Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 90
Filtrar
1.
Pain Physician ; 24(S1): S27-S208, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33492918

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and  recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations.

2.
Pain Manag ; 2020 Nov 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33183126

RESUMO

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is characterized by pain accompanied by symptoms including skin changes, sensory, motor, trophic changes and autonomic dysfunction. Anticonvulsants and antidepressants are commonly prescribed for neuropathic pain conditions; however, evidence is sparse whether these drugs are effective in reducing CRPS-related pain. As such, Pubmed was searched for studies published from January 1990 through March 2020; 13 studies were included in this review. Overall, evidence is considered insufficient for use of gabapentinoids for CRPS-related pain. However, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) did find gabapentin to result in significant improvement in pain whereas one RCT reported use of amitriptyline to be equally as effective as gabapentin. Multiple case reports discussing the efficacy of pregabalin in pediatric CRPS patients, with relatively short duration of disease and underlying psychiatric illness, have been reported, but these findings need to be validated with RCTs.

3.
Neurotherapeutics ; 2020 Oct 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33128175

RESUMO

Although chemotherapy is a key cancer treatment, many chemotherapeutic drugs produce chronic neuropathic pain, called chemotherapy-induced neuropathic pain (CINP), which is a dose-limiting adverse effect. To date, there is no medicine that prevents CINP in cancer patients and survivors. We determined whether blockers of the canonical Wnt signaling pathway prevent CINP. Neuropathic pain was induced by intraperitoneal injection of paclitaxel (PAC) on four alternate days in male Sprague-Dawley rats or male Axin2-LacZ knock-in mice. XAV-939, LGK-974, and iCRT14, Wnt/ß-catenin blockers, were administered intraperitoneally as a single or multiple doses before or after injury. Mechanical allodynia, phosphoproteome profiling, Wnt ligands, and inflammatory mediators were measured by von Frey filament, phosphoproteomics, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, and Western blot analysis. Localization of ß-catenin was determined by immunohistochemical analysis in the dorsal root ganglia (DRGs) in rats and human. Our phosphoproteome profiling of CINP rats revealed significant phosphorylation changes in Wnt signaling components. Importantly, repeated systemic injections of XAV-939 or LGK-974 prevented the development of CINP in rats. In addition, XAV-939, LGK-974, and iCRT14 ameliorated CINP. PAC increased Wnt3a and Wnt10a, activated ß-catenin in DRG, and increased monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 and interleukin-1ß in DRG. PAC also upregulated rAxin2 in mice. Furthermore, ß-catenin was expressed in neurons, including calcitonin gene-related protein-expressing neurons and satellite cells in rat and human DRG. In conclusion, chemotherapy increases Wnt3a, Wnt10a, and ß-catenin in DRG and their pharmacological blockers prevent and ameliorate CINP, suggesting a target for the prevention and treatment of CINP.

5.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 33(6): 825-831, 2020 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33110020

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The prevalence of cancer pain will continue to rise as pain is common among the survivorship and general cancer population. As interest in cannabis and cannabinoids for medicinal use including pain management continues to rise, there is growing need to update and review the current state of evidence for their use. The literature was searched for articles in English with key words cannabis, cannabinoids, and cancer pain. The sources of articles were PubMed, Embase, and open Google search. RECENT FINDINGS: In a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial including a 3-week treatment period of nabiximol for advanced cancer patients with pain refractory to optimized opiate therapy, improvements in average pain were seen in the intention to treat population (P = 0.0854) and per- protocol population (P = 0.0378). SUMMARY: To date, preclinical data has demonstrated evidence to suggest promising potential for cancer pain and the urgent need to translate this into clinical practice. Unfortunately, due to limited data, for adults with advanced cancer being treated with opiate therapy, the addition of cannabis or cannabinoids is not currently supported to address cancer pain effectively.


