68 Broome ME, Richtsmeier A, Maikler V etal. Pediatric pa<strong>in</strong> practices: a national surveyof health professionals. J Pa<strong>in</strong> SymptomManage 1996; 11: 312–320.69 Franck LS, Bruce E. Putt<strong>in</strong>g pa<strong>in</strong> assessment<strong>in</strong>to practice: why is it so pa<strong>in</strong>ful? Pa<strong>in</strong>Res Manag 2009; 14: 13–20.70 Karl<strong>in</strong>g M, Renstrom M, Ljungman G.Acute <strong>and</strong> postoperative pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> children:a Swedish nationwide survey. Acta Paediatr2002; 91: 660–666.71 Simons J, MacDonald LM. Chang<strong>in</strong>g practice:implement<strong>in</strong>g validated paediatric pa<strong>in</strong>assessment tools. J Child Health Care 2006;10: 160–176.72 Wong D, Baker C. Pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> children: comparisonof assessment scales. Pediatr Nurs1988; 14: 9–17.73 Hunter M, McDowell L, Hennessy R et al.An evaluation of the Faces Pa<strong>in</strong> Scale withyoung children. J Pa<strong>in</strong> Symptom Manage2000; 20: 122–129.74 Hester N. The preoperational child’s reactionto immunizations. Nurs Res 1979; 28:250–255.75 Hester NO, Foster R, Kristensen K. Measurementof pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> children – generalizability<strong>and</strong> validity of the pa<strong>in</strong> ladder <strong>and</strong> thepoker chip tool. Adv Pa<strong>in</strong> Res Ther 1990;15: 79–84.76 St-Laurent-Gagnon T, Bernard-Bonn<strong>in</strong> A,Villeneuve E. Pa<strong>in</strong> evaluation <strong>in</strong> preschoolchildren <strong>and</strong> by their parents. Acta Paediatr1999; 88: 422–427.77 Blount RL, Loiselle KA. Behaviouralassessment of pediatric pa<strong>in</strong>. Pa<strong>in</strong> ResManag 2009; 14: 47–52.78 Stevens B, Gibb<strong>in</strong>s S. Cl<strong>in</strong>ical utility <strong>and</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ical significance <strong>in</strong> the assessment <strong>and</strong>management of pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> vulnerable <strong>in</strong>fants.Cl<strong>in</strong> Per<strong>in</strong>atol 2002; 29: 459.79 Stevens B, Johnston C, Petryshen P et al.Premature <strong>in</strong>fant pa<strong>in</strong> profile:development<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>itial validation. Cl<strong>in</strong> J Pa<strong>in</strong> 1996; 12:13–22.80 Ballantyne M, Stevens B, McAllister Met al. Validation of the premature <strong>in</strong>fantpa<strong>in</strong> profile <strong>in</strong> the cl<strong>in</strong>ical sett<strong>in</strong>g. Cl<strong>in</strong>J Pa<strong>in</strong> 1999; 15: 297–303.81 Jonsdottir RB, Kristjansdottir G. The sensitivityof the premature <strong>in</strong>fant pa<strong>in</strong> profile- PIPP to measure pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> hospitalizedneonates. J Eval Cl<strong>in</strong> Pract 2005; 11: 598–605.82 Krechel S, Bildner J. CRIES: a new neonatalpostoperative pa<strong>in</strong> measurement score:<strong>in</strong>itial test<strong>in</strong>g of validity <strong>and</strong> relaibility.Anesthesiology 1995; 5: 53.83 Grunau RE, Oberl<strong>and</strong>er T, Holsti L et al.Bedside application of the Neonatal FacialCod<strong>in</strong>g System <strong>in</strong> pa<strong>in</strong> assessment of prematureneonates. Pa<strong>in</strong> 1998; 76: 277–286.84 Grunau R, Craig K. Pa<strong>in</strong> expression <strong>in</strong> neonates:facial action <strong>and</strong> cry. Pa<strong>in</strong> 1987; 28:395–410.85 McNair C, Ballantyne M, Dionne K et al.<strong>Postoperative</strong> pa<strong>in</strong> assessment <strong>in</strong> the neonatal<strong>in</strong>tensive care unit. Arch Dis Child FetalNeonatal Ed 2004; 89: F537–F541.86 Ambuel B, Hamlett K, Marx C et al.Assess<strong>in</strong>g distress <strong>in</strong> pediatric <strong>in</strong>tensive careenvironments: the COMFORT scale. J PediatrPsychol 1992; 17: 95–109.87 Caljouw MAA, Kloos MAC, Olivier MYet al. Measurement of pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> premature<strong>in</strong>fants with a gestational age between 28 to37 weeks: validation of the adapted COM-FORT scale. J Neonatal Nurs 2007; 13: 13–18.88 van Dijk M, de Boer J, Koot H et al. Thereliability <strong>and</strong> validity of the COMFORTscale as a postoperative pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>strument <strong>in</strong> 0to 3-year-old <strong>in</strong>fants. Pa<strong>in</strong> 2000; 84: 367–377.89 Merkel S, Voepel-Lewis T, Shayevitz J et al.The FLACC: a behavioral scale for scor<strong>in</strong>gpostoperative pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> young children. PediatrNurs 1997; 23: 293–297.90 Manworren RCB, Hynan LS. Cl<strong>in</strong>ical validationof FLACC: preverbal patient pa<strong>in</strong>scale. Pediatr Nurs 2003; 29: 140–146.91 Voepel-Lewis T, Malviya S, Merkel S et al.Behavioral pa<strong>in</strong> assessment <strong>and</strong> the face,legs, activity, cry <strong>and</strong> consolability <strong>in</strong>strument.Expert Rev Pharmacoecon OutcomesRes 2003; 3: 317–325.92 Voepel-Lewis TMSN, Malviya SMD, MerkelSMSN et al. Reliability <strong>and</strong> validity ofthe FLACC behavioral scale as a measureof pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> cognitively impaired children.[Miscellaneous]. ASA Annual Meet<strong>in</strong>gAbstracts Pediatric Anesthesia 2001; 95:A1229.93 McGrath P, Johnson G, <strong>Good</strong>man J et al.CHEOPS: a behavioral scale for rat<strong>in</strong>g postoperativepa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> children. Adv Pa<strong>in</strong> ResTher 1985; 9: 395–402.94 Spl<strong>in</strong>ter WM, Semelhago LC, Chou S. Thereliability <strong>and</strong> validity of a modified cheopspa<strong>in</strong> score. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: U220.95 Chambers C, Reid G, McGrath P et al.Development <strong>and</strong> prelim<strong>in</strong>ary validation ofa postoperative pa<strong>in</strong> measure for parents.Pa<strong>in</strong> 1996; 68: 307–313.96 Chambers CT, F<strong>in</strong>ley GA, McGrath PJet al. The parents’ postoperative pa<strong>in</strong> measure:replication <strong>and</strong> extension to 2-6-yearoldchildren. Pa<strong>in</strong> 2003; 105: 437–443.97 F<strong>in</strong>ley GA, Chambers CT, McGrath PJet al. Construct validity of the parents’ postoperativepa<strong>in</strong> measure. Cl<strong>in</strong> J Pa<strong>in</strong> 2003;19: 329–334.98 Breau L, McGrath P, Camfield C et al. Prelim<strong>in</strong>aryvalidation of an observational pa<strong>in</strong>checklist for persons with cognitive impairments<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>ability to communicate verbally.Dev Med Child Neurol 2000; 42: 609–616.99 Breau LM, Camfield C, McGrath PJ et al.Measur<strong>in</strong>g pa<strong>in</strong> accurately <strong>in</strong> children withcognitive impairments: ref<strong>in</strong>ement of a caregiverscale. J Pediatr 2001; 138: 721–727.100 Breau L, F<strong>in</strong>ley G, McGrath P et al. Validationof the non-communicat<strong>in</strong>g children’spa<strong>in</strong> checklist-postoperative version. Anesthesiology2002; 96: 528–535.101 Hunt A, Goldman A, Seers K et al. Cl<strong>in</strong>icalvalidation of the paediatric pa<strong>in</strong> profile. DevMed Child Neurol 2004; 46: 9–18.102 Whitelaw A, Evans D, Carter M et al. R<strong>and</strong>omizedcl<strong>in</strong>ical trial of prevention ofhydrocephalus after <strong>in</strong>traventricular hemorrhage<strong>in</strong> preterm <strong>in</strong>fants: bra<strong>in</strong>-wash<strong>in</strong>g versustapp<strong>in</strong>g fluid. Pediatrics 2007; 119:e1071–e1078.103 Choo EK, Magruder W, Montgomery CJet al. Sk<strong>in</strong> conductance fluctuations correlatepoorly with postoperative self-reportpa<strong>in</strong> measures <strong>in</strong> school-aged children.Anesthesiology 2010; 113: 175–182.104 Hunt A, Wisbeach A, Seers K et al. Developmentof the paediatric pa<strong>in</strong> profile: roleof video analysis <strong>and</strong> saliva cortisol <strong>in</strong> validat<strong>in</strong>ga tool to assess pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> children withsevere neurological disability. J Pa<strong>in</strong> SymptomManage 2007; 33: 276–289.105 Sweet S, McGrath P. Physiological measuresof pa<strong>in</strong>. In: F<strong>in</strong>ley GA, McGrath PJ, eds.Measurement of Pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Infants <strong>and</strong> Children.Seattle, WA: IASP Press, 1998: 59–81.106 Walco GA, Conte PM, Labay LE et al.