Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
1.
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
2.
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
3.
Pain Physician ; 17(2): E119-28, 2014.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24658483

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The epidemic of medical use and abuse of opioid analgesics is linked to the economic burden of opioid-related abuse and fatalities in the United States. Multiple studies have estimated the extent to which prescription opioid analgesics contribute to the national drug abuse problem; studies also assessing the trends in medical use and abuse of opioid analgesics have confirmed the relationship between increasing medical use of opioids and increasing fatalities.The available data is limited until 2002. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from 2004 to 2011 from 2 databases: Automation of Reports and Consolidated Orders System (ARCOS) for opioid use data and Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) for drug misuse data. OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of drug abuse related to opioid analgesics and the various trends in the medical use and abuse of 8 opioid analgesics commonly used to treat pain: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, and oxycodone. METHODS: The data obtained from DAWN is a nationally representative sample of hospital emergency department admissions resulting from drug abuse. Main outcome measure was the identification of trends in the medical use and misuse of opioid analgesics from 2004 to 2011. RESULTS: From 2004 to 2011, there was an increase in the medical use of all opioids except for a 20% decrease in codeine. The abuse of all opioids including codeine increased during this period. Increases in medical use ranged from 2,318% for buprenorphine to 35% for fentanyl, including 140% for hydromorphone, 117% for oxycodone, 73% for hydrocodone, 64% for morphine, and 37% for methadone. The misuse increased 384% for buprenorphine with available data from 2006 to 2011, whereas from 2004 to 2011, it increased 438% for hydromorphone, 263% for oxycodone, 146% for morphine, 107% for hydrocodone, 104% for fentanyl, 82% for methadone, and 39% for codeine. Comparison of opioid use showed an overall increase of 1,448% from 1996 to 2011, with increases of 690% from 1996 to 2004 and 100% from 2004 to 2011. In contrast, misuse increased more dramatically: 4,680% from 1996 to 2011, with increases of 1,372% from 1996 through 2004 and 245% from 2004 to 2011. The number of patients seeking rehabilitation for substance abuse also increased 187% for opioids, whereas it increased 87% for heroin, 40% for marijuana, and decreased 7% for cocaine. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this assessment include the lack of data from 2003, lack of data available on meperidine, and that the aggregate data systems used in the study did not identify specific formulations or commercial products. CONCLUSION: The present trend of continued increase in the medical use of opioid analgesics appears to contribute to increases in misuse, resulting in multiple health consequences.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/epidemiologia , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Detecção do Abuso de Substâncias/métodos , Detecção do Abuso de Substâncias/tendências , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos
4.
Pain Physician ; 16(4): 321-34, 2013.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23877448

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal technique for epidural steroid injections, unlike other approaches, is uniquely associated with permanent, bilateral, lower extremity paralysis. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature and analyze the reported cases of paralysis from lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections to possibly establish a cause and to prevent this complication. STUDY DESIGN: Eighteen cases of paralysis from transforaminal epidural injection have been reported. We could analyze the position of the needle within the neural foramen based on the available images and/or description among 10 of these 18 cases. Five cases were performed with computed tomography guidance and 12 cases were performed with fluoroscopic guidance [unknown in one case]. Additionally, other variables associated with the procedure, including the technique, were also examined. METHODS: Analysis of the needle position in the neural foramen in cases of paralysis from transforaminal epidural steroid injections. This analysis is based on images and/or description provided in published reports. RESULTS: Paralysis in these cases seems to be associated with a well performed traditional safe triangle approach with good epidural contrast spreads. Analyzed data shows that 77.7% of the time, the needle was in the superior part of the foramen. In 71.4% of the cases, the needle was in the anterior part of the foramen. This coincides with the location of the radicular artery in the foramen. In 22.2%, the needle was in the midzone (neither in the superior nor inferior zone). No level was spared as this event occurred at every foramen from T12 to S1. Ten of these events happened during a left-sided procedure and 8 during a right-sided procedure. No relation to this complication was noted when other variables like type and size of the needles, side of the injection, local anesthetic, contrast, or volume of injectate were taken into consideration. LIMITATIONS: Only 18 cases of paralysis from transforaminal epidurals have been reported. Out of these, only 10 cases included images or descriptions which could be evaluated for our study. CONCLUSION: In light of the anatomical and radiological evidence in the literature that radicular arteries dwell in the superior part of the foramen and along with our needle position analysis, we suggest that the traditional technique of placing the needle in the superior and anterior part of the foramen must be reexamined. Alternative, safer techniques must be considered, one of which is described.


Assuntos
Espaço Epidural , Injeções Epidurais/métodos , Dor Lombar/cirurgia , Agulhas , Paralisia/etiologia , Anestésicos Locais , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais/efeitos adversos , Injeções Epidurais/instrumentação , Resultado do Tratamento
6.
Pain Physician ; 7(3): 333-8, 2004 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16858471

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Effective use of opioids in patients with chronic pain has been hindered by their potential for drug abuse. There are no reliable means to distinguish those who use the opioids in an inappropriate manner from those who do not. OBJECTIVE: To develop a screening tool to distinguish patients at risk for inappropriate prescription opioid use among patients with chronic pain. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of adults with chronic pain. Patients dismissed from the pain clinic for inappropriate prescription opioid use were placed in the "inappropriate opioid use group". Randomly chosen patients with chronic pain on opioids, who did not have any evidence of inappropriate use were in the "control group". We performed a review of the clinical notes of all the patients enrolled in the study and extracted clinical criteria. We analyzed these criteria to identify independent predictors of inappropriate opioid use. Based on these criteria, a screening tool was developed to stratify patients into low-and high-risk categories. This screening tool was then applied to both groups. RESULTS: There were 107 patients in the inappropriate use group and 103 patients in the control group. On multivariate analysis, six criteria were significantly associated with inappropriate drug abuse. These included focus on opioids, opioid overuse, other substance use, nonfunctional status, unclear etiology of pain, and exaggeration of pain. A screening tool was developed by giving one point to each of these criteria so that a patient's score can range from 0 to 6. In the "inappropriate opioid use" group, 77% of patients scored more than 3 points as opposed to 16% in the control group. In the "inappropriate opioid use group", 23% scored 3 or less, in comparison to 84% in the control group. CONCLUSION: We have identified six clinical criteria, which were significantly more prevalent in the 'inappropriate opioid use group'. Using these criteria, we have developed a screening tool that appears to predict inappropriate use of prescription opioids in patients with chronic pain.

7.
Pain Physician ; 7(1): 169; author reply 170, 2004 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16868631
8.
Pain Physician ; 6(4): 407-9, 2003 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16871289

RESUMO

Opioids are commonly used in chronic pain management. Their role in chronic pain is met with controversy, with reports of abuse. Many studies have shown that urine drug screens can detect inappropriate opioid use or illicit drug use among patients receiving opioids for chronic pain. In this study, failed urine drug screens of 89 patients in an interventional pain management practice were analyzed. The results showed that 55% were not taking the prescribed opioid, whereas 39% were taking opioids which were not prescribed. In addition, 46% of the patients were using illicit drugs. Urine drug screens can be very useful in preventing opioid abuse. Along with illicit drug use, not taking the opioid as prescribed or taking other opioids which are not prescribed can also be detected.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...