Next Article in Journal
Cuproptosis Depicts Immunophenotype and Predicts Immunotherapy Response in Lung Adenocarcinoma
Next Article in Special Issue
Can Opioid-Free Anaesthesia Be Personalised? A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
Contribution of Morphology of Frontal Sinuses (Linear and Volumetric Measurements) to Gender Identification Based on Cone Beam Computed Tomography Images (CBCT): A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Special Issue
Emergence from General Anaesthesia: Can We Discriminate between Emergence Delirium and Postoperative Pain?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

The Impact of the Need for Language Assistance Services on the Use of Regional Anesthesia, Postoperative Pain Scores and Opioid Administration in Surgical Oncology Patients

1
Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
2
Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13(3), 481; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13030481
Submission received: 25 December 2022 / Revised: 19 February 2023 / Accepted: 6 March 2023 / Published: 7 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Paradigms in Anesthesia and Intensive Care)

Abstract

:
Language barriers can negatively impact the quality of healthcare. In surgical patients, limited English proficiency (LEP) can lead to disparities in acute postoperative pain management. Interpreters are often used for communication with LEP patients to help alleviate these disparities. We aimed to investigate the impact of the need for language assistance services (LAS) in acute postoperative pain management in patients undergoing oncologic surgery. We retrospectively collected data on adult patients undergoing open abdominal oncologic surgery between March 2016 and August 2021. The need for LAS, patient demographics, treatment and clinical outcomes were obtained from the patient’s electronic medical record. The primary endpoint was pain intensity, while secondary endpoints included opioid use in PACU and regional anesthesia. Post-matching analysis (n = 590) demonstrated no significant difference in preoperative variables between patients needing LAS and those not needing LAS. The rate of regional use was slightly lower but not statistically significant in patients needing LAS. Patients needing LAS had significantly lower opioid consumption and reported lower pain intensity in PACU than subjects not requiring translation. In this study, LAS may have aided in the patient decision process regarding the acceptance of regional anesthesia. Although the need for LAS was associated with statistically significant lower pain intensity scores and a corresponding lesser opioid use than no LAS, the margin of differences, especially in pain intensity scores, may not be clinically significant. This may suggest that LAS allowed for better patient-provider communication and appropriate pain management.

1. Introduction

In the United States, 8.6% of the population has limited English proficiency (LEP) and speaks English less than “very well” [1]. Language barriers have been shown to negatively impact the ability to deliver and receive quality healthcare [2]. In a recent study, Spanish-speaking patients with LEP were nearly three times more likely not to receive access to usual healthcare compared to English-speaking patients [3]. Furthermore, patients with LEP themselves have perceived poorer patient-physician interactions than those who primarily speak English [4].
Pain is a multidimensional experience in which language proficiency is an important component of pain communication [5]. Aspects of pain such as location, timing, intensity, type, radiation, and alleviating/exacerbating factors must all be considered in effective pain management. Ruppen et al. reported that communication was very difficult in 6–7% of their chronic pain clinic patients who did not speak English or one of the four primary languages spoken in Switzerland [6]. This lack of communication can lead to misdiagnosis and mistreatment of pain. In surgical patients, LEP can lead to disparities in acute postoperative pain management [7].
Interpreters are often used for communication with LEP patients to help alleviate these disparities and have been perceived by patients to improve their pain assessment and treatment [8]. However, a lack of or a delay of access to interpreters in high acuity areas such as the postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) can present a challenge to patients with LEP who have acute or chronic postsurgical pain. In a recent study of trauma patients, patients had significantly fewer pain assessments per day than patients fluent in English. Interestingly, after adjusting for the frequency of pain assessments, patients proficient in English had significantly higher pain scores than LEP [9]. This is in contrast to Koleck et al., who reported that Spanish or Southeast Asian patients with LEP had an increased chance of reporting any pain compared to English-speaking patients [10].
In this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of the need for language assistance services (LAS) in acute postoperative pain management for patients undergoing oncologic surgery. We hypothesized that patients with LEP would report significantly different pain scores compared to non-LEP subjects, which would be associated with differences in opioid use.

2. Materials and Methods

Following Institutional Review Board approval (IRB#2021-0738), we retrospectively collected data for adult patients who underwent open abdominal oncological surgery between March 1, 2016 and August 1, 2021. We excluded patients whom a) had non-abdominal surgery, laparoscopic surgery, emergency surgery, outpatient surgery, b) were from surgical services that did not utilize regional analgesia, c) were classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status > 3 and d) had abdominal plus additional surgical procedures.
The need for LAS, patients’ demographics (i.e., age, gender, body mass index [BMI] and race/ethnicity), comorbidities (i.e., American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] physical status, history of anxiety or depression, history of smoking and alcohol disorder and history of chronic pain and opioid use), preoperative coagulation labs and postoperative clinical outcomes were obtained from electronic medical records (EMR). LAS need is typically identified at the first encounter with providers at our institution by asking the patient if they wish to have an interpreter for medical communication. This “need” is subsequently visible in the patient’s EMR. Race and ethnicity were also self-reported by patients at the time of initial registration to establish care. All patients underwent general anesthesia according to routine care in our center. The primary endpoint of the study was pain intensity (verbal numeric rating scale 0: no pain and 10: worst pain ever). Secondary endpoints included opioid use in PACU and the use of regional analgesia.

Statistical Analysis

A prior sample size analysis was not performed. The chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test was used to evaluate the association between two categorical variables. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare location parameters of continuous distributions between patient groups. To adjust for selection bias in this observational study, we conducted a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. We included the following prognostic covariates in the logistic model to estimate the propensity scores: age at surgery, BMI, gender, race, ASA (1/2 vs. 3), the status of anxiety or depression and preoperative use of opioids. The Greedy 5 -> 1 digit match algorithm was used to match the baseline covariates so that the two groups (no interpreter needed vs. interpreter needed) would have similar propensity scores. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to estimate the effects of important covariates on the highest or average PACU pain score using 3 (mild) or 7 (severe) as the cutoff points. A p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical software SAS 9.4 (SAS, Cary, NC, USA) and Splus 8.2 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) was used for all the analyses.

3. Results

A total of 4791 patients were included from our database (Table 1). Among the patients with information, 5.4% were Asian, 7.7% were Black or African American, 13.7% were Hispanic or Latino, 1.9% were other, and 71.3% were White. A total of three hundred patients (6.26%) needed translation services. Types of primary surgeries were divided up by the surgical services that were performed; these included: colorectal, endocrine, gastric, general, gynecology, liver, melanoma, pancreas, sarcoma, thoracic and urology.

3.1. Pre-Matching Analysis

The pre-matching analysis demonstrated that the association between the need for translator services and the patients’ race was statically significant. Asian and Hispanic/Latino patients (n = 220, 22%) needed translation services in a higher proportion than Black/African American or White subjects (n = 77, 2%, p < 0.0001). A diagnosis of anxiety or depression was significantly more frequent in patients in patients needing (n = 260, 6.7%) translation services than those who were English proficient (n = 40, 4.4%, p = 0.011). Interestingly, the incidence of chronic opioid use was also slightly but significantly higher in patients needing (n = 100. 8.1%) translation services than those who were English proficient (n = 200.,5.6%, p = 0.001). Other demographic variables, including age, sex, ASA physical status, history of chronic pain, alcohol use and cigarette smoking, were not significantly different.
In terms of length of stay, anesthesia duration, total perioperative opioid use and opioid use specifically in PACU, there were no statistically significant differences. However, PACU’s average and highest pain intensity statistically differed between English and non-English proficient patients (Table 2). The latter reported higher pain scores, although the difference was not clinically relevant (<1 unit on a scale 1/10). Similarly, pain scores on day 1 after surgery were significantly lower in English-proficient patients than those who needed translation services, but once again, the difference was not clinically relevant.

