Ulrike Stamer

Prof. Dr. Ulrike Stamer

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

28Years (1999-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
19 April 2022 in Pain
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
DHDebora M. Hofer
Debora M. Hofer
TLThomas Lehmann
Thomas Lehmann
RZRuth Zaslansky
Ruth Zaslansky
MHMichael Harnik
Michael Harnik
WMWinfried Meissner
Winfried Meissner
USUlrike Stamer
Ulrike Stamer
Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is defined by pain intensity and pain-related functional interference. This study included measures of function in a composite score of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to investigate the incidence of CPSP. Registry data were analyzed for PROs 1 day and 12 months postoperatively. Based on pain intensity and pain-related interference with function, patients were allocated to the groups “CPSPF” (at least moderate pain with interference), “mixed” (milder symptoms), and “no CPSPF”. The incidence of CPSPF was compared with CPSP rates referring to published data. Variables associated with the PRO-12 score (composite PROs at 12 months; numeric rating scale 0-10) were analyzed by linear regression analysis. Of 2319 patients, 8.6%, 32.5%, and 58.9% were allocated to the groups CPSPF, mixed, and no CPSPF, respectively. Exclusion of patients whose pain scores did not increase compared with the preoperative status, resulted in a 3.3% incidence. Of the patients without pre-existing pain, 4.1% had CPSPF. Previously published pain cutoffs of numeric rating scale >0, ≥3, or ≥4, used to define CPSP, produced rates of 37.5%, 9.7%, and 5.7%. Pre-existing chronic pain, preoperative opioid medication, and type of surgery were associated with the PRO-12 score (all P < 0.05). Opioid doses and PROs 24 hours postoperatively improved the fit of the regression model. A more comprehensive assessment of pain and interference resulted in lower CPSP rates than previously reported. Although inclusion of CPSP in the ICD-11 is a welcome step, evaluation of pain characteristics would be helpful in differentiation between CPSPF and continuation of pre-existing chronic pain.

29 January 2020 in Anesthesia & Analgesia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
USUlrike Stamer
Ulrike Stamer
GLGregory A. Liguori
Gregory A. Liguori
NRNarinder Rawal
Narinder Rawal
Acute pain services (APS) have developed over the past 35 years. Originally implemented solely to care for patients with regional catheters or patient-controlled analgesia after surgery, APS have become providers of care throughout the perioperative period, with some institutions even taking the additional step toward providing outpatient services for patients with acute pain. Models vary considerably in terms of tasks and responsibilities, staffing, education, protocols, quality, and financing. Many challenges face today’s APS, including the increasing number of patients with preexisting chronic pain, intake of analgesics and opioids before surgery, substance-dependent patients needing special care, shorter hospital stays, early discharge of patients in need of further analgesic treatment, prevention and treatment of chronic postsurgical pain, minimization of adverse events, and side effects of treatment. However, many APS lack a clear-cut definition of their structures, tasks, and quality. Development of APS in the future will require us to face urgent questions, such as, “What are meaningful outcome variables?” and, “How do we define high quality?” It is obvious that focusing exclusively on pain scores does not reflect the complexity of pain and recovery. A broader approach is needed―a common concept of surgical and anesthesiological services within a hospital (eg, procedure-specific patient pathways as indicated by the programs “enhanced recovery after surgery” or the “perioperative surgical home”), with patient-reported outcome measures as one central quality criterion. Pain-related functional impairment, treatment-induced side effects, speed of mobilization, as well as return to normal function and everyday activities are key.

15 March 2025 in British Journal of Anaesthesia
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
USUlrike Stamer
Ulrike Stamer
PLPatricia Lavand'homme
Patricia Lavand'homme
DHDebora M. Hofer
Debora M. Hofer
ABAntonia Barke
Antonia Barke
BKBeatrice Korwisi
Beatrice Korwisi
Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and disability. In some patients, it can result in long-term opioid use even after minor surgery. Epidemiological studies have reported highly varying rates of CPSP, largely because researchers have used different definitions with self-defined cut-offs for pain scores. With the introduction of the 11th revision of the World Health Organisation International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11), chronic pain is now recognised as an entity of its own, its biopsychosocial nature is emphasised, and its definition is standardised. Compared with the ICD-11 definition, the prevalence of CPSP might have been overestimated in previous studies. The ICD-11 provides a multifactorial assessment of pain severity, referring to pain intensity, pain-related interference, and pain-related distress, which cover the biopsychosocial aspects of chronic pain. These three scores can be added as extension codes to any pain diagnosis. Harmonisation of the CPSP criteria within the different coding levels of the ICD-11 might improve discrimination of CPSP from other chronic pain conditions not induced by surgery. Although neuropathic CPSP increases pain severity and requires alternative therapeutic approaches to nociceptive pain, a specific code to differentiate between neuropathic and non-neuropathic CPSP is not available. For clinical practice and research, the evidence-based ICD-11 definition, which provides clear-cut diagnostic criteria, should generally be used instead of pain scores alone. This will improve the comparability of data, form the basis for future diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, and facilitate communication.

10 January 2024 in British Journal of Anaesthesia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
DHDebora M. Hofer
Debora M. Hofer
MHMichael Harnik
Michael Harnik
TLThomas Lehmann
Thomas Lehmann
FSFrank Stueber
Frank Stueber
PBPhilipp Baumbach
Philipp Baumbach
USUlrike Stamer
Ulrike Stamer

9 May 2018 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JSJürg Schliessbach
Jürg Schliessbach
ASAndreas Siegenthaler
Andreas Siegenthaler
LBLukas Bütikofer
Lukas Bütikofer
ALAndreas Limacher
Andreas Limacher
PJPeter Juni
Peter Juni
MCMichele Curatolo
Michele Curatolo
Antidepressants are frequently prescribed as co-analgesics in chronic pain. While their efficacy is well documented for neuropathic pain, the evidence is less clear in musculoskeletal pain conditions. The present study therefore evaluated the effect of the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine on chronic low-back pain in a randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled design. To explore the mechanisms of action and the influence of drug metabolism, multimodal quantitative sensory tests (QST) and genotyping for cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) were additionally performed. A single oral dose of imipramine 75 mg was compared to active placebo (tolterodine 1 mg) in 50 patients (32 females) with chronic non-specific low-back pain. Intensity of low-back pain was assessed on a 0–10 numeric rating scale at baseline and every 30 minutes after drug intake. Multimodal QST were performed at baseline and in hourly intervals for 2 hours. Pharmacogenetic influences of cytochrome P450 were addressed by CYP2D6 genotyping. No significant analgesic effect was detected neither on low-back pain nor on any of the sensory tests in the overall analyses. However, evidence for an interaction of the imipramine effect and CYP2D6 genotype was found for electrical and for pressure pain detection thresholds. Intermediate but not extensive metabolizers had a 1.20 times greater electrical pain threshold (95%-CI 1.10 to 1.31) and a 1.10 times greater pressure pain threshold (95%-CI 1.01 to 1.21) 60 minutes after imipramine than after placebo (p<0.001 and p = 0.034, respectively). The present study failed to demonstrate an immediate analgesic effect of imipramine on low-back pain. Anti-nociceptive effects as assessed by quantitative sensory tests may depend on CYP2D6 genotype, indicating that metabolizer status should be accounted for when future studies with tricyclic antidepressants are undertaken.

1 June 2021 in British Journal of Anaesthesia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
USUlrike Stamer
Ulrike Stamer
KBKyra Bernhart
Kyra Bernhart
TLThomas Lehmann
Thomas Lehmann
MSMaria Setzer
Maria Setzer
FSFrank Stüber
Frank Stüber
WMWinfried Meissner
Winfried Meissner