Pain Practice最新文献

Objective: The immunosuppressive effects of corticosteroid (CS) injections have come under more scrutiny during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of the study was to explore any relationship between joint/epidural CS injection and SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity.

Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients 18 years or over who received at least one joint or epidural CS injection by physiatrists in a tertiary care center between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021. This cohort of patients was then compared to a control group who did not receive any CS injection during this time period.

Results: A total of 766 patients were identified in the CS injection group and 1546 patients in the control group. Overall, 12.27% of patients turned SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive in the CS injection group, which was similar to 11.90% in the control group (p = 0.797). But 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate showed a statistically significant higher rate among the CS injection group (3.30% in the CS injection group vs. 2.10% in the control group; p = 0.027). In multivariate regression analysis, after adjusting both groups for Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), there was statistically significant higher SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate in the CS injection group (p = 0.024). However, after adjusting both groups for age and total number of comorbidities, there was no difference between the groups in regard to SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate (p = 0.081). In the subgroup analysis of only COVID-19 vaccinated patients, there was an increased 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate among patients with severe comorbidities in the CS injection group (p = 0.036).

Conclusion: The study was not conclusive on the effect of joint or epidural CS injection on SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate, although adjusted analysis suggests higher 3-month SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity rate after CS injection in patients with severe comorbidities with significant disease burden when compared to controls.

Introduction: Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades.

Methods: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized.

Results: The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise.

Conclusions: The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.

Objectives: Advances in Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device technology in recent years have led to the development of SCS systems that are magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-conditional, most of which are dependent on normal lead impedances. The objective of this study was to retrospectively analyze the rate of elevated lead impedance in these devices to determine the rate of failure of MR-conditional modes.

Materials and methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, chart-based review conducted during a five-year period. Patients were included if they had been implanted with an impedance-dependent MR-conditional SCS and had a documented impedance check at least 6 months after implantation. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to map the survival of MR-conditionality over time.

Results: There were 363 cases included between 2015 and 2020, which corresponded to a total of 602 SCS leads. Nevro was the most common manufacturer (67.8%), followed by Boston Scientific (22.3%) and Abbott (9.9%). The average overall follow-up time was 2.25 years. Overall, 67 (18.5%) of patients had lead impedances over 10,000 Ω at follow-up with a total of 186 electrode contacts (3.9%). Leads most commonly had either one (40%), two (22%) or three (12%) electrode contacts out of range. Risk of failure of lead impedances increased by 35.4% with each successive year to a peak of 43% of all leads by year 5. Mean overall survival time of normal lead impedances was 4.77 years (CI 4.40-5.13). There was no statistically significant difference in mean overall survival time between Abbott (M = 4.0 years, SD = 1.25), Boston Scientific (M = 4.64 years, SD = 1.75) and Nevro (M = 4.80 years, SD = 3.28), χ² (2, N = 358) = 1.511, p = 0.47; however, Abbott leads had a greater total number of failed impedance contacts (50/568, 8.8%), in comparison to Nevro (124/3064, 4.0%), χ² (1, N = 3630) = 23.76, p < 0.00001, at a similar follow-up time.

Conclusion: This retrospective study identified elevated impedances in 18.5% of MR-conditional SCS devices at an average of 2.25 years follow-up resulting in loss of MR-conditionality and a mean overall lead survival time of 4.77 years for normal lead impedance.

Background: Chronic low back pain is associated with both psychological and functional limitation. Yoga therapy has been shown to improve both the aspects. The present study was planned to evaluate integrated approach of yoga therapy with usaul care.

Aims: This controlled randomized trial was done to evaluate the clinical and molecular changes resulting from integrated approach of yoga therapy (IAYT) as an adjunct regimen and compared it with usual care for the management of chronic low back pain patients.

Material and methods: We enrolled 29 adult patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). Patients were randomly divided into two groups. The control group received the usual care of treatment as per institutional protocol. The yoga group received IAYT as an adjunct to usual care. Primary outcomes were pain intensity assessed by verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) and functional ability assessed by Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI). Secondary outcomes were pain catastrophizing, quality of life, fear of movement related to CLBP, type of pain, levels of β-endorphin and TNF-α, and salivary CGRP. All parameters were measured at baseline, 1 and 3 months.

Results: A Significant decrease in VNRS score at 1 and 3 months was observed in both the groups with the yoga group showing a more significant reduction in pain over time than the control group (p = 0.036). MODI improved significantly only in the yoga group at 1 and 3 months. Intergroup comparison revealed significantly better MODI over time in the yoga group (p < 0.001). DN4, PDQ, PCS, HADS (anxiety), and Euro QOL had a statistically significant improvement at 1 and 3 months in the yoga group compared with the control group. The HADS (depression) had a statistically significant reduction scores in the yoga group at 3 months compared with the control group (p = 0.012). There was a significant reduction in TNF-α values in the yoga group compared with baseline (p = 0.004).

Conclusion: IAYT therapy helped in addressing the psychological components of pain and improved quality of life patients with chronic low back pain compared with usual care.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has had substantial impacts for both people using pain services and healthcare professionals delivering them. While the effects on service users have been studied, less is known about the effects for service providers. This study aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on providers and the evolving role of telemedicine in treatment.

Design & methods: An electronic survey was distributed to the professional membership of the European Pain Federation (EFIC). The survey evaluated impact and adjustment to the COVID-19 pandemic separately across two pandemic years (March 2020-February 2021 and March 2021 to February 2022) and assessed worry about COVID-19, disruption and adjustment of pain services, and use of telehealth services. The change between the first and second pandemic years and the degree to which telehealth services were adopted was evaluated.

Results: From 149 respondents, 131 (88%) participants provided sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Both providers worry about the pandemic and service disruption decreased significantly from the first to the second year of the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, only 30% of providers offered telehealth appointments but this increased to 64% and 83%, respectively, in the first and second years of the pandemic.

Conclusions: Although provider worry and disruption to delivery of pain services decreased during the second year of COVID-19 pandemic, waiting times for appointments continued to lengthen. The pandemic has hastened the adoption of telemedicine in pain services and plans to continue telehealth services seem common.

Background: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a constellation of conditions occurring after spine surgeries, characterized by the presence of persistent or recurring low back pain that has a significant impact on patients' quality of life. Neuromodulation in the form of Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is considered an indispensable treatment modality in the management of certain chronic pain conditions and it is showing good results for improvement in pain scores and functional capacity of the FBSS patients.

Objectives: To assess the change in pain scores, quality of life, and opioid medication intake as an outcome of neuromodulation procedures performed on patients diagnosed with failed back surgery syndrome, and to detect the post-procedure complications.

Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted at two university hospitals in Egypt and the U.S.A. during the period from September 2019 to August 2021 for patients who underwent spinal cord stimulation procedures for FBSS with follow-up period of at least 1 year. Patients who are 18 years old or older diagnosed with FBSS for more than 6 months and treated with spinal cord stimulation with successful trials during this time frame were included in the study.

Results: Thirty-four patients were included in this study who had successful SCS trials and underwent permanent implantation of SCS devices with post-procedure follow-up period of 12 months. Patients showed a median pain numerical rating scale (NRS) of 7/10 at baseline with a median NRS of 4/10 through the follow-up period. Basic mobility and daily activity scores assessed by activity measure of post-acute care (AM-PAC) showed significant improvement from the mean of 16.87 ± 2.74 at baseline to a mean of 19.97 ± 2.93 through follow-up. In addition, there was a reduction in opioid medication usage. Post-procedure complications was of low percentage with the most detected were battery dysfunction in 7 patients and pocket pain in 6 patients. Reoperation was needed in 13 patients with 4 needed just revision and 9 patients required a complete removal of the device.

Conclusion: Spinal cord stimulation is an effective modality of treatment for cases of failed back surgery syndrome with a statistically significant reduction in pain scores and a significant improvement in quality of life. Also, it achieves a recognizable reduction in opioid analgesic medications, with a reliable safety profile as detected with the recorded post-procedure complications. However, randomized controlled trials with more patients and long-term follow-up are highly recommended.

Background: Severe and treatment-resistant pain is a major issue for patients with cancer. Cordotomy is an effective approach for addressing severe cancer-related pain. It is based on blocking the transmission of pain by damaging the lateral spinothalamic tract.

Methods: Computed tomography guided cordotomy was performed on 14 patients who did not respond to medical and interventional pain management methods.

Results: Fourteen patients with cancer pain underwent CT-guided percutaneous cordotomy. Pain relief was reported in 86% of the patients. The visual analog scale values before and after cordotomy were compared and a significant difference was found (p = 0.0001). The improvement in the Karnofsky Performance Scale score of the patients was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.0001).

Conclusion: We believe that CT-guided cordotomy, performed by experienced hands in a team of experienced individuals and applied to the right patients, is an effective treatment. However, it is crucial to exercise extreme caution regarding potential side effects and serious complications during the cordotomy procedure.