<strong>Procedural</strong> distress <strong>in</strong> children with cancer:self-report, behavioral observations, <strong>and</strong>physiological parameters. Cl<strong>in</strong> J Pa<strong>in</strong> 2005;21: 484–490.107 Slater R, Cantarella A, Franck L et al. Howwell do cl<strong>in</strong>ical pa<strong>in</strong> assessment tools reflectpa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants? PLoS Med 2008; 5: e129.108 Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ et al.Evaluat<strong>in</strong>g patient-based outcome measuresfor use <strong>in</strong> cl<strong>in</strong>ical trials. Health TechnolAssess 1998; 2: i–iv. 1–74.109 Stre<strong>in</strong>er DL, Norman GR. Health MeasurementScales: A Practical Guide to TheirDevelopment <strong>and</strong> Use, 3rd edn. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2005: 327–330.110 Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M et al.Responsiveness <strong>and</strong> validity <strong>in</strong> health statusmeasurement: a clarification. J Cl<strong>in</strong> Epidemiol1989; 42: 403–408.111 Portney GL, Watk<strong>in</strong>s MP. Statistical Measuresof Reliability, 2nd edn. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000: 570–586112 Liang MH. Longitud<strong>in</strong>al construct validity:establishment of cl<strong>in</strong>ical mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> patientevaluative <strong>in</strong>struments. Med Care 2000; 38:II84–II90.16 ª 2012 Blackwell Publish<strong>in</strong>g Ltd, Pediatric Anesthesia, 22 (Suppl. 1), 1–79
Section 4.0Medical ProceduresContents4.1 General considerations4.2 <strong>Procedural</strong> pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the neonate4.2.1 Blood sampl<strong>in</strong>g4.2.2 Ocular exam<strong>in</strong>ation for ret<strong>in</strong>opathy of prematurity4.2.3 Lumbar puncture4.2.4 Ur<strong>in</strong>e sampl<strong>in</strong>g4.2.5 Chest dra<strong>in</strong> (tube) <strong>in</strong>sertion <strong>and</strong> removal (see 4.3.3)4.2.6 Nasogastric tube placement (see 4.3.5)4.2.7 Immunization <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tramuscular <strong>in</strong>jection4.3 <strong>Procedural</strong> pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants <strong>and</strong> older children4.3.1 Blood sampl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>travenous cannulation4.3.2 Lumbar puncture4.3.3 Chest dra<strong>in</strong> (tube) <strong>in</strong>sertion <strong>and</strong> removal4.3.4 Bladder catheterization <strong>and</strong> ur<strong>in</strong>e sampl<strong>in</strong>g procedures4.3.5 Insertion of nasogastric tubes4.3.6 Immunization <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tramuscular <strong>in</strong>jection4.3.7 Repair of lacerations4.3.8 Change of dress<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> children with burns4.3.9 Botul<strong>in</strong>um <strong>in</strong>jections for children with muscle spasm4.1 General considerationsRout<strong>in</strong>e medical care <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g blood sampl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong>other pa<strong>in</strong>ful diagnostic <strong>and</strong> therapeutic procedurescan cause great distress for children <strong>and</strong> their families.When such procedures are essential, it is importantthat they should be achieved with as little pa<strong>in</strong> as possible.For many children who have chronic illness,these procedures often need to be repeated, <strong>and</strong> thiscan generate very high levels of anxiety <strong>and</strong> distress iftheir previous experience has been poor. The 10 generalpr<strong>in</strong>ciples, which apply to the management of allprocedures at any age, are listed below. Further advicefor use <strong>in</strong> specific age-groups, <strong>and</strong> specifically for someof the most common procedures, is described <strong>in</strong> sections4.2 <strong>and</strong> 4.3.1. Infants <strong>and</strong> children of all ages, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g prematureneonates, are capable of feel<strong>in</strong>g pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> require analgesiafor pa<strong>in</strong>ful procedures.2. Developmental differences <strong>in</strong> the