Introduction Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH. Methods Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Results Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence. Conclusions These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Background/Importance Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is a significant, often debilitating outcome of surgery, impacting patients’ quality of life and placing a substantial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. CPSP (pain persisting for more than 3 months postsurgery) leads to both physical and psychological distress. Recognized as a distinct chronic pain entity in International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision, CPSP enables better reporting and improved management strategies. Despite advancements in surgical care, CPSP remains prevalent, affecting 5%–85% of patients, with higher rates following thoracotomies, amputations, mastectomies and joint replacements. Objective The acute to chronic pain transition involves complex interactions between peripheral and central mechanisms, with central sensitization playing a key role. Identifying high-risk patients is crucial for prevention, with factors such as surgical type, nerve injury, neuropathic elements in acute postoperative pain, and psychosocial conditions being significant contributors. Evidence review Current pain management strategies, including multimodal therapy and regional anesthesia, show limited effectiveness in preventing CPSP. Neuromodulation interventions, though promising, are not yet established as preventive modalities. Findings Transitional pain services (TPSs) offer a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to managing CPSP and reducing opioid dependence, addressing both physical and psychosocial aspects of functional recovery. While promising results have been seen in Canada and Finland, TPSs are not yet widely implemented in Europe. There is also growing interest in pain biomarkers, through initiatives such as the A2CPS program, aiming to improve CPSP prediction and develop targeted interventions. Conclusions Future research should focus on large-scale studies integrating various factors to facilitate CPSP prediction, refine prevention strategies and reduce its long-term impact.

Neuropathic pain is defined as a painful condition caused by neurological lesions or diseases. Sometimes, neurological disorders may also be associated with neuropathic pain, which can be challenging to manage. For example, multiple sclerosis (MS) may cause chronic centralized painful symptoms due to nerve damage. Other chronic neuropathic pain syndromes may occur in the form of post-stroke pain, spinal cord injury pain, and other central pain syndromes. Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with dysfunction, disability, depression, disturbed sleep, and reduced quality of life. Early diagnosis may help improve outcomes, and pain control can be an important factor in restoring function. There are more than 100 different types of peripheral neuropathy and those involving sensory neurons can provoke painful symptoms. Accurate diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy is essential for pain control. Further examples are represented by gluten neuropathy, which is an extraintestinal manifestation of gluten sensitivity and presents as a form of peripheral neuropathy; in these unusual cases, neuropathy may be managed with diet. Neuropathic pain has been linked to CoronaVirus Disease (COVID) infection both during acute infection and as a post-viral syndrome known as long COVID. In this last case, neuropathic pain relates to the host’s response to the virus. However, neuropathic pain may occur after any critical illness and has been observed as part of a syndrome following intensive care unit hospitalization.

Regional anaesthesia use is growing worldwide, and there is an increasing emphasis on research in regional anaesthesia to improve patient outcomes. However, priorities for future study remain unclear. We therefore conducted an international research prioritisation exercise, setting the agenda for future investigators and funding bodies. We invited members of specialist regional anaesthesia societies from six continents to propose research questions that they felt were unanswered. These were consolidated into representative indicative questions, and a literature review was undertaken to determine if any indicative questions were already answered by published work. Unanswered indicative questions entered a three-round modified Delphi process, whereby 29 experts in regional anaesthesia (representing all participating specialist societies) rated each indicative question for inclusion on a final high priority shortlist. If ≥75% of participants rated an indicative question as 'definitely' include in any round, it was accepted. Indicative questions rated as 'definitely' or 'probably' by <50% of participants in any round were excluded. Retained indicative questions were further ranked based on the rating score in the final Delphi round. The final research priorities were ratified by the Delphi expert group. There were 1318 responses from 516 people in the initial survey, from which 71 indicative questions were formed, of which 68 entered the modified Delphi process. Eleven 'highest priority' research questions were short listed, covering themes of pain management; training and assessment; clinical practice and efficacy; technology and equipment. We prioritised unanswered research questions in regional anaesthesia. These will inform a coordinated global research strategy for regional anaesthesia and direct investigators to address high-priority areas.

J Anaesth Clin Pharmacol, Official publication of Research Society of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology,India