Cited by 11Anesthesia and Pain ManagementPain Management and Opioid UseCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response

Chronic postsurgical pain and cancer: the catch of surviving the unsurvivable

Humble, Stephen R., Varela, Nicolas, Jayaweera, Asantha, Bhaskar, Arun·2018·Current Opinion in Supportive & Palliative Care

Abstract

Purpose of review: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an important and well recognized cause of much long-term suffering, which in some cases may be preventable and affects many people living with cancer. Unfortunately, general consensus is lacking as to how best reduce the risk of developing CPSP. Recent findings: Cancer is now not always a short-lived, fatal disease and is now moving towards a chronic illness. Poorly managed perioperative pain is the greatest risk factor for CPSP. Recent trials have examined preventive strategies for CPSP associated with breast surgery and thoracotomy, two operations used in cancer treatment. Standard antinociceptive drugs, 5% lidocaine patches and ketamine do not prevent CPSP. The evidence for gabapentinoids is conflicting. Intravenous lidocaine and, separately, regional anaesthesia appear beneficial. Summary: Well-managed pain, irrespective of technique, reduces the risk of CPSP. The literature is inconclusive regarding an ‘optimal approach.’ Regional anaesthesia, intravenous lidocaine and the aggressive management of perioperative pain using multimodal analgesia including antineuropathic pain agents such as gabapentinoids and certain antidepressants are recommended. Clinicians should not rely on general anaesthesia, opioids, NSAIDs and ketamine to prevent CPSP. A blanket approach using gabapentinoids for all patients undergoing major surgery is not indicated. Instead, the presence of perioperative neuropathic pain should be checked for regularly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/spc.0000000000000341

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Humble, S. R., Varela, N., Jayaweera, A., & Bhaskar, A.
Affiliations
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Humble, Stephen R.
Venue
Current Opinion in Supportive & Palliative Care
Published
2018-06
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
118-123
ISSN
  • 1751-4258 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-4266
OpenAlex
W2794290051
Cited by
11
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Keywords
chronic postoperative pain, cancer patients, perioperative pain management, breast surgery, thoracotomy, regional anesthesia, intravenous lidocaine, gabapentinoids, multimodal analgesia, neuropathic pain, ketamine, opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
MeSH terms
Cancer Pain, Gabapentin, Analgesics, Analgesics, Opioid, Drug Therapy, Combination, Humans, Ketamine, Lidocaine, Pain, Postoperative, Postoperative Pain, Palliative Care, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Perioperative Care, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review