Clinical management of spinal metastases-The Dutch national guideline.

This article is a summary of the revised Dutch multidisciplinary evidence-based guideline 'Spinal metastases' (English translation available at: https://www.oncoline.nl/spinal-metastases) that was published at the end of 2015. This summary provides an easy-to-use overview for physicians to use in their daily practice.

The Dutch national guideline on metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine; a multidisciplinary collaboration towards timely and proactive management.

Here, we describe the development of a Dutch national guideline on metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine. The aim was to create a comprehensive guideline focusing on proactive management of these diseases, enabling healthcare professionals to weigh patient perspectives, life expectancy, and expected outcomes to make informed treatment recommendations. A national multidisciplinary panel consisting of clinicians, a nurse, a patient advocate, an epidemiologist, and a methodologist drafted the guideline. The important role of patients in the realization of the guideline enabled us to identify and address perceived shortcomings in patient care. The guideline covers not only metastatic epidural spinal cord compression, but also the treatment of uncomplicated metastases and hematological malignancies localized within the spine. The guideline is applicable in daily practice and provides an up-to-date and concise overview of the diagnostic and treatment possibilities for patients suffering from a disease that can have a serious impact on their quality of life. Suggestions for the practical implementation of patient care in hospitals are also provided, including approaches for pursuing proactive management. The crucial role of the patient in decision making is emphasized in this guideline.

15. Discogenic low back pain.

An estimated 40% of chronic lumbosacral spinal pain is attributed to the discus intervertebralis. Degenerative changes following loss of hydration of the nucleus pulposus lead to circumferential or radial tears within the annulus fibrosus. Annular tears within the outer annulus stimulate the ingrowth of blood vessels and accompanying nociceptors into the outer and occasionally inner annulus. Sensitization of these nociceptors by various inflammatory repair mechanisms may lead to chronic discogenic pain. The current criterion standard for diagnosing discogenic pain is pressure-controlled provocative discography using strict criteria and at least one negative control level. The strictness of criteria and the adherence to technical detail will allow an acceptable low false positive response rate. The most important determinants are the standardization of pressure stimulus by using a validated pressure monitoring device and avoiding overly high dynamic pressures by the slow injection rate of 0.05 mL/s. A positive discogram requires the reproduction of the patient's typical pain at an intensity of > 6/10 at a pressure of < 15 psi above opening pressure and at a volume less than 3.0 mL. Perhaps the most important and defendable response is the failure to confirm the discus is symptomatic by not meeting this strict criteria. Various interventional treatment strategies for chronic discogenic low back pain unresponsive to conservative care include reduction of inflammation, ablation of intradiscal nociceptors, lowering intranuclear pressure, removal of herniated nucleus, and radiofrequency ablation of the nociceptors. Unfortunately, most of these strategies do not meet the minimal criteria for a positive treatment advice. In particular, single-needle radiofrequency thermocoagulation of the discus is not recommended for patients with discogenic pain (2 B-). Interestingly, a little used procedure, radiofrequency ablation of the ramus communicans, does meet the (2 B+) level for endorsement. There is currently insufficient proof to recommend intradiscal electrothermal therapy (2 B±) and intradiscal biacuplasty (0). It is advised that ozone discolysis, nucleoplasty, and targeted disc decompression should only be performed as part of a study protocol. Future studies should include more strict inclusion criteria.

Paravertebral blockade for minor breast surgery.

UNLABELLED: Paravertebral blockade (PVB) has been advocated as a useful technique for breast surgery. We prospectively compared the efficacy of PVB via a catheter technique with the efficacy of general anesthesia (GA) for minor breast surgery. Thirty patients were randomized into two groups to receive either PVB or GA. Variables of efficacy were postoperative pain measured on a visual analog scale, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), recovery time, and patient satisfaction. Postoperative visual analog scale scores in the PVB group were significantly lower in the early postoperative period (maximum, 12 vs 45 mm; P < 0.01). In both groups, PONV was nearly absent. There was no difference in recovery time. Patient satisfaction was better in the PVB group (2.8 vs 2.3; scale, 0-3; P < 0.01). There was one inadvertent epidural block and one inadvertent pleural puncture in the PVB group. Although PVB resulted in better postoperative pain relief, the advantages over GA were marginal in this patient group because postoperative pain was relatively mild and the incidence of PONV was small. Considering that the technique has a certain complication rate, we conclude that at present the risk/benefit ratio of PVB does not favor routine use for minor breast surgery. IMPLICATIONS: This study confirms the previously reported superior pain relief after paravertebral blockade (PVB) for breast surgery. However, considering the relatively mild postoperative pain and therefore the limited advantage of PVB for these patients, the risk/benefit ratio does not favor the routine use of PVB for minor breast surgery.