Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 45
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 Med ; 2020 Nov 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33200188

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: This is a prospective, blinded, case-control study of patients with chronic pain using body diagrams and colored markers to show the distribution and quality of pain and sensory symptoms (aching, burning, tingling, numbness, and sensitivity to touch) experienced in affected body parts. METHODS: Two pain physicians, blinded to patients' clinical diagnoses, independently reviewed and classified each colored pain drawing (CPD) for presence of neuropathic pain (NeuP) vs. non-neuropathic pain (NoP). A clinical diagnosis (gold standard) of NeuP was made in 151 of 213 (70.9%) enrolled patients. RESULTS: CPD assessment at "first glance" by both examiners resulted in correctly categorizing 137 (64.3% by examiner 1) and 156 (73.2% by examiner 2) CPDs. Next, classification of CPDs by both physicians, using predefined criteria of spatial distribution and quality of pain-sensory symptoms, improved concordance to 212 of 213 CPDs (Kappa = 0.99). The diagnostic ability to correctly identify NeuP and NoP by both examiners increased to 171 (80.2%) CPDs, with 80.1% sensitivity and 80.6% specificity (Kappa = 0.56 [95% confidence interval: 0.44-0.68]). The severity scores for pain and sensory symptoms (burning, tingling, numbness, and sensitivity to touch) on the Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire were significantly elevated in NeuP vs. NoP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates good performance characteristics of CPDs in identifying patients with NeuP through the use of a simple and easy-to-apply classification scheme. We suggest use of CPDs as a bedside screening tool and as a method for phenotypic profiling of patients by the quality and distribution of pain and sensory symptoms.

3.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S205-S238, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942812

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The COVID pandemic has impacted almost every aspect of human interaction, causing global changes in financial, health care, and social environments for the foreseeable future. More than 1.3 million of the 4 million cases of COVID-19 confirmed globally as of May 2020 have been identified in the United States, testing the capacity and resilience of our hospitals and health care workers. The impacts of the ongoing pandemic, caused by a novel strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have far-reaching implications for the future of our health care system and how we deliver routine care to patients. The adoption of social distancing during this pandemic has demonstrated efficacy in controlling the spread of this virus and has been the only proven means of infection control thus far. Social distancing has prompted hospital closures and the reduction of all non-COVID clinical visits, causing widespread financial despair to many outpatient centers. However, the need to treat patients for non-COVID problems remains important despite this pandemic, as care must continue to be delivered to patients despite their ability or desire to report to outpatient centers for their general care. Our national health care system has realized this need and has incentivized providers to adopt distance-based care in the form of telemedicine and video medicine visits. Many institutions have since incorporated these into their practices without financial penalty because of Medicare's 1135 waiver, which currently reimburses telemedicine at the same rate as evaluation and management codes (E/M Codes). Although the financial burden has been alleviated by this policy, the practitioner remains accountable for providing proper assessment with this new modality of health care delivery. This is a challenge for most physicians, so our team of national experts has created a reference guide for musculoskeletal and neurologic examination selection to retrofit into the telemedicine experience. OBJECTIVES: To describe and illustrate musculoskeletal and neurologic examination techniques that can be used effectively in telemedicine. STUDY DESIGN: Consensus-based multispecialty guidelines. SETTING: Tertiary care center. METHODS: Literature review of the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, lumbar, hip, and knee physical examinations were performed. A multidisciplinary team comprised of physical medicine and rehabilitation, orthopedics, rheumatology, neurology, and anesthesia experts evaluated each examination and provided consensus opinion to select the examinations most appropriate for telemedicine evaluation. The team also provided consensus opinion on how to modify some examinations to incorporate into a nonhealth care office setting. RESULTS: Sixty-nine examinations were selected by the consensus team. Household objects were identified that modified standard and validated examinations, which could facilitate the examinations.The consensus review team did not believe that the modified tests altered the validity of the standardized tests. LIMITATIONS: Examinations selected are not validated for telemedicine. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were not performed. CONCLUSIONS: The physical examination is an essential component for sound clinical judgment and patient care planning. The physical examinations described in this manuscript provide a comprehensive framework for the musculoskeletal and neurologic examination, which has been vetted by a committee of national experts for incorporation into the telemedicine evaluation.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Exame Neurológico/métodos , Ortopedia/métodos , Dor/diagnóstico , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Telemedicina/métodos , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Exame Neurológico/tendências , Ortopedia/tendências , Telemedicina/tendências , Estados Unidos
4.
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
5.
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
6.
J Pain ; 21(7-8): 858-868, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31837446

RESUMO

In health and disease, the somatosensory system has been interrogated with standardized research techniques, collectively referred to as quantitative sensory testing (QST). In neuropathic pain, QST has been used to characterize multiple sensory derangements. However, the use of QST outside the lab has been limited by several factors, including a lack of standardization, variability in procedural technique, and duration of testing that would be unacceptable for clinic. To address these shortcomings, the Neuropathic Pain Research Consortium designed an easy and low-cost "bedside" QST procedure. To test the hypothesis that this procedure would be clinically reliable over time and across different examiners, a multisite, blinded study was performed in subjects with postherpetic neuralgia. Generally, agreement between 2 examiners and over 2 study visits with 1 examiner was high. Additionally, intraclass correlation coefficients and Kappa statistics calculated showed that the battery of QST tests included were highly reliable. Interestingly, mechanical modalities (light brush, pinprick, pressure, and vibration) showed the highest reliability. The least reliable modalities were cool (room temperature) and warmth (38°C). These data demonstrate that the Neuropathic Pain Research Consortium beside QST protocol is reliable across examiner and over time, providing a validated QST tool for use in clinical practice and clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: This blinded, multicenter trial in 32 patients with postherpetic neuralgia demonstrates bedside QST is reliable and suitable as a clinical trial outcome. The novel bedside battery could be used in clinical trials or in clinical practice over time given the reliability data presented in this article.

7.
Psychopharmacol Bull ; 50(4 Suppl 1): 11-16, 2020 Oct 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33633413

RESUMO

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been proven to be an effective option for treating chronic low back pain. In addition to RFA as a treatment modality, the administration of concomitantly to minimize the effect of hyperalgesia is common practice. However, there is insufficient evidence about the long-term outcomes of their use. Methods: This was a retrospective study that examined 239 patients who received spine, knee joint, and sacroiliac joint RFA between June 2014 and June 2018. Pre- and post-procedure pain scores, percent improvements, and duration of relief were included in our review. Subjects: This study included 239 patients of which 191 patients received steroids with their RFA. Results: These 191 patients experienced an average improvement of 48.48% relief for an average of 137.52 days. Forty-eight patients did not receive steroids with RFA and had an average improvement of 46.36% for an average of 126.10 days. The statistical analysis revealed there was no significant difference between the two groups for percent improvement (p = 0.71) and duration of relief (p = 0.67). Conclusions: Patients who received steroids with RFA compared to RFA alone did not differ significantly in percent improvement in pain and duration of relief.

9.
Pain Physician ; 20(2S): S3-S92, 2017 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28226332

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Prescrições de Medicamentos , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Crônica/psicologia , Prescrições de Medicamentos/normas , Humanos , Dor/psicologia , Qualidade de Vida , Estados Unidos
11.
Pain Med ; 18(3): 538-550, 2017 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28034985

RESUMO

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine psychosocial influences on exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH). Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: Clinical research unit in a hospital. Subjects: Fifty-eight healthy men and women (mean age = 21 ± 3 years) participated in this study. Methods: Participants were first asked to complete a series of baseline demographic and psychological questionnaires including the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, the Fear of Pain Questionnaire, and the Family Environment Scale. Following this, they were familiarized with both temporal summation of heat pain and pressure pain testing protocols. During their next session, participants completed the Profile of Mood States, rated the intensity of heat pulses, and indicated their pressure pain thresholds and ratings before and after three minutes of submaximal, isometric exercise. Situational catastrophizing was assessed at the end of the experimental session. Results: Results indicated that experimental pain sensitivity was significantly reduced after exercise ( P < 0.05). Men and women did not differ on any of the measured psychosocial variables ( P > 0.05). Positive family environments predicted attenuated pain sensitivity and greater EIH, whereas negative and chronic pain-present family environments predicted worse pain and EIH outcomes. Situational catastrophizing and negative mood state also predicted worse pain and EIH outcomes and were additionally associated with increased ratings of perceived exertion and muscle pain during exercise. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that psychosocial variables, such as the family environment and mood states, can affect both pain sensitivity and the ability to modulate pain through exercise-induced hypoalgesia.


Assuntos
Exercício Físico/psicologia , Limiar da Dor/psicologia , Dor/psicologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Naltrexona/farmacologia , Antagonistas de Entorpecentes/farmacologia , Limiar da Dor/efeitos dos fármacos , Psicologia , Adulto Jovem
12.
Pain Physician ; 19(3): 163-72, 2016 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27008290

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Facet joint pain is a common cause of low back pain. There are no physical exam findings that provide a reliable diagnosis. Diagnosis is made by medial branch block injections (MBB). Once the source of pain has been determined, radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN) can be performed. Previous studies have shown that RFN reduces level of pain and improves function. No study has tried to correlate MBB results with outcomes after RFN. OBJECTIVES: (1) Estimate percentage decrease in pain, decrease in analgesic use, and increase in activity tolerance after facet joint radiofrequency neurotomy (2) Determine correlation between percentage pain relief or duration of pain relief after MBB and RFN outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of patients undergoing RFN, who had = 70% pain relief on 2 sets of MBB with 0.5 - 1 mL of 2% lidocaine (MBB 1) and 0.75% bupivacaine (MBB 2). IRB approval was obtained before data collection began. SETTING: All patients undergoing RFN between 12/06-1/10 at University Spine and Pain clinics. METHODS: Subgroup analysis was performed based on response to MBB, a)100% pain relief and <100% pain relief after MBB 1 and 2 and a) those with > 8 hours and = 8 hours pain relief after MBB 1 and 2. Correlational analysis was conducted to determine the correlation between a) percent pain relief after MBB1 and 2 and percent change in pain after RFN and b) duration of pain relief after MBB 1 and 2 and percent change in pain relief after RFN. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain intensity, disability index, analgesic use, and patient perception of benefit. RESULTS: Mean improvement of Disability scores at 3 months was 12.63 (P = 0.001), percent pain relief was 47.68% (P = 0.001). Patients with 100% pain relief after MBB 1 had greater improvement of disability scores (P = 0.008). Those with > 8 hours pain relief after MBB 1 had greater reduction in pain (P = 0.014). Pearson correlation analysis showed no correlation between percent pain relief or duration of pain relief after MBB and percent pain relief after RFN. LIMITATIONS: This was a small observational study with short-term follow up. CONCLUSION: Patients had improved disability scores and decreased pain after RFN. No correlation was seen between results on MBB and pain relief after RFN. It is still unclear how many medial branch blocks are needed and the criteria for MBB results before proceeding to RFN.


Assuntos
Artralgia/cirurgia , Ablação por Cateter/métodos , Dor Lombar/cirurgia , Cervicalgia/cirurgia , Articulação Zigapofisária/cirurgia , Adulto , Artralgia/diagnóstico , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Cervicalgia/diagnóstico , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Medição da Dor/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento , Articulação Zigapofisária/patologia
13.
Surg Neurol Int ; 6(Suppl 4): S194-235, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26005584

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of epidural and facet joint injections has been assessed utilizing multiple solutions including saline, local anesthetic, steroids, and others. The responses to these various solutions have been variable and have not been systematically assessed with long-term follow-ups. METHODS: Randomized trials utilizing a true active control design were included. The primary outcome measure was pain relief and the secondary outcome measure was functional improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the criteria developed by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) for assessing interventional techniques. An evidence analysis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to IV). RESULTS: A total of 31 trials met the inclusion criteria. There was Level I evidence that local anesthetic with steroids was effective in managing chronic spinal pain based on multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials. The evidence also showed that local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone were equally effective except in disc herniation, where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was demonstrated over local anesthetic alone. CONCLUSION: This systematic review showed equal efficacy for local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone in multiple spinal conditions except for disc herniation where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was seen over local anesthetic alone.

14.
Pain Physician ; 18(1): 39-60, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25675059

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The high prevalence of chronic persistent neck pain not only leads to disability but also has a significant economic, societal, and health impact. Among multiple modalities of treatments prescribed in the management of neck and upper extremity pain, surgical, interventional and conservative modalities have been described. Cervical epidural injections are also common modalities of treatments provided in managing neck and upper extremity pain. They are administered by either an interlaminar approach or transforaminal approach. OBJECTIVES: To determine the long-term efficacy of cervical interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections in the treatment of cervical disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain without facet joint pain, and post surgery syndrome. METHODS: The literature search was performed from 1966 to October 2014 utilizing data from PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references. The evidence was assessed based on best evidence synthesis with Level I to Level V. RESULTS: There were 7 manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria. Of these, 4 assessed the role of interlaminar epidural injections for managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and 3 assessed these injections for managing central spinal stenosis, discogenic pain without facet joint pain, and post surgery syndrome. There were 4 high quality manuscripts. A qualitative synthesis of evidence showed there is Level II evidence for each etiology category. The evidence is based on one relevant, high quality trial supporting the efficacy of cervical interlaminar epidural injections for each particular etiology. There were no randomized trials available assessing the efficacy of cervical transforaminal epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of available literature, specifically conditions other than disc herniation. CONCLUSION: This systematic review with qualitative best evidence synthesis shows Level II evidence for the efficacy of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids, based on at least one high-quality relevant randomized control trial in each category for disc herniation, discogenic pain without facet joint pain, central spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/tratamento farmacológico , Cervicalgia/tratamento farmacológico , Radiculopatia/tratamento farmacológico , Estenose Espinal/tratamento farmacológico , Braço , Vértebras Cervicais , Dor Crônica , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais , Deslocamento do Disco Intervertebral/complicações , Cervicalgia/etiologia , Manejo da Dor , Radiculopatia/complicações , Estenose Espinal/complicações , Resultado do Tratamento
15.
J Pain ; 15(12): 1294-1304, 2014 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25261342

RESUMO

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to examine opioid and endocannabinoid mechanisms of exercise-induced hypoalgesia (EIH). Fifty-eight men and women (mean age = 21 years) completed 3 sessions. During the first session, participants were familiarized with the temporal summation of heat pain and pressure pain protocols. In the exercise sessions, following double-blind administration of either an opioid antagonist (50 mg naltrexone) or placebo, participants rated the intensity of heat pulses and indicated their pressure pain thresholds and pressure pain ratings before and after 3 minutes of submaximal isometric exercise. Blood was drawn before and after exercise. Results indicated that circulating concentrations of 2 endocannabinoids, N-arachidonylethanolamine and 2-arachidonoylglycerol, as well as related lipids oleoylethanolamide, palmitoylethanolamide, N-docosahexaenoylethanolamine, and 2-oleoylglycerol, increased significantly (P < .05) following exercise. Pressure pain thresholds increased significantly (P < .05), whereas pressure pain ratings decreased significantly (P < .05) following exercise. Also, temporal summation ratings were significantly lower (P < .05) following exercise. These changes in pain responses did not differ between the placebo and naltrexone conditions (P > .05). A significant association was found between EIH and docosahexaenoylethanolamine. These results suggest involvement of a nonopioid mechanism in EIH following isometric exercise. PERSPECTIVE: Currently, the mechanisms responsible for EIH are unknown. This study provides support for a potential endocannabinoid mechanism of EIH following isometric exercise.


Assuntos
Exercício Físico/fisiologia , Contração Isométrica/fisiologia , Percepção da Dor/fisiologia , Dor/fisiopatologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Amidas , Ácidos Araquidônicos/sangue , Estudos Cross-Over , Método Duplo-Cego , Endocanabinoides/sangue , Etanolaminas/sangue , Feminino , Glicerídeos/sangue , Glicina/análogos & derivados , Glicina/sangue , Temperatura Alta , Humanos , Masculino , Ácidos Oleicos/sangue , Limiar da Dor/fisiologia , Ácidos Palmíticos/sangue , Pressão , Adulto Jovem
16.
Pain Physician ; 17(3): E291-317, 2014.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24850112

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The major component of a systematic review is assessment of the methodologic quality and bias of randomized and nonrandomized trials. While there are multiple instruments available to assess the methodologic quality and bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there is a lack of extensively utilized instruments for observational studies, specifically for interventional pain management (IPM) techniques. Even Cochrane review criteria for randomized trials is considered not to be a "gold standard," but merely an indication of the current state of the art review methodology. Recently a specific instrument to assess the methodologic quality of randomized trials has been developed for interventional techniques. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop an IPM specific instrument to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized trials or observational studies of interventional techniques. METHODS: The item generation for the instrument was based on a definition of quality, to the extent to which the design and conduct of the trial were congruent with the objectives of the study. Applicability was defined as the extent to which procedures produced by the study could be applied using contemporary IPM techniques. Multiple items based on Cochrane review criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) were utilized. RESULTS: A total of 16 items were developed which formed the IPM-QRBNR tool. The assessment was performed in multiple stages. The final assessment was 4 nonrandomized studies. The inter-rater agreement was moderate to good for IPM-QRBNR criteria. LIMITATIONS: Limited validity or accuracy assessment of the instrument and the large number of items to be scored were limitations. CONCLUSION: We have developed a new comprehensive instrument to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized studies of interventional techniques. This instrument provides extensive information specific to interventional techniques is useful in assessing the methodological quality and bias of observational studies of interventional techniques.


Assuntos
Intervenção Médica Precoce/normas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados não Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Manejo da Dor/normas , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde/normas , Intervenção Médica Precoce/métodos , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados não Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
17.
Pain Physician ; 17(3): E263-90, 2014.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24850111

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A major component of a systematic review is an assessment of the methodological quality and bias of randomized trials. The most commonly utilized methodological quality assessment and bias assessment for randomized trials is by the Cochrane Review Group. While this is not a "gold standard," it is an indication of the current state-of-the-art review methodology. There is, however, no specific instrument to assess the methodological quality of manuscripts published for interventional techniques. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to develop an instrument specifically for interventional pain management, to assess the methodological quality of randomized trials of interventional techniques. METHODS: Item generation for the instrument was based on a definition of quality, to the extent to which the design and conduct of the trial were congruent with the objectives of the trial. Applicability was defined as the extent to which the trial produced procedures could be applied with contemporary interventional pain management techniques. Multiple items based on Cochrane review criteria were utilized along with specific requirements for interventional techniques. RESULTS: A total of 22 items were developed which formed IPM-QRB or Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment tool. This included 9 of the 12 items from the Cochrane review criteria with definition of some items that were repetitive or duplicate, and the addition of 13 new items. The results were compared for inter-rater reliability of Cochrane review criteria and IPM-QRB, and inter-instrument reliability. The assessment was performed in multiple stages with an initial learning curve. The final assessment was for 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing both Cochrane review criteria and IPM-QRB criteria. The inter-rater agreement for Cochrane review criteria with overall intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.407 compared to an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.833 for IPM-QRB criteria. The inter-rater agreement was superior for IPM-QRB criteria compared to Cochrane review criteria despite twice the items of Cochrane review criteria as IPM-QRB criteria with the detailed nature of assessment. LIMITATIONS: Limited validity or accuracy assessment of the instrument and the large number of items to be scored. CONCLUSION: We have developed a new comprehensive instrument to assess the methodological quality of randomized trials of interventional techniques. This instrument is superior to Cochrane review methodology criteria in that it provides more extensive and specific information for interventional techniques that will be useful in assessing the methodologic quality and bias of interventional techniques.


Assuntos
Intervenção Médica Precoce/métodos , Intervenção Médica Precoce/normas , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Manejo da Dor/normas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Humanos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
18.
Expert Rev Neurother ; 13(11): 1201-20, 2013 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24175722

RESUMO

Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is a disabling chronic condition with a high prevalence rate around the world. Opioids are routinely prescribed for treatment of chronic pain (CP). In the past two decades there has been a massive increase in the number of opioid prescriptions, prescribed daily opioid doses and overall opioid availability. Many more patients with CNCP receive high doses of long-acting opioids on a long-term basis. Yet CP and related disability rates remain high, and majority of the patients with CNCP are dissatisfied with their treatments. Intersecting with the upward trajectory in opioid use are the increasing trends in opioid related adverse effects, especially prescription drug abuse, addiction and overdose deaths. This complex situation raises questions on the relevance of opioid therapy in the treatment of CNCP. This article reviews current evidence on opioid effectiveness, the benefits and harms of long-term therapy in CNCP.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Crônica/epidemiologia , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/epidemiologia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Dor Crônica/psicologia , Humanos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/psicologia , Manejo da Dor/efeitos adversos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
19.
Pain Physician ; 16(2 Suppl): S49-283, 2013 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23615883

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. METHODOLOGY: Systematic assessment of the literature. EVIDENCE: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. DISCLAIMER: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/diagnóstico , Dor Crônica/terapia , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Guias como Assunto/normas , Manejo da Dor , Medula Espinal/patologia , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Humanos , Manejo da Dor/instrumentação , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Manejo da Dor/normas , Estados Unidos
20.
Pain Physician ; 16(2 Suppl): SE217-28, 2013 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23615892

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) sedation analgesia is often employed in patients with chronic spinal pain undergoing diagnostic spinal injection procedures. The drugs used for intravenous sedation analgesia produce varying degrees of sedation, amnesia, anxiolysis, muscle relaxation, and analgesia. The very nature of these pharmacologic effects in altering the patient's level of consciousness, awareness, or response to a particular diagnostic stimulus invokes a sense of uncertainty about the results or response obtained from the diagnostic procedure. There is an ongoing controversy regarding the validity of controlled diagnostic blocks due to variability in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Moreover, there is no consensus with regards to the use of sedation analgesic measures prior to controlled diagnostic blocks and their influence on the accuracy and validity of a diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To assess and update the clinically significant effects sedation analgesia procedures have on the diagnostic accuracy and validity of interventional spinal techniques. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library review databases up to September 2012 was performed. The search included systematic and narrative review articles, prospective and retrospective studies, as well as cross-referencing of bibliographies from notable primary and review articles and abstracts from scientific meetings and peer-reviewed non-indexed journals. The search emphasized the effects of sedation analgesia on diagnostic spinal interventions. CONCLUSION: Based on a review of the available evidence, it appears that the administration of mild to moderate sedation does not confound the results or diagnostic validity of spinal injection procedures. Specifically, immediate pain relief after cervical and lumbar facet joint controlled nerve blocks is not enhanced by IV sedation with midazolam or fentanyl. This is especially true if stringent outcome criteria are employed, such as at least 75% pain relief combined with an increase in range of motion for pain limited movements.


Assuntos
Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Injeções Espinhais/métodos , Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Dor Lombar/tratamento farmacológico , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Manejo da Dor , Estudos Retrospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...