Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 44
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.

3.
Pain Physician ; 22(3): 201-207, 2019 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31151329

RESUMO

Many of the patients undergoing interventional procedures have daily regimens of medications including analgesics, muscle relaxants, and other drugs that can have significant additive/synergistic effects during the perioperative period. Further, many patients also present with comorbid states, including obesity, cardiovascular, and pulmonary disease. Consequently, in the perioperative period, a significant number of patients have suffered permanent neurologic injury, hypoxic brain injury, and even death as a result of over sedation, hypoventilation, and spinal cord injury. In addition, physicians are concerned about aspiration, subsequent complications, and as a result, they ask patients to fast for several hours prior to the procedures. Based on extensive literature and consensus, a minimum fasting period is established as 2 hours before a procedure for clear liquids and 4 hours before procedure for light meals, rather than having all patients fast for 8 hours or even fasting beginning at midnight the night before the procedure. Gastrointestinal stimulants, gastric acid secretion blockers, and antacids may be used, even though not routinely recommended. Due to the nature of chronic pain and anxiety, many patients undergoing interventional techniques may require mild to moderate sedation. Deep sedation and/or general anesthesia for most interventional procedures is considered as unsafe, since the patient cannot communicate acute changes in symptoms, thus, resulting in morbidity and mortality, as well as creating compliance issues. We are adapting the published standards of the American Society of Anesthesiologists for monitoring patients under sedation, regardless of the location of the procedure, either office-based, in a surgery center, or a hospital outpatient department. These standards include monitoring of blood pressure, cardiac rhythm, temperature, pulse oximetry, and continuous quantitative end tidal CO2 monitoring. Sedation must be provided either by qualified anesthesia or non-anesthesia providers, with appropriate understanding of the medications, drug interactions, and resuscitative protocols.KEY WORDS: Guidelines, sedation, fasting status, monitoring, neurological complications.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia/métodos , Sedação Consciente/métodos , Monitorização Intraoperatória/métodos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Jejum , Humanos , Masculino
4.
Curr Pain Headache Rep ; 23(6): 40, 2019 May 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31044343

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Opioid misuse and abuse in the USA has evolved into an epidemic of tragic pain and suffering, resulting in the estimated death of over 64,000 people in 2016. Governmental regulation has escalated alongside growing awareness of the epidemic's severity, both on the state and federal levels. RECENT FINDINGS: This article reviews the timeline of government interventions from the late 1990s to today, including the declaration of the opioid crisis as a national public health emergency and the resultant changes in funding and policy across myriad agencies. Aspects of the cultural climate that fuel the epidemic, and foundational change that may promote sustained success against it, are detailed within as well. As a consequence of misuse and abuse of opioids, governmental regulation has attempted to safeguard society, and clinicians should appreciate changes and expectations of prescribers.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Epidemias/legislação & jurisprudência , Governo Federal , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/epidemiologia , Uso Indevido de Medicamentos sob Prescrição/legislação & jurisprudência , Governo Estadual , Epidemias/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/prevenção & controle , Uso Indevido de Medicamentos sob Prescrição/prevenção & controle
5.
Pain Physician ; 22(1S): S75-S128, 2019 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30717501

RESUMO

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


Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/administração & dosagem , Fibrinolíticos/administração & dosagem , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Manejo da Dor/normas , Dor Crônica , Hemorragia/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos
6.
Pain Pract ; 19(3): 289-294, 2019 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30365222

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: High-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz (HF10-SCS) has been demonstrated to provide enhanced and durable pain relief in patients with chronic back and radiating leg pain. Patients with pain related to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in the chronic stages are commonly challenging to treat and often receive traditional spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Very little information is currently available about the therapeutic outcomes following application of high-frequency stimulation in this cohort of patients. METHODS: The purpose of the retrospective case series was to report on the initial experience of HF10-SCS in 13 patients with CRPS, some of whom had been exposed to low-frequency SCS. A temporary trial of HF10-SCS was carried out for 1 week, and those achieving a minimum of 50% pain intensity reduction underwent implantation. Successful responders were those who achieved a 50% decrease in pain intensity on subsequent follow-up. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were trialed, 12 of whom went on to receive a permanent implant. Of the patients receiving permanent implants, the responder rate (50% pain relief) was 67% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34 to 0.90), with an average follow-up period of 12.1 ± 4.6 months. Of the 5 patients who had sympathetically independent pain, 3 were responders, and of the 7 patients who had sympathetically mediated pain, 5 were responders. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSION: This small case series suggests that HF10-SCS may be a viable option for patients with CRPS who have chronic intractable pain, including those who had suboptimal results from traditional SCS.


Assuntos
Síndromes da Dor Regional Complexa/terapia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Dor Crônica/terapia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Medula Espinal/fisiopatologia
8.
Pain Ther ; 7(1): 13-21, 2018 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29691801

RESUMO

The opioid epidemic has resulted from myriad causes and will not be solved by any simple solution. Consequent to a staggering increase in opioid-related deaths in the USA, various governmental inputs and stakeholder strategies have been proposed and implemented with varying success. This article summarizes the history of opioid use and explores the causes for the present day epidemic. Recent trends in opioid-related data demonstrate an almost fourfold increase in overdose deaths from 1999 to 2008. Tragically, opioids claimed over 64,000 lives just last year. Some solutions have undergone legislation, including the limitation of numbers of opioids postsurgery, as well as growing national prevalence of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols which focus on reduced postoperative opioid consumption and shortened hospital stays. Stricter prescribing practices and prescription monitoring programs have been instituted in the recent past. Improvement in abuse deterrent strategies which is a major focus of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for all opioid preparations will likely play an important role by increasing the safety of these medications. Future potential strategies such as additional legislative policies, public awareness, and physician education are also detailed in this review.

9.
Pain Physician ; 20(6): 447-470, 2017 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28934777

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Discogenic low back is a distinct clinic entity characterized by pain arising from a damaged disc. The diagnosis is clouded by the controversy surrounding discography. The treatment options are limited, with unsatisfactory results from both conservative treatment and surgery. Multiple interventional therapies have been developed to treat discogenic pain, but most have not yet been validated by high quality studies.The best studied treatment for discogenic pain is the use of heat, which has been labeled as thermal intradiscal procedures (TIPs) by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). As the pathology is located in the annulus, we use the term thermal annular procedures (TAPs). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate and update the efficacy of TAPs to treat chronic refractory discogenic pain. STUDY DESIGN: The design of this study is a systematic review. METHODS: The available literature on TAPs in treating chronic refractory discogenic pain was reviewed. The quality of each article used in this analysis was assessed.The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale from strong, based upon multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to weak, based upon consensus, as developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2015 and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.The primary outcome measures were pain relief and functional improvement of at least 40%. Short-term efficacy was defined as improvement for less than 6 months; long-term efficacy was defined as improvement for 6 months or more. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 49 studies were identified. Of these, there were 4 RCTs and no observational studies which met the inclusion criteria. Based upon 2 RCTs showing efficacy, with no negative trials, there is Level I, or strong, evidence of the efficacy of biacuplasty in the treatment of chronic, refractory discogenic pain.Based upon one high-quality RCT showing efficacy and one moderate-quality RCT interpreted as showing no benefit, there is Level III, or moderate, evidence supporting the use of intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) in treating chronic, refractory discogenic pain.The evidence supporting the use of discTRODE is level V, or limited. CONCLUSION: The evidence is Level I, or strong, that percutaneous biacuplasty is efficacious in the treatment of chronic, refractory discogenic pain. Biacuplasty may be considered as a first-line treatment for chronic, refractory discogenic pain.The evidence is Level III, or moderate, that IDET is efficacious in the treatment of chronic, refractory discogenic pain.The evidence is Level V, or limited, that discTRODE is efficacious in the treatment of chronic, refractory discogenic pain.Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, intradiscal disorder, IDET, biacuplasty, discTRODE, thermal intradiscal disorders, thermal annular disorders.


Assuntos
Anel Fibroso , Dor Crônica/terapia , Eletrocoagulação/métodos , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/terapia , Dor Lombar/terapia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Dor Crônica/etiologia , Humanos , Degeneração do Disco Intervertebral/complicações , Dor Lombar/etiologia
12.
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
14.
Neuromodulation ; 19(7): 738-743, 2016 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27172329

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is rapidly expanding therapy for the treatment of refractory neuropathic pain. Although technical issues such as battery life and lead migration have been well studied and improved, little is known about the incidence and management of inadvertent dural puncture and consequent headache. OBJECTIVES: The goals of this article were to determine the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) per lead insertion at the various regions of the spine and to detail the use of conservative management and epidural blood patch (EBP). Long-term outcomes are reviewed to validate treatment modalities employed. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of electronic medical records identified by patient implant registry and current procedural terminology data for nearly a 13-year time interval. Operative and postoperative notes were reviewed for details on dural puncture, access technique and spinal level, the development of a PDPH, and the treatment employed with particularly emphasis on the use of (EBP). RESULTS: A total of 745 leads inserted resulted in 6 PDPH that were refractory to conservative measures but responded to EBP without long-term complications. The overall incidence of PDPH per lead insertion was 0.81%. Leads placed anterograde in the thoracolumbar (T11-L3) and Cervicothoracic (C7-T5) regions resulted in an incidence of PDPH per lead of 0.63% and 1.1%, respectively, while 5.9% occurred with lumbar retrograde approach, and none with caudal. CONCLUSIONS: Dural puncture during SCS device placement and can result in a PDPH that is severe and refractory to conservative modes of therapy. Even in the presence of hardware, EBP performed with meticulous aseptic technique was found to be safe and efficacious.


Assuntos
Cefaleia Pós-Punção Dural/epidemiologia , Cefaleia Pós-Punção Dural/terapia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Adulto , Placa de Sangue Epidural/efeitos adversos , Placa de Sangue Epidural/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Punção Espinal
15.
Pain Med ; 17(5): 839-50, 2016 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26814266

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to perform a comparative analysis of the contralateral oblique (CLO) view and the lateral view for lumbar interlaminar epidural access. DESIGN: After the epidural space was accessed, fluoroscopic images at eight different angles (antero-posterior view, multiple CLO, and lateral view) were prospectively obtained. Visualization and location of needle tip relative to bony landmarks were analyzed. The epidural location of the needle was subsequently confirmed by contrast injection and analysis in multiple views. RESULTS: Visualization of the needle tip and the relevant radiologic landmarks was superior in the CLO view. The needle tip location in the epidural space was most consistent at a CLO angle of 45°. CONCLUSION: This study shows that the CLO view for lumbar interlaminar epidural access offers clear advantages over the lateral view on many clinically important grounds: the needle tip visualization is better, the important radiological landmarks are better visualized, and the needle tip when placed in the epidural space presents a more precise relationship to these landmarks. All of these differences were highly significant. Thus, when using this view, the needle may be directly placed in very close vicinity to the epidural space and true loss of resistance expected soon thereafter. In addition, this view provides the ability to plot the cranio-caudad needle trajectory. The combination of these factors is likely to improve the ease and efficiency of epidural access. The crisp visualization of the final moments of epidural access could also translate to improved safety and accuracy. In light of this, it is suggested that a CLO view at 45° be considered the preferred view for gauging needle depth during interlaminar lumbar epidural access.


Assuntos
Espaço Epidural/diagnóstico por imagem , Fluoroscopia/métodos , Injeções Epidurais/métodos , Vértebras Lombares/diagnóstico por imagem , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Fluoroscopia/instrumentação , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais/instrumentação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Agulhas , Projetos Piloto , Estudos Prospectivos
16.
Neuromodulation ; 19(5): 487-91, 2016 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26559374

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to assess utilization of spinal cord stimulator (SCS) devices while driving a vehicle and potential association with motor vehicle accidents (MVAs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A telephone survey study was conducted in two phases, from 2001 to 2008 and from 2009 to 2011. Patients selected for the survey were age 18 or older and at least one year post-SCS implantation, demonstrating stable analgesic use for at least six months, and reporting a minimum of 50% pain relief and enhancement of activities of daily living. Both phases of the study evaluated for degree of utilization of SCS while driving a motor vehicle as well as associated accidents. Additionally, patients with active SCS use while driving were further asked in the second phase of the study about mileage per week and first activation of the device postimplant. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of the 78 patients contacted were active drivers and of these, 80% reported chronic and consistent use of SCS for the analgesic benefit while operating a motor vehicle. Eleven percent reported MVAs, which were not related to SCS. In the second phase of the study, participants reported a median of 100 miles driven per week with the SCS device on and began use of the device at a median of 21 days postimplant for up to 49 months. CONCLUSION: Because of the perceived benefits of pain reduction, there is high utilization of active SCS while driving a motor vehicle and that does not seem predispose toward MVAs.


Assuntos
Condução de Veículo , Dor Crônica/fisiopatologia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Desempenho Psicomotor/fisiologia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Manejo da Dor , Medição da Dor , Estudos Retrospectivos , Inquéritos e Questionários
17.
Pain Physician ; 18(5): E713-56, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26431129

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint is well known as a cause of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates are 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. However, at present there are no definitive management options for treating sacroiliac joint pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions. METHODS: The available literature on diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist for diagnostic accuracy studies, Cochrane review criteria to assess sources of risk of bias, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) criteria for randomized therapeutic trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for observational therapeutic assessments. The level of evidence was based on a best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through March 2015 that were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and all other sources. OUTCOME MEASURES: For the diagnostic accuracy assessment, and for the therapeutic modalities, the primary outcome measure of pain relief and improvement in functional status were utilized. RESULTS: A total of 11 diagnostic accuracy studies and 14 therapeutic studies were included. The evidence for diagnostic accuracy is Level II for dual diagnostic blocks with at least 70% pain relief as the criterion standard and Level III evidence for single diagnostic blocks with at least 75% pain relief as the criterion standard. The evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain is Level II to III. The evidence for conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, intraarticular steroid injections, and periarticular injections with steroids or botulinum toxin is limited: Level III or IV. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review include inconsistencies in diagnostic accuracy studies with a paucity of high quality, replicative, and consistent literature. The limitations for therapeutic interventions include variations in technique, variable diagnostic standards for inclusion criteria, and variable results. CONCLUSION: The evidence for the accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions varied from Level II to Level IV.


Assuntos
Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Dor Lombar/terapia , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Articulação Sacroilíaca , Humanos , Manejo da Dor/normas
18.
Pain Physician ; 18(4): E497-533, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26218947

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Spinal zygapophysial, or facet, joints are a source of axial spinal pain and referred pain in the extremities. Conventional clinical features and other noninvasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing zygapophysial joint pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks. OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. The level of evidence was classified as Level I to V based on the grading of evidence utilizing best evidence synthesis. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and other electronic searches published from 1966 through March 2015, Cochrane reviews, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: Studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. The criterion standard must have been at least 50% pain relief from baseline scores and the ability to perform previously painful movements. RESULTS: The available evidence is Level I for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with the inclusion of a total of 17 studies with dual diagnostic blocks, with at least 75% pain relief with an average prevalence of 16% to 41% and false-positive rates of 25% to 44%. The evidence for diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain with cervical facet joint nerve blocks is Level II based on a total of 11 controlled diagnostic accuracy studies, with significant variability among the prevalence in a heterogenous population with internal inconsistency. The prevalence rates ranged from 36% to 67% with at least 80% pain relief as the criterion standard and a false-positive rate of 27% to 63%. The level of evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is Level II with 80% or higher pain relief as the criterion standard with a prevalence ranging from 34% to 48% and false-positive rates ranging from 42% to 48%. LIMITATIONS: The shortcomings of this systematic review include a paucity of literature related to the thoracic spine, continued debate on an appropriate gold standard, appropriateness of diagnostic blocks, and utility. CONCLUSION: The evidence is Level I for the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, Level II for cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level II for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks in assessment of chronic spinal pain.


Assuntos
Dor nas Costas/tratamento farmacológico , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Articulação Zigapofisária , Humanos , Injeções , Manejo da Dor , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
19.
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.

20.
Pain Med ; 16(1): 68-80, 2015 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25220833

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of the lateral fluoroscopic view and several contralateral oblique (CLO) views at different angles in visualizing and accurately predicting the position of the needle tip at the point of access in the posterior cervical and cervicothoracic epidural space. DESIGN: After the epidural space was accessed but before confirmation with contrast fluoroscopy, we prospectively obtained fluoroscopic images at eight different angles. Subsequent contrast injection confirmed epidural spread. Needle tip visualization and location of needle relative to bony landmarks were analyzed. RESULTS: The needle tip was clearly visualized in all CLO projections in all 24 subjects. CLO view at 50 degrees and at obliquity measured on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images provided the most consistent needle tip location. In these views, the epidural space was accessed at or just beyond the ventral laminar margin at the ventral interlaminar line or within the proximal half of the predefined CLO area in all patients. The needle tip was poorly visualized in the lateral view and the location of the needle tip was less well defined and independent of the needle location in the anteroposterior (AP) view. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that during cervical and cervicothoracic epidural access, the CLO view at 50 degrees and at MRI-measured obliquity is superior to the lateral view for the purpose of needle tip visualization and in providing a consistent landmark for accessing the epidural space. This article also introduces the concept of zones to describe needle position in the cervical and cervicothoracic spine in AP, lateral, and oblique views.


Assuntos
Espaço Epidural/diagnóstico por imagem , Injeções Epidurais , Adulto , Idoso , Vértebras Cervicais , Feminino , Fluoroscopia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Vértebras Torácicas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...