Assessment and Treatment of Pain during In‐Office Otolaryngology Procedures: A Systematic Review. (19th March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Frank, Ethan; Carlson, Bradley; Hu, Amanda; Randall, Derrick R.; Tamares, Shanalee; Inman, Jared C.; Crawley, Brianna K.
• Is Part Of: Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery. Volume 161:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: 218
• Page End: 226
• Publication Date: 2019-03-19
• Subjects: pain -- in‐office procedures -- office‐based procedures -- pain management -- otolaryngology; Head -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Neck -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Otolaryngology -- Periodicals; 617.51
• DOI: 10.1177/0194599819835503
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0194-5998

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To qualitatively assess practices of periprocedural pain assessment and control and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for pain during in‐office procedures reported in the otolaryngology literature through a systematic review. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science searches from inception to 2018. Review Methods: English‐language studies reporting qualitative or quantitative data for periprocedural pain assessment in adult patients undergoing in‐office otolaryngology procedures were included. Risk of bias was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias or Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non‐Randomized Studies of Interventions tools as appropriate. Two reviewers screened all articles. Bias was assessed by 3 reviewers. Results: Eighty‐six studies describing 32 types of procedures met inclusion criteria. Study quality and risk of bias ranged from good to serious but did not affect assessed outcomes. Validated methods of pain assessment were used by only 45% of studies. The most commonly used pain assessment was patient tolerance, or ability to simply complete a procedure. Only 5.8% of studies elicited patients' baseline pain levels prior to procedures, and a qualitative assessment of pain was done in merely 3.5%. Eleven unique pain control regimens were described in the literature, with 8% of studies failing to report method of pain control. Conclusion: Many reports of measures and management of pain for in‐office procedures exist but few employ validated measures, few are standardized, and current data do not support any specific pain control measures over others. Significant opportunity remains to investigate methods for improving patient pain and tolerance of in‐office procedures.