systematically. The lack of appropriate codes renders accurate epidemiological investigations difficult and impedes health policy decisions regarding chronic pain such as adequate financing of access to multimodal pain management. In cooperation with the WHO, an IASP Working Group has developed a classification system that is applicable in a wide range of contexts, including pain medicine, primary care, and low-resource environments. Chronic pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs for more than 3 months. In chronic pain syndromes, pain can be the sole or a leading complaint and requires special treatment and care. In conditions such as fibromyalgia or nonspecific low-back pain, chronic pain may be conceived as a disease in its own right; in our proposal, we call this subgroup “chronic primary pain.” In 6 other subgroups, pain is secondary to an underlying disease: chronic cancer-related pain, chronic neuropathic pain, chronic secondary visceral pain, chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, chronic secondary headache and orofacial pain, and chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. These conditions are summarized as “chronic secondary pain” where pain may at least initially be conceived as a symptom. Implementation of these codes in the upcoming 11th edition of International Classification of Diseases will lead to improved classification and diagnostic coding, thereby advancing the recognition of chronic pain as a health condition in its own right.

Chronic pain after tissue trauma is frequent and may have a lasting impact on the functioning and quality of life of the affected person. Despite this, chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain is underrecognised and, consequently, undertreated. It is not represented in the current International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). This article describes the new classification of chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain for ICD-11. Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain is defined as chronic pain that develops or increases in intensity after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury and persists beyond the healing process, ie, at least 3 months after the surgery or tissue trauma. In the classification, it is distinguished between tissue trauma arising from a controlled procedure in the delivery of health care (surgery) and forms of uncontrolled accidental damage (other traumas). In both sections, the most frequent conditions are included. This provides diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions that persist after the initial tissue trauma has healed and that require specific treatment and management. It is expected that the representation of chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain in ICD-11 furthers identification, diagnosis, and treatment of these pain states. Even more importantly, it will make the diagnosis of chronic posttraumatic or postsurgical pain statistically visible and, it is hoped, stimulate research into these pain syndromes.

Thoracotomy induces severe postoperative pain and impairment of pulmonary function, and therefore regional analgesia has been intensively studied in this procedure. Thoracic epidural analgesia is commonly considered the “gold standard” in this setting; however, evaluation of the evidence is needed to assess the comparative benefits of alternative techniques, guide clinical practice and identify areas requiring further research. In this systematic review of randomized trials we evaluated thoracic epidural, paravertebral, intrathecal, intercostal, and interpleural analgesic techniques, compared to each other and to systemic opioid analgesia, in adult thoracotomy. Postoperative pain, analgesic use, and complications were analyzed. Continuous paravertebral block was as effective as thoracic epidural analgesia with local anesthetic (LA) but was associated with a reduced incidence of hypotension. Paravertebral block reduced the incidence of pulmonary complications compared with systemic analgesia, whereas thoracic epidural analgesia did not. Thoracic epidural analgesia was superior to intrathecal and intercostal techniques, although these were superior to systemic analgesia; interpleural analgesia was inadequate. Either thoracic epidural analgesia with LA plus opioid or continuous paravertebral block with LA can be recommended. Where these techniques are not possible, or are contraindicated, intrathecal opioid or intercostal nerve block are recommended despite insufficient duration of analgesia, which requires the use of supplementary systemic analgesia. Quantitative meta-analyses were limited by heterogeneity in study design, and subject numbers were small. Further well designed studies are required to investigate the optimum components of the epidural solution and to rigorously evaluate the risks/benefits of continuous infusion paravertebral and intercostal techniques compared with thoracic epidural analgesia.

To quantify benefit and harm of epidural analgesia, compared with systemic opioid analgesia, in adults having surgery under general anesthesia. It remains controversial whether adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia decreases postoperative morbidity and mortality. We searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and BIOSIS till July 2012. We included randomized controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia (with local anesthetics, lasting for ≥ 24 hours postoperatively) with systemic analgesia in adults having surgery under general anesthesia, and reporting on mortality or any morbidity endpoint. A total of 125 trials (9044 patients, 4525 received epidural analgesia) were eligible. In 10 trials (2201 patients; 87 deaths), reporting on mortality as a primary or secondary endpoint, the risk of death was decreased with epidural analgesia (3.1% vs 4.9%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.93). Epidural analgesia significantly decreased the risk of atrial fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia, deep vein thrombosis, respiratory depression, atelectasis, pneumonia, ileus, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also improved recovery of bowel function, but significantly increased the risk of arterial hypotension, pruritus, urinary retention, and motor blockade. Technical failures occurred in 6.1% of patients. In adults having surgery under general anesthesia, concomitant epidural analgesia reduces postoperative mortality and improves a multitude of cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal morbidity endpoints compared with patients receiving systemic analgesia. Because adverse effects and technical failures cannot be ruled out, individual risk-benefit analyses and professional care are recommended.

Introduction: Pain management after surgery continues to be suboptimal; there are several reasons including lack of translation of results from basic science studies and scientific clinical evidence into clinical praxis.Objectives: This review presents and discusses basic science findings and scientific evidence generated within the last 2 decades in the field of acute postoperative pain.Methods: In the first part of the review, we give an overview about studies that have investigated the pathophysiology of postoperative pain by using rodent models of incisional pain up to July 2016. The second focus of the review lies on treatment recommendations based on guidelines and clinical evidence, eg, by using the fourth edition of the “Acute Pain Management: Scientific Evidence” of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists and Faculty of Pain Medicine.Results: Preclinical studies in rodent models characterized responses of primary afferent nociceptors and dorsal horn neurons as one neural basis for pain behavior including resting pain, hyperalgesia, movement-evoked pain or anxiety- and depression-like behaviors after surgery. Furthermore, the role of certain receptors, mediators, and neurotransmitters involved in peripheral and central sensitization after incision were identified; many of these are very specific, relate to some modalities only, and are unique for incisional pain. Future treatment should focus on these targets to develop therapeutic agents that are effective for the treatment of postoperative pain as well as have few side effects. Furthermore, basic science findings translate well into results from clinical studies. Scientific evidence is able to point towards useful (and less useful) elements of multimodal analgesia able to reduce opioid consumption, improve pain management, and enhance recovery.Conclusion: Understanding basic mechanisms of postoperative pain to identify effective treatment strategies may improve patients' outcome after surgery.