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.
Assuntos
Dor Crônica , Injeções Espinhais , Humanos , Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/métodos , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/instrumentação , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/normas , Injeções Espinhais/métodos , Injeções Espinhais/normas , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Manejo da Dor/normasRESUMO
Originally published in Pain Management, this article is a summary of a study performed to look at the benefit, if any, of more than one epidural steroid injection in the spine before the mild® Procedure. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (commonly known as the mild Procedure) and epidural steroid injections are both common treatment options for lumbar spinal stenosis (commonly referred to as LSS), a condition that causes chronic lower back pain in older adults. To determine how to best treat LSS patients, healthcare professionals use a guide to help with the decision-making process (called an algorithm) to pass through non-medical to more invasive therapies that often includes one or more epidural steroid injections. An epidural steroid injection is medication inserted in the lower back to reduce swelling and provide relief from pain. Researchers wanted to look at a change to when in the treatment process the mild Procedure is carried out. In the study, researchers compared the medical records of participants who had received either just one or no steroid injection prior to the mild Procedure, to participants who received two or more epidural steroid injections prior to the mild Procedure. Similar outcomes in both treatment groups in this study proved that giving more than one epidural steroid injection prior to the mild Procedure did not improve how well patients did and may have delayed patient care. Based on the results of the study, it is recommended that the standard treatment process for LSS patients be changed to give the mild Procedure either as soon as LSS is diagnosed or after the failure of the first epidural steroid injection.
Assuntos
Dor Lombar , Estenose Espinal , Idoso , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais , Dor Lombar/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Lombar/etiologia , Dor Lombar/cirurgia , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Estudos Prospectivos , Estenose Espinal/complicações , Estenose Espinal/tratamento farmacológico , Esteroides/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
Background: A modified algorithm for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum using minimally-invasive lumbar decompression (mild®)was assessed, with a focus on earlier intervention. Patients & methods: Records of 145 patients treated with mild after receiving 0-1 epidural steroid injections (ESIs) or 2+ ESIs were retrospectively reviewed. Pain assessments as measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline and 1-week and 3-month follow-ups. Results: Improvements in VAS scores at follow-ups compared with baseline were significant in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups. Conclusion: Multiple ESIs prior to mild showed no benefit. A modified algorithm to perform mild immediately upon diagnosis or after the failure of the first ESI is recommended.
Lay abstract Physicians use a structured decision-making process (an algorithm) to decide how best to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) that results from abnormal thickening of the spinal ligaments that run the length of the spinal cord. Early treatments can include one or more epidural steroid injections (ESIs). This study evaluated a change to the algorithm that involves earlier intervention with a minimally invasive, short outpatient procedure that removes a major root cause of the abnormal thickening (lumbar decompression) and leaves no implants behind. Records of patients treated with minimally-invasive lumbar decompression (mild®) after receiving either a single ESI procedure or none at all, were compared with the records of patients who underwent the mild procedure after receiving two or more ESIs (145 total patients). The patients' pain scores before surgery, at 1 week postsurgery and at 3 months postsurgery were reviewed. The improvements in pain scores following the mild procedure were compared within each group and between the two groups. The improvements in pain scores at both the 1-week and 3-month follow-up visits indicated that the mild procedure had a positive effect for both groups. Further, there were no significant differences in how much pain scores improved when the two groups were compared. Since neither group experienced significantly more pain relief than the other, there appears to be no benefit to having multiple ESI procedures before undergoing the mild procedure. The authors recommend that the algorithm be modified to perform the mild procedure either as soon as LSS is diagnosed or after the failure of the first ESI procedure.
Assuntos
Estenose Espinal , Descompressão , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais , Vértebras Lombares/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estenose Espinal/complicações , Estenose Espinal/tratamento farmacológico , Estenose Espinal/cirurgia , Esteroides , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Globally, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are highly used to treat pain. With the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic, the safety of NSAIDs use has been called into question. These concerns are worthy of review. At present, there is no compelling data showing that NSAIDs worsen the severity of COVID-19 symptoms or increase one's likelihood of contracting the illness. For patients in pain and without symptoms that could potentially be attributed to COVID-19 (cough, fevers/chills, lethargy, myalgias, anosmia and so on), NSAIDs should continue to remain a viable option to provide analgesia to patients in need.