Pain Practice最新文献

Introduction: Cervicogenic headache (CEH) and occipital neuralgia (ON) are headaches originating in the occiput and that radiate to the vertex. Because of the intimate relationship between structures based in the occiput and those in the upper cervical region, there is significant overlap between the presentation of CEH and ON. Diagnosis starts with a headache history to assess for diagnostic criteria formulated by the International Headache Society. Physical examination evaluates range of motion of the neck and the presence of tender areas or pressure points.

Methods: The literature for the diagnosis and treatment of CEH and ON was searched from 2015 through August 2022, retrieved, and summarized.

Results: Conservative treatment includes pain education and self-care, analgesic medication, physical therapy (such as reducing secondary muscle tension and improving posture), the use of TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation), or a combination of the aforementioned treatments. Injection at various anatomical locations with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroids can provide pain relief for a short period. Deep cervical plexus block can result in improved pain for less than 6 months. In both CEH and ON, an occipital nerve block can provide important diagnostic information and improve pain in some patients, with PRF providing greater long-term pain control. Radiofrequency ablation of the cervical facet joints can result in improvement for over 1 year. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) should be considered for the treatment of refractory ON.

Conclusion: The treatment of CEH preferentially consists of radiofrequency treatment of the facet joints, while for ON, pulsed radiofrequency of the occipital nerves is indicated. For refractory cases, ONS may be considered.

Introduction: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education.

Methods: This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME-accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow-up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy.

Results: Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry-related and professional society-related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long-term success. Fifty-four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies.

Conclusion: This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12-month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization.

Objective: Many clinicians are unfamiliar with a diagnosis of lacertus syndrome (LS). We investigated the value of the lacertus notch sign in diagnosing LS.

Methods: We included 56 consecutive patients (112 upper extremities) who had neuropathic pain and neurological symptoms of the hand. The presence of LS and the lacertus notch sign in each upper extremity was assessed.

Results: Of the 83 upper extremities with LS, 54 (65.1%) had a lacertus notch sign, whereas 29 (34.9%) did not. Of the 29 upper extremities without LS, 9 (31.0%) and 20 (69.0%) had and did not have a lacertus notch sign, respectively. The rates of lacertus notch presence in upper extremities with and without LS were significantly different. Of the 63 upper extremities with a lacertus notch sign, 54 (85.7%) were diagnosed with LS, whereas 9 (14.3%) were not. Of the 49 upper extremities without a lacertus notch sign, 20 (40.8%) were diagnosed with LS, and 29 (59.2%) were not. We observed significant differences in the rates of LS in upper extremities with and without lacertus notch.

Conclusions: The presence of the lacertus notch sign is useful for diagnosing LS. When patients with neuropathic pain and neurological symptoms present with a lacertus notch sign, clinicians should consider the possibility of LS.

Introduction: Chronic knee pain is defined as pain that persists or recurs over 3 months. The most common is degenerative osteoarthritis (OA). This review represents a comprehensive description of the pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of OA of the knee.

Methods: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic knee pain was retrieved and summarized. A modified Delphi approach was used to formulate recommendations on interventional treatments.

Results: Patients with knee OA commonly present with insidious, chronic knee pain that gradually worsens. Pain caused by knee OA is predominantly nociceptive pain, with occasional nociplastic and infrequent neuropathic characteristics occurring in a diseased knee. A standard musculoskeletal and neurological examination is required for the diagnosis of knee OA. Although typical clinical OA findings are sufficient for diagnosis, medical imaging may be performed to improve specificity. The differential diagnosis should exclude other causes of knee pain including bone and joint disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, spondylo- and other arthropathies, and infections. When conservative treatment fails, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and radiofrequency (conventional and cooled) of the genicular nerves have been shown to be effective. Hyaluronic acid infiltrations are conditionally recommended. Platelet-rich plasma infiltrations, chemical ablation of genicular nerves, and neurostimulation have, at the moment, not enough evidence and can be considered in a study setting. The decision to perform joint-preserving and joint-replacement options should be made multidisciplinary.

Conclusions: When conservative measures fail to provide satisfactory pain relief, a multidisciplinary approach is recommended including psychological therapy, integrative treatments, and procedural options such as intra-articular injections, radiofrequency ablation, and surgery.

Background: Long-term use of opioids does not result in significant clinical improvement and has shown more adverse than beneficial effects in chronic pain conditions. When opioids cause more adverse effects than benefits for the patient, it may be necessary to initiate a process of deprescribing.

Aim: To explore the perceptions of French pain physicians regarding the process of opioid deprescribing in patients experiencing chronic non-cancer and to generate an understanding of the barriers and levers to the deprescribing process.

Methods: We conducted a multicentric observational study with qualitative approach. Individual semi-structured interviews exploring pain physicians' perceptions, beliefs, and representations to assess the determinants of opioid deprescribing with an interview guide were used. After checking the transcripts, an inductive and independent thematic analysis of the interviews was to extract meaningful themes from the dataset.

Results: Twelve pain physicians were interviewed. The main obstacles to deprescribing revolved around patient-specific attributes, characteristics of the opioids themselves, and limitations within the current healthcare system, that hinder optimal patient management. Conversely, patient motivation and education, recourse to hospitalization in a Pain Department with multidisciplinary care, follow-up by the general practitioner, and training and information dissemination among patients and clinicians emerged as facilitative elements for opioid deprescribing.

Conclusion: This study underscores the needs to improve the training of healthcare professionals, the effective communication of pertinent information to patients, and the establishment of a therapeutic partnership with the patient. It is therefore essential to carry out the deprescribing process in a collaborative and interprofessional manner, encompassing both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical strategies.

Introduction: Pain is a very common complaint among patients with hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) and Hypermobility Spectrum Disorders (HSDs). Often challenging to treat, insights into the underpinnings of pain in this population have been fleeting. Central sensitization (CS) has been postulated as a potential etiological factor.

Methods: In this retrospective study, 82 consecutive patients with hEDS/HSDs were reviewed. Demographic information and Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) results were collected.

Results: 71 of 82 (86.5%) patients demonstrated CS. Scores ranged from 12 to 94 with a median of 56. Pain scores as measured on the numerical rating scale (NRS) ranged from 2 to 10 with a mean and median of 6.

Conclusion: A large percentage of patients with pain and a diagnosis of hEDS/HSDs demonstrated evidence of central sensitization as measured using the CSI. The CSI is simple to administer. The CSI may provide clinical insights that are key to successfully managing patients with hEDS/HSDs. Further research is needed to explore the ability to classify pain phenotypes in this patient population and the impact on precision medicine.

Background: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction can occur as a result of injury, degeneration, or inflammation. This dysfunction presents symptoms of pain at various locations, including the low back, hips, buttocks, and legs. The diagnosis of SIJ dysfunction is challenging and cannot be achieved solely with imaging studies such as X-rays, MRI, or CT. The current gold standard diagnostic modality is intra-articular SIJ blocks using two differing local anesthetics. Current treatments for SIJ dysfunction may be beneficial for short-term relief but lack long-term efficacy. The purpose of our study was to examine the outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive, posterior SIJ fusion using allograft at a single center.

Methods: This was a retrospective study which received exemption from the WCG IRB. Data regarding preoperative and postoperative pain levels, surgical time, complications, and medication usage were obtained retrospectively from patient electronic medical records and prescription drug monitoring program reports. No mapping was completed prior to the procedure. Pain was assessed with the 11-point (0-10) Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and medication usage was assessed using Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME). Patients were included if they had been diagnosed with SIJ dysfunction using two intra-articular diagnostic blocks that resulted in at least an 80% decrease in pain and had failed conservative management. Patients with sacral insufficiency fractures were excluded.

Results: VAS scores reduced from 8.26 (SD = 1.09) at baseline to 2.59 (SD = 2.57), 2.55 (SD = 2.56), 2.71 (SD = 2.88), and 2.71 (SD = 2.88) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively. MME reduced from 78.21 mg (SD = 51.33) to 58.95 mg (SD = 48.64), 57.61 mg (SD = 47.92), 61.71 mg (SD = 45.64), and 66.29 mg (SD = 51.65) at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, respectively. All reductions in VAS scores and MME were statistically significant. No adverse events occurred, and the average operating room time was 40.16 min (SD = 6.27).

Conclusion: Minimally invasive, posterior SIJ fusion using allograft is a safe and efficacious method for managing SIJ dysfunction.