Pub Date : 2024-06-01Epub Date: 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1111/papr.13354
A Natoli, M D Jones, V Long, B Mouatt, E D Walker, M T Gibbs
Purpose: Exercise prescriptions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) often utilize reductionistic, trunk-focused exercise aimed at addressing proposed pain mechanisms. It is unknown if the use of these trunk-focused exercises imply beliefs to people with CLBP about the rationale for their use (e.g., etiology), even without concurrent biomedical narratives. This study aimed to explore people's perceptions of specific and general exercise without an accompanying narrative when experiencing CLBP.
Methods: An anonymous online survey was distributed. Mixed methods were utilized for analysis. Six-point Likert scales categorized people's beliefs about individual exercises. Open-ended questions were used to gather further beliefs which were then coded into themes.
Results: People with CLBP perceived specific exercise as more beneficial than general exercise. Eight themes and five subthemes were defined. A high volume of positive beliefs were centered around strengthening the low back and abdominal musculature, emphasizing the importance of correct technique. Negative beliefs were held against spinal flexion and external load. Both positive and negative beliefs were underpinned by spinal/pelvic stability being important as well as certain exercises being achievable or not.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated that people with CLBP consider specific exercises to be more beneficial than general exercises for CLBP. Specific exercises irrespective of an accompanying narrative can imply meaning about the intent of an exercise. Understanding this requires practitioners to be mindful when prescribing and communicating exercise.
{"title":"How do people with chronic low back pain perceive specific and general exercise? A mixed methods survey.","authors":"A Natoli, M D Jones, V Long, B Mouatt, E D Walker, M T Gibbs","doi":"10.1111/papr.13354","DOIUrl":"10.1111/papr.13354","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Exercise prescriptions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) often utilize reductionistic, trunk-focused exercise aimed at addressing proposed pain mechanisms. It is unknown if the use of these trunk-focused exercises imply beliefs to people with CLBP about the rationale for their use (e.g., etiology), even without concurrent biomedical narratives. This study aimed to explore people's perceptions of specific and general exercise without an accompanying narrative when experiencing CLBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymous online survey was distributed. Mixed methods were utilized for analysis. Six-point Likert scales categorized people's beliefs about individual exercises. Open-ended questions were used to gather further beliefs which were then coded into themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>People with CLBP perceived specific exercise as more beneficial than general exercise. Eight themes and five subthemes were defined. A high volume of positive beliefs were centered around strengthening the low back and abdominal musculature, emphasizing the importance of correct technique. Negative beliefs were held against spinal flexion and external load. Both positive and negative beliefs were underpinned by spinal/pelvic stability being important as well as certain exercises being achievable or not.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study demonstrated that people with CLBP consider specific exercises to be more beneficial than general exercises for CLBP. Specific exercises irrespective of an accompanying narrative can imply meaning about the intent of an exercise. Understanding this requires practitioners to be mindful when prescribing and communicating exercise.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":" ","pages":"739-748"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139913191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-01Epub Date: 2024-01-07DOI: 10.1111/papr.13340
Janus Patel, Emily Deschler, Enrique Galang
Background: Stiff person syndrome (SPS) is a rare neuroimmunological disorder characterized by rigidity and painful spasm primarily affecting the truncal and paraspinal musculature due to autoimmune-mediated neuronal hyperexcitability. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an approved therapy for managing painful neuropathic conditions, including diabetic peripheral neuropathy and refractory angina pectoris. We describe the novel use of SCS for the treatment of spasm and rigidity in a 49-year-old man with seropositive stiff person syndrome (SPS). The patient was treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and oral medications over a 13-month period with minimal improvement, prompting consideration of SCS. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the successful use of SCS in SPS with the demonstration of multifaceted clinical improvement.
Methods: Following a successful temporary SCS trial, permanent implantation was performed. Spasm/stiffness (Distribution of Stiffness Index; Heightened Sensitivity Scale; Penn Spasm Frequency Scale, PSFS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Pain Disability Index, PDI), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9), sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, PSQI), fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale, FSS), pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale, NPRS), quality of life (EuroQoL 5 Dimension 5 Level, EQ-5D-5L), and medication usage were assessed at baseline, 6-month, and 10-month postimplantation.
Results: ODI, PHQ-9, FSS, NPRS, PSQI, and EQ-5D-5L scores showed a notable change from baseline and surpassed the defined minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at 6-month and 10-month follow-up. Oral medication dosages were reduced.
Conclusions: The novel use of SCS therapy in seropositive SPS resulted in functional improvement and attenuation of symptoms. We present possible mechanisms by which SCS may produce clinical response in patients with SPS and aim to demonstrate proof-of-concept for a future comprehensive pilot study evaluating SCS-mediated response in SPS.
{"title":"Spinal cord stimulation for the symptomatic treatment of rigidity and painful spasm in a case of stiff person syndrome.","authors":"Janus Patel, Emily Deschler, Enrique Galang","doi":"10.1111/papr.13340","DOIUrl":"10.1111/papr.13340","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stiff person syndrome (SPS) is a rare neuroimmunological disorder characterized by rigidity and painful spasm primarily affecting the truncal and paraspinal musculature due to autoimmune-mediated neuronal hyperexcitability. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an approved therapy for managing painful neuropathic conditions, including diabetic peripheral neuropathy and refractory angina pectoris. We describe the novel use of SCS for the treatment of spasm and rigidity in a 49-year-old man with seropositive stiff person syndrome (SPS). The patient was treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and oral medications over a 13-month period with minimal improvement, prompting consideration of SCS. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the successful use of SCS in SPS with the demonstration of multifaceted clinical improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following a successful temporary SCS trial, permanent implantation was performed. Spasm/stiffness (Distribution of Stiffness Index; Heightened Sensitivity Scale; Penn Spasm Frequency Scale, PSFS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; Pain Disability Index, PDI), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, PHQ-9), sleep (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, PSQI), fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale, FSS), pain (Numerical Pain Rating Scale, NPRS), quality of life (EuroQoL 5 Dimension 5 Level, EQ-5D-5L), and medication usage were assessed at baseline, 6-month, and 10-month postimplantation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ODI, PHQ-9, FSS, NPRS, PSQI, and EQ-5D-5L scores showed a notable change from baseline and surpassed the defined minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at 6-month and 10-month follow-up. Oral medication dosages were reduced.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The novel use of SCS therapy in seropositive SPS resulted in functional improvement and attenuation of symptoms. We present possible mechanisms by which SCS may produce clinical response in patients with SPS and aim to demonstrate proof-of-concept for a future comprehensive pilot study evaluating SCS-mediated response in SPS.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":" ","pages":"798-804"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139378167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-06-01Epub Date: 2024-01-31DOI: 10.1111/papr.13352
Ana Carolinne Rodrigues Nogueira, Karyne Corrêa Pereira, Vinício Ferreira Rodrigues, Danielle De Paula Aprígio Alves, Juliana Bittencourt Marques, Estêvão Rios Monteiro, Igor Ramathur Telles De Jesus
Background: Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) often report chronic pain, which is one of the most complex non-motor symptoms. Therefore, this study aims to review the literature on the characteristics of pain in patients with PD.
Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following MOOSE recommendations. Observational studies reporting pain in patients with PD were included. No time restrictions were applied, but studies in Portuguese, Spanish, and English were considered. The search was performed in PubMed®, LILACS, and SciELO databases.
Results: Twenty-six articles of observational studies were identified, reporting an average pain prevalence of 67.36%, emphasizing the significance of this symptom in the PD population. Pain was reported in various body regions, including lower limbs, upper limbs, lumbar spine, cervical spine, and other joints. Pain classification varied, encompassing musculoskeletal pain, PD-related pain, neuropathic pain, and dystonic pain, among others.
Discussion: Pain in patients with PD is a prevalent and multifactorial condition, significantly impacting patients' quality of life.
Conclusion: Heterogeneity in data across included studies was observed, highlighting the need for additional research to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of pain in patients with PD and develop effective therapeutic strategies to address this symptom and improve the quality of life for individuals living with the disease.
{"title":"Pain characterization in patients with Parkinson's disease.","authors":"Ana Carolinne Rodrigues Nogueira, Karyne Corrêa Pereira, Vinício Ferreira Rodrigues, Danielle De Paula Aprígio Alves, Juliana Bittencourt Marques, Estêvão Rios Monteiro, Igor Ramathur Telles De Jesus","doi":"10.1111/papr.13352","DOIUrl":"10.1111/papr.13352","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) often report chronic pain, which is one of the most complex non-motor symptoms. Therefore, this study aims to review the literature on the characteristics of pain in patients with PD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature review was conducted following MOOSE recommendations. Observational studies reporting pain in patients with PD were included. No time restrictions were applied, but studies in Portuguese, Spanish, and English were considered. The search was performed in PubMed®, LILACS, and SciELO databases.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-six articles of observational studies were identified, reporting an average pain prevalence of 67.36%, emphasizing the significance of this symptom in the PD population. Pain was reported in various body regions, including lower limbs, upper limbs, lumbar spine, cervical spine, and other joints. Pain classification varied, encompassing musculoskeletal pain, PD-related pain, neuropathic pain, and dystonic pain, among others.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Pain in patients with PD is a prevalent and multifactorial condition, significantly impacting patients' quality of life.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Heterogeneity in data across included studies was observed, highlighting the need for additional research to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of pain in patients with PD and develop effective therapeutic strategies to address this symptom and improve the quality of life for individuals living with the disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":" ","pages":"786-797"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139642688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tetyana Marshall, Maria Eibel, Brett Marshall, Andrew Clary, Sergio Hickey, Patrick Polsunas, Alex Dresslor, Neal Shah, Cathy Zhang, Danielle Zheng, Trent Emerick
This manuscript is designed to complement the previously published primer on salary structures for new pain physicians. The previous manuscript “Employment Contract Financial Models for the Pain Physician: A Primer” had a goal of increasing understanding of financial models by pain fellows when preparing for contract negotiations. This manuscript illustrates the many equally important considerations of “non-monetary” values that are a significant part of contract negotiation outside of salary. It contributes to the overall education for trainees and pain physicians on benefits and job responsibilities.
{"title":"What’s important in a contract beyond the salary? A primer for pain physicians and trainees","authors":"Tetyana Marshall, Maria Eibel, Brett Marshall, Andrew Clary, Sergio Hickey, Patrick Polsunas, Alex Dresslor, Neal Shah, Cathy Zhang, Danielle Zheng, Trent Emerick","doi":"10.1111/papr.13377","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13377","url":null,"abstract":"This manuscript is designed to complement the previously published primer on salary structures for new pain physicians. The previous manuscript “Employment Contract Financial Models for the Pain Physician: A Primer” had a goal of increasing understanding of financial models by pain fellows when preparing for contract negotiations. This manuscript illustrates the many equally important considerations of “non-monetary” values that are a significant part of contract negotiation outside of salary. It contributes to the overall education for trainees and pain physicians on benefits and job responsibilities.","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"186 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140562959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Johan van de Minkelis, Laurens Peene, Steven P. Cohen, Peter Staats, Adnan Al-Kaisy, Koen Van Boxem, Jan Willem Kallewaard, Jan Van Zundert
Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined.
{"title":"6. Persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2","authors":"Johan van de Minkelis, Laurens Peene, Steven P. Cohen, Peter Staats, Adnan Al-Kaisy, Koen Van Boxem, Jan Willem Kallewaard, Jan Van Zundert","doi":"10.1111/papr.13379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13379","url":null,"abstract":"Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined.","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140562846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jonathan M. Hagedorn, Ryan S. D'Souza, Abhishek Yadav, Tony K. George, Nathan DeTemple, Erik Ovrom, Christopher M. Lam, Dawood Sayed, Morgan Hall, Lauren Stephenson, Zach Rivera, Bryan Hoelzer, Timothy R. Deer
Lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for treating disabling spine-related pain. In recent decades, both the number and cost of spine surgeries have increased despite technological advances and modification in surgical technique. For those patients that have continued uncontrolled back and/or lower extremity pain following lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a viable treatment option. However, the impact of lumbar spine surgical history remains largely unstudied. Specifically, the current study considers the impact of number of prior lumbar spine surgeries on pain relief outcomes following SCS implantation.
{"title":"Relationship between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries and outcomes following spinal cord stimulator implantation: A multisite, retrospective pooled analysis","authors":"Jonathan M. Hagedorn, Ryan S. D'Souza, Abhishek Yadav, Tony K. George, Nathan DeTemple, Erik Ovrom, Christopher M. Lam, Dawood Sayed, Morgan Hall, Lauren Stephenson, Zach Rivera, Bryan Hoelzer, Timothy R. Deer","doi":"10.1111/papr.13371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13371","url":null,"abstract":"Lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for treating disabling spine-related pain. In recent decades, both the number and cost of spine surgeries have increased despite technological advances and modification in surgical technique. For those patients that have continued uncontrolled back and/or lower extremity pain following lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a viable treatment option. However, the impact of lumbar spine surgical history remains largely unstudied. Specifically, the current study considers the impact of number of prior lumbar spine surgeries on pain relief outcomes following SCS implantation.","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140562954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Javier de Andrés Ares, Sam Eldabe, Nicky Helsen, Ganesan Baranidharan, Jean‐Luc Barat, Arun Bhaskar, Fabrizio Cassini, Sebastian Gillner, Jan Willem Kallewaard, Stephan Klessinger, Philippe Mavrocordatos, Felice Occhigrossi, Jan Van Zundert, Frank Huygen, Herman Stoevelaar
BackgroundDespite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain.MethodsThe RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios.ResultsFor axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well‐selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e‐health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient‐specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.
{"title":"Radiofrequency for chronic lumbosacral and cervical pain: Results of a consensus study using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method","authors":"Javier de Andrés Ares, Sam Eldabe, Nicky Helsen, Ganesan Baranidharan, Jean‐Luc Barat, Arun Bhaskar, Fabrizio Cassini, Sebastian Gillner, Jan Willem Kallewaard, Stephan Klessinger, Philippe Mavrocordatos, Felice Occhigrossi, Jan Van Zundert, Frank Huygen, Herman Stoevelaar","doi":"10.1111/papr.13378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13378","url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundDespite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain.MethodsThe RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios.ResultsFor axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well‐selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e‐health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region.ConclusionsA multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient‐specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink=\"http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\" xlink:href=\"https://rftool.org\">https://rftool.org</jats:ext-link>). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"48 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140562844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The use of the term “migraineur” in the modern scientific literature","authors":"Sylvain Redon, Anne Donnet","doi":"10.1111/papr.13375","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13375","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140562855","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
David Richer Araujo Coelho, Maia Gersten, Alma Sanchez Jimenez, Felipe Fregni, Paolo Cassano, Willians Fernando Vieira
IntroductionNeuropathic pain (NP) significantly impacts quality of life and often coexists with affective disorders such as anxiety and depression. Addressing both NP and its psychiatric manifestations requires a comprehensive understanding of therapeutic options. This study aimed to review the main pharmacological and non‐pharmacological treatments for NP and comorbid affective disorders to describe their mechanisms of action and how they are commonly used in clinical practice.MethodsA review was conducted across five electronic databases, focusing on pharmacological and non‐pharmacological treatments for NP and its associated affective disorders. The following combination of MeSH and title/abstract keywords were used: “neuropathic pain,” “affective disorders,” “depression,” “anxiety,” “treatment,” and “therapy.” Both animal and human studies were included to discuss the underlying therapeutic mechanisms of these interventions.ResultsPharmacological interventions, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids, modulate neural synaptic transmission to alleviate NP. Topical agents, such as capsaicin, lidocaine patches, and botulinum toxin A, offer localized relief by desensitizing pain pathways. Some of these drugs, especially antidepressants, also treat comorbid affective disorders. Non‐pharmacological techniques, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and photobiomodulation therapy, modulate cortical activity and have shown promise for NP and mood disorders.ConclusionsThe interconnection between NP and comorbid affective disorders necessitates holistic therapeutic strategies. Some pharmacological treatments can be used for both conditions, and non‐pharmacological interventions have emerged as promising complementary approaches. Future research should explore novel molecular pathways to enhance treatment options for these interrelated conditions.
{"title":"Treating neuropathic pain and comorbid affective disorders: Preclinical and clinical evidence","authors":"David Richer Araujo Coelho, Maia Gersten, Alma Sanchez Jimenez, Felipe Fregni, Paolo Cassano, Willians Fernando Vieira","doi":"10.1111/papr.13370","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.13370","url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionNeuropathic pain (NP) significantly impacts quality of life and often coexists with affective disorders such as anxiety and depression. Addressing both NP and its psychiatric manifestations requires a comprehensive understanding of therapeutic options. This study aimed to review the main pharmacological and non‐pharmacological treatments for NP and comorbid affective disorders to describe their mechanisms of action and how they are commonly used in clinical practice.MethodsA review was conducted across five electronic databases, focusing on pharmacological and non‐pharmacological treatments for NP and its associated affective disorders. The following combination of MeSH and title/abstract keywords were used: “neuropathic pain,” “affective disorders,” “depression,” “anxiety,” “treatment,” and “therapy.” Both animal and human studies were included to discuss the underlying therapeutic mechanisms of these interventions.ResultsPharmacological interventions, including antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids, modulate neural synaptic transmission to alleviate NP. Topical agents, such as capsaicin, lidocaine patches, and botulinum toxin A, offer localized relief by desensitizing pain pathways. Some of these drugs, especially antidepressants, also treat comorbid affective disorders. Non‐pharmacological techniques, including repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and photobiomodulation therapy, modulate cortical activity and have shown promise for NP and mood disorders.ConclusionsThe interconnection between NP and comorbid affective disorders necessitates holistic therapeutic strategies. Some pharmacological treatments can be used for both conditions, and non‐pharmacological interventions have emerged as promising complementary approaches. Future research should explore novel molecular pathways to enhance treatment options for these interrelated conditions.","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140562856","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号