3.2. Post-Matching Analysis

The standardized differences for all covariates were <8% in the post-matching cohort, suggesting a substantial reduction of bias between the two groups (Table 1). After matching, a total of 590 patients (n = 295 per group) were included in the analysis. Preoperative variables were not statistically different between the patients needing LAS and the patients not needing LAS after PSM (Table 2). The rate of regional use was slightly lower but not statistically significant in patients needing LAS (47.4% vs. 52.6%; p = 0.16) (Table 2). The need for translation services did not impact the choice of regional block performed in either the pre- (p = 0.172) or post-matching (p = 0.9955) analysis (Table 2). Patients who needed LAS had significantly lower opioid consumption (median: 5 vs. 10; p = 0.021) and reported lower pain intensity during PACU stay (median: 2.3 vs. 2.6; p = 0.046) than subjects not requiring language translation. The difference in the percentage of mild average pain (average pain score ≥ 3) in PACU was not significant between the two groups (p = 0.056). Patients who needed LAS had a lower percentage of mild average pain in PACU (35% vs. 42.7%). In addition, the difference in the percentage of moderate average pain (average pain score ≥ 7) in PACU was not statistically significant between the two groups (2% vs. 2.7%; p-value = 0.593) (Table 2).
A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to estimate the effects of important covariates on the status of average PACU pain of 3 or higher. After adjusting for age, BMI, gender, race, ASA physical status, platelet count, preoperative use of opioids, regional anesthesia and status of anxiety or depression in the model, the odds of having average PACU pain of 3 or higher is 40% higher for patients not needing LAS versus patients needing LAS (odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95%: 0.99, 1.99). The association between needed LAS and average PACU pain of 3 or higher was not significant (p = 0.06). Due to the limited number of patients with average PACU pain of 7 or higher, multivariable analysis was not performed.

4. Discussion

This is the first study investigating the association between LAS need and pain outcomes in patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery. Although the association did not reach statistical significance, we observed a 40% increase in pain (≥ 3) in patients with LAS needs compared to English-speaking patients. Proper postoperative pain assessment is integral to pain management since it can affect surgical outcomes [8]. Language barriers can impact pain management at multiple levels starting with access to adequate postoperative care [11]. The negative impact of underutilizing LAS for pain assessment has been well documented [12,13,14]. In a study of hospitalized Spanish-speaking women, Jimenez et al. reported that LAS use was associated with better pain management and patient satisfaction [12]. Amongst ambulatory patients, Latinos perceived better care when interpreters were used in pharmacies [15]. In pediatric patients, 82% (n = 49) of English-proficient patients and 60% of patients with LEP were treated with pain medications at the time of their worst pain [14]. Interestingly, the proportion of discordant pain reports (self-reported vs. nurse-documented) was significantly higher in children with LEP than in English-speaking patients within that study.
Time and convenience are factors often cited as barriers to effectively utilizing LAS [16,17]. This can lead to implications associated with undertreatment, as well as overtreatment of pain. Mistreatment of pain can, in turn, cause physiological and psychological dysfunction contributing to postoperative morbidity. Inadequate pain management can cause reduced quality of life, impaired sleep, impaired physical function, physiological derangements leading to chronic pain and increased healthcare costs [18]. In this study, LAS may have aided in the patient decision process regarding the acceptance of regional anesthesia. Although the need for LAS was associated with statistically significant lower pain intensity scores and a corresponding lesser opioid use than no LAS, the margin of differences, especially in pain intensity scores, may not be clinically significant. However, this still may suggest that LAS allowed for better patient-provider communication leading to more appropriate pain management.
Our study has limitations due to its retrospective nature and confounding from unknown variables that might have influenced the decision to prescribe opioids to both groups of patients. It is a single institution study at a cancer center, thereby inclusive of only institutionally specific variables such as, but not limited to, types of surgeries and types of regional anesthesia techniques utilized. The actual use of interpreters, whether via phone, videoconferencing or in-person, could also not be retrospectively determined. Lastly, cultural differences in the psychometrics of the numeric pain scale used in our patient assessments could have influenced reported scores.
Further research can focus on how particular modes of LAS could be best utilized in efficient and precise postoperative pain assessment. Since different institutions have different hurdles in the proper utilization of LAS, education and quality improvement initiatives at the local level can help to improve appropriate pain assessment for this vulnerable population. Our study corroborates current literature on the need for LAS to overcome communication barriers in healthcare, potentially leading to an enhanced patient-centric experience and improved clinical outcomes in patients with LEP.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.K., P.O.-A., and J.P.C.; Methodology, L.F. and J.P.C.; Software, L.F.; Validation, L.F.; Formal analysis, L.F. and J.P.C.; Investigation, R.K., P.O.-A., and J.P.C.; Resources, N/A; Data Curation, P.O.-A.; Writing—original draft preparation, R.K., P.O.-A., L.F., J.P.C.; Writing—review and editing, R.K., L.F., J.P.C.; Visualization, R.K., P.O.-A., J.P.C.; Supervision, N/A.; Project Administration, R.K.; Funding Acquisition, N/A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER (protocol code 2021-0738 on 09/27/21).

Informed Consent Statement

A waiver of informed consent was granted from the Institutional Review Board due to the study being retrospective.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available on request due to institutional restrictions. The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zong, J.; Batalova, J. The Limited English Proficient Population in the United States; Migration Policy Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  2. Al Shamsi, H.; Almutairi, A.G.; Al Mashrafi, S.; Al Kalbani, T. Implications of Language Barriers for Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Oman Med. J. 2020, 35, e122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Sifuentes, A.M.F.; Cornejo, M.R.; Li, N.C.; Castaneda-Avila, M.A.; Tjia, J.; Lapane, K.L. The Role of Limited English Proficiency and Access to Health Insurance and Health Care in the Affordable Care Act Era. Health Equity 2020, 4, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Berdahl, T.A.; Kirby, J.B. Patient-Provider Communication Disparities by Limited English Proficiency (LEP): Trends from the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2006–2015. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2019, 34, 1434–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Craig, K.D. The social communication model of pain. Pain 2015, 156, 1198–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Ruppen, W.; Bandschapp, O.; Urwyler, A. Language difficulties in outpatients and their impact on a chronic pain unit in Northwest Switzerland. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2010, 140, 260–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Dixit, A.A.; Elser, H.; Chen, C.L.; Ferschl, M.; Manuel, S.P. Language-Related Disparities in Pain Management in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit for Children Undergoing Laparoscopic Appendectomy. Children 2020, 7, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kehlet, H.; Holte, K. Effect of postoperative analgesia on surgical outcome. Br. J. Anaesth. 2001, 87, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Schwartz, H.; Menza, R.; Lindquist, K.; Mackersie, R.; Fernández, A.; Stein, D.; Bongiovanni, T. Limited English Proficiency Associated with Suboptimal Pain Assessment in Hospitalized Trauma Patients. J. Surg. Res. 2022, 278, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Koleck, T.A.; Lor, M. Do Limited English Proficiency and Language Moderate the Relationship Between Mental Health and Pain. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2022, 23, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Nguyen, K.H.; Rambachan, A.; Ward, D.T.; Manuel, S.P. Language barriers and postoperative opioid prescription use after total knee arthroplasty. Explor. Res. Clin. Soc. Pharm. 2022, 7, 100171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Jimenez, N.; Moreno, G.; Leng, M.; Buchwald, D.; Morales, L.S. Patient-reported quality of pain treatment and use of interpreters in spanish-speaking patients hospitalized for obstetric and gynecological care. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2012, 27, 1602–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Mosher, C.E.; Duhamel, K.N.; Egert, J.; Smith, M.Y. Self-efficacy for coping with cancer in a multiethnic sample of breast cancer patients: Associations with barriers to pain management and distress. Clin. J. Pain. 2010, 26, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Payson, A.; Pulido, A.; San Martin, S.; Garlesky, C.; Garcia, E.; Reyes, C.; Reyes, M.; Leyenaar, J. Inequities in Pain Assessment and Care of Hospitalized Children with Limited English Proficiency. Hosp. Pediatr. 2022, 12, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Moreno, G.; Tarn, D.M.; Morales, L.S. Impact of interpreters on the receipt of new prescription medication information among Spanish-speaking Latinos. Med. Care 2009, 47, 1201–1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Flores, G. The impact of medical interpreter services on the quality of health care: A systematic review. Med. Care Res. Rev. 2005, 62, 255–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Baker, D.W.; Parker, R.M.; Williams, M.V.; Coates, W.C.; Pitkin, K. Use and effectiveness of interpreters in an emergency department. JAMA 1996, 275, 783–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sinatra, R. Causes and Consequences of Inadequate Management of Acute Pain. Pain Med. 2010, 11, 1859–1871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Table 1. Perioperative characteristics of adults undergoing open abdominal surgery.
Table 1. Perioperative characteristics of adults undergoing open abdominal surgery.
Pre-MatchingPost-Matching
Language Assistance
No
(n = 4491)
Language Assistance
Yes
(n =300)
p-ValueLanguage Assistance
No
(n = 295)
Language Assistance
Yes
(n = 295)
Standardized Difference in
%
p-Value
Age, median (IQR)60 (49–69)61 (49–68)0.564459 (48–68)60 (49–69)7.55
Gender, n (%)
Female
Male

2055 (94%)
2436 (93.5%)

132 (6%)
168 (6.5%)
0.553
138 (51.1)
157 (49.1)

132 (48.9)
163 (50.9)
1.05
BMI, median (IQR)27.66
(24.2–31.76)
27.03
(23.76–30.93)
0.03426.82
(23.54 –31.02)
27.06
(23.72–31)
4.08
ASA physical status, n (%)
1–2
3–4

245 (95.7%)
4246 (93.6%)

11 (4.3%)
289 (6.4%)
0.182
13 (54.2%)
282 (49.8%)

11 (45.8%)
284 (50.2%)
3.43
Race/Ethnicity, n (%)
Asian
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Other
White

203 (79%)
367 (99.7%)
518 (79.4%)
57 (64%)
3315 (97.8%)

54 (21%)
1 (0.3%)
134 (20.6%)
32 (36%)
76 (2.2%)
<0.0001
52 (49.1)
1 (50)
132 (49.6)
34 (53.1)
76 (50)

54 (50.9)
1 (50)
134 (50.4)
30 (46.9)
76 (50)
0.980
Platelet count (cells/dL)221
(179–275)
227.5
(179–296.5)
0.129217
(179–273)
298
(179–298)
0.199
Anxiety or depression, n (%)
No
Yes

3626 (93.3%)
865 (95.6%)

260 (6.7%)
40 (4.4%)
0.011
256 (50.1)
39 (49.4)

255 (49.9)
40 (50.6)
0.99
Chronic pain, n (%)
No
Yes

19 (95%)1 4472 (93.7%)

1 (5%)
299 (6.3%)
0.815
294 (50)
1 (50)

294 (50)
1 (50)
1.000
Chronic opioid use, n (%)
No
Yes

1131 (91.9%)
3360 (94.4%)

100 (8.1%)
200 (5.6%)
0.001
192 (49.4)
103 (51.2)

197 (50.6)
197 (50.6)
3.57
Cigarette smoking, n (%)
No
Yes

10 (83.3%)
4481 (93.8%)

2 (16.7%)
298 (6.2%)
0.136
1 (33.3%)
294 (50.1%)

2 (66.7%)
293 (49.9%)
1.000
Alcohol disorder, n (%)
No
Yes

73 (96.1%)
4418 (93.7%)

3 (3.9%)
297 (6.3%)
0.401
287 (49.6%)
1 (33.3%)

3 (27.3%)
292 (50.4%)
0.222
ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists, BMI: Body Mass Index, IQR: Interquartile Range.
Table 2. Regional anesthesia and perioperative opioid utilization, postoperative pain scores and types of surgeries performed.
Table 2. Regional anesthesia and perioperative opioid utilization, postoperative pain scores and types of surgeries performed.
Pre-MatchingPost-Matching
Language Assistance
No
(n = 4491)
Language Assistance
Yes
(n =300)
p-ValueLanguage Assistance
No
(n = 295)
Language Assistance
Yes
(n = 295)
p-Value
Anesthesia Duration, hours (median [IQR])6.25 (4.43–8.65)6 (4.27–8.14)0.116.38 (4.58–8.47)5.98 (4.23–8.12)0.0675
Regional Anesthesia
No
Yes

1995 (93.3%)
2496 (94.1%)

144 (6.7%)
156 (5.9%)
0.227
126 (46.8)
169 (52.6)

143 (53.2)
152 (47.4)
0.1600
Type of Regional †
Epidural
TAP/QL Block
Other Truncal Block

1138 (93.2%)
1356 (94.9%)
2 (100%)

83 (6.8%)
73 (5.1%)
. (.%)
0.172

89 (52.7%)
80 (52.6%)
. (.%)

80 (47.3%)
72 (47.4%)
. (.%)
0.9955
PACU opioid, MEDD (median [IQR]) 5 (5–15)5 (5–10)0.067 10 (5–15) 5 (5–10) 0.0219
Total opioid, MEDD (median [IQR])30 (20–50)33 (20–50)0.36930 (20–45)33 (20–50)0.0989
Average PACU pain, (median [IQR]) 2.7 (1.4–3.9)2.3 (1–3.5)<0.00012.6 (1.3–3.8) 2.3 (1.0–3.5) 0.0460
Highest PACU pain, n (%)
<3
≥3

<7
≥7

637 (14.2%)
3850 (85.8%)

2295 (51.1%)
2192 (48.9%)

55 (18.4%)
244 (81.6%)

178 (59.5%)
121 (40.5%)

0.045


0.005

169 (57.3 %)
126 (42.7 %)

287 (97.3 %)
8 (2.7 %)

191 (65 %)
103 (35 %)

288 (98 %)
6 (2 %)

0.0560


0.5930
Average POD 1 pain (median [IQR]) 2.8 (1.6–3.9)2.4 (1.3–3.5)<0.00012.8 (1.7–3.9) 2.4 (1.3–3.5) 0.0041
Types of Surgery
Colorectal
Endocrine
Gastric
General
Gynecology
Liver
Melanoma
Pancreas
Sarcoma
Thoracic
Urology

1412 (92.3%)
140 (97.2%)
674 (95.5%)
320 (93.3%)
10 (100%)
875 (93.7%)
123 (93.2%)
332 (95.1%)
278 (93%)
23 (100%)
304 (94.7%)

118 (7.7%)
4 (2.8%)
32 (4.5%)
23 (6.7%)
. (.%)
59 (6.3%)
9 (6.8%)
17 (4.9%)
21 (7%)
.(.%)
17 (5.3%)
0.0885
104 (47.3%)
11 (73.3%)
46 (59%)
16 (41%)
1 (100%)
51 (47.2%)
6 (40%)
21 (55.3%)
22 (51.2%)
1 (100%)
16 (50%)

116 (52.7%)
4 (26.7%)
32 (41%)
23 (59%)
. (.%)
57 (52.8%)
9 (60%)
17 (44.7%)
21 (48.8%)
. (.%)
16 (50%)
0.3522
IQR: Interquartile Range, MEDD: Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose, PACU: Post Anesthesia Care Unit, POD: Postoperative Day, TAP/QL: Transversus Abdominus Plane/Quadratus Lumborum. †Information on specific types of blocks was not available for all patients who received regional analgesic techniques.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kapoor, R.; Owusu-Agyemang, P.; Feng, L.; Cata, J.P. The Impact of the Need for Language Assistance Services on the Use of Regional Anesthesia, Postoperative Pain Scores and Opioid Administration in Surgical Oncology Patients. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13030481

AMA Style

Kapoor R, Owusu-Agyemang P, Feng L, Cata JP. The Impact of the Need for Language Assistance Services on the Use of Regional Anesthesia, Postoperative Pain Scores and Opioid Administration in Surgical Oncology Patients. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2023; 13(3):481. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13030481

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kapoor, Ravish, Pascal Owusu-Agyemang, Lei Feng, and Juan P. Cata. 2023. "The Impact of the Need for Language Assistance Services on the Use of Regional Anesthesia, Postoperative Pain Scores and Opioid Administration in Surgical Oncology Patients" Journal of Personalized Medicine 13, no. 3: 481. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13030481

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop