Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 10 de 10
Filtrar
1.
Neuromodulation ; 2024 May 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38752946

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians and scientists based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on intrathecal drug delivery in treating chronic pain. This Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)® project, created more than two decades ago, intends to provide evidence-based guidance for important safety and efficacy issues surrounding intrathecal drug delivery and its impact on the practice of neuromodulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when PACC® last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence is scant. RESULTS: The PACC® examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The PACC® recommends best practices regarding intrathecal drug delivery to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.

2.
J Pain Res ; 15: 1325-1354, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35546905

RESUMO

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal disease of aging with a growing patient population, paralleling population growth. Minimally invasive treatments are evolving, and the use of these techniques needs guidance to provide the optimal patient safety and efficacy outcomes. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for guidance on the prudent use of the innovative minimally invasive surgical therapies for the treatment of symptomatic LSS. The executive board nominated experts spanning anesthesiology, physiatry, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery based on expertise, publications, research, diversity and field of practice. Evidence was reviewed, graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence and recommendation strength and grade, and expert opinion was added to make consensus points for best practice. Results: The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for LSS-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using USPSTF criteria and consensus points are presented. Discussion: The algorithm for patient selection in the management of symptomatic spinal stenosis is evolving. Careful consideration of patient selection and anatomic architecture variance is critical for improved outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: ASPN created a guidance for best practice for minimally invasive surgical treatment of symptomatic spinal stenosis.

3.
Neuromodulation ; 25(1): 1-34, 2022 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35041578

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The field of neurostimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is a rapidly developing area of medicine. Although neurostimulation therapies have advanced significantly as a result of technologic improvements, surgical planning, device placement, and postoperative care are of equal importance to optimize outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for these often-overlooked areas of neurostimulation practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen based on their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from the last NACC publication in 2017 to the present. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on evidence strength and consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: This NACC project provides guidance on preoperative assessment, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative management in the form of consensus points with supportive evidence. These results are based on grade of evidence, strength of consensus, and expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC has given guidance for a surgical plan that encompasses the patient journey from the planning stage through the surgical experience and postoperative care. The overall recommendations are designed to improve efficacy and the safety of patients undergoing these neuromodulation procedures and are intended to apply throughout the international community.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica , Estimulação da Medula Espinal , Dor Crônica/terapia , Consenso , Humanos
5.
Pain Med ; 21(8): 1590-1603, 2020 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32803220

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for PNS. METHODS: An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain. CONCLUSION: Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica , Dor Lombar , Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea , Humanos , Manejo da Dor , Nervos Periféricos
6.
Pain Med ; 21(7): 1421-1432, 2020 11 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32034422

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica , Síndrome Pós-Laminectomia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal , Dor Crônica/terapia , Síndrome Pós-Laminectomia/terapia , Humanos , Manejo da Dor , Coluna Vertebral , Resultado do Tratamento
7.
A A Pract ; 13(1): 27-30, 2019 Jul 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30762588

RESUMO

Pain is a common issue that is present in cancer survivors as well as those with active malignant processes. Despite opioid analgesics and adjuvant therapies such as systemic corticosteroids, many patients have persistent localized pain. We describe a case series of 3 cancer patients who have concurrent hip- and greater trochanteric-related pain. We performed a single-insertion-site, ultrasound-guided injection to target both the intra-articular hip and greater trochanteric bursa for each patient. All patients reported an improvement in pain symptoms and function with no major complications. Targeted corticosteroid injections provide a potential for relief of malignant joint pain.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/administração & dosagem , Artralgia/tratamento farmacológico , Dor do Câncer/tratamento farmacológico , Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Bolsa Sinovial , Feminino , Articulação do Quadril , Humanos , Injeções Intra-Articulares , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
8.
PM R ; 11(6): 631-639, 2019 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30367999

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is one of the most common causes of chronic pain and the fourth leading cause of disability worldwide; it is estimated that between 36% and 67% of this pain is due to facet arthropathy. For patients who have pain refractory to conservative treatments literature supports management with diagnostic cervical medial branch blocks (MBBs) to identify the associated facet innervation as the source of pain followed by therapeutic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the identified nerves. Cervical RFA has good published outcomes; however, the procedure is dependent upon the specificity of the diagnostic block to achieve maximal success. Currently, this prerequisite test has false positive rates between 27% and 63% and recent studies have shown that this may, in part, be a consequence of currently accepted injection volumes of 0.50 mL or more, which may decrease the sensitivity of MBBs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the possible differences in volume dispersion between 0.25 and 0.50 mL of injectate during cervical MBBs. STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric study. SETTING: An academic medical center in the United States. PATIENTS: Not applicable. METHODS: This was a cadaveric study in which six subjects were chosen with intact cervical spines. Cervical MBB were performed bilaterally at the midcervical spine, using a posterior approach under fluoroscopic guidance. 0.25 or 0.50 mL of a 9:1 solution of Omnipaque 180 mg iodine/mL and 1% medical grade methylene blue were administered on the left and right sides, respectively. Postinjection computed tomography (CT) imaging and gross dissection were performed to assess injectate spread. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures after using commonly injected volumes for cervical MBB, included visualized and measured spread (by CT and gross dissection) of cervical medial branch blocks, coating adjacent structures not targeted by RFA. RESULTS: Postinjection CT imaging and cadaveric dissection demonstrated that, although both volumes adequately coated the medial branches, the 0.50 mL cohort reliably spread dorsally to superficial muscles (splenius) and nerves distant from the targeted nerves (dorsal motor branches to splenius), whereas the 0.25 mL injectate cohort was contained in the deep and intermediate muscular cervical layers directly juxtaposed to the targeted cMBBs. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that 0.50 mL injections of local anesthetic during cervical MBBs contacts many nonintended targets, thus decreasing the specificity of a targeted diagnostic cervical MBB. Furthermore, we demonstrated that 0.25 mL of injectate reliably bathed the cervical medial branches without extensive extravasation. This indicates that there would potentially be fewer local anesthetic effects on distant tissues, increasing the specificity of cervical MBBs and likely improving RFA planning.


Assuntos
Vértebras Cervicais/anatomia & histologia , Meios de Contraste/administração & dosagem , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Nervos Espinhais/anatomia & histologia , Músculos do Dorso/anatomia & histologia , Cadáver , Vértebras Cervicais/diagnóstico por imagem , Dor Crônica/terapia , Fluoroscopia , Humanos , Injeções Intra-Articulares , Injeções Espinhais , Iohexol/administração & dosagem , Azul de Metileno/administração & dosagem , Cervicalgia/terapia , Ablação por Radiofrequência , Nervos Espinhais/diagnóstico por imagem , Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X , Articulação Zigapofisária
9.
PM R ; 10(6): 616-622, 2018 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29174073

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Lumbar facet arthropathy is a common cause of low back pain. Literature supports treatment with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of associated nerves that innervate lumbar facets when alternative conservative therapies have failed. Diagnostic local anesthetic blocks precede therapeutic ablation, but have a false-positive rate of 27%-63%, and some authors have questioned their utility in predicting therapeutic response to RFA. The authors of the current study believe that injectate volume may be a contributing factor to false positivity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the difference in volume dispersion between 0.25 mL and 0.5 mL of injectate when performing lumbar medial branch blocks. We hypothesized that injection volumes greater than 0.25 mL during lumbar medial branch blocks would affect the distal branches of the adjacent medial branches, thus decreasing the specificity of the procedure. Thus, we attempted to demonstrate that injection volumes greater than 0.25 mL during lumbar medial branch blocks would affect the distal branches of the adjacent medial branches, which might increase false positivity of the blocks. STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric investigation. SETTING: Tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS: Not applicable. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: To demonstrate that the spread of lumbar medial branch blocks using commonly injected volume coats adjacent structures that are not affected by radiofrequency ablation. METHODS: Six cadavers were chosen with nondissected lumbar spines. Fluoroscopically guided medial branch injections were performed bilaterally using the posterior oblique approach. A volume of 0.25 mL or 0.50 mL of a 9:1 solution of Omnipaque 240 and 1% medical grade methylene blue were delivered to the left and right sides, respectively. Postinjection computed tomographic imaging was performed, followed by dissection. RESULTS: Both volumes adequately coated the medial branches, but in the 0.5-mL injectate cohort there was consistent spread dorsally to the superficial muscles and distal segments of the dorsal branches distant to the target nerves, whereas in the 0.25-mL injectate cohort the spread was contained in the deep and intermediate muscular lumbar layers, close to the intended target. CONCLUSION: We suggest that a 0.5-mL injectate volume in clinical practice may produce an adjacent-level nerve block in addition to the intended injection level, thus decreasing the specificity of a targeted lumbar medial branch block. A 0.25-mL quantity of injectate reliably contacted the lumbar medial branches without extensive extravasation. Presumably, this means that 0.25 mL total volume for a lumbar medial branch block may provide greater specificity for RFA planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.


Assuntos
Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Ablação por Cateter/métodos , Artropatias/terapia , Vértebras Lombares , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Cadáver , Fluoroscopia , Humanos , Injeções , Artropatias/diagnóstico , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
10.
Pain Physician ; 18(6): E1123-6, 2015 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26606026

RESUMO

Electrode migration/displacement is reported to be the most common complication of spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation, with the literature reporting incidences from 13.2% to 22.6%. There have been numerous publications describing techniques preventing lead migration, with most involving tying leads to skin and fascia for trial and permanent leads, respectively. However, few have addressed how to prevent migration in the case of hypermobile tissue seen in the morbidly obese. We describe the creation of subcutaneous tension loops to prevent lead migration.


Assuntos
Eletrodos Implantados/efeitos adversos , Migração de Corpo Estranho/prevenção & controle , Obesidade Mórbida/complicações , Tela Subcutânea/patologia , Adulto , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Feminino , Migração de Corpo Estranho/patologia , Humanos , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/instrumentação , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA