Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 24
Filtrar
1.
Neuromodulation ; 2021 Feb 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33556220

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain syndromes in children can carry significant threats to psychological well-being, opioid overuse, functional impairments, and severe disability. While several high-level studies, almost exclusively in adults, have demonstrated the utility of implantable electrical neuromodulation systems for treating various chronic pain syndromes, there exists a paucity of pediatric-specific evidence. Unfortunately, evidence and practice patterns established from adults may not be fully translatable to children given differences in disease manifestations and anatomical variances. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review using conventional PRISMA methodology to identify studies reporting use of implantable electrical neuromodulation systems in children. The primary outcome parameters collected were analgesic relief and functional benefits. Additionally, previous interventions attempted, neuromodulation parameters, and limitations were collected as reported. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies was identified, which described 19 patients who were refractory to multidisciplinary pain management strategies. The cohort was mostly adolescent (18/19), suffered from CRPS (14/19), and received SCS (17/19). Nearly all patients, both those with CRPS (13/14) and non-CRPS conditions (4/4), reported significant pain relief and functional recovery following neuromodulation. There were no severe complications reported; limitations included suboptimal benefit or loss of analgesia (3/19), lead or device revision (3/19), and subcutaneous infection (1/19), all of which were congruent with adult outcomes. CONCLUSION: There exist children with chronic pain refractory to standard of care approaches who could be considered for neuromodulation interventions. The existing data, which was limited and from a low tier of evidence, suggest that these interventions are relatively safe and provide meaningful pain reduction and functional improvements. While not previously reported, we recommend careful consideration of the pubertal growth spurt prior to device lead placement-if reasonable and appropriate-given the possibility of inferior lead migration with physiologic growth in patients with SCS devices or foraminal extrusion in patients with dorsal root ganglion stimulation devices.

2.
Pain Res Manag ; 2021: 4980170, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33532010

RESUMO

Objectives: It is important to analyze the types of etiologies and provider demographics that drive opioid prescription in our emergency departments. Our study aimed to determine which patients in the ED are receiving opioid prescriptions, as well as their strength and quantity. Secondary outcomes included identifying difference in prescribing between provider classes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study at a tertiary care university-based, level-one trauma ED from November 2017 to October 2018. We identified and analyzed data from 2,259 patients who were sent home with an opioid prescription. We retrieved patient and provider demographics, diagnosis, etiologies, and prescription information. Results: The mean age of a patient receiving an opioid prescription was 45, and 72.7% of patients were white. The most common diagnosis groups associated with an opioid prescription were abdominal pain (18.5%), nonfracture extremity pain (18.4%), and back/neck pain (12.5%). Hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg was the most commonly prescribed (67.4%). The median total prescribed milligram morphine equivalent (MME) was highest for extremity fracture (75.0; IQR 54.0-100.0). The median total prescribed amount of pills was highest for patients with extremity fractures (15.0; IQR 12.0-20.0). Conclusions: Our study elucidates the prescribing patterns of an academic level 1 trauma center and should pave the way for future studies looking to maximize effectiveness at ways to curb ED opioid prescription.

3.
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.

4.
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.

5.
Pain Med ; 22(1): 60-66, 2021 Feb 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33316051

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The University of California (UC) leadership sought to develop a robust educational response to the epidemic of opioid-related deaths. Because the contributors to this current crisis are multifactorial, a comprehensive response requires educating future physicians about safe and effective management of pain, safer opioid prescribing, and identification and treatment of substance use disorder (SUD). METHODS: The six UC medical schools appointed an opioid crisis workgroup to develop educational strategies and a coordinated response to the opioid epidemic. The workgroup had diverse specialty and disciplinary representation. This workgroup focused on developing a foundational set of educational competencies for adoption across all UC medical schools that address pain, SUD, and public health concerns related to the opioid crisis. RESULTS: The UC pain and SUD competencies were either newly created or adapted from existing competencies that addressed pain, SUD, and opioid and other prescription drug misuse. The final competencies covered three domains: pain, SUD, and public health issues related to the opioid crisis. CONCLUSIONS: The authors present a novel set of educational competencies as a response to the opioid crisis. These competencies emphasize the subject areas that are fundamental to the opioid crisis: pain management, the safe use of opioids, and understanding and treating SUD.

7.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 2020 Oct 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33106278

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: OnabotulinumtoxinA (OBTA) is approved for treating chronic headaches and migraines in adults, but there is limited scientific literature on the outcomes in pediatric patients. The aim of this study was to determine if subjects treated with OBTA reported a statistically significant improvement in the primary features (frequency, intensity, duration and disability scoring) associated with migraines compared with placebo at follow-up visits. METHODS: After obtaining approval by the appropriate local (HS# 2016-3108) and federal institutions, the principal investigator enrolled candidates aged 8 to 17 years old diagnosed with chronic migraines (at least 6 months), and 15 or more headache days in a 4-week baseline period. This randomized control trial consisted of two phases: double-blind and open-label for the first two and last two sets of treatments, respectively. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive a treatment protocol-155 units at 31 injection sites-in 3-month intervals and follow-up visits every 6 weeks. Non-parametric testing (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was performed using widely available open-source statistical software ('R'). RESULTS: From February 2017 to November 2018, 17 subjects presented for a screening visit; 15 met eligibility criteria. Subjects that received OBTA reported a statistically significant decrease from the following baseline values compared with placebo 6-week post-treatment compared with placebo: frequency (20 (7 to 17) vs 28 (23 to 28); p=0.038), intensity (5 (3 to 7) vs 7 (5 to 9); p=0.047), and PedMIDAS (Pediatric Migraine Disability Score) (3 (2 to 4) vs 4 (4 to 4); p=0.047). There was no statistically significant difference in the duration (10 (2 to 24) vs 24 (4 to 24); p=0.148) of migraines between the two groups. DISCUSSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA showed a statistically significant decrease in frequency and intensity of migraines compared with placebo. No adverse effects or serious adverse events related to the use of OBTA were reported. In the future, we aim to evaluate the specific nature of migraines, for example, quality/location of pain presented during an initial consult to predict the likelihood of OBTA being a truly effective modality of pain management for pediatric migraineurs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03055767.

8.
Laryngoscope ; 2020 Oct 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33006413

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: There is debate among otolaryngologists and other practitioners about whether upper lip tie contributes to difficulty with breastfeeding and whether upper lip tie and ankyloglossia are linked. Our objectives were to evaluate the anatomy of the upper lip (maxillary) frenulum, to determine if the visual anatomy of the upper lip has an effect on breastfeeding, and to determine whether the occurrence of lip tie and tongue tie are correlated. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of 100 healthy newborns was examined between day of life 3-7. Surveys were completed by the mother at the time of the initial exam and 2 weeks later. The maxillary frenulum was graded based on the Stanford and Kotlow classifications by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability and relationships between tongue tie, lip tie, and the infant breastfeeding assessment tool (IBFAT) were calculated. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability showed fair agreement (κ = 0.302) using the Kotlow scale and better agreement using the Stanford classification (κ = 0.458). There was no correlation between the upper lip tie classification and breastfeeding success score. Lastly, there was a modest inverse correlation in the degree of tethering for the tongue and lip. CONCLUSIONS: There was no correlation between maxillary frenulum grade and comfort with breastfeeding, pain scores, or latch. There was also no relationship between tip to frenulum length (tongue tie) and visualized lip anatomy, suggesting that tongue tie and lip tie may not cluster together in infants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Laryngoscope, 2020.

9.
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
10.
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
11.
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
12.
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
13.
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
14.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S367-S380, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942794

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The unexpected COVID-19 crisis has disrupted medical education and patient care in unprecedented ways. Despite the challenges, the health-care system and patients have been both creative and resilient in finding robust "temporary" solutions to these challenges. It is not clear if some of these COVID-era transitional steps will be preserved in the future of medical education and telemedicine. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this commentary is to address the sometimes substantial changes in medical education, continuing medical education (CME) activities, residency and fellowship programs, specialty society meetings, and telemedicine, and to consider the value of some of these profound shifts to "business as usual" in the health-care sector. METHODS: This is a commentary is based on the limited available literature, online information, and the front-line experiences of the authors. RESULTS: COVID-19 has clearly changed residency and fellowship programs by limiting the amount of hands-on time physicians could spend with patients. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medicine Education has endorsed certain policy changes to promote greater flexibility in programs but still rigorously upholds specific standards. Technological interventions such as telemedicine visits with patients, virtual meetings with colleagues, and online interviews have been introduced, and many trainees are "techno-omnivores" who are comfortable using a variety of technology platforms and techniques. Webinars and e-learning are gaining traction now, and their use, practicality, and cost-effectiveness may make them important in the post-COVID era. CME activities have migrated increasingly to virtual events and online programs, a trend that may also continue due to its practicality and cost-effectiveness. While many medical meetings of specialty societies have been postponed or cancelled altogether, technology allows for virtual meetings that may offer versatility and time-saving opportunities for busy clinicians. It may be that future medical meetings embrace a hybrid approach of blending digital with face-to-face experience. Telemedicine was already in place prior to the COVID-19 crisis but barriers are rapidly coming down to its widespread use and patients seem to embrace this, even as health-care systems navigate the complicated issues of cybersecurity and patient privacy. Regulatory guidance may be needed to develop safe, secure, and patient-friendly telehealth applications. Telemedicine has affected the prescribing of controlled substances in which online counseling, informed consent, and follow-up must be done in a virtual setting. For example, pill counts can be done in a video call and patients can still get questions answered about their pain therapy, although it is likely that after the crisis, prescribing controlled substances may revert to face-to-face visits. LIMITATIONS: The health-care system finds itself in a very fluid situation at the time this was written and changes are still occurring and being assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the technological changes imposed so abruptly on the health-care system by the COVID-19 pandemic may be positive and it may be beneficial that some of these transitions be preserved or modified as we move forward. Clinicians must be objective in assessing these changes and retaining those changes that clearly improve health-care education and patient care as we enter the COVID era.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Assistência à Saúde/tendências , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina/tendências , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Telemedicina/tendências , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Assistência à Saúde/métodos , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina/métodos , Bolsas de Estudo/métodos , Bolsas de Estudo/tendências , Humanos , Internato e Residência/métodos , Internato e Residência/tendências , Masculino , Telemedicina/métodos
15.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S439-S448, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942799

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically altered daily living and medical care for Ohio residents and the practice of medicine for the interventional pain management physician. As a state, Ohio tends to be demographically representative of the broader US population. OBJECTIVE: Reviewing the efforts deployed by Ohio to flatten the COVID-19 infection curve and reduce the spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an important component of determining optimal procedures for mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Over the course of several announcements and orders during the months of March and April, new policies were put into place to prevent COVID-19 transmission, which included efforts to facilitate social distancing and ensure the health care system could manage the number of COVID-19 cases at peak infection rate. Efforts directed toward medical providers included delay of elective procedures, expansion of telehealth options, and new temporary guidance for prescribing controlled substances. RESULTS: The Ohio COVID-19 containment approach resulted in a substantial reduction in COVID-19 cases compared with early models of disease spread, and the state has begun a phased reopening. Continued vigilance in applying social distancing and infection control measures will be a critical component of preventing or reducing the impact of a second wave of COVID-19 in Ohio. LIMITATIONS: A narrative review with paucity of literature.


Assuntos
Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Manejo da Dor , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Humanos , Ohio , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão
17.
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
18.
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
19.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): [21], 20200800.
Artigo em Inglês | BIGG - guias GRADE | ID: biblio-1128234

RESUMO

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 and Stratification (COVID-ARMS) Return to Practice Task Force in order to provide guidance for safe and strategic reopening. 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. 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 the limitation based on lack of available literature on COVID-19, risk mitigation and stratification. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best-available research and practice knowledge. 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, 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-19 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 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. 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 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
Humanos , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Doença Crônica , Fatores de Risco , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Manejo da Dor , Betacoronavirus , Esteroides , Doenças Cardiovasculares/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus , Hipertensão , Obesidade
20.
J Child Neurol ; 33(9): 580-586, 2018 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29877131

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The use of onabotulinumtoxin A in the pediatric population has not been evaluated for chronic migraine in a longitudinal study. This retrospective study sought to determine the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxin A in prophylactic treatment of chronic migraine in the pediatric population. METHODS: The authors retrospectively evaluated pediatric patients who had been treated with onabotulinumtoxin A in the outpatient pain clinic for chronic migraine. Demographic data and pre- and posttreatment migraine days (frequency), pain scores (intensity), and duration of migraine episodes were collected from patient records. RESULTS: Ten patients were included. Median pretreatment to posttreatment headache frequency was 15.5 [8, 29.5] to 4 [2, 10] days/month ( P < .0001), durations were 8 [0, 24] to 1 [0, 7] hours ( P = .025), and intensity was 6 [4, 8] to 4 [2, 5] ( P = .0063). No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This review over a 5-year longitudinal period demonstrates statistically significant improvement from baseline.


Assuntos
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapêutico , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/tratamento farmacológico , Fármacos Neuromusculares/uso terapêutico , Adolescente , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA