Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 495
Filtrar
1.
Curr Pain Headache Rep ; 25(3): 13, 2021 Feb 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33630172

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This is a comprehensive review of the superior hypogastric block for the management of chronic pelvic pain. It reviews the background, including etiology, epidemiology, and current treatment available for chronic pelvic pain. It then presents the superior hypogastric block and reviews the seminal and most recent evidence about its use in chronic pelvic pain. RECENT FINDINGS: Several definitions exist for chronic pelvic pain (CPP), making the diagnosis more challenging for the clinician; however, they commonly describe continuous pain lasting 6 months in the pelvis, with an overwhelming majority of patients being reproductive-aged women. This pain is often one of mechanical, inflammatory, or neuropathic. It is generally underdiagnosed and affects anywhere between 5 and 26% of women. The diagnosis of chronic pelvic pain is clinical, consisting of mainly of a thorough history and physical and ruling out other causes. The pathophysiology is often endometriosis (70%) and also includes PID, adhesions, adenomyosis, uterine fibroids, chronic processes of the GI and urinary tracts, as well as pelvic-intrinsic musculoskeletal causes. Treatment includes physical therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and oral and parenteral opioids. Interventional techniques provide an added tier of treatment and may help to reduce the requirement for chronic opioid use. Superior hypogastric plexus block is one of the available interventional techniques; first described in 1990, it has been shown to provide long-lasting relief in 50-70% of patients who underwent the procedure. Two approaches described so far, both under fluoroscopy, have seen similar results. More recently, ultrasound and CT-guided procedures have also been described with similar success. The injectate includes local anesthetic, steroids, and neurolytic agents such as phenol or ethanol. CPP is a common debilitating condition. It is diagnosed clinically and is underdiagnosed globally. Current treatments can be helpful at times but may fall short of satisfactory pain relief. Interventional techniques provide an added layer of treatment as well as reduce the requirement for opioids. Superior hypogastric plexus block provides long-lasting relief in many patients, regardless of approach. Evidence level is limited, and further RCTs could help provide better tools for evaluation and patient selection.

2.
Pain Physician ; 24(S1): S1-S26, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33492917

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The re-engineered definition of clinical guidelines in 2011 from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) states, "clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options." The revised definition distinguishes between the term "clinical practice guideline" and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess the literature and develop methodology for evidence synthesis and development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including methodology of guideline development encompassing GRADE approach for guidance on evidence synthesis with recommendations. RESULTS: Some of the many factors described in 2011 continue as of 2020 and impede the development of clinical practice guidelines. These impediments include biases due to a variety of conflicts and confluence of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with the elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Thus, ideally, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts with true lack of bias and confluence of interest must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence. This manuscript describes evidence synthesis from observational studies, various types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and, finally, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews. The manuscript also describes various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of publications with appropriate evidence synthesis methodology in reference to interventional techniques. CONCLUSION: This review described comprehensive evidence synthesis derived from systematic reviews, including methodologic quality and bias measurement. The manuscript described various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews, RCTs, diagnostic accuracy studies, and observational studies.

3.
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.

4.
Pain Physician ; 24(1): 1-15, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33400424

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite epidurals being one of the most common interventional pain procedures for managing chronic spinal pain in the United States, expenditure analysis lacks assessment in correlation with utilization patterns. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess expenditures for epidural procedures in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was described as receiving epidural procedures throughout the year.• A visit was considered to include all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one treatment per region utilizing primary codes only.• Services or procedures were considered as all procedures including bilateral and multiple levels. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: Total expenditures were $723,981,594 in 2009, whereas expenditures of 2018 were $829,987,636, with an overall 14.6% increase, or an annual increase of 1.5%. However, the inflation-adjusted rate was $847,058,465 in 2009, compared to $829,987,636 in 2018, a reduction overall of 2% and an annual reduction of 0.2%. Inflation-adjusted per patient annual costs decreased from $988.93 in 2009 to $819.27 in 2018 with a decrease of 17.2% or an annual decline of 2.1%. In addition, inflation-adjusted costs per procedure decreased from $399.77 to $377.94, or 5.5% overall and 0.6% annually. Per procedure, episode, visit, and patient expenses were higher for transforaminal epidural procedures than lumbar interlaminar/caudal epidural procedures. Overall, costs of transforaminal epidurals increased 27.6% or 2.7% annually, whereas lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections cost were reduced 2.7%, or 0.3% annually. Inflation-adjusted costs for transforaminal epidurals increased 9.1% or 1.0% annually and declined 16.9 or 2.0% annually for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Expenditures for epidural procedures in chronic spinal pain were assessed only in the FFS Medicare population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for inflation, there was a decrease of expenditures for epidural procedures of 2%, or 0.2% annually, from 2009 to 2018. However, prior to inflation, the increases were noted at 14.6% and 1.5%. Inflation-adjusted costs per patient, per visit, and per procedure also declined. The proportion of Medicare patients per 100,000 receiving epidural procedures decreased 9.1%, or 1.1% annually. However, assessment of individual procedures showed higher costs for transforaminal epidural procedures compared to lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural procedures.

5.
Pain Physician ; 24(1): 17-29, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33400425

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is a minimally invasive therapeutic modality used in the treatment of patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain, often recalcitrant to other modalities including epidural injections and surgical interventions. While the initial utilization since its introduction and development of appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes increased up until 2008, but since 2009, there has been a significant decline in utilization of these procedures in the Medicare population. These procedures declined by 53.2% at an annual rate of 10.3% from 2009 to 2016. A recent update analysis on the reversal and decline of growth of utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 revealed an even further decline of adhesiolysis procedures. STUDY DESIGN: An analysis of the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2018, with comparative analysis from 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back pain in the Medicare population. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master of Fee-For-Service (FFS) Data from 2000 to 2018 was used.In this analysis, various variables were assessed in reference to usage patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures with analysis of growth or declining utilization patterns. We also assessed specialty-based utilization, as well as statewide utilization. RESULTS: The decline of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures began in 2009 and has continued since then. From 2009 to 2018, the overall decline was 69.2%, with an annual decline of 12.3% compared to an overall 62.6% increase from 2000 to 2009, with an annual increase of 5.6%. Compared to multiple other interventions, including epidural injections and facet joint interventions, percutaneous adhesiolysis has declined at a rapid rate. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment in the FFS Medicare population in the United States shows an irreversible decline of utilization of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures, which has been gradually deteriorating with a 69.2% decline from 2009 to 2018 with an annual decline of 12.3% during that same time period.

6.
Pain Physician ; 24(1): 41-59, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33400427

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections have been extensively used since their description in 1901, and steroids since their first utilization in 1952. Multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have reached discordant conclusions regarding the effectiveness of sodium chloride solution and steroids in managing spinal pain. True placebo-controlled trials with the injection of an inactive substance to unrelated structures have been nonexistent. Consequently, the discussions continue to escalate, seemingly without proper discourse. In this review, we sought to assess the true placebo nature of saline and the effectiveness of steroids. OBJECTIVES: This assessment of sodium chloride solution is undertaken to assess if it is a true placebo when injected into the epidural space, is effective alone, and whether steroids are effective when injected with sodium chloride solution rather than local anesthetic in managing spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials utilizing sodium chloride solution alone, steroids alone, or sodium chloride solution with steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation or spinal stenosis. METHODS: The systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Cochrane review criteria and Interventional Pain Management techniques--Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) was used to assess the methodological quality assessment. Qualitative analysis was performed by utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis was performed utilizing meta-analysis with conventional methodology and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2018. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome measures for the present analysis, 20% improvement from the baseline pain scores or disability scores was considered clinically significant. Effectiveness was determined short-term if it was less than 6 months, whereas longer than 6 months was considered to be long-term. RESULTS: Of the 8 trials meeting inclusion criteria, 2 trials utilized fluoroscopic imaging and one study utilized ultrasound. All other studies performed the procedure without fluoroscopy. With dual-arm meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between epidural sodium chloride solution and epidural steroids with sodium chloride solution. Utilizing single-arm analysis, both epidural saline and epidural steroids with saline were effective in reducing 20% of pain, however, only reducing disability scores by 10% to 12%. Based on the qualitative analysis, epidural saline and epidural steroids with saline showed effect beyond placebo and showed level I, or strong evidence, that neither epidural saline, nor epidural steroids with saline are placebo and that both are effective. LIMITATIONS: Despite 8 randomized controlled trials, only 2 of them utilized fluoroscopy. Overall evidence is considered less than optimal and further studies elucidating these actions are strongly recommended. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that epidurally administered sodium chloride solution and sodium chloride solution with steroids may be effective in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Consequently, the findings of this review provide information that epidurally administered sodium chloride solution is not a true placebo.

7.
Pain Physician ; 23(6): 531-540, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33185369

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Research into cervical spinal pain syndromes has indicated that the cervical facet joints can be a potent source of neck pain, headache, and referred pain into the upper extremities. There have been multiple diagnostic accuracy studies, most commonly utilizing diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks and an acute pain model, as Bogduk has proposed. Subsequently, Manchikanti has focused on the importance of the chronic pain model and longer lasting relief with diagnostic blocks. OBJECTIVE: To assess diagnostic accuracy of cervical facet joint nerve blocks with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with updated assessment of prevalence, false-positive rate, and a description of philosophical paradigm shift from acute to chronic pain model, with concordant pain relief. STUDY DESIGN: This diagnostic accuracy study was performed with retrospective assessment of data to assess prevalence and false-positive rates. SETTING: The study was performed in a non-university-based, multidisciplinary, interventional pain management, private practice in the United States. METHODS: Cervical medial branch blocks were performed utilizing lidocaine 1% followed by bupivacaine 0.25% when appropriate response was obtained in an operating room under fluoroscopic guidance with 0.5 mL of lidocaine or bupivacaine from C3-C6 medial branches (levels blocked on joints involved). If a patient failed to respond to lidocaine with appropriate >= 80% pain relief, that patient was considered as negative for facet joint pain. If the response was positive with lidocaine block, a bupivacaine block was performed. RESULTS: The chronic cervical facet joint pain was diagnosed with cervical facet joint nerve blocks at a prevalence of 49.3% (95% CI, 43.6%, 55.0%) and with a false-positive rate of 25.6% (95% CI, 19.5%, 32.8%). This study also showed a single block prevalence rate of 66.3% (95% CI, 71.7%, 60.9%). Assessment of the duration of relief with each block showed greater than 80% for 6 days with lidocaine block and total relief of >= 50% of 31 days. In contrast, with bupivacaine, average duration of pain relief of >= 80% was 12 days with a total relief of >= 50% lasting for 55 days. CONCLUSION: Based on this investigation, utilizing a chronic pain model, there was significant difference in the relief patterns. This assessment showed prevalence and false-positive rates of 49.3% and 25.6% in chronic neck pain. Duration of relief >= 80% pain relief was 6 days with lidocaine and 12 days with bupivacaine, with total relief of >= 50% of 31 days with 55 days respectively.

8.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol ; 34(3): 355-368, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33004153

RESUMO

Reclassification of chronic pain as a disease may be helpful because patients with chronic pain require significant treatment and rehabilitation with a clear diagnosis. This can help address critical factors including suffering, quality of life, participation, and with family and social life, which continue to become more important in evaluating the quality of the health care we give our patients today. During the past decade of the opioid epidemic, methadone was the primary treatment for opioid addiction until buprenorphine was approved. Buprenorphine's high-affinity partial agonist properties make it a good alternative to methadone due to lower abuse potential and safer adverse effect profile while maintaining significant efficacy. Expanded out-patient prescribing options have allowed physician and physician extenders such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners to treat these patients that otherwise would have been required to utilize methadone. With unique pharmacological properties, buprenorphine is a safe and effective analgesic for chronic pain. The literature for buprenorphine shows great potential for its utilization in the treatment of chronic pain.

9.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol ; 34(3): 493-506, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33004161

RESUMO

Chronic pain syndromes cost the US healthcare system over $600 billion per year. A subtype of chronic pain is neuropathic pain (NP), which is defined as "pain caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory system," according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). The pathophysiology of neuropathic pain is very complex, and more research needs to be done to find the exact mechanism. Patients that have preexisting conditions such as cancer and diabetes are at high-risk of developing NP. Many NP patients are misdiagnosed and receive delayed treatment due to a lack of a standardized classification system that allows clinicians to identify, understand, and utilize pain management in these patients. Medications like tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake Inhibitor (SNRIs), and gabapentinoids are first-line treatments followed by opioids, cannabinoids, and other drugs. There are limited studies on the treatment of NP.

10.
Curr Pain Headache Rep ; 24(11): 70, 2020 Sep 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32997170

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the present systematic review is to provide a current understanding of the mechanism of action and the evidence available to support clinical decision-making. The focus is to summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized or observational studies of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain to understand clinical effectiveness and the mechanism of action. RECENT FINDINGS: Several recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain. Until recently, the mechanism of action was founded on a central paradigm derived from gate control theory, which is the need to stimulate the dorsal column of the spinal cord to generate paresthesia. The recent development of new therapies that do not rely on paresthesia has left the field without a clear mechanism of action that could serve as a strong foundation to further improve clinical outcomes. Consequently, multiple theories have emerged to explain how electrical pulse applied to the spinal cord could alleviate pain, including activation of specific supraspinal pathways, and segmental modulation of the neurological interaction. Recent systematic reviews also have shown the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic spinal pain, phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and other chronic painful conditions. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is rapidly evolving with technology at its forefront. This comprehensive focused review evaluated 11 RCTs and 7 nonrandomized/observational studies which provided levels of evidence ranging from I to II.

11.
Pain Physician ; 23(5): 439-450, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32967386

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates of sacroiliac joint pain range from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. Over the years, utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections have been increasing in comparison to other interventional techniques. Further, the development of new current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and coverage policies for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy, and evolving evidence for sacroiliac joint fusion will further increase the utilization patterns. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018 with comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis. RESULTS: The results of the evaluation from 2009 to 2018 showed an increase of 11.3% and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population. However, from 2000 to 2009, an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 16.6% per 100,000 Medicare population. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study included a lack of data on the new sacroiliac joint nerve block and radiofrequency neurotomy codes. Further, this data did not include utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint fusions. In addition, Medicare Advantage patients were not included, which constitute approximately 30% of overall Medicare population. Further, there is also a possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows increases in utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections; however, at a significantly lower rate with an annual increase of 16.6% prior to 2009 and only 1.2% from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

12.
Pain Physician ; 23(5): 519-530, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32967394

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Lumbar facet joints are a clinically important source of chronic low back pain. There have been extensive diagnostic accuracy studies, along with studies of influence on the diagnostic process, but most of them have utilized the acute pain model. One group of investigators have emphasized the importance of the chronic pain model and longer lasting relief with diagnostic blocks. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks and concordant pain relief with an updated assessment of the prevalence, false-positive rates, and a description of a philosophical paradigm shift from an acute to a chronic pain model. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study to determine diagnostic accuracy, prevalence and false-positive rates. SETTING: A multidisciplinary, non-university based interventional pain management practice in the United States. METHODS: Controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks were performed initially with 1% lidocaine, followed by 0.25% bupivacaine if appropriate response was obtained, in an operating room under fluoroscopic guidance utilizing 0.5 mL of lidocaine or bupivacaine at L3, L4 medial branches and L5 dorsal ramus. All patients non-responsive to lidocaine blocks were considered to be negative for facet joint pain. All patients were assessed after the diagnostic blocks were performed with >= 80% pain relief for their ability to perform previously painful movements. RESULTS: The prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in chronic low back pain was 34.1% (95% CI, 28.8%, 39.8%), with a false-positive rate of 49.8% (95% CI, 42.7%, 56.8%). This study also showed a single block prevalence rate of 67.9% (95% CI, 62.9%, 73.2%). Average duration of pain relief >= 80% was 6 days with lidocaine block and total relief of >= 50% of 32 days. With bupivacaine, the average duration of pain relief >= 80% was 13 days with total relief of >= 50% lasting for 55 days. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the chronic pain model is more accurate and reliable with concordant pain relief. This updated assessment also showed prevalence and false-positive rates of 34.1% and 49.8%.

14.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S161-S182, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942784

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain patients require continuity of care even during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has drastically changed healthcare and other societal practices. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-ASIPP Risk Mitigation & Stratification (COVID-ARMS) Return to Practice Task Force in order to provide guidance for safe and strategic reopening. OBJECTIVES: The aims are to provide education and guidance for interventional pain specialists and their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic that minimizes COVID-related morbidity while allowing a return to interventional pain care. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various regions, specialities, 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 were reviewed. The principles of best evidence synthesis of available literature and grading for recommendations as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) typically utilized in ASIPP guideline preparation was not utilized in these guidelines due to limitations because of their lack of available literature on COVID-19, risk mitigation and stratification. These guidelines are considered evidence -- informed with incorporation of best available research and practice knowledge. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with incorporation of best available research and practice knowledge. RESULTS: Numerous risk factors have emerged that predispose patients to contracting COVID-19 and/or having a more severe course of the infection. COVID-19 may have mild symptoms, even be asymptomatic, or may be severe and life threatening. Older age and certain comorbidities, such as underlying pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, have been associated with worse outcomes. In pain care, COVID-19 patients are a heterogeneous group with some individuals relatively healthy and having only a short course of manageable symptoms while others become critically ill. It is necessary to assess patients on a case-by-case basis and craft individualized care recommendations. A COVID-ARMS risk stratification tool was created to quickly and objectively assess patients. Interventional pain specialists and their patients may derive important benefits from evidence-informed risk stratification, protective strategies to prevent infection, and the gradual resumption of treatments and procedures to manage pain. LIMITATIONS: COVID-19 was an ongoing pandemic at the time during which these recommendations were developed. The pandemic has created a fluid situation in terms of evidence-informed guidance. As more and better evidence is gathered, these recommendations may be modified. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain patients require continuity of care but during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, steps must be taken to stratify risks and protect patients from possible infection to safeguard them from COVID-19-related illness and transmitting the disease to others. Pain specialists should optimize telemedicine encounters with their pain patients, be cognizant of risks of COVID-19 morbidity, and take steps to evaluate risk-benefit on a case-by-case basis. Pain specialists may return to practice with lower-risk patients and appropriate safeguards.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/terapia , Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente , Infecções por Coronavirus , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Idoso , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
15.
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
16.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S239-S270, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942786

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome). METHODS: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. OUTCOME MEASURES: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term. RESULTS: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins. LIMITATIONS: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended. CONCLUSION: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/administração & dosagem , Lidocaína/administração & dosagem , Dor Lombar/tratamento farmacológico , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Corticosteroides/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Anti-Inflamatórios/administração & dosagem , Anti-Inflamatórios/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
17.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S271-S282, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942787

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Burnout has been a commonly discussed issue for the past ten years among physicians and other health care workers. A survey of interventional pain physicians published in 2016 reported high levels of emotional exhaustion, often considered the most taxing aspect of burnout. Job dissatisfaction appeared to be the leading agent in the development of burnout in pain medicine physicians in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected the entire health care workforce and interventional pain management, with other surgical specialties, has been affected significantly. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed several physical and emotional stressors on interventional pain management physicians and this may lead to increased physician burnout. OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of burnout specific to COVID-19 pandemic among practicing interventional pain physicians. METHODS: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) administered a 32 question survey to their members by contacting them via commercially available online marketing company platform. The survey was completed on www.constantcontact.com. RESULTS: Of 179 surveys sent, 100 responses were obtained. The data from the survey demonstrated that 98% of physician practices were affected by COVID and 91% of physicians felt it had a significant financial impact. Sixty seven percent of the physicians responded that in-house billing was responsible for their increased level of burnout, whereas 73% responded that electronic medical records (EMRs) were one of the causes. Overall, 78% were very concerned. Almost all respondents have been affected with a reduction in interventional procedures. 60% had a negative opinion about the future of their practice, whereas 66% were negative about the entire health care industry. LIMITATIONS: The survey included only a small number of member physicians. Consequently, it may not be generalized for other specialties or even pain medicine. However, it does represent the sentiment and present status of interventional pain management. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has put interventional pain practices throughout the United States under considerable financial and psychological stress. It is essential to quantify the extent of economic loss, offer strategies to actively manage provider practice/wellbeing, and minimize risk to personnel to keep patients safe.


Assuntos
Esgotamento Profissional/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus , Manejo da Dor/psicologia , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Satisfação no Emprego , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Médicos/psicologia , Estresse Psicológico/epidemiologia , Estresse Psicológico/etiologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados Unidos
18.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S319-S350, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942792

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Since the late 1940s, corticosteroids have been a mainstay class of agents in multiple interventional techniques and intra-articular injections. Exogenous glucocorticoids are structurally and pharmacologically similar to the endogenous hormones. As such, multiple actions of corticosteroids are exhibited, including those of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. Epidural injections, with or without steroids, have been extensively used throughout the world. There are reports of epidural injections starting in 1901, with steroids being added to the local anesthetic since 1952, when steroids were administered into the sacral foramen. PURPOSE: Due to the extensive side effects of steroids in various injections, some have proposed limiting their use in epidurals and intraarticular injections. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the multiple side effects of the steroids have elevated the level of concern and recommendations have been made to utilize local anesthetic alone or the lowest dose of steroids. Fashioned from common expressions of the day, the term "steroid distancing" began to be used and proposed for intraarticular injections of the knee. Consequently, we sought to evaluate the evidence and feasibility of steroid distancing in interventional pain management. METHODS: This focused review of local anesthetics and steroids utilized in interventional pain management for epidural injections, peripheral nerve blocks, and intraarticular injections by multiple database searches. This is a focused narrative review and not a systematic review. Consequently, evidence synthesis was not performed traditionally, but was based on an overview of the available evidence. RESULTS: No significant difference was identified based on whether steroids are added to local anesthetic or not for epidural as well as facet joint injections. However, there was not enough evidence to compare these two groups for peripheral intraarticular injections. LIMITATIONS: The present review is limited by the paucity of literature with bupivacaine alone or bupivacaine with steroids local anesthetic alone or with steroids of intraarticular injections of knee, hip, shoulder and other joints, and intraarticular facet joint injections. CONCLUSION: This review shows an overall lack of significant difference between lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in epidural injections. However, available evidence is limited for bupivacaine alone or with steroids. Evidence is also not available comparing local anesthetic alone with steroids for facet joint or peripheral joint intraarticular injections. Thus, it is concluded that local anesthetic with lidocaine may be utilized for epidural injections, with appropriate patient selection and steroids reserved for non-responsive patients with local anesthetic and with significant radiculitis.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Infecções por Coronavirus , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Anti-Inflamatórios/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais/métodos , Injeções Intra-Articulares/métodos
19.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S381-S390, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942795

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The interventional pain management community saw the COVID-19 pandemic decimate elective interventional procedures and new patient visits across the United States until the reopening of America and the restarting of interventional procedures and elective surgical procedures began again. Health care providers, along with essential workers and patients, continue to be concerned about functioning in a safe and responsible manner. Consequently, a level of comfort is created by the testing health care workers with long exposure to new patients and patients undergoing interventions in high risk environments. As the United States and the world suffers from an ongoing infodemic, there are substantial amounts of misinformation, and some appropriate information being produced on molecular, antigen and antibody testing. Consequently, this manuscript is undertaken to describe the value and validity of coronavirus antibody testing. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Antibody tests detect antibodies or immunoglobulins that are produced as the human immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. A positive result suggests that the individual has potentially been exposed to SARS-CoV-2. When immunoglobulins M (IgM) antibodies are present, they can indicate an active or recent infection, whereas immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies show up later in the infection process and can often indicate a past infection, but does not exclude recently infected patients who can still be contagious, especially when IgM antibodies are also concurrently detected. While past knowledge indicates that for viral infections, IgG antibodies usually persist longer than IgM antibodies and provide immunity from re-infection, it is not clearly known if that is true for COVID-19. LIMITATIONS: A narrative review with paucity of literature. CONCLUSION: Antibody tests have been developed to detect IgG only, both IgG and IgM, or total antibodies. At present, multiple antibody tests are available for use in the United States. In a review of 54 available studies through the end of April, mostly from China, the accuracy of pooled results for combination IgG/IgM tests was 91.4% (95% CI, 87.0 - 96.6) for 15 to 21 days post-symptom onset. Thus, antibody tests provide a promise and a peril in the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic.


Assuntos
Anticorpos Antivirais/sangue , Técnicas de Laboratório Clínico/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico , Anticorpos Antivirais/imunologia , Betacoronavirus , China , Infecções por Coronavirus/sangue , Infecções por Coronavirus/imunologia , Humanos , Imunoglobulina G/sangue , Imunoglobulina G/imunologia , Imunoglobulina M/sangue , Imunoglobulina M/imunologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/sangue , Pneumonia Viral/imunologia , Sensibilidade e Especificidade
20.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S391-S420, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942796

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although only a small percentage of patients with COVID-19 deteriorate to a critical condition, because of the associated high mortality rate and the sheer number of cases, it imposes a tremendous burden on the society and unprecedented strains the health care resources. Albeit lung is the primary organ involved resulting in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), many patients additionally present with secondary multiorgan failure. Unfortunately, there is no definitive or curative treatment for this condition, and the management has been predominantly confined to supportive care, which necessitates an urgent need for novel therapies. Mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy has a vast array of preclinical data and early, preliminary clinical data that suggests its potential to regenerate and restore the function of damaged tissues and organs. To date, there has been no review of all the clinical trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in organ failure commonly seen in seriously complicated COVID-19 patients. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of MSC therapy in managing multiorgan failure, utilizing currently available literature. STUDY DESIGN: A review of human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing the role of MSC therapy in managing multiorgan failure. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1990 through May 2020. Studies that included embryonic stem cells, induced pluripotent stem cells, differentiated MSCs into specific lineage cells, and hematopoietic stem cells were excluded. Trials with intraorgan infiltration of MSC were also excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome evaluated the improvement in clinical assessment scores and indices of organ function. The secondary outcome assessed the safety of MSC therapy in the clinical trials. RESULTS: Based on search criteria, 12 studies were found for lung, 52 for heart, 23 for liver, 16 for stroke, and 9 for kidney. Among the 6 studies that specifically assessed the effectiveness of MSC therapy in ARDS, 4 showed positive outcomes. Forty-one of the 52 trials that examined ischemic and nonischemic heart failure reported beneficial effects. Twenty of 23 trials for liver failure from different etiologies revealed favorable outcomes. Nine out of the 15 studies evaluating stroke had satisfactory effects. However, only 3 out of the 9 studies for kidney failure showed positive results. Nonexpanded bone marrow mononuclear cells were used in most of the negative studies. The incidence of disease worsening or major complications was extremely rare from MSC therapy. LIMITATIONS: Among the studies evaluated, although there were many RCTs, there were also numerous case series. Additionally, most recruited a small number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: MSC therapy seems to be promising to treat multiorgan failure from COVID-19. More studies are urgently needed to assess both safety and efficacy.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Transplante de Células-Tronco Mesenquimais/métodos , Insuficiência de Múltiplos Órgãos/terapia , Insuficiência de Múltiplos Órgãos/virologia , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , Pandemias , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA