Cervical Nerve Root Block Using a Curved Blunt Needle and Posterior Approach.

BACKGROUND: Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections have become less popular due to the risk of catastrophic complications they pose. However, cervical nerve root blocks are useful for surgical planning in patients with cervical radicular pain syndromes. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to find a method of performing cervical selective nerve root blocks that removed the risk of catastrophic complications. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case review. SETTING: Academic multidisciplinary spine center. METHODS: Among patients, 50 consecutive cases were retrospectively reviewed for immediate pain scores and follow-up results. In the intervention, a posterior approach using a curved blunt needle was employed for cervical selective nerve root blocks to minimize the risk of arterial injection. To measure the outcomes, we used quantitative pain severity scores and qualitative responses. RESULTS: This technique detailed in this study has a high immediate analgesic effect that can be used for diagnostic purposes. It is not known if this technique has prognostic value with respect to surgery. The prolonged response rate is about 50%, which is in line with other techniques. LIMITATIONS: This study had no control group. CONCLUSION(S): Cervical selective nerve root blocks using a curved blunt needle and a posterior approach are effective in selectively identifying nerves that cause clinical symptoms. This technique minimizes the risk of arterial or spinal cord impingement and therefore may be safer than transforaminal selective nerve root blocks.

Fulminant Cervical Epidural Hematomas: Why Do They Happen, How Can We Minimize Their Occurrence, and What Can We Do When They Do Occur? A Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Epidural hematomas after appropriately performed cervicothoracic interlaminar epidural injections have been associated with the rapid onset of neurological symptoms and devastating outcomes, despite prompt identification and treatment. Anticoagulation issues were initially felt to be the problem, but the occurrence of fulminant hematomas in patients without coagulation forced a reassessment of the causes and responses to this problem. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate why fulminant epidural hematomas occur after cervicothoracic epidural injections, with a literature review to survey knowledge about them in the surgical literature, and to offer comments as to what the interventional pain physician can do to minimize their occurrence. STUDY DESIGN: A perspective piece with a literature review. SETTINGS: Interventional pain management practices. METHODS: A perspective on the issue of fulminant cervical hematomas and an associated literature review. RESULTS: Anatomical studies show that there are no meaningful arteries in the posterior epidural spaces which would explain hematomas. There is a dense posterior intravertebral epidural venous plexus at C1 and also at C6-C7 extending caudally to the upper thoracic region. A venous origin has been questioned because venous pressure was felt to be too low to explain the bleeding. The surgical literature, going back 80 years, contains numerous reports of engorged epidural veins causing radiculopathy and myelopathy. These engorged veins can occur in the presence or absence of spinal pathology. There is no known means of reliably identifying these engorged veins; they have been mistaken for disc protrusions. At least one report documents massive bleeding from these veins. Studies done on a feline model of cervical stenosis suggest that the epidural pressure can reach arterial levels. LIMITATIONS: No direct documentation of arterialized posterior intravertebral epidural venous pressures has been made. While anatomical anomalies and degeneration contribute to epidural scarring, we do not have a full understanding as to the cause of arterialization of veins, particularly in younger patients with no obvious intraspinal pathology. CONCLUSION: Fulminant cervicothoracic epidural hematomas after an epidural injection appear to arise from the unintentional and unavoidable puncture of arterialized veins with sharp needles. A technique to open a path out from the foramen so that the blood can escape is described. Alternatively, providers should consider injecting more cephalad, between C2-C3 and C6-C7 in the cervical spine, or an alternative procedure, such as a selective nerve root injection. A cervical transforaminal approach should only be attempted with a blunt needle, which cannot enter an artery. Should symptoms occur, cervical flexion rotation maneuvers should be implemented while awaiting prompt transfer to a facility where an appropriate diagnosis and treatment can be provided. KEY WORDS: Cervical epidural hematoma, cervical epidural injection, posterior intravertebral venous plexus, arterialized epidural veins, pressurized epidural veins.

Predictors of attrition in an interdisciplinary pain management program.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the extent to which demographic and clinical characteristics predict which patients drop out of an interdisciplinary pain management program (IPP). RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: Participants (N = 178 outpatients, 18-75 years of age) received treatment for various chronic pain conditions in an IPP (including biopsychosocial assessment, cognitive-behavioral, and physical therapies). Separate logistic regression analyses identified the demographic and clinical variables most predictive of attrition across five domains: (a) demographics, (b) number of medical and non/psychiatric diagnoses, (c) opioid use (yes versus no)/risk of misuse, (d) pain-related cognition and behavior, and (e) physical, social, and mental well-being. Significant predictors from the five domains were integrated in a final multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: Among patients exposed to a 4-week IPP, 34% dropped out. In the final model, significant predictors of higher odds of attrition included younger age or being unemployed. Also, patients on opioids at preintervention had higher odds of completing the IPP than patients not on opioids at preintervention. Follow-up analyses revealed 24 of 37 completers (65%) on opioids at preintervention reduced or eliminated use over the course of the IPP. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Because findings are limited by sample and design characteristics, they require replication yet offer novel hypotheses for identifying patients at risk of attrition. Specifically, patients with preintervention opioid use (contrasted with opioid dependence) may particularly benefit from an IPP. Patients at highest risk for early dropout can be targeted for specific engagement interventions to promote completion and effectiveness of IPP. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Using quantitative sensory testing to predict attrition in an interdisciplinary pain management program: a pilot study.

Aim: To determine the extent to which quantitative sensory testing (QST) predicted attrition in an interdisciplinary pain program (IPP). Patients & methods: Participants (n = 53) enrolled in an IPP completed pretreatment assessments of QST and the PROMIS-29 quality of life survey. Results & conclusion: Compared with completers, non-completers (24.5%) reported significantly higher pain intensity (7.1, 95% CI [5.8, 8.4] versus 5.4, 95% CI [4.8, 6.1]) and cold hyperalgesia (14.6°C, 95% CI [8.8, 20.4] versus 7.5°C, 95% CI [4.8, 6.1]), with both variables also predicting attrition. This finding highlights a potentially novel and clinically significant use of QST. Higher overall pain intensity and the presence of remote cold hyperalgesia may identify patients at risk for dropping out of an IPP.

The purpose of this research study was to determine the extent to which quantitative sensory testing (QST) predicted which patients enrolled in an interdisciplinary pain program (IPP) would drop out. Fifty-three patients with chronic pain enrolled in an IPP were assessed before treatment with mechanical and thermal QST at a painful and a non-painful site, as well as with the PROMIS-29 quality of life survey. Pretreatment findings were compared between non-completers (i.e., attended five or fewer sessions for any component of the IPP) and completers. Resulting significant predictors were included in a logistic regression to predict attrition. Compared with those who completed the program, non-completers (24.5%) reported significantly higher pain intensity and oversensitivity to cold at a non-painful site pretreatment, with both variables also predicting completion of the IPP. In summary, these preliminary findings suggest that higher overall pain intensity and the presence of cold oversensitivity (at baseline) may identify patients at risk for dropping out of an IPP.

Improved symptoms of complex regional pain syndrome after novel lymphatic treatment and interdisciplinary pain management.

INTRODUCTION: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a pain syndrome with no singular mechanism and no specific cure. The aim of this case report is to study the impact of Lymphatic Enhancement Technology (LET) treatment on CRPS-related symptoms. METHODS: A 51 year-old female presented with a chief complaint of severe, refractory ankle pain and CRPS related to a tibial and fibular fracture sustained three years earlier. The patient completed twelve cognitive behavioral therapy sessions over a 4-week period, and eleven physical therapy sessions over a four-month period, six of which utilized LET. RESULTS: Pain and swelling were largely unchanged with interdisciplinary treatment before the introduction of LET. A within-session change of 37.5% in pain intensity and 87.5% in ankle girth was observed immediately after the first application of LET. Three months after beginning LET treatment, the patient maintained a 43.8% improvement in pain intensity and 100% improvement in measurements of lower extremity girth and ankle range of motion. No side effects or adverse events were associated with the LET treatment. CONCLUSION: Swelling, pain, and mobility loss are common symptoms and features of CRPS. LET is a novel, non-invasive treatment that appears to be quite safe and effective for improving pain, swelling, and mobility loss related to CRPS.

Long-term Efficacy of Percutaneous Epidural Neurolysis of Adhesions in Chronic Lumbar Radicular Pain: 10 Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: No long-term follow-up data exist in any treatment for chronic radicular pain occurring with disc pathology and after failed back surgery. A previous randomized controlled trial (RCT) has proven efficacy in short-term follow-up as an evidence-based effective therapeutic option. OBJECTIVES: Long term data is needed to determine the efficacy and cost- effectiveness of minimal invasive procedures. The present study reports 10 year follow-up results from the randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, interventional clinical trial. A power calculation was based on a previous feasibility trial. SETTING: University medical centers. METHODS: After a 4 year enrollment phase, 381 patients with chronic radicular pain persisting beyond 4 months, who failed conservative treatments, were screened. Ninety patients were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive percutaneous epidural lysis of adhesions or placebo with concealed allocation in permuted blocks of 4 to 8 patients each, and stratified by treatment center. The primary outcomes were a mean change of the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), one and 10 years after intervention. For each rating scale an analysis of variance with the within-patient factor time (baseline, one year follow-up, 10 year follow-up) and the between-patient factor treatment (lysis, placebo) was used. RESULTS: Homogeneity was shown at baseline between the groups. The ODI and VAS scores were significantly better one and 10 years in the lysis group vs the control group. The ODI in the lysis group improved from 55.3 ± 11.6 to 9.6 ± 9.3 after one year and to 11.7 ± 14.2 after 10 years. The placebo group also improved from 55.4 ± 11.5 to 30.7 ± 14.2 after one year and to 24.8 ± 12.0 after 10 years. The VAS improved from 6.7 ± 1.1 to 1.2 ± 1.1 after one year and to 1.5 ± 1.4 after 10 years in the lysis group and from 6.7 ± 1.1 to 2.8 ± 1.5 after one year and to 2.9 ± 1.3 after 10 years after placebo intervention. The statistical difference of the ODI and VAS between the treatment and control groups remain significant up to 10 years. No treatment-related severe adverse effects occurred within the 10 years, but minor transient neurological effects were seen directly after the intervention. LIMITATIONS: The long-term effects of single treatment components cannot be specified as no imaging examination was performed at 10 year follow-up. A large variety of unanalyzed noninvasive treatments were done within the 10 years. Some patients did not clearly remember the intervention after 10 years. Uncontrolled effects such as higher inhomogeneity of biometric properties, concomitant therapies, pain tolerance level, or just social effects could occur, but were not analyzed in the trial. CONCLUSION: This is the first 10 year follow-up report of a placebo-controlled RCT showing efficacy of the minimally invasive percutaneous adhesiolysis procedure for patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain. No alternative evidence-based treatment modality with 10 year follow-up is available to be recommended. This procedure should be considered as the first treatment option for patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain.

Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural injections have been used since the late 1990s to treat lumbar radicular pain. They have been the subject of considerable attention, with varying conclusions from systematic reviews as to their efficacy. Transforaminal injections have been associated with rare but major complications. Further, the use of transforaminal injections has increased since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. Finally, with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there has been heightened concern regarding the risk associated with steroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of transforaminal injections for 4 indications: radicular pain; from spinal stenosis; from failed back surgery syndrome; and for axial low back pain; and to evaluate the safety of the procedure. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of transforaminal injections. METHODS: The available literature on transforaminal injections was reviewed and the quality assessed. The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale based on the quality of evidence developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). Data sources included relevant literature from 1966 to April 2020, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Pain relief and functional improvement were the primary outcome measures. A minimum of 6 months pain relief follow-up was required. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 66 studies were identified. Eighteen randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. No observational studies were included. Eleven randomized controlled trials dealt with various aspects of transforaminal injections for radicular pain owing to disc herniation. Based on these studies, there is Level 1 evidence supporting the use of transforaminal injections for radicular pain owing to disc herniation. A meta-analysis showed that at both 3 and 6 months, there was highly statistically significant improvement in both pain and function with both particulate and nonparticulate steroids. For radicular pain from central stenosis there is one moderate quality study, with Level IV evidence. For radicular pain caused by failed back surgery syndrome there is one moderate quality study, with Level IV evidence. For radicular pain from foraminal stenosis and for axial pain there is Level V evidence, opinion-based/consensus, supporting the use of transforaminal injections. Transforaminal injections are generally safe. However, they have been associated with major neurologic complications related to cord infarct. Causes other than intraluminal injection of particulates appear to be at play. The use of an infraneural approach and of blunt needles appear to offer the greatest patient safety. Because of concern over the role of particulate steroids, multiple other injectates have been evaluated, including nonparticulate steroids, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-a) inhibitors, and local anesthetics without steroids. No injectate has been proven superior. If there is concern about immunosuppression because of risk of COVID-19 infection, either the lowest possible dose of steroid or no steroid should be used. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by the paucity of literature for some indications. CONCLUSIONS: There is Level I evidence for the use of transforaminal injections for radicular pain from disc herniations.

Who Benefits from Chronic Opioid Therapy? Rethinking the Question of Opioid Misuse Risk.

Beginning in the late 1990s, a movement began within the pain management field focused upon the underutilization of opioids, thought to be a potentially safe and effective class of pain medication. Concern for addiction and misuse were present at the start of this shift within pain medicine, and an emphasis was placed on developing reliable and valid methods and measures of identifying those at risk for opioid misuse. Since that time, the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of chronic opioid therapy (COT) has not been established. Rather, the harmful, dose-dependent deleterious effects have become clearer, including addiction, increased risk of injuries, respiratory depression, opioid induced hyperalgesia, and death. Still, many individuals on low doses of opioids for long periods of time appear to have good pain control and retain social and occupational functioning. Therefore, we propose that the question, "Who is at risk of opioid misuse?" should evolve to, "Who may benefit from COT?" in light of the current evidence.

Getting "Unstuck": A Multi-Site Evaluation of the Efficacy of an Interdisciplinary Pain Intervention Program for Chronic Low Back Pain.

Chronic low back pain is one of the major health problems in the U.S., resulting in a large number of years of disability. To address the biopsychosocial nature of pain, interdisciplinary pain programs provide integrated interventions by an interdisciplinary team in a unified setting with unified goals. This study examined outcomes of an interdisciplinary program located at two sites with different staff, yet with a unified model of treatment and documentation. Efficacy at the combined sites was examined by comparing standard measures obtained upon admission to the program with measures at completion of a 3-4 week long program for 393 patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Repeated measures included pain severity, pain interference, efficacy of self-management strategies, hours of activity, depression, ability to do ADLs, and physical endurance. All repeated measures differed at the p < 0.001 level, with large effect sizes (0.66-0.85). Eighty-two percent of graduates reported being "very much improved" or "much improved". A second analyses provided evidence that treatment effects were robust across sites with no differences (<0.001) found on five of seven selected outcome measures. A third analysis found that number of days of treatment was correlated on three of seven measures at the <0.01 level. However, the amount of variance explained by days of treatment was under 5% on even the most highly correlated measure. These finding are consistent with previous research and explore short-term effectiveness of treatment across treatment sites and with variable duration of treatment.

Long-term effectiveness of a comprehensive pain management program: strengthening the case for interdisciplinary care.

Chronic pain, a debilitating medical condition affecting approximately 15% of the US population, leads to individual suffering and costs to society in terms of health care dollars and lost productivity. To examine the effectiveness of a comprehensive pain management program, data from 108 program participants were evaluated. Preprogram, postprogram, and 6-month follow-up data were collected from 80 participants, and preprogram, postprogram, and 1-year data were collected from 46 participants. Outcomes data from several domains were assessed: pain severity, emotional distress, interference of pain on function, perceived control of pain, treatment helpfulness, and number of hours resting. Within-subject repeated-measure analyses of variance found statistically significant findings on the six outcome measures utilized in this study for both the 6-month and 1-year samples. Examination of 95% confidence intervals revealed no overlap in pretreatment scores with 6-month and 1-year outcomes in five of the six domains studied. Mean scores on emotional distress did not maintain statistical significance in the 6-month or 1-year review. Overall, this study strengthens the case for interdisciplinary care for chronic pain management and provides evidence for the long-term effectiveness of this therapy. Furthermore, this study lends support to the notion that interdisciplinary treatments are effective in targeting multiple domains affected by the pain condition.

An opioid screening instrument: long-term evaluation of the utility of the Pain Medication Questionnaire.

The Pain Medication Questionnaire (PMQ) was designed to assess the risk for opioid medication misuse in chronic pain patients. A preliminary study showed a positive relationship between higher PMQ scores and concurrent measures of substance abuse, psychopathology, and physical/life-functioning. Using a larger sample size, the present study sought to replicate these findings, and to expand upon them by examining the relationship between PMQ scores and various treatment outcomes. The PMQ was administered to 271 newly evaluated chronic pain patients who were subsequently re-evaluated immediately post-treatment, as well as six months following discharge. Subgroups were then formed according to the lowest (L-PMQ), middle (M-PMQ), and highest (H-PMQ) one-third of PMQ total scores. It was found that the H-PMQ group was 2.6 times more likely to have a known substance-abuse problem, 3.2 times more likely to request early refills of prescription medication, and 2.3 times more likely to drop out of treatment, as compared to the L-PMQ group. They also had diminished biopsychosocial functioning. In addition, at six months following discharge, patients who completed the program experienced a significant decrease in PMQ scores over time relative to those patients who were unsuccessfully discharged from the program or who dropped out. This study represents the second stage in the development of a psychometrically sound screening tool for measuring risk for opioid medication misuse among chronic pain patients, and findings suggest the long-term utility of the PMQ in identifying patients who are more likely to complete and benefit from a pain management program.

Development of a self-report screening instrument for assessing potential opioid medication misuse in chronic pain patients.

This study constituted the first step in the psychometric development of a self-report screening instrument for risk of opioid medication misuse among chronic pain patients. A 26-item instrument, the Pain Medication Questionnaire (PMQ), was constructed based on suspected behavioral correlates of opioid medication misuse, which heretofore have received limited empirical investigation. The PMQ was administered to 184 patients at an interdisciplinary pain treatment center. Reliability coefficients for the PMQ were found to be of moderate but acceptable strength. Construct and concurrent validity were examined through correlation of PMQ scores to measures of substance abuse, physical and psychological functioning, and physicians' risk assessments. To explore high and low cutoff points for misuse risk, subgroups were formed according to the upper and lower thirds of PMQ scores and compared on validity measures. Higher PMQ scores were associated with history of substance abuse, higher levels of psychosocial distress, and poorer functioning. Future psychometric analyses will consider predictive validity and examine shortened versions of the instrument.

A prospective one-year outcome study of interdisciplinary chronic pain management: compromising its efficacy by managed care policies.

UNLABELLED: Although interdisciplinary pain management programs are both therapeutically effective as well as cost-effective, they are currently being underutilized because of managed care policies. We used this prospective comparison trial, with 1-yr follow-up of chronic pain patients, to demonstrate the short- and long-term efficacy of an interdisciplinary pain management program, and evaluate the impact of managed care's physical therapy "carve out" practices on these treatment outcomes. Consecutive chronic pain patients (n = 201) were evaluated, some of whom had their physical therapy "carved out" from this integrated program. Results revealed that successful completion of interdisciplinary pain management was therapeutically effective. Most importantly, physical therapy "carved out" practices had a negative impact on both the short-term and 1-yr follow-up outcome measures. Thus, interdisciplinary pain management is effective in treating the major health problem of chronic pain. However, insurance carrier policies of contracting treatment "carve outs" significantly compromise the efficacy of this evidence-based, best standard of medical care treatment. This raises important medico-legal and ethical issues. IMPLICATIONS: Interdisciplinary pain management is effective and cost-effective in treating the major health problem of chronic pain. The present study demonstrated its efficacy using a prospective, 1-yr posttreatment evaluation methodology. Moreover, physical therapy "carve out" practices by insurance carriers had a negative impact on the outcomes, raising important medico-legal and ethical issues.

Treatment- and cost-effectiveness of early intervention for acute low-back pain patients: a one-year prospective study.

In an attempt to prevent acute low-back pain from becoming a chronic disability problem, an earlier study developed a statistical algorithm which accurately identified those acute low-back pain patients who were at high risk for developing such chronicity. The major goal of the present study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of employing an early intervention program with these high-risk patients in order to prevent the development of chronic disability at a 1-year follow-up. Approximately 700 acute low-back pain patients were screened for their high-risk versus low-risk status. On the basis of this screening, high-risk patients were then randomly assigned to one of two groups: a functional restoration early intervention group (n = 22), or a nonintervention group (n = 48). A group of low-risk subjects (n = 54) who did not receive any early intervention was also evaluated. All these subjects were prospectively tracked at 3-month intervals starting from the date of their initial evaluation, culminating in a 12-month follow-up. During these follow-up evaluations, pain disability and socioeconomic outcomes (such as return-to-work and healthcare utilization) were assessed. Results clearly indicated that the high-risk subjects who received early intervention displayed statistically significant fewer indices of chronic pain disability on a wide range of work, healthcare utilization, medication use, and self-report pain variables, relative to the high-risk subjects who do not receive such early intervention. In addition, the high-risk nonintervention group displayed significantly more symptoms of chronic pain disability on these variables relative to the initially low-risk subjects. Cost-comparison savings data were also evaluated. These data revealed that there were greater cost savings associated with the early intervention group versus the no early intervention group. The overall results of this study clearly demonstrate the treatment- and cost-effectiveness of an early intervention program for acute low-back pain patients.

Comparison of epidural Depo-Medrol vs. aqueous betamethasone in patients with low back pain.

Despite the popularity of epidural steroid injections for low back pain, there still remains a lack of consensus on which type of steroid to inject. Most comparison studies regarding epidural steroids are based on an assumption that different types of steroids are equal as long as equipotent doses are utilized. In the spring of 2002, a national shortage of all depo steroids allowed the authors to compare epidural methylprednisolone (Depo-Medrol) to a non depo form of betamethasone in patients with low back pain. Patients who received epidural methylprednisolone (Depo-Medrol) reported significant reduction in pain ratings as well as disability scores after 4 weeks, while patients receiving betamethasone showed no significant difference in pain or disability scores. This study shows that the aqueous steroid betamethasone is not an effective alternative to the commonly used depo-steroid methylprednisolone (Depo-Medrol) when injected epidurally in patients with lumbar pain. The study also shows that the anti-inflammatory effect of a depo-steroid can be greater than a non-depo steroid, even at equipotent doses. This should be an important factor to consider when reviewing epidural steroid outcome studies, where the type of steroid might affect results as much as other variables such as route of administration, volume of injectate, or use of fluoroscopy.

A preliminary study of multidimensional pain inventory profile differences in predicting treatment outcome in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate whether the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI) is effective for predicting response to interdisciplinary treatment in a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic pain. Changes in patients' profiles to a predominantly adaptive coping status after treatment also were assessed. DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted of patients with an array of pain conditions. A standard evaluation battery, including measures of self-reported pain and disability, psychosocial functioning, helpfulness of the program, and medication use, was used for all patients before and after treatment. The MPI status of patients was evaluated and differential response to treatment was assessed. METHODS: Sixty-five consecutive patients with chronic pain were evaluated before and immediately after participation in an interdisciplinary pain treatment program. This heterogeneous pain-condition cohort was also differentiated on the basis of the MPI to evaluate potential differential response to treatment. RESULTS: Results revealed significant improvement among these patients with chronic pain when a comprehensive interdisciplinary pain-management program was administered. This improvement was seen across the variety of outcomes evaluated, including narcotic medication use. Most important, the MPI subgroup classification did not significantly predict the degree of positive treatment outcome; all subgroups improved. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were major differences in psychosocial functioning before treatment, the MPI was not found to significantly predict response to interdisciplinary treatment in a heterogeneous group of patients with chronic pain. Thus, a comprehensive interdisciplinary treatment program may achieve its full effectiveness across a wide array of pain/disability-related outcome variables, regardless of initial MPI profile categorization.

Outcomes of a pain management educational initiative at Baylor University Medical Center.

Baylor University Medical Center established a pain initiative group in 1996 to research the effectiveness of pain management throughout the hospital. After analyzing 300 patient surveys, the group undertook an intensive program to educate physicians, nurses, and patients regarding newer pain management techniques. The outcome of this educational initiative was reassessed in 2001 based on surveys completed by 100 patients after discharge. Results showed marked improvement in patient education regarding pain management. In 2001, 93% of patients were offered education and choices regarding pain management vs only 36% in 1996. Fewer patients were afraid to "bother" their nurses to ask for pain medication (3% in 2001 vs 14% in 1996). Waiting time for administration of analgesics decreased considerably. The number of patients reporting moderate to severe pain decreased significantly since 1996, yet the overall satisfaction with pain relief remained high and did not change significantly. The overall incidence of patients reporting moderate to severe pain was significantly less at Baylor than the national average. In conclusion, attitudes, misconceptions, and fears about pain management can be changed with intensive educational programs.