RESUMEN
Both the diagnosis and treatment of pain are evolving, especially in interventional approaches. Diagnosis of low back pain combines old and new methodologies, in particular, it involves an expanded role for ultrasound. While low back pain is a common complaint, there are many etiologies to the condition which must be explored before a final diagnosis can be made and treatment planned. Tumors and infections are rarely involved in low back pain but should be ruled out in the initial phase itself since failing to address them early can have devastating consequences. Some invasive treatments seem promising in the management of low back pain. Treating musculoskeletal pain with regenerative medicine, such as platelet-rich plasma, holds great promise. Autologous blood products are safe and may help stimulate the body's own responses for regeneration. The so-called "orthobiologics" play a role in sports medicine and the treatment of musculoskeletal pain. Neuromodulation, especially spinal cord stimulation, is undergoing a renaissance with new waveforms, devices, and a greater albeit incomplete understanding of its mechanisms of action. Spinal cord stimulation is not a first-line therapy and not all patients or all back problems respond to this treatment. Nevertheless, the therapy can be safe, effective, and cost-effective with appropriate patient selection. Radiofrequency ablation of nerves in the form of neurotomy can be effective in reducing the pain of osteoarthritis. These procedures, including the newer cooled radiofrequency neurotomy, can restore function, reduce pain, and may potentially have an opioid-sparing effect. Technical expertise in nerve and anatomy is needed for the use of this technique. This review article aims to provide updated information on some invasive intervention techniques in pain management.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To compare ropivacaine, levo-bupivacaine, and racemic bupivacaine for caudal blockade in children. METHODS: Using a prospective observer blinded design, 60 sevoflurane anesthetized children (1 to 7 years) undergoing minor subumbilical surgery, were randomized to receive a caudal block (1 mL/kg) with either ropivacaine 0.2%, racemic bupivacaine 0.25%, or levo-bupivacaine 0.25%. Postoperative analgesia (number of patients needing supplemental analgesia as defined by an objective pain score [OPS] score of > or = 5; time to first analgesic demand) during the first 24 postoperative hours was chosen as the primary end-point. Early postoperative motor block (3-point scale) was assessed as a secondary end-point. RESULTS: All blocks were judged to be clinically successful based on the presence of adequate intraoperative and early postoperative analgesia. An OPS score > or = 5 was found in 5/20 patients in each study group. No difference regarding the time to first analgesic demand was found between the study groups. The use of ropivacaine (P =.02), but not levo-bupivacaine (P =.18), was found to be associated with less motor block during the first postoperative hour compared with racemic bupivacaine. CONCLUSION: All 3 investigated local anesthetics were found to be clinically comparable despite the slight reduction of early postoperative motor block associated with the use of ropivacaine.
