RESUMO
Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis (PEA) is a minimal invasive procedure to relieve sciatalgia caused by post lumbar surgery syndrome (PLSS). Fluoroscopic-guided contrast-epidurography is essential to ensure a safe procedure. We present a case of a 28-year-old male patient who underwent a PEA which was complicated by a dural puncture. We highlight the dangers of such complications and discuss associated risk factors.
RESUMO
The concept of objective nociceptive assessment and optimal pain management have gained increasing attention. Despite the known negative short- and long-term consequences of unresolved pain or excessive analgosedation, adequate nociceptive monitoring remains challenging in non-communicative, critically ill adults. In the intensive care unit (ICU), routine nociceptive evaluation is carried out by the attending nurse using the Behavior Pain Scale (BPS) in mechanically ventilated patients. This assessment is limited by medication use (e.g., neuromuscular blocking agents) and the inherent subjective character of nociceptive evaluation by third parties. Here, we describe the use of two nociceptive reflex testing devices as tools for objective pain evaluation: the pupillary dilation reflex (PDR) and nociception flexion reflex (NFR). These measurement tools are non-invasive and well tolerated, providing clinicians and researchers with objective information regarding two different nociceptive processing pathways: (1) the pain-related autonomic reactivity and (2) the ascending component of the somatosensory system. The use of PDR and NFR measurements are currently limited to specialized pain clinics and research institutions because of impressions that these are technically demanding or time-consuming procedures, or even because of a lack of knowledge regarding their existence. By focusing on the two abovementioned nociceptive reflex assessments, this study evaluated their feasibility as a physiological pain measurement method in daily practice. Pursuing novel technologies for evaluating the analgesia level in unconscious patients may further improve individual pharmacological treatment and patient related outcome measures. Therefore, future research must include large well-designed clinical trials in a real-life environment.
Assuntos
Nociceptividade/fisiologia , Adulto , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Masculino , Medição da Dor/métodos , Ventiladores MecânicosRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Hyperglycemia occurs commonly in patients admitted to medical intensive care units (MICUs). Whether real-time (RT) continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) improves glycemic control and variability and reduces hypoglycemia in severely ill MICU patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE-II) score of ≥20 has not been studied. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients (66 ± 10 years of age; APACHE-II score, 28 ± 6) were randomly assigned to RT-CGM (n = 16) using the GlucoDay(®)S (A. Menarini Diagnostics, Florence, Italy) device or to blinded CGM. Insulin was infused using a modified Yale protocol targeting a blood glucose level between 80 and 120 mg/dL. Outcome measures were percentage of time in normoglycemia (80-110 mg/dL) and in hypoglycemia (<60 mg/dL), glycemic variability (SD, coefficient of variation, mean amplitude of glucose excursions, and mean of daily differences), and CGM accuracy (error grid analyses, Bland-Altman bias plot, and mean absolute relative deviation). RESULTS: During 96 h of monitoring, glycemia reached target (80-110 mg/dL) in 37 ± 15%, was between 70 and 180 mg/dL in 91 ± 10%, and <60 mg/dL in 2 ± 2% of the time. In the RT-CGM group glycemia averaged 119 ± 17 mg/dL versus 122 ± 11 mg/dL in the control group. Parameters of glucose variability and percentages of time at target glycemia and in hypoglycemia were similar between groups. GlucoDayS values and arterial glycemia correlated well, with 98.6% of data falling in Zones A and B of the error grid analysis. Mean absolute relative devation was 11.2%. CONCLUSIONS: RT-CGM did not ameliorate glucose control or variability; neither did it reduce the number of hypoglycemic events, but our insulin infusion protocol led to overall good glucose control without a significant hypoglycemia risk, making further improvement difficult.