response to pa<strong>in</strong><strong>and</strong> analgesic efficacy should be considered whenplann<strong>in</strong>g analgesia.3. Consider whether the planned procedure is necessary,<strong>and</strong> how the <strong>in</strong>formation it will provide might<strong>in</strong>fluence care? Avoid multiple procedures if possible.4. Plan the tim<strong>in</strong>g of procedures to m<strong>in</strong>imize the frequencyof a pa<strong>in</strong>ful procedure.5. Are sedation or even general anesthesia likely to berequired for a safe <strong>and</strong> satisfactory outcome?6. Would modification of the procedure reduce pa<strong>in</strong>?For example, venepuncture is less pa<strong>in</strong>ful than heellance.7. Is the planned environment suitable? Ideally, thisshould be a quiet, calm place with suitable toys <strong>and</strong>distractions.8. Ensure that appropriate personnel who possess thenecessary skills are available, <strong>and</strong> enlist experiencedhelp when necessary.9. Allow sufficient time for analgesic drugs <strong>and</strong> otheranalgesic measures to be effective.10. Formulate a clear plan of action should the procedurefail or pa<strong>in</strong> become unmanageable us<strong>in</strong>g the techniquesselected.<strong>Good</strong> practice po<strong>in</strong>tPa<strong>in</strong> management for procedures should <strong>in</strong>clude bothpharmacological <strong>and</strong> nonpharmacological strategieswhenever possible.4.2 <strong>Procedural</strong> pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the neonatePremature neonates are able to perceive pa<strong>in</strong>, but theresponse to both pa<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> analgesia is dependant ondevelopmental age. Because of this, pa<strong>in</strong> assessment <strong>in</strong>this age-group is particularly difficult (see section 3),<strong>and</strong> the low sensitivity of many pa<strong>in</strong> measurementtools can complicate the <strong>in</strong>terpretation of evidence.Cl<strong>in</strong>ically, neonates appear to be sensitive to theadverse effects of many drugs, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g analgesics;ª 2012 Blackwell Publish<strong>in</strong>g Ltd, Pediatric Anesthesia, 22 (Suppl. 1), 1–79 17
- Page 1 and 2: PediatricAnesthesiaVolume 22 Supple
- Page 3 and 4: doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.3838.
- Page 5 and 6: 1.6 Contact informationCorresponden
- Page 7 and 8: RecommendationsChildren’s self-re
- Page 9 and 10: Topical anesthetic preparations, fo
- Page 11 and 12: 2.7.6 Laparoscopic surgeryGood prac
- Page 13 and 14: In order to assess pain, effective
- Page 16 and 17: Postoperative painl NCCPC-PV (Non-C
- Page 20 and 21: however, reductions in the response
- Page 22 and 23: increased success rate (i.e., less
- Page 24 and 25: Newer preparations such as liposoma
- Page 26 and 27: Good practice pointLubricant contai
- Page 28 and 29: most effective. There are a number
- Page 30 and 31: 12 Bellieni C, Bagnoli F, Perrone S
- Page 32 and 33: venipuncture pain in a pediatric em
- Page 34 and 35: 172 van Twillert B, Bremer M, Faber
- Page 36 and 37: necessary to ensure that the patien
- Page 38 and 39: when compared with LA alone and sal
- Page 40 and 41: Peribulbar block improves early ana
- Page 42 and 43: Analgesia Table 5.5.1 Sub-umbilical
- Page 44 and 45: was more effective with less motor
- Page 46 and 47: with using landmark techniques (205
- Page 48 and 49: Good practice pointWound infiltrati
- Page 50 and 51: Analgesia Table 5.6.4 Urological Su
- Page 52 and 53: (298). Ketorolac did not influence
- Page 54 and 55: well as the epidural technique for
- Page 56 and 57: Good practice pointA multi-modal an
- Page 58 and 59: 14 Grainger J, Saravanappa N. Local
- Page 60 and 61: day-stay unit. Int J Paediatr Dent
- Page 62 and 63: tinuous epidural infusion in childr
- Page 64 and 65: 245 Morton NS, O’Brien K. Analges
- Page 66 and 67: 321 Taenzer AH, Clark C, Taenzer AH
- Page 68 and 69:
Section 6.0AnalgesiaContents6.1 Ana
- Page 70 and 71:
enhance systemic absorption. Lidoca
- Page 73 and 74:
undergoes hepatic biotransformation
- Page 75 and 76:
tein binding are reduced and the ha
- Page 77 and 78:
a low-dose infusion but the child m
- Page 79 and 80:
Table 6.6.1 Paracetamol dosing guid
- Page 81:
steps that health care professional