Assuntos
Dor do Câncer/tratamento farmacológico , Canabinoides/uso terapêutico , Cannabis , Neoplasias/complicações , Adulto , Analgésicos , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento
6.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S183-204, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942785

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of "elective" interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures.Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. METHODS: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. RESULTS: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included urgent, emergency, and elective procedures. Examples of urgent and emergency procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, emergency procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. LIMITATIONS: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/cirurgia , Infecções por Coronavirus , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Triagem/métodos , Betacoronavirus , Dor Crônica/classificação , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/classificação , Humanos , Estados Unidos
7.
Sci Rep ; 10(1): 13844, 2020 08 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32796949

RESUMO

Growing evidence demonstrates circadian rhythms of pain hypersensitivity in various chronic disorders. In chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), agents such as paclitaxel are known to elicit chronic neuropathic pain in cancer patients and seriously compromise their quality of life. Here, we report that the mechanical threshold for allodynia in paclitaxel-treated rats exhibited a robust circadian oscillation, reaching the nadir during the daytime (inactive phase). Using Per2::LucSV circadian reporter mice expressing a PER2::LUC fusion protein, we isolated dorsal root ganglia (DRG), the primary sensory cell body for peripheral nerve injury generated hypersensitivity, and monitored ex vivo reporter bioluminescence. We observed strong circadian reporter rhythms in DRG neurons which are highly entrainable by external cues. Paclitaxel treatment significantly lengthened DRG circadian periods, with little effects on the amplitude of oscillation. We further observed the core protein BMAL1 and PER2 in DRG neurons and satellite cells. Using DRG and dorsal horn (DH; another key structure for CIPN pain response) tissues from vehicle and paclitaxel treated rats, we performed RNA-sequencing and identified diurnal expression of core clock genes as well as clock-controlled genes in both sites. Interestingly, 20.1% and 30.4% of diurnal differentially expressed genes (DEGs) overlapped with paclitaxel-induced DEGs in the DRG and the DH respectively. In contrast, paclitaxel-induced DEGs displayed only a modest overlap between daytime and nighttime (Zeitgeber Time 8 and 20). Furthermore, paclitaxel treatment induced de novo diurnal DEGs, suggesting reciprocal interaction of circadian rhythms and chemotherapy. Our study therefore demonstrates a circadian oscillation of CIPN and its underlying transcriptomic landscape.

8.
Pain Physician ; 23(3): 283-292, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32517394

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cordotomy is an invasive procedure for the management of intractable pain not controlled by conventional therapies, such as analgesics or nerve block. This procedure involves mechanical disruption of nociceptive pathways in the anterolateral column, specifically the spinothalamic and spinoreticular pathways to relieve pain while preserving fine touch and proprioceptive tracts. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review article is to refresh our knowledge of cordotomy and support its continued use in managing intractable pain due to malignant disease. STUDY DESIGN: This is a review article with the goal of reviewing and summarizing the pertinent case reports, case series, retrospective studies, prospective studies, and review articles published from 2010 onward on spinal cordotomy. SETTING: The University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center. METHODS: PubMed search of keywords "spinal cordotomy," "percutaneous cordotomy," or "open cordotomy" was undertaken. Search results were organized by year of publication. RESULTS: Cordotomy can be performed via percutaneous, open, endoscopic, or transdiscal approach. Percutaneous image-guided approach is the most well-studied and reported technique compared with others, with relatively good pain improvement both in the postoperative and short-term period. The use of open cordotomy has diminished significantly in recent years because of the advent of other less invasive approaches. Cordotomy in children, although rare, has been described in some case reports and case series with reported pain improvement postprocedure. Although complications can vary broadly, some reported side effects include ataxia and paresis due to lesion in the spinocerebellar/corticospinal tract; respiratory failure due to lesion in the reticulospinal tract; or sympathetic dysfunction, bladder dysfunctions, or Horner syndrome due to unintentional lesions in the spinothalamic tract. LIMITATIONS: Review article included literature published only in English. For the studies reviewed, the sample size was relatively small and the patient population was heterogeneous (in terms of underlying disease process, duration of symptoms, previous treatment attempted and length of follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Cordotomy results in selective loss of pain and temperature perception on the contralateral side, up to several segments below the level of the disruption. The plethora of analgesics available and advanced technologies have reduced the demand for cordotomy in the management of intractable pain. However, some patients with pain unresponsive to medical and procedural management, particularly malignant pain, may benefit from this procedure, and it is a viable treatment option especially for patients with a limited life expectancy whose severe, unilateral pain is unresponsive to analgesic medications. KEY WORDS: Cancer pain, cordotomy complications, cordotomy indications, intractable pain, open cordotomy, percutaneous cordotomy.


Assuntos
Dor do Câncer/cirurgia , Cordotomia/métodos , Dor Intratável/cirurgia , Cordotomia/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino
9.
Pain Physician ; 23(3S): S1-S127, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32503359

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.Summary of Evidence and Recommendations:Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) .Interventional Diagnosis:Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥80% pain relief.Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, 9 of the 10 studies with either controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo controls with concordant pain relief with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence and false-positive rates ranged from 29% to 60% and of 27% to 63%, with high variability. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Three relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with concordant pain relief, with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence varied from 34% to 48%, whereas false-positive rates varied from 42% to 58%.Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for lumbar radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of 11 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 negative studies and 4 studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is IV with weak strength of recommendation for lumbar facet joint intraarticular injections with inclusion of 9 relevant randomized controlled trials, with majority of them showing lack of effectiveness without the use of local anesthetic. Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for cervical radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with positive results and 2 observational studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic cervical facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for cervical intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with 2 observational studies, the majority showing lack of effectiveness, whereas one study with 6-month follow-up, showed lack of long-term improvement. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation with emerging evidence for thoracic radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 2 randomized controlled trials and one observational study with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with 6 month follow-up, with emerging evidence. Antithrombotic Therapy: • Facet joint interventions are considered as moderate to low risk procedures; consequently, antithrombotic therapy may be continued based on overall general status. Sedation: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation to avoid opioid analgesics during the diagnosis with interventional techniques. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation that moderate sedation may be utilized for patient comfort and to control anxiety for therapeutic facet joint interventions. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These facet joint intervention guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis.


Assuntos
Dor nas Costas/terapia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Articulação Zigapofisária , Humanos , Estados Unidos
10.
Pain physician ; 23(3S): S1-S127, May 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | BIGG - guias GRADE | ID: biblio-1129928

RESUMO

Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Bloqueio Nervoso Autônomo , Dor nas Costas/terapia , Denervação/métodos , Dor Crônica/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Terapia por Radiofrequência , Avaliação de Resultado de Intervenções Terapêuticas , Injeções Intra-Articulares
11.
Korean J Pain ; 33(2): 108-120, 2020 Apr 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32235011

RESUMO

From the perspective of the definition of pain, pain can be divided into emotional and sensory components, which originate from potential and actual tissue damage, respectively. The pharmacologic treatment of the emotional pain component includes antianxiety drugs, antidepressants, and antipsychotics. The anti-anxiety drugs have anti-anxious, sedative, and somnolent effects. The antipsychotics are effective in patients with positive symptoms of psychosis. On the other hand, the sensory pain component can be divided into nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are usually applied for somatic and visceral nociceptive pain, respectively; anticonvulsants and antidepressants are administered for the treatment of neuropathic pain with positive and negative symptoms, respectively. The NSAIDs, which inhibit the cyclo-oxygenase pathway, exhibit anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, and analgesic effects; however, they have a therapeutic ceiling. The adverse reactions (ADRs) of the NSAIDs include gastrointestinal problems, generalized edema, and increased bleeding tendency. The opioids, which bind to the opioid receptors, present an analgesic effect only, without anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, or ceiling effects. The ADRs of the opioids start from itching and nausea/vomiting to cardiovascular and respiratory depression, as well as constipation. The anticonvulsants include carbamazepine, related to sodium channel blockade, and gabapentin and pregabalin, related to calcium blockade. The antidepressants show their analgesic actions mainly through inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin or norepinephrine. Most drugs, except NSAIDs, need an updose titration period. The principle of polypharmacy for analgesia in case of mixed components of pain is increasing therapeutic effects while reducing ADRs, based on the origin of the pain.

13.
Neurosurgery ; 87(2): 394-402, 2020 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32012217

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain, one of the most common symptoms for patients with advanced cancer, is often refractory to maximal medical therapy. A controlled clinical trial is needed to provide definitive evidence to support the use of ablative procedures such as cordotomy for patients with medically refractory cancer pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of cordotomy for patients with unilateral advanced cancer pain using a controlled clinical trial study design. The secondary objectives are to define the patient experience of cordotomy for medically refractory cancer pain as well as to determine the utility of magnetic resonance imaging as a non-invasive biomarker for successful cordotomy. METHODS: We will undertake a single-institution, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial of cordotomy in patients with refractory cancer pain. Patients in the cordotomy arm will undergo a percutaneous computed tomography-guided cordotomy at C1-C2, while patients in the control arm will undergo a similar procedure where the needle will not penetrate the thecal sac. The primary endpoint will be the reduction in pain intensity, as measured by the Edmonton Symptoms Assessment Scale. EXPECTED OUTCOMES: We expect that patients randomized to cordotomy will have a significantly greater reduction in pain intensity than those patients randomized to the control surgical intervention. DISCUSSION: This randomized clinical trial comparing cordotomy with a control intervention will provide the level of evidence necessary to determine whether cordotomy should be the standard of care intervention for patients with advanced cancer pain.

14.
Korean J Pain ; 32(4): 245-255, 2019 Oct 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31569916

RESUMO

Stem cells are attracting attention as a key element in future medicine, satisfying the desire to live a healthier life with the possibility that they can regenerate tissue damaged or degenerated by disease or aging. Stem cells are defined as undifferentiated cells that have the ability to replicate and differentiate themselves into various tissues cells. Stem cells, commonly encountered in clinical or preclinical stages, are largely classified into embryonic, adult, and induced pluripotent stem cells. Recently, stem cell transplantation has been frequently applied to the treatment of pain as an alternative or promising approach for the treatment of severe osteoarthritis, neuropathic pain, and intractable musculoskeletal pain which do not respond to conventional medicine. The main idea of applying stem cells to neuropathic pain is based on the ability of stem cells to release neurotrophic factors, along with providing a cellular source for replacing the injured neural cells, making them ideal candidates for modulating and possibly reversing intractable neuropathic pain. Even though various differentiation capacities of stem cells are reported, there is not enough knowledge and technique to control the differentiation into desired tissues in vivo. Even though the use of stem cells is still in the very early stages of clinical use and raises complicated ethical problems, the future of stem cells therapies is very bright with the help of accumulating evidence and technology.

15.
J Clin Neurosci ; 70: 140-145, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31421990

RESUMO

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been shown to be effective for reducing pain, and a growing body of literature shows the potential analgesic effects of mindfulness-based meditation (MBM). However, few studies have investigated the potential benefits associated with combining tDCS and MBM in older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of home-based tDCS paired with MBM in older adults with knee OA. Thirty participants 50-85 years old with symptomatic knee OA were randomly assigned to receive 10 daily sessions of home-based 2 mA tDCS paired with active MBM for 20 min (n = 15) or sham tDCS paired with sham MBM (n = 15). We measured clinical pain and OA symptoms via a Numeric Rating Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Pressure pain sensitivity and conditioned pain modulation were measured using quantitative sensory testing. Participant satisfaction and side effects were assessed via a questionnaire. Active tDCS paired with active MBM significantly reduced scores on the Numeric Rating Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and increased pressure pain thresholds and conditioned pain modulation. Participants tolerated tDCS paired with MBM well without serious adverse effects and were satisfied with the treatment. Our findings demonstrate promising clinical efficacy of home-based tDCS paired with MBM for older adults with knee OA.


