Search

Few studies have clarified the use of complementary therapies (CTs) in France. The main objective of this preliminary study was to evaluate knowledge of CTs in 4 representative groups of patients: patients suffering from cancer, patients presenting with a chronic noncancerous disease, chronic dialysis patients and nonchronic or cancerous patients needing surgery.A formalized questionnaire was designed by 2 psychologists, an oncologist and an anesthesiologist in charge of the Pain Clinic and Support Care Unit. One-hundred eleven patients were enrolled, and all agreed to complete the questionnaire.Eighty (72%) patients did not know the term "complementary therapies" (patients who were "not aware of CTs"), and 24 (21.6%) patients knew the term "complementary therapies" (patients who were "aware of CTs"), while 7 patients were not sure of the meaning. There were no differences between aware and unaware patients in gender (P = .27), age (P = .24), level of education (p = 0.24) or professional occupation (P = .06). Knowledge about CTs was significantly different among the different categories of patients (P = .03), with the only statistically significant difference between groups being between oncologic patients receiving ambulatory chemotherapy and patients presenting with a chronic noncancerous disease (P = .004).This preliminary study clearly highlights that patients and health caregivers are not aware of CTs and that there is a need for better communication about CTs.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Background: Thoracic epidural analgesia is associated with a high rate of postoperative urine retention (POUR). Auriculotherapy can reduce visceral dysfunction and can be helpful in anesthesiology and pain control. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of preoperative auriculotherapy to decrease the occurrence of POUR. Methods: This single-center, double-blinded, 2-arm randomized study was performed between January 2015 and May 2016 in a tertiary care university hospital. Male patients scheduled for an elective lung surgical procedure under combined general anesthesia and thoracic epidural analgesia were included. Auriculotherapy (A group) was performed once the patient was under general anesthesia with 5 semi-permanent needles inserted in both ears at the “Shen Men” “bladder”, “pelvic parasympathetic”, “anterior hypothalamus”, and “frontal lobe” points. Five small round patches of adhesive pads were positioned bilaterally at the same points in the control group (C group). The main outcome measure was the requirement for bladder catheterization during the day and the first night following surgery. Results: Fifty-three patients were randomized and 25 analyzed in each group. Requirement for bladder catheterization was different between groups: 24 C group patients (96%) and 18 A group patients (72%) (P = .049, Fisher exact test; Odds Ratio = 0.11 [0.01–0.95]. The number of patients needed to treat with auriculotherapy to avoid 1 case of bladder catheterization was 4. No adverse effect was observed due to auriculotherapy. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that auriculotherapy is a safe and useful technique reducing POUR in thoracotomy patients benefiting from thoracic epidural analgesia. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT 02290054 (November 13, 2014).

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text, Background: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is often used for the treatment of low-back pain (LBP). However, its effectiveness is controversial. Objective: To determine the efficacy of TENS in the treatment LBP when associated to a therapeutic education program (TEP). Design: Open randomized monocentric study. Setting: University hospital between 2010 and 2014. Patients: A total of 97 patients suffering from LBP. Interventions: Routine care (TENS group) or routine care plus a therapeutic education program (TENS-TEP group) based on consultation support by a pain resource nurse. Main outcome measures: EIFEL and Dallas Pain Questionnaire scores. Results: Twenty-two patients (44%) were still assessable at the end-of-study visit, whereas 33 (70%) were assessable at the same time point in the TENS-TEP group (P = .013). The EIFEL score and the Dallas score had a similar evolution over time between groups (P = .18 and P = .50 respectively). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the groups with respect to resting pain scores (P = .94 for back pain and P = .16 for leg pain) and movement pain scores (P = .52 for back pain and P = .56 for leg pain). At Month 6, there was no significant difference between the groups (P = .85) with regard to analgesics and social impact. Two patients presented a serious adverse event during the study (one in each group) but non-attributable to the treatment studied. Conclusion: This study does not support the use of TENS in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP even though patients benefited from a therapeutic education program by a pain resource nurse. However, the higher number of premature withdrawals in the TENS group may be due to early withdrawal of patients who did not experience improvement of their symptoms.

Objective The automated administration of propofol in a closed loop could be used to objectively evaluate the nonpharmacological anesthetic action of hypnotherapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a conversational hypnosis session on the consumption of propofol for anesthetic induction. Design A randomized, usual care-controlled, single-center, patient-blind trial. Setting Tertiary care center in France from November 2012 to December 2013. Participants Adult patients scheduled for a surgical procedure under general anesthesia. Interventions Before surgery, patients were randomized with a computer-generated random list for a preoperative conversational hypnosis session or for usual care. The conversational hypnosis session was conducted and individualized by the therapist with an academic degree in hypnosis in a quiet environment. Anesthetic induction was automatically performed by propofol without opioids and was assisted by the bispectral index in a closed loop. Outcome Primary endpoint was the propofol dose required for anesthesia induction, defined as a Bispectral index less than 60 for at least 30 seconds. Results The study included 48 patients in the hypnosis group and 49 patients in the control group. No difference in propofol consumption to obtain anesthesia induction was observed between the groups (total dose: 138.6 [67.5] and 130 [47.9] mg, P = .47; adjusted dose: 2.15 [1.09] and 1.95 [0.66] mg/kg, P = .28, for the hypnosis and control groups, respectively). Hetero-evaluation of arm movement during propofol injection (no reaction: 98% and 74%; P = .004, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) and face reaction at venous access placement (no reaction 59% and 30%; P = .017, in the hypnosis and control groups, respectively) were lower in the hypnosis group. No adverse event was reported. Conclusions No difference in propofol consumption was observed in this study designed to evaluate the effect of a hypnotic conversational session on anesthesia induction using an automated tool for propofol administration.