Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 128
Filter
Add more filters

Publication year range
1.
Pain Pract ; 24(1): 8-17, 2024 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37477420

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A better insight in how the biopsychosocial factors influence patient outcome(s) may provide information that helps selecting the optimal pain management for a specific group. METHODS: Categorization was made in the prospective DATAPAIN registry, in which patients with pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]: 7-10), depression or anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: > 10), and pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale: > 31) were identified as complex cases. Patient outcomes; treatment satisfaction on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), pain relief (NRS), pain interference on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and quality of life indicator General Perceived Health (GPH) were evaluated. Logistic regression analyzed if belonging to the complex cases showed modification in the outcome of the PGIC and GPH. Linear regression was observed if complex cases differed in average reduction in pain relief and interference compared to non-complex cases. RESULTS: 1637 patients were included, of which 345 (21.08%) were considered complex cases. The changes in scores of pain relief and BPI active subscale were not significantly different between groups. The BPI affective subscale had a different change in score (-0.509; p: 0.002). The complex cases had an odds ratio (OR) of 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.77) on treatment satisfaction compared to non-complex cases, and an OR of 0.28 (95% CI: 0.11-0.56) on the GPH. CONCLUSION: When treating patients with complex cases, desired treatment outcome(s) should be recognized by specialists and patients, as these may be less likely to occur.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Humans , Chronic Pain/therapy , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life , Motivation , Treatment Outcome
2.
Pain Pract ; 2024 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39219023

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Cervicogenic headache (CEH) and occipital neuralgia (ON) are headaches originating in the occiput and that radiate to the vertex. Because of the intimate relationship between structures based in the occiput and those in the upper cervical region, there is significant overlap between the presentation of CEH and ON. Diagnosis starts with a headache history to assess for diagnostic criteria formulated by the International Headache Society. Physical examination evaluates range of motion of the neck and the presence of tender areas or pressure points. METHODS: The literature for the diagnosis and treatment of CEH and ON was searched from 2015 through August 2022, retrieved, and summarized. RESULTS: Conservative treatment includes pain education and self-care, analgesic medication, physical therapy (such as reducing secondary muscle tension and improving posture), the use of TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation), or a combination of the aforementioned treatments. Injection at various anatomical locations with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroids can provide pain relief for a short period. Deep cervical plexus block can result in improved pain for less than 6 months. In both CEH and ON, an occipital nerve block can provide important diagnostic information and improve pain in some patients, with PRF providing greater long-term pain control. Radiofrequency ablation of the cervical facet joints can result in improvement for over 1 year. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) should be considered for the treatment of refractory ON. CONCLUSION: The treatment of CEH preferentially consists of radiofrequency treatment of the facet joints, while for ON, pulsed radiofrequency of the occipital nerves is indicated. For refractory cases, ONS may be considered.

3.
Pain Pract ; 24(4): 627-646, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38155419

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is defined as pain localized in the anatomical region of the SI joint. The reported prevalence of SI joint pain among patients with mechanical low back pain varies between 15% and 30%. METHODS: In this narrative review, the literature on the diagnosis and treatment of SI joint pain was updated and summarized. RESULTS: Patient's history provides clues on the source of pain. The specificity and sensitivity of provocative maneuvers are relatively high when three or more tests are positive, though recent studies have questioned the predictive value of single or even batteries of provocative tests. Medical imaging is indicated only to rule out red flags for potentially serious conditions. The diagnostic value of SI joint infiltration with local anesthetic remains controversial due to the potential for false-positive and false-negative results. Treatment of SI joint pain ideally consists of a multidisciplinary approach that includes conservative measures as first-line therapies (eg, pharmacological treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy, manual medicine, exercise therapy and rehabilitation treatment, and if necessary, psychological support). Intra- and extra-articular corticosteroid injections have been documented to produce pain relief for over 3 months in some people. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-3 (or 4) lateral branches has been shown to be efficacious in numerous studies, with extensive lesioning strategies (eg, cooled RFA) demonstrating the strongest evidence. The reported rate of complications for SI joint treatments is low. CONCLUSIONS: SI joint pain should ideally be managed in a multidisciplinary and multimodal manner. When conservative treatment fails, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency treatment can be considered.


Subject(s)
Nerve Block , Sacroiliac Joint , Humans , Nerve Block/methods , Pain Management , Arthralgia/surgery , Pelvic Pain , Adrenal Cortex Hormones
4.
Pain Pract ; 24(1): 160-176, 2024 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37640913

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pain originating from the lumbar facets can be defined as pain that arises from the innervated structures comprising the joint: the subchondral bone, synovium, synovial folds, and joint capsule. Reported prevalence rates range from 4.8% to over 50% among patients with mechanical low back pain, with diagnosis heavily dependent on the criteria employed. In well-designed studies, the prevalence is generally between 10% and 20%, increasing with age. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar facet joint pain was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There are no pathognomic signs or symptoms of pain originating from the lumbar facet joints. The most common reported symptom is uni- or bilateral (in more advanced cases) axial low back pain, which often radiates into the upper legs in a non-dermatomal distribution. Most patients report an aching type of pain exacerbated by activity, sometimes with morning stiffness. The diagnostic value of abnormal radiologic findings is poor owing to the low specificity. SPECT can accurately identify joint inflammation and has a predictive value for diagnostic lumbar facet injections. After "red flags" are ruled out, conservatives should be considered. In those unresponsive to conservative therapy with symptoms and physical examination suggesting lumbar facet joint pain, a diagnostic/prognostic medial branch block can be performed which remains the most reliable way to select patients for radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Well-selected individuals with chronic low back originating from the facet joints may benefit from lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Nerve Block , Zygapophyseal Joint , Humans , Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Low Back Pain/epidemiology , Low Back Pain/etiology , Nerve Block/methods , Lumbosacral Region , Prognosis , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery
5.
Pain Pract ; 24(2): 308-320, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37859565

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Diabetic Neuropathies , Spinal Cord Stimulation , Humans , Diabetic Neuropathies/diagnosis , Diabetic Neuropathies/therapy , Diabetic Neuropathies/complications , Pain Management/adverse effects , Quality of Life , Pain Measurement/adverse effects , Pain/etiology , Spinal Cord Stimulation/adverse effects
6.
Pain Pract ; 2024 Apr 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38616347

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of PSPS-type 2 was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There is low-quality evidence for the efficacy of conservative treatments including exercise, rehabilitation, manipulation, and behavioral therapy, and very limited evidence for the pharmacological treatment of PSPS-type 2. Interventional treatments such as pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglia, epidural adhesiolysis, and spinal endoscopy (epiduroscopy) might be beneficial in patients with PSPS-type 2. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic limb pain, and possibly well-selected candidates with axial pain. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PSPS-type 2 is based on patient history, clinical examination, and medical imaging. Low-quality evidence exists for conservative interventions. Pulsed radiofrequency, adhesiolysis and SCS have a higher level of evidence with a high safety margin and should be considered as interventional treatment options when conservative treatment fails.

7.
Pain Pract ; 24(3): 525-552, 2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37985718

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Pain, Intractable , Radiculopathy , Humans , Back Pain , Low Back Pain/therapy , Lumbosacral Region , Radiculopathy/therapy , Treatment Outcome
8.
Pain Pract ; 2024 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39219017

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Chronic knee pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs over 3 months. The most common is degenerative osteoarthritis (OA). This review represents a comprehensive description of the pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of OA of the knee. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic knee pain was retrieved and summarized. A modified Delphi approach was used to formulate recommendations on interventional treatments. RESULTS: Patients with knee OA commonly present with insidious, chronic knee pain that gradually worsens. Pain caused by knee OA is predominantly nociceptive pain, with occasional nociplastic and infrequent neuropathic characteristics occurring in a diseased knee. A standard musculoskeletal and neurological examination is required for the diagnosis of knee OA. Although typical clinical OA findings are sufficient for diagnosis, medical imaging may be performed to improve specificity. The differential diagnosis should exclude other causes of knee pain including bone and joint disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, spondylo- and other arthropathies, and infections. When conservative treatment fails, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and radiofrequency (conventional and cooled) of the genicular nerves have been shown to be effective. Hyaluronic acid infiltrations are conditionally recommended. Platelet-rich plasma infiltrations, chemical ablation of genicular nerves, and neurostimulation have, at the moment, not enough evidence and can be considered in a study setting. The decision to perform joint-preserving and joint-replacement options should be made multidisciplinary. CONCLUSIONS: When conservative measures fail to provide satisfactory pain relief, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended including psychological therapy, integrative treatments, and procedural options such as intra-articular injections, radiofrequency ablation, and surgery.

9.
Pain Pract ; 2024 Apr 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38597223

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain. METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios. RESULTS: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well-selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e-health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region. CONCLUSIONS: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient-specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.

10.
Neuromodulation ; 26(7): 1433-1440, 2023 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35577695

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, observational study. INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has found its application in chronic pain treatment, with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) as one of the most important indications. However, to date, little is known about the long-term effectiveness of the treatment. The aim of this study is to analyze retrospectively the long-term outcomes of SCS treatment in a single multidisciplinary pain center on predominant radicular pain, using devices of a single manufacturer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient data on overall patient satisfaction, pain intensity, and adverse events were retrospectively collected in our clinical practice between January 1998 and January 2018, for 191 patients who received a permanent SCS implant. Secondary health measures included the influence of opioid and nicotine use on pain reduction after therapy. RESULTS: The trial-to-implant ratio was 93.6%. At a mean follow-up of 10.6 years, 78.5% of the patients were satisfied with the treatment outcome, with a significant pain reduction of an average three points on a Numeric Rating Scale. Opioid and nicotine usage did not have a significant link with the pain reduction one year after the treatment. Furthermore, devices had an average battery lifespan of 8.4 years. A total of 248 revisions were recorded. A total of 24 patients (11.7%) acquired an infection; 7 of 204 patients had an infection during the trial period, 2 of 191 patients had an infection in the first postoperative year, and 15 of 191 patients had an infection after the first year. The average time to infection, if not in the first year, was 10.1 years. CONCLUSIONS: A successful long-term outcome regarding pain relief in patients with predominant radicular pain due to FBSS is established with SCS therapy.


Subject(s)
Failed Back Surgery Syndrome , Spinal Cord Stimulation , Humans , Failed Back Surgery Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Analgesics, Opioid , Nicotine , Treatment Outcome , Spinal Cord
11.
Neuromodulation ; 26(5): 1074-1080, 2023 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36587999

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study was the eight-to-ten-year follow-up of a previously performed pilot and randomized controlled trial on the effects of SCS in PDPN, initiated by the multidisciplinary pain center of Maastricht University Medical Center+. The study population consisted of a subgroup of patients who still used SCS treatment ≥ eight years after implantation (n = 19). Pain intensity scores (numeric rating scale [NRS]) during the day and night and data on secondary outcomes (ie, quality of life, depression, sleep quality) were reported during yearly follow-up consultations. Long-term efficacy of SCS was analyzed by comparing the most recently obtained data eight to ten years after implantation with those obtained at baseline. RESULTS: Pain intensity, day and night, was significantly (p < 0.01) reduced by 2.3 (NRS 6.6-4.3) and 2.2 (NRS 6.8-4.6) points, respectively, when comparing the long-term data with baseline. Moreover, for > 50% of patients, the pain reduction was > 30%, which is considered clinically meaningful. No differences were found regarding the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: This eight-to-ten-year follow-up study indicates that SCS can remain an effective treatment in the long term to reduce pain intensity in a subcohort of patients with PDPN who still had an SCS device implanted after eight years.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus , Diabetic Neuropathies , Spinal Cord Stimulation , Humans , Follow-Up Studies , Prospective Studies , Diabetic Neuropathies/therapy , Quality of Life , Pain , Treatment Outcome , Spinal Cord
12.
Pain Pract ; 23(7): 800-817, 2023 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37272250

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Cervical radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb, caused by irritation or compression of a cervical spine nerve, the roots of the nerve, or both. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: The diagnosis is made by combining elements from the patient's history, physical examination, and supplementary tests. The Spurling and shoulder abduction tests are the two most common examinations used to identify cervical radicular pain. MRI without contrast, CT scanning, and in some cases plain radiography can all be appropriate imaging techniques for nontraumatic cervical radiculopathy. MRI is recommended prior to interventional treatments. Exercise with or without other treatments can be beneficial. There is scant evidence for the use of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and neuropathic pain medications such as gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants for the treatment of radicular pain. Acute and subacute cervical radicular pain may respond well to epidural corticosteroid administration, preferentially using an interlaminar approach. By contrast, for chronic cervical radicular pain, the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid administration is limited. In these patients, pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical radicular pain. There is scant evidence for the use of medication. Epidural corticosteroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. [Correction added on 12 June 2023, after first online publication: The preceding sentence was corrected.].


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Neuralgia , Radiculopathy , Humans , Radiculopathy/diagnosis , Radiculopathy/therapy , Radiculopathy/complications , Neuralgia/etiology , Chronic Pain/therapy , Pain Management/methods , Neck Pain/diagnosis , Neck Pain/etiology , Neck Pain/therapy , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , Treatment Outcome
13.
Lancet ; 398(10294): 78-92, 2021 07 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34115979

ABSTRACT

Low back pain covers a spectrum of different types of pain (eg, nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic, or non-specific) that frequently overlap. The elements comprising the lumbar spine (eg, soft tissue, vertebrae, zygapophyseal and sacroiliac joints, intervertebral discs, and neurovascular structures) are prone to different stressors, and each of these, alone or in combination, can contribute to low back pain. Due to numerous factors related to low back pain, and the low specificity of imaging and diagnostic injections, diagnostic methods for this condition continue to be a subject of controversy. The biopsychosocial model posits low back pain to be a dynamic interaction between social, psychological, and biological factors that can both predispose to and result from injury, and should be considered when devising interdisciplinary treatment plans. Prevention of low back pain is recognised as a pivotal challenge in high-risk populations to help tackle high health-care costs related to therapy and rehabilitation. To a large extent, therapy depends on pain classification, and usually starts with self-care and pharmacotherapy in combination with non-pharmacological methods, such as physical therapies and psychological treatments in appropriate patients. For refractory low back pain, a wide range of non-surgical (eg, epidural steroid injections and spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, and radiofrequency ablation and intra-articular steroid injections for mechanical pain) and surgical (eg, decompression for neuropathic pain, disc replacement, and fusion for mechanical causes) treatment options are available in carefully selected patients. Most treatment options address only single, solitary causes and given the complex nature of low back pain, a multimodal interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Although globally recognised as an important health and socioeconomic challenge with an expected increase in prevalence, low back pain continues to have tremendous potential for improvement in both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. Future research on low back pain should focus on improving the accuracy and objectivity of diagnostic assessments, and devising treatment algorithms that consider unique biological, psychological, and social factors. High-quality comparative-effectiveness and randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up periods that aim to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low back pain management are warranted.


Subject(s)
Low Back Pain , Humans , Low Back Pain/diagnosis , Low Back Pain/physiopathology , Low Back Pain/therapy , Risk Factors
14.
Pain Pract ; 22(3): 349-358, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34775674

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Change on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) is based on subjective pain experience, hampering the establishment of clinically important improvement. An anchor-based method, the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC), is often added to determine whether a patient has improved. A two-point change on the NRS has been shown to be equivalent to a moderate clinically important improvement in randomized controlled trials (RCT's) on medication effects. We contemplated whether these findings could be reproduced in cohort and data and in non-drug interventional RCT's. METHODS: The NRS change was quantified by subtracting the NRS of baseline from the NRS at 6-month follow-up. Categorization of success/nonsuccess was applied on the PGIC, and their average NRS raw changes were calculated. The Spearman correlation coefficient quantified the overall relationship, while the discriminative ability was explored through the receiver operating characteristic curve. Data were stratified on design, sex, and pain intensity at baseline. Besides, the cohort evaluated treatment status at follow-up. RESULTS: The records of 1661 patients were examined. Overall, the observed NRS change needed for moderate clinically important improvement was larger than the average two points. Yet, the changes in the cohort were smaller compared with the RCT's. Moreover, it modified with pain intensity at baseline and treatment statuses indicated differences in mean clinical importance of -4.15 (2.70) when finalized at 6 months and -2.16 (2.48) when treatment was ongoing. CONCLUSION: The moderate clinically important improvement varied substantially, representing heterogeneity in pain relief and its relation to treatment success in chronic pain patients.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Chronic Pain/therapy , Cohort Studies , Humans , Pain Measurement/methods , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Treatment Outcome
15.
Pain Pract ; 22(5): 541-546, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35485298

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the genicular nerves offers pain relief in patients suffering from chronic knee pain including persistent post-surgical knee pain (PPSP). We present the first case report of the development of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in a chronic knee pain patient after an RF ablation of the genicular nerves that was successfully treated with dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. CASE PRESENTATION: The patient developed increased pain, sympathetic and dysmorphic changes of the index knee 10 weeks after RF treatment for PPSP. Diagnosis of CRPS type II was made using positive clinical findings and the Budapest diagnostic tool. Laboratory workup and PET-CT were negative. The patient was refractory to usual care and she was treated successfully with dorsal ganglion root stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Complex regional pain syndrome is a possible complication of RF ablation of the genicular nerves in patients with chronic knee pain, and DRG stimulation may be a treatment option. Physicians should be aware of this complication, especially when patients have a medical history of CRPS.


Subject(s)
Catheter Ablation/adverse effects , Complex Regional Pain Syndromes/therapy , Ganglia, Spinal/physiology , Osteoarthritis, Knee/complications , Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation , Arthralgia/etiology , Arthralgia/therapy , Complex Regional Pain Syndromes/etiology , Female , Ganglia, Spinal/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Pain/surgery , Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
16.
Pain Pract ; 22(3): 340-348, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34716965

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the genicular nerves is a promising treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and persistent postsurgical knee pain (PPSP), refractory to conventional medical management. METHODS: The RECORGEN study is a retrospective single-center cohort study of patients treated with ultrasound-guided conventional RF of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain in Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk from September 2017 to June 2020. Subgroup analysis based on etiology of pain (PPSP and degenerative knee pain) was performed in addition to the total study population analysis. Outcome parameters were global perceived effect (GPE), Numeric Rating Scale for pain, consumption of strong opioids, and safety of the treatment at 6 weeks and cross-sectionally at a variable time point. Treatment success was defined as GPE≥50%. RESULTS: Sixty-eight cases were screened of which 59 (46 diagnosed with PPSP and 13 with degenerative knee pain) were included in the study. Treatment success at 6 weeks was achieved in 19 of 59 interventions (32.2%) and was similar in both groups. Seventeen responders were evaluated at follow-up. 45.1% (8/17) continued to have a positive effect at the second time point. The mean duration of effect of the RF treatment was 8.3 months. Safety analysis at 6 weeks and at the second time point showed a good safety profile of the treatment. CONCLUSION: Conventional RF of the genicular nerves was clinically successful in more than 30% of the study population refractory to conventional medical management. Overall, the treatment was well tolerated. The mean duration of effect was 8.3 months.


Subject(s)
Osteoarthritis, Knee , Cohort Studies , Humans , Osteoarthritis, Knee/surgery , Osteoarthritis, Knee/therapy , Pain , Pain Management , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Ultrasonography, Interventional
17.
Glycobiology ; 31(2): 82-88, 2021 02 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32521004

ABSTRACT

Human protein glycosylation is a complex process, and its in vivo regulation is poorly understood. Changes in glycosylation patterns are associated with many human diseases and conditions. Understanding the biological determinants of protein glycome provides a basis for future diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) allow to study biology via a hypothesis-free search of loci and genetic variants associated with a trait of interest. Sixteen loci were identified by three previous GWAS of human plasma proteome N-glycosylation. However, the possibility that some of these loci are false positives needs to be eliminated by replication studies, which have been limited so far. Here, we use the largest set of samples so far (4802 individuals) to replicate the previously identified loci. For all but one locus, the expected replication power exceeded 95%. Of the 16 loci reported previously, 15 were replicated in our study. For the remaining locus (near the KREMEN1 gene), the replication power was low, and hence, replication results were inconclusive. The very high replication rate highlights the general robustness of the GWAS findings as well as the high standards adopted by the community that studies genetic regulation of protein glycosylation. The 15 replicated loci present a good target for further functional studies. Among these, eight loci contain genes encoding glycosyltransferases: MGAT5, B3GAT1, FUT8, FUT6, ST6GAL1, B4GALT1, ST3GAL4 and MGAT3. The remaining seven loci offer starting points for further functional follow-up investigation into molecules and mechanisms that regulate human protein N-glycosylation in vivo.


Subject(s)
Glycosyltransferases/metabolism , Membrane Proteins/metabolism , Cohort Studies , Computational Biology , Glycosylation , Glycosyltransferases/chemistry , Glycosyltransferases/genetics , Humans , Membrane Proteins/chemistry , Membrane Proteins/genetics , Polysaccharides/metabolism
18.
Pain Med ; 22(3): 637-652, 2021 03 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33179073

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare the analgesic and functional outcomes of continuous neuroablative radiofrequency (CNARF) and pulsed neuromodulative radiofrequency (PNMRF) treatment of genicular nerves up to 1 year after the intervention and to identify predictors associated with a successful outcome (defined as an at least 50% reduction in the pre-interventional visual analog scale [VAS] rating) after genicular radiofrequency treatment. DESIGN: A prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The Pain Department of the Jerez de la Frontera University Hospital, Cadíz, Spain, from January 2018 until May 2019. SUBJECTS: Patients with grade 3-4 gonarthritis suffering from knee pain, with a VAS score ≥5 for >6 months. METHODS: Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either CNARF or PNMRF of the superior medial, superior lateral, and inferior medial genicular nerves. The VAS and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) scores were assessed before and at 1, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Medication use was quantified before and at 6 months after the intervention. Potential characteristics associated with the efficacy of radiofrequency intervention were explored by using multivariable statistical models. RESULTS: A total of 188 participants were included. The magnitude and duration of beneficial effect and reduction in analgesic use were significantly greater in the CNARF group. Success at 6 months after radiofrequency treatment decreased with grade 4 gonarthritis; higher pre-interventional VAS score; and concomitant depression, anxiety disorder, and diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic efficacy and reduction in analgesic consumption were superior after CNARF. Treatment success at 6 months after radiofrequency intervention decreased with more severe gonarthritis; higher pre-interventional pain intensity; and concomitant depression, anxiety disorder, and diabetes mellitus.


Subject(s)
Analgesia , Osteoarthritis, Knee , Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment , Humans , Ontario , Osteoarthritis, Knee/therapy , Pain , Prospective Studies , Spain , Treatment Outcome
19.
Pain Med ; 22(11): 2443-2524, 2021 Nov 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34788462

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. METHODS: In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4-5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. RESULTS: Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Zygapophyseal Joint , Arthralgia , Cervical Vertebrae , Chronic Pain/therapy , Humans , Injections, Intra-Articular
20.
Anesth Analg ; 133(2): 535-552, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33755647

ABSTRACT

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.


Subject(s)
Brain Diseases/chemically induced , Brain/drug effects , Contrast Media/adverse effects , Drug Hypersensitivity/etiology , Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermopathy/chemically induced , Pain Management/adverse effects , Brain/metabolism , Brain Diseases/diagnosis , Brain Diseases/metabolism , Consensus , Contrast Media/administration & dosage , Contrast Media/metabolism , Delphi Technique , Drug Hypersensitivity/diagnosis , Humans , Nephrogenic Fibrosing Dermopathy/diagnosis , Prognosis , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , Tissue Distribution
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL