Clinical Journal of Pain最新文献

Objectives: Cannabis is used by one-third of people living with chronic pain to alleviate their symptoms despite warnings from several organizations regarding its efficacy and safety. We currently know little about self-medication practices (use of cannabis for therapeutic purposes without guidance), mainly since the legalization of recreational cannabis in countries such as Canada has expanded the scope of this phenomenon. This study aimed to describe legal cannabis self-medication for pain relief in people living with chronic pain and to explore perceptions of the effectiveness and safety of cannabis.

Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed among 73 individuals living with chronic pain and using cannabis (Quebec, Canada). Data collection using telephone interviews occurred in early 2023.

Results: Results indicated that 61.6% of participants reported using cannabis without the guidance of a health care professional (self-medication). Surprisingly, among those, 40.0% held a medical authorization. Overall, 20.6% of study participants were using both medical and legal nonmedical cannabis. Different pathways to self-medication were revealed. Proportion of women versus men participants self-medicating were 58.2% versus 70.6% ( P =0.284). In terms of perceptions, 90.4% of the sample perceived cannabis to be effective for pain management; 72.6% estimated that it posed no or minimal health risk.

Discussion: Cannabis research is often organized around medical versus nonmedical cannabis but in the real-world, those 2 vessels are connected. Interested parties, including researchers, health care professionals, and funding agencies, need to consider this. Patients using cannabis feel confident in the safety of cannabis, and many of them self-medicate, which calls for action.

Objective: This study compared clinical pain outcomes between patients in a pain treatment program that was conducted in-person, compared with a virtual program.

Methods: In-person (N=127) and virtual (N=101) pain treatment programs were compared based on patient-reported, practitioner-collected, and medical record data. The patients were measured at baseline and post-treatment (week 12 for In-Person and week 8 for Virtual patients). We employed the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to handle missing data.

Results: Both the In-Person and Virtual groups were similar in regard to all baseline outcomes, except the In-person group having significantly more co-morbidities at baseline, with particularly more cases of mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental diseases. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in the pain-related measurements of pain interference and pain catastrophizing thoughts, but neither group displayed a change in average pain across treatment. Further, both groups improved significantly on emotional well-being scores, but not on physical functioning scores. No significant differences existed between groups on outcomes, except for pain catastrophizing, which was higher in the Virtual group at both time points. The Virtual group had lower rates of dropouts compared with In-Person, while the In-Person group had a larger proportion reach a clinically meaningful change in pain-related outcomes, defined as a >30% improvement.

Discussion: While some changes were unique to the In-Person program, overall, patients in the Virtual program achieved similar treatment outcomes, suggesting that it can successfully treat Veterans seeking pain management, with less need for in-person facilities for both patients and clinicians.

Objectives: Noncancer chronic pain is a clinical challenge because pharmacological treatment often fails to relieve pain. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a treatment that could have the potential for pain relief and improvement in quality of life. However, there is a lack of clinical trials evaluating the effects of tDCS on the pain system. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of 5 days of anodal tDCS treatment on the pain system in patients with chronic noncancer pain using quantitative sensory testing and quality of life questionnaires: (1) Brief Pain Inventory-short form, (2) European Organization for Research and Treatment of Life Questionnaire-C30, and (3) Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale.

Methods: Eleven patients with noncancer chronic pain (51 ± 13.6 y old, 5M) participated in the study. Anodal tDCS was applied for 5 consecutive days, followed by sham stimulation after a washout period of at least 2 weeks. Pressure pain thresholds and pain tolerance thresholds (PTT) were assessed in different body regions on days 1 and 5.

Results: Anodal tDCS appeared to maintain PTT at C5 (clavicle) on day 5, but sham stimulation decreased PTT ( P = 0.007). In addition, anodal tDCS increased PTT compared with sham at day 5 at Th10 ventral dermatomes ( P = 0.014). Both anodal and sham tDCS decreased the Brief Pain Inventory-short form total and interference scores, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Life Questionnaire-C30 fatigue score, but no interaction effect was observed.

Conclusion: This study adds to the evidence in the literature that tDCS may be a potential therapeutic tool for the management of noncancer chronic pain.

Objectives: Researchers suggested that the interruptive effects of chronic pain on cognitive functions may be modulated by the level of pain catastrophizing (PC). However, in individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP), domains of cognitive function that may be affected by the level of PC remain largely unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to compare cognitive functions between individuals with CLBP with high and low PC and pain-free controls.

Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study examined cognitive functions of 42 individuals with CLBP and 21 pain-free controls. The PC scale was used to stratify participants with CLBP into high and low PC. Participants performed 5 cognitive tests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery, namely 5-choice reaction time, rapid visual processing, spatial working memory, attention switching task, and stop signal task.

Results: The statistical analyses revealed that compared with individuals with CLBP with low PC and pain-free controls, individuals with high PC demonstrated greater values of the between errors ( P =0.01), reaction latency ( P <0.001), and stop signal reaction time variables ( P =0.004, 0.003, respectively) but lower values of probability of hit ( P =0.02, 0.01, respectively), A' ( P =0.01, <0.001, respectively), and percent correct trials variables ( P =0.002, <0.001, respectively).

Discussion: The results of the current study showed deficits in sustained attention, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control in individuals with CLBP with high PC. From a clinical perspective, therapeutic interventions targeting PC should be considered to decrease catastrophic thinking about pain in individuals with CLBP. Additional research is warranted to explore cognitive functioning as an outcome of these interventions in individuals with CLBP.

Objective: Brain areas activated during pain can contribute to enhancing or reducing the pain experience, showing a potential connection between chronic pain and the neural response to pain in adolescents and youth.

Methods: This study examined changes in brain activation associated with experiencing physical pain and observing physical and emotional pain in others by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) before and after intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment (IIPT). Eighteen youths (age 14 to 18) with widespread chronic pain completed fMRI testing before and after IIPT to assess changes in brain activation in response to physical and emotional pain.

Results: Broadly, brain activation changes were observed in frontal, somatosensory, and limbic regions. These changes may suggest improvements in descending pain modulation via thalamus and caudate, and the different pattern of brain activation after treatment suggests potentially better discrimination between physical and emotional pain. Brain activation changes were also correlated with improvements in clinical outcomes of catastrophizing (reduced activation in right caudate, right mid-cingulate, and postcentral gyrus) and pain-related disability (increased activation in precentral gyrus, left hippocampus, right middle occipital cortex, and left superior frontal gyrus).

Discussion: These changes could indicate that reduced brain protective responses to pain were associated with treatment-related improvements. This pilot study highlights the need for larger trials designed to better understand the brain mechanisms involved in pediatric widespread pain treatment.

Objectives: The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block has proven efficacy and is an important component of multimodal analgesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). The external oblique intercostal (EOI) block can provide a dermatomal sensory blockade of T6 to T10 using an anterior axillary line injection. The bilateral rectus sheath (RS) block can significantly reduce early postoperative pain caused by umbilical or periumbilical incisions. The current study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacies of ultrasound-guided subcostal TAP (UG-TAP) combined with the RS block and ultrasound-guided EOI (UG-EOI) combined with the RS block for LC.

Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to TAP or EOI group. Patients in TAP group received UG-TAP combined with an RS block. Patients in EOI group received UG-EOI combined with an RS block. The primary outcome was postoperative 24-hour sufentanil consumption.

Results: A total of 49 patients were included in the final analysis. The postoperative 24-hour sufentanil consumption in the EOI group was significantly lower than that in the TAP group (9.79±10.22 vs. 18.67±12.58 µg; P [noninferiority] <0.01; noninferiority confirmed). Fewer patients in the EOI versus TAP group had a numerical rating score of >3 during motion. Furthermore, the mean postoperative 48-hour sufentanil consumption was lower in the EOI versus TAP group (11.54±11.70 vs. 23.04±17.10 µg; P =0.01). The mean postoperative 24-hour Quality of Recovery-15 score was higher in the EOI versus TAP group (135.21±4.40 vs. 131.91±5.11; P =0.02).

Discussion: These findings suggest that UG-EOI combined with an RS block was superior to UG-TAP combined with an RS block for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing LC.

Objective: We aimed to compare the analgesic effectiveness of intranasal tapentadol nasal spray 44.5 mg and intravenous (IV) paracetamol 1 gm during the postoperative period in patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgeries under spinal anesthesia.

Methods: This prospective, randomized, single-blind clinical trial was carried out in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Patients aged between 18 and 60 years of physical status ASA grade 1-3 were included in the study. Postoperative pain scores were measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) in centimeters (cm) every 12 hours in 37 patients per group. The patients were administered either intranasal tapentadol or IV paracetamol every 6 hours for 72 hours, beginning 3 hours after surgery.

Results: There was a significant group by intervention effect favoring intranasal tapentadol, suggesting a greater reduction in VAS pain scores after the intervention at 72 hours (estimate: -1.58 cm; SE:0.2; P<0.001). Group by time effect for all the measured time frames, except for 36 hours, favored intranasal tapentadol with estimated values for greater reduction in VAS pain scores ranging from -0.8 cm to -1.6 cm.

Discussion: The results of the present study suggests that intranasal tapentadol results in a greater reduction of postoperative pain compared with IV paracetamol in lower limb orthopedic surgeries. The ease of administration of tapentadol may make it a preferred option over IV paracetamol in such surgeries.

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of pulsed radiofrequency of the dorsal root ganglion combined with ozone injection for treating acute herpes zoster (HZ) neuralgia in middle-aged and elderly adults.

Methods: A total of 164 middle-aged and elderly patients with acute HZ were randomly assigned to 2 groups: the pulsed radiofrequency combined with ozone injection group (group A) and the pulsed radiofrequency group (group B). The therapeutic effects were evaluated using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores and the average doses of gabapentin (mg/d) preoperatively and 1 day, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks postoperatively. The incidence of clinically significant postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and complications in the 2 groups were recorded.

Results: The data showed that the NRS scores and the doses of gabapentin after treatment were significantly lower when compared with the baseline values in both groups. Compared with group B, the NRS scores and the doses of postoperative gabapentin were significantly lower in group A. The incidence of PHN was significantly lower at weeks 4, 12, and 24 in group A than in group B. No adverse reactions occurred in either of the 2 groups post-treatment.

Conclusions: The results indicated that ozone injection in the dorsal root ganglion combined with pulsed radiofrequency therapy was more effective in treating acute HZ neuralgia in middle-aged and elderly adults. It provides patients with longer-lasting pain relief, decreased incidence of PHN and the doses of medication, and improved quality of life than with Pulsed Radiofrequency treatment.