Assuntos
Meditação/métodos , Atenção Plena/métodos , Osteoartrite do Joelho/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Estimulação Transcraniana por Corrente Contínua/métodos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Osteoartrite do Joelho/complicações , Dor/etiologia , Projetos Piloto , Resultado do Tratamento
16.
J Clin Neurosci ; 66: 61-65, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31153751

RESUMO

Clinic-based transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a noninvasive brain stimulation technique that has been shown to improve pain. However, no published studies have reported using home-based self-administered tDCS in older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The present study aimed to evaluate the preliminary efficacy and feasibility of home-based self-administered tDCS with real-time remote supervision on clinical pain, anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances in older adults with knee OA. Twenty 50- to 85-year-old community-dwelling participants with knee OA received 10 daily home-based sessions of 2 mA tDCS for 20 min with real-time remote supervision. We measured clinical pain severity via the Visual Analog Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. We assessed anxiety, depression, and sleep disturbances using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) anxiety-short form, depression-short form, and sleep disturbance-short form, respectively. All 20 participants completed all 10 home-based tDCS sessions without serious adverse effects. Both clinical pain severity and sleep disturbances were improved after completion of the 10 tDCS sessions. Anxiety and depression scores were not significantly improved. We demonstrated that home-based self-administered tDCS with real-time remote supervision was feasible and beneficial in alleviating clinical pain in older adults with knee OA. These findings support future studies with larger samples and longer-term follow-up evaluations.


Assuntos
Osteoartrite do Joelho/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Autoadministração/métodos , Estimulação Transcraniana por Corrente Contínua/métodos , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Manejo da Dor/efeitos adversos , Autoadministração/efeitos adversos , Estimulação Transcraniana por Corrente Contínua/efeitos adversos
17.
Mol Neurobiol ; 56(11): 7408-7419, 2019 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31037647

RESUMO

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) adversely impacts quality of life and a challenge to treat with existing drugs used for neuropathic pain. Losartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) antagonist widely used to treat hypertension, has been reported to have analgesic effects in several pain models. In this study, we assessed losartan's analgesic effect on paclitaxel-induced neuropathic pain (PINP) in rats and its mechanism of action in dorsal root ganglion (DRG). Rats received intraperitoneal injections of 2 mg/kg paclitaxel on days 0, 2, 4, and 6 and received single or multiple intraperitoneal injections of losartan potassium dissolved in phosphate-buffered saline at various times. The mechanical thresholds, protein levels of inflammatory cytokines, and cellular location of AT1R and interleukin 1ß (IL-1ß) in the DRG were assessed with behavioral testing, Western blotting, and immunohistochemistry, respectively. Data were analyzed by two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance for the behavioral test or the Mann-Whitney U test for the Western blot analysis and immunohistochemistry. Single and multiple injections of losartan ameliorated PINP, and losartan delayed the development of PINP. Paclitaxel significantly increased, and losartan subsequently decreased, the expression levels of inflammatory cytokines, including IL-1ß and tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), in the lumbar DRG. AT1R and IL-1ß were expressed in both neurons and satellite cells and losartan decreased the intensity of IL-1ß in the DRG. Losartan ameliorates PINP by decreasing inflammatory cytokines including IL-1ß and TNF-α in the DRG. Our findings provide a new or add-on therapy for CIPN patients.


Assuntos
Bloqueadores do Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/uso terapêutico , Citocinas/metabolismo , Gânglios Espinais/metabolismo , Hiperalgesia/tratamento farmacológico , Mediadores da Inflamação/metabolismo , Losartan/uso terapêutico , Neuralgia/induzido quimicamente , Neuralgia/tratamento farmacológico , Bloqueadores do Receptor Tipo 1 de Angiotensina II/farmacologia , Animais , Modelos Animais de Doenças , Gânglios Espinais/efeitos dos fármacos , Proteína Glial Fibrilar Ácida/metabolismo , Hiperalgesia/complicações , Hiperalgesia/patologia , Hipnóticos e Sedativos/farmacologia , Hipnóticos e Sedativos/uso terapêutico , Losartan/farmacologia , Masculino , NF-kappa B/metabolismo , Neuralgia/complicações , Neurônios/efeitos dos fármacos , Neurônios/metabolismo , Paclitaxel/efeitos adversos , Fosforilação/efeitos dos fármacos , Ratos Sprague-Dawley
18.
Pain Physician ; 22(1S): S75-S128, 2019 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30717501

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Interventional pain management involves diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain. This specialty utilizes minimally invasive procedures to target therapeutics to the central nervous system and the spinal column. A subset of patients encountered in interventional pain are medicated using anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs to mitigate thrombosis risk. Since these drugs target the clotting system, bleeding risk is a consideration accompanying interventional procedures. Importantly, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs exposes underlying thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. This review summarizes the literature and provides guidelines based on best evidence for patients receiving anti-clotting therapy during interventional pain procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding an assessment of the bleeding risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antithrombotic medications. METHODS: A review of the available literature published on bleeding risk during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy was conducted. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of EMBASE and PubMed from 1966 through August 2018 and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: 1. There is good evidence for risk stratification by categorizing multiple interventional techniques into low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk. Also, their risk should be upgraded based on other risk factors.2. There is good evidence for the risk of thromboembolic events in patients who interrupt antithrombotic therapy. 3. There is good evidence supporting discontinuation of low dose aspirin for high risk and moderate risk procedures for at least 3 days, and there is moderate evidence that these may be continued for low risk or some intermediate risk procedures.4. There is good evidence that discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, heparin, dabigatran (Pradaxa®), argatroban (Acova®), bivalirudin (Angiomax®), lepirudin (Refludan®), desirudin (Iprivask®), hirudin, apixaban (Eliquis®), rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), edoxaban (Savaysa®, Lixiana®), Betrixaban(Bevyxxa®), fondaparinux (Arixtra®) prior to interventional techniques with individual consideration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs and individual risk factors increases safety.5. There is good evidence that diagnosis of epidural hematoma is based on severe pain at the site of the injection, rapid neurological deterioration, and MRI with surgical decompression with progressive neurological dysfunction to avoid neurological sequelae.6. There is good evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high, low molecular weight heparin bridge therapy can be instituted during cessation of the anticoagulant, and the low molecular weight heparin can be discontinued 24 hours before the pain procedure.7. There is fair evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events is higher than that of epidural hematoma formation with the interruption of antiplatelet therapy preceding interventional techniques, though both risks are significant.8. There is fair evidence that multiple variables including anatomic pathology with spinal stenosis and ankylosing spondylitis; high risk procedures and moderate risk procedures combined with anatomic risk factors; bleeding observed during the procedure, and multiple attempts during the procedures increase the risk for bleeding complications and epidural hematoma.9. There is fair evidence that discontinuation of phosphodiesterase inhibitors is optional (dipyridamole [Persantine], cilostazol [Pletal]. However, there is also fair evidence to discontinue Aggrenox [dipyridamole plus aspirin]) 3 days prior to undergoing interventional techniques of moderate and high risk. 10. There is fair evidence to make shared decision making between the patient and the treating physicians with the treating physician and to consider all the appropriate risks associated with continuation or discontinuation of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy.11. There is fair evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high antithrombotic therapy may be resumed 12 hours after the interventional procedure is performed.12. There is limited evidence that discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel [Plavix®], ticlopidine [Ticlid®], Ticagrelor [Brilinta®] and prasugrel [Effient®]) avoids complications of significant bleeding and epidural hematomas.13. There is very limited evidence supporting the continuation or discontinuation of most NSAIDs, excluding aspirin, for 1 to 2 days and some 4 to 10 days, since these are utilized for pain management without cardiac or cerebral protective effect. LIMITATIONS: The continued paucity of the literature with discordant recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the survey of current literature, and published clinical guidelines, recommendations for patients presenting with ongoing antithrombotic therapy prior to interventional techniques are variable, and are based on comprehensive analysis of each patient and the risk-benefit analysis of intervention. KEY WORDS: Perioperative bleeding, bleeding risk, practice patterns, anticoagulant therapy, antithrombotic therapy, interventional techniques, safety precautions, pain.


Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/administração & dosagem , Fibrinolíticos/administração & dosagem , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Manejo da Dor/normas , Dor Crônica , Hemorragia/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos
19.
Korean J Pain ; 32(1): 3-11, 2019 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30671198

RESUMO

Going back to basics prior to mentioning the use of antipsychotics in patients with pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) definition of pain can be summarized as an unpleasant experience, composed of sensory experience caused by actual tissue damage and/or emotional experience caused by potential tissue damage. Less used than antidepressants, antipsychotics have also been used for treating this unpleasant experience as adjuvant analgesics without sufficient evidence from research. Because recently developed atypical antipsychotics reduce the adverse reactions of extrapyramidal symptoms, such as acute dystonia, pseudo-parkinsonism, akathisia, and tardive dyskinesia caused by typical antipsychotics, they are expected to be used more frequently in various painful conditions, while increasing the risk of metabolic syndromes (weight gain, diabetes, and dyslipidemia). Various antipsychotics have different neurotransmitter receptor affinities for dopamine (D), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT), adrenergic (α), histamine (H), and muscarinic (M) receptors. Atypical antipsychotics antagonize transient, weak D2 receptor bindings with strong binding to the 5-HT2A receptor, while typical antipsychotics block long-lasting, tight D2 receptor binding. On the contrary, antidepressants in the field of pain management also block the reuptake of similar receptors, mainly on the 5-HT and, next, on the norepinephrine, but rarely on the D receptors. Antipsychotics have been used for treating positive symptoms, such as delusion, hallucination, disorganized thought and behavior, perception disturbance, and inappropriate emotion, rather than the negative, cognitive, and affective symptoms of psychosis. Therefore, an antipsychotic may be prescribed in pain patients with positive symptoms of psychosis during or after controlling all sensory components.

20.
Korean J Pain ; 32(1): 47-50, 2019 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30671203

RESUMO

Background: It is uncommon for patients who have received a permanent implant to remove the spinal cord stimulator (SCS) after discontinuation of medication in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) due to their completely painless state. This study evaluated CRPS patients who successfully removed their SCSs. Methods: This 10-year retrospective study was performed on patients who had received the permanent implantation of an SCS and had removed it 6 months after discontinuation of stimulation, while halting all medications for neuropathic pain. Age, sex, duration of implantation, site and type of CRPS, and their return to work were compared between the removal and non-removal groups. Results: Five (12.5%, M/F = 4/1) of 40 patients (M/F = 33/7) successfully removed the permanent implant. The mean age was younger in the removal group (27.2 ± 6.4 vs. 43.5 ± 10.7 years, P < 0.01). The mean duration of implantation in the removal group was 34.4 ± 18.2 months. Two of 15 patients (13.3%) and 3 of 25 patients (12%) who had upper and lower extremity pain, respectively, had removed the implant. The implants could be removed in 5 of 27 patients (18.5%) with CRPS type 1 (P < 0.01). All 5 patients (100%) who removed their SCS returned to work, while only 5 of 35 (14.3%) in the non-removal group did (P < 0.01). Conclusions: Even though this study had limited data, younger patients with CRPS type 1 could remove their SCSs within a 5-year period and return to work with complete pain relief.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...