Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Pain Med ; 15(3): 347-54, 2014 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24308759

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of paresthesia-free high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (HF10 SCS) for the treatment of chronic, intractable pain of the low back and legs. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, observational study. METHOD: Patients with significant chronic low back pain underwent implantation of a spinal cord stimulator capable of HF10 SCS. Patients' pain ratings, disability, sleep disturbances, opioid use, satisfaction, and adverse events were assessed for 24 months. RESULTS: After a trial period, 88% (72 of 82) of patients reported a significant improvement in pain scores and underwent the permanent implantation of the system. Ninety percent (65 of 72) of patients attended a 24-month follow-up visit. Mean back pain was reduced from 8.4 ± 0.1 at baseline to 3.3 ± 0.3 at 24 months (P < 0.001), and mean leg pain from 5.4 ± 0.4 to 2.3 ± 0.3 (P < 0.001). Concomitantly to the pain relief, there were significant decreases in opioid use, Oswestry Disability Index score, and sleep disturbances. Patients' satisfaction and recommendation ratings were high. Adverse Events were similar in type and frequency to those observed with traditional SCS systems. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic low back pain, HF10 SCS resulted in clinically significant and sustained back and leg pain relief, functional and sleep improvements, opioid use reduction, and high patient satisfaction. These results support the long-term safety and sustained efficacy of HF10 SCS.


Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico/terapia , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/terapia , Estimulación de la Médula Espinal , Adulto , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Estudios Prospectivos , Estimulación de la Médula Espinal/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
J Headache Pain ; 14: 86, 2013 Oct 21.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24144382

RESUMEN

The medical treatment of patients with chronic primary headache syndromes (chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, chronic cluster headache, hemicrania continua) is challenging as serious side effects frequently complicate the course of medical treatment and some patients may be even medically intractable. When a definitive lack of responsiveness to conservative treatments is ascertained and medication overuse headache is excluded, neuromodulation options can be considered in selected cases. Here, the various invasive and non-invasive approaches, such as hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, stimulation of sphenopalatine ganglion, cervical spinal cord stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are extensively published although proper RCT-based evidence is limited. The European Headache Federation herewith provides a consensus statement on the clinical use of neuromodulation in headache, based on theoretical background, clinical data, and side effect of each method. This international consensus further gives recommendations for future studies on these new approaches. In spite of a growing field of stimulation devices in headaches treatment, further controlled studies to validate, strengthen and disseminate the use of neurostimulation are clearly warranted. Consequently, until these data are available any neurostimulation device should only be used in patients with medically intractable syndromes from tertiary headache centers either as part of a valid study or have shown to be effective in such controlled studies with an acceptable side effect profile.


Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico/terapia , Estimulación Encefálica Profunda/métodos , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , Trastornos de Cefalalgia/terapia , Cefalea/terapia , Estimulación Magnética Transcraneal/métodos , Humanos
3.
J Headache Pain ; 14: 67, 2013 Aug 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23919570

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A retrospective review of patients treated with Occipital Nerve Stimulation (ONS) at two large tertiary referral centres has been audited in order to optimise future treatment pathways. METHODS: Patient's medical records were retrospectively reviewed, and each patient was contacted by a trained headache expert to confirm clinical diagnosis and system efficacy. Results were compared to reported outcomes in current literature on ONS for primary headaches. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients underwent a trial of ONS between January 2007 and December 2012, and 23 patients went on to have permanent implantation of ONS. All 23 patients reached one-year follow/up, and 14 of them (61%) exceeded two years of follow-up. Seventeen of the 23 had refractory chronic migraine (rCM), and 3 refractory occipital neuralgia (ON). 11 of the 19 rCM patients had been referred with an incorrect headache diagnosis. Nine of the rCM patients (53%) reported 50% or more reduction in headache pain intensity and or frequency at long term follow-up (11-77 months). All 3 ON patients reported more than 50% reduction in pain intensity and/or frequency at 28-31 months. Ten (43%) subjects underwent surgical revision after an average of 11 ± 7 months from permanent implantation - in 90% of cases due to lead problems. Seven patients attended a specifically designed, multi-disciplinary, two-week pre-implant programme and showed improved scores across all measured psychological and functional parameters independent of response to subsequent ONS. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective review: 1) confirms the long-term ONS success rate in refractory chronic headaches, consistent with previously published studies; 2) suggests that some headaches types may respond better to ONS than others (ON vs CM); 3) calls into question the role of trial stimulation in ONS; 4) confirms the high rate of complications related to the equipment not originally designed for ONS; 5) emphasises the need for specialist multidisciplinary care in these patients.


Asunto(s)
Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/efectos adversos , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica/métodos , Trastornos de Cefalalgia/terapia , Electrodos Implantados/efectos adversos , Falla de Equipo , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Reoperación , Estudios Retrospectivos , Cráneo , Resultado del Tratamiento
4.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 35(3): 255-60, 2010.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20921836

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Among all the causes of chronic low back pain, myofascial pain syndrome of the spinal stabilizer muscles is one of the most frequent, yet underconsidered sources of pain. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was to evaluate the efficacy of type-A botulinum toxin (BTX-A) in relieving myofascial pain in patients experiencing mechanical low back pain due to bilateral myofascial pain syndrome involving the iliopsoas and/or the quadratus lumborum muscles. METHODS: Each of the 27 enrolled patients received a bilateral, fluoroscopically guided injection in the affected muscle(s) to randomly deliver BTX-A in one side of the low back and a control drug (randomly constituted by NaCl 0.9% or bupivacaine 0.25%) in the opposite side. To evaluate the effects of treatment on daily life activities and psychologic status, 5 different questionnaires were administered (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale [HAD-A and HAD-D], Lattinen, Oswestry, and Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Index). RESULTS: BTX-A injection did not significantly reduce visual analog scale scores more than treatment with NaCl or bupivacaine in the contralateral side; furthermore, the treatments administered did not result in a significant improvement of patients' daily life activities or psychologic status. Although a trend toward a decrease in postintervention visual analog scale scores could be recognized in all low back sides, this trend was significant only in the sides treated with BTX-A. CONCLUSIONS: BTX-A seems to provide significant postintervention pain relief. However, considering its high cost and the small differences compared with control treatments, its use should be reserved only for patients with pain refractory to other invasive treatments.


Asunto(s)
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapéutico , Síndromes del Dolor Miofascial/tratamiento farmacológico , Fármacos Neuromusculares/uso terapéutico , Actividades Cotidianas , Anciano , Anestésicos Locales/uso terapéutico , Bupivacaína/uso terapéutico , Método Doble Ciego , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones Intramusculares , Región Lumbosacra , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Síndromes del Dolor Miofascial/psicología , Dimensión del Dolor , Estudios Prospectivos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA