Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 35
Filter
1.
Subst Use Misuse ; 59(7): 1047-1058, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38485654

ABSTRACT

Objective: To examine the extent to which pain acceptance, pain catastrophising and alexithymia moderate associations between pain intensity and psychological pain medication dependence. Methods: Participants (106 hospital outpatients with chronic spinal pain) completed the Leeds Dependence Questionnaire (LDQ) to measure psychological dependence on pain medication, and the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire-8 (CPAQ-8), the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS) and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20), plus the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Results: Multiple linear regression showed that degree of psychological dependence (measured dimensionally across the range of LDQ scores) was associated with TAS subscale difficulty identifying feelings (DIF) (ß = 0.249, p = <0.002) and PCS subscale rumination (ß = 0.193, p = 0.030), independently of pain intensity and risk behaviors for medication misuse. The effect of pain intensity was moderated by rumination, with pain intensity more strongly associated with dependence when rumination was high (interaction ß = 0.192, p = 0.004). Logistic regression showed that the effect of pain intensity on severe dependence (measured categorically as LDQ score ≥ 20) was moderated by alexithymia, so that severe dependence was independently associated with the combination of intense pain and high alexithymia (interaction odds ratio = 7.26, 95% CIs = 1.63-32.42, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Rumination and alexithymia moderated the associations between pain intensity and psychological pain medication dependence, consistent with emotion regulation theory. This raises the possibility that specifically targeting rumination about pain and symptoms of alexithymia could potentially improve the effectiveness of psychological interventions for chronic pain and help people to avoid or reduce their psychological dependence on pain medication.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Emotional Regulation , Humans , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Affective Symptoms/psychology , Outpatients , Dependency, Psychological
2.
JMIR Serious Games ; 12: e50089, 2024 Feb 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38345832

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) therapy in adults with chronic spinal pain (CSP) is unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of VR therapy and other therapies in adults with CSP, especially patients with inflammation-related pain. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched up to November 11, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing adults with CSP receiving VR therapy with those receiving other therapies were included. The trial registration platform as well as the reference lists of included studies and previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were manually searched. Two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and evaluation of the quality of the evidence. The weighted mean difference (WMD) was used as the effect size used to synthesize the outcome measure. RESULTS: In total, 16 RCTs involving 800 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled data from 15 (94%) RCTs including 776 (97%) participants showed that VR therapy was superior in improving pain intensity (WMD=-1.63, 95% CI -2.11 to -1.16, P<.001, I2=90%) and reducing inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein (WMD=-0.89, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.70, P<.001, I2=0%), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (WMD=-6.60, 95% CI -8.56 to -4.64, P<.001, I2=98%), and interleukin-6 (WMD=-2.76, 95% CI -2.98 to -2.53, P<.001, I2=0%). However, no significant differences were found in terms of the spinal range of motion (ROM), disability level, or fear of movement. In addition, 10 (63%) of the included RCTs had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: VR therapy may be an effective and safe intervention for reducing symptoms in patients with CSP, as it is shown to exert significant analgesic effects and beneficial improvements in inflammatory factor levels. However, this approach may not have significant effects on the spinal ROM, disability level, or fear of movement. Notably, the quality of the evidence from the RCTs included in this study ranged from moderate to low. Therefore, we recommend that readers interpret the results of this study with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022382331; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=382331.

3.
Global Spine J ; : 21925682241230922, 2024 Feb 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38321700

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature and subsequent meta-analysis for the development of a new guideline. OBJECTIVES: This manuscript summarizes the recommendations from a new clinical guideline published by the German Spine Society. It covers the current evidence on recommendations regarding the indication, test blocks and use of radiofrequency denervation. The guidelines aim is to improve patient care and efficiency of the procedure. METHODS: A multidisciplinary working group formulated recommendations based on the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: 20 clinical questions were defined for guideline development, with 87.5% consensus achieved by committee members for one recommendation and 100% consensus for all other topics. Specific questions that were addressed included clinical history, examination and imaging, conservative treatment before injections, diagnostic blocks, the injected medications, the cut-off value in pain-reduction for a diagnostic block as well as the number of blocks, image guidance, the cannula trajectories, the lesion size, stimulation, repeat radiofrequency denervation, sedation, cessation or continuation of anticoagulants, the influence of metal hardware, and ways to mitigate complications. CONCLUSION: Radiofrequency (RF) denervation of the spine and the SI joint may provide benefit to well-selected individuals. The recommendations of this guideline are based on very low to moderate quality of evidence as well as professional consensus. The guideline working groups recommend that research efforts in relation to all aspects of management of facet joint pain and SI joint pain should be intensified.

4.
J Pain ; 25(3): 791-804, 2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37871684

ABSTRACT

In people with nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP), disability and quality of life are associated with clinical, cognitive, psychophysical, and demographic variables. However, evidence regarding the interactions between these variables is only limited to this population. Therefore, this study aims to explore path models explaining the multivariate contributions of such variables to disability and quality of life in people with nCSP. This secondary analysis uses baseline data from a randomized controlled trial including 120 participants with nCSP. Structural equation modeling was used to explore path models for the Pain Disability Index (PDI), the Short Form 36-item physical (SF-36 PC), and mental (SF-36 MC) component scores. All models included sex, pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, hypervigilance, and pain intensity. Additionally, the PDI and SF-36 PC models included pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at the dominant pain site (ie, neck or low back). Significant associations were found between sex, pain cognitions, pain intensity, and PPTs. Only pain catastrophizing significantly directly influenced the PDI (P ≤ .001) and SF-36 MC (P = .014), while the direct effects on the SF-36 PC from kinesiophobia (P = .008) and pain intensity (P = .006) were also significant. However, only the combined effect of all pain cognitions on the SF-36 PC was mediated by pain intensity (P = .019). Our findings indicate that patients' pain-related cognitions have an adverse effect on their physical health-related quality of life via a negative influence on their pain intensity in people with nCSP. PERSPECTIVE: This secondary analysis details a network analysis confirming significant interactions between sex, pain cognitions, pain intensity, and PPTs in relation to disability and health-related quality of life in people with chronic spinal pain. Moreover, its findings establish the importance of pain cognitions and pain intensity for these outcomes. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02098005).


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Quality of Life , Humans , Chronic Pain/psychology , Pain Threshold , Pain Measurement
5.
Healthcare (Basel) ; 11(24)2023 Dec 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38132043

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain (CSP) is a major public health problem worldwide, frequently related to sleep problems. Central sensitization (CS) may worsen the clinical picture of CSP patients with insomnia. The aim of this study was to compare self-reported and objectively measured clinical outcomes between insomniac CSP patients with comorbid insomnia with and without symptoms of CS. METHODS: A case-control study on baseline self-reported sleep, functioning, and psychological distress through online questionnaires. Objective sleep and physical activity parameters and pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) were assessed through polysomnography, actigraphy, and digital algometry, respectively. Independent sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to examine possible differences in the outcome measures between the groups. RESULTS: Data from 123 participants were included and revealed no statistically significant group for objective sleep and physical activity parameters. The CS group, however, presented with worse self-reported sleep (quality sleep, insomnia severity, and dysfunctional beliefs about sleep), increased mental and physical fatigue, and higher psychological distress (anxiety and depressive symptoms), and reported lower PPTs. CONCLUSIONS: symptoms of CS may influence perceived sleep and affect functional health and well-being perception but do not seem to affect objective sleep and physical activity.

6.
Eur Spine J ; 32(10): 3370-3378, 2023 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37584698

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To outline clinical effectiveness of continuous epidural analgesia (CEA) in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) depending on severity of spinal degeneration. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, all patients with FBSS or LSS who underwent CEA within an inpatient rehabilitation program were evaluated. The pain reduction was measured by VAS on an hourly basis. Substantial pain reduction was defined as a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) > 50%. Severity of spinal degeneration, side effects and patient-specific characteristics were documented. RESULT: We included a total of 148 patients with 105 patients suffering from FBSS and 48 with LSS. The average pain reduction was - 37.6 ± 19.2 in FBSS and - 38.1 ± 17.8 in LSS group (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively). In the FBSS group, sensory deficits (p = .047) and numbness (p = .002), and in the LSS group, a severe disability measured by ODI (38.2 ± 15.4 vs. 57.3 ± 11.3, p < .001) significantly contributed to a worse outcome. The severity of the spinal degeneration and psychological disorders did not affect the pain reduction in terms of MCID. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides new evidence about CEA in the treatment of FBSS and LSS. CEA provides a significant pain reduction even under intensified physiotherapeutic exercising in patients with severe spinal degeneration and a broad variety of secondary diagnoses. Neurologic deficits in case of FBSS and severe disability in case of LSS may be risk factors for less favorable outcome.


Subject(s)
Analgesia, Epidural , Failed Back Surgery Syndrome , Spinal Stenosis , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Spinal Stenosis/complications , Spinal Stenosis/surgery , Spinal Stenosis/diagnosis , Treatment Outcome , Lumbar Vertebrae/surgery
7.
Pain Physician ; 26(2): 207-217, 2023 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36988366

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Poorly managed chronic spinal pain encumbers medical resources and drives healthcare costs, suggesting a target for improvement. OBJECTIVES: To determine how specialist-care pathways influence healthcare costs in the first year after a referral for chronic spine pain. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of administrative claims from a large commercial health insurance provider, analyzing a 6-month baseline, a variable "pre-referral period," and a one-year period of specialist care. SETTING: US patients covered by private commercial insurers. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with chronic, spine-related pain between July 2016 and February 2018 and under the active care of a specialist were eligible. Patients with neurological deficits or cancer-related pain were excluded. Patients were categorized based on sequence-dependent exposure to a pain specialist, a surgeon, or both specialties. Key measures were pain-related and all-cause medical resource use and costs and opioid prescription fills. RESULTS: Of 306,080 eligible patients (mean age 61.6; 61.5% women), 13% saw a pain specialist, 71% a surgeon, 7% a pain specialist then a surgeon, and 9% a surgeon then a pain specialist. Referral to a pain specialist alone was associated with lower resource use and per-patient adjusted cost savings of $3,311 (pain-related) and $6,447 (all-cause) compared to patients referred to a surgeon alone. The pain specialist pathway was associated with increased indicators of prescription opioid use. LIMITATIONS: Cohort design constraints temper the results' generalizability, given the need to simultaneously examine specialty pathway and medical resource incurred over the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: We observed meaningful savings in cost and resource use when chronic spine-pain patients were managed by pain specialists. Pain-management referrals should be an element of a thoughtfully designed care pathway.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid , Pain Management , Adult , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Male , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , Health Care Costs , Pain
8.
Physiother Theory Pract ; 39(8): 1753-1761, 2023 Aug 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35260038

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire (Revised-NPQ-Tr) is used to evaluate the change in pain knowledge. No study has explored its validity and reliability for the Turkish language. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Revised-NPQ-Tr in chronic spinal pain patients. METHODS: A total of 182 chronic spinal pain patients were included in the study. The Revised-NPQ-Tr results were analyzed using Rasch analysis to measure the psychometric properties. RESULTS: The Revised-NPQ-Tr indicates misfit to the Rasch model, as evidenced by the borderline significant p value (LR test = 27.626; df = 11; p = .004; Bonferroni-adjusted α = 0.004). Two items were differentially affected by educational status. Removal of poor-functioning items did not improve the psychometric properties of the questionnaire. The Revised-NPQ-Tr is unidimensional and there was no local dependence between items. The questionnaire exhibits known group validity. Test-retest reliability of the questionnaire was moderate [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.629]; however, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was found to be low (Cronbach's α = 0.330; person separation index = 0.373). CONCLUSION: Although the internal validity of the Revised-NPQ-Tr version was acceptable, its reliability was found to be low. Consequently, the results of Revised-NPQ-Tr should be interpreted carefully in the clinic.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Chronic Pain/diagnosis , Language , Surveys and Questionnaires , Psychometrics/methods
9.
Pain Ther ; 12(1): 19-66, 2023 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36422818

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain. METHODS: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined. RESULTS: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions. LIMITATIONS: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches.

10.
Pain Ther ; : 1-48, 2022 Nov 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36465720

ABSTRACT

Background: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis. Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain. Methods: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined. Results: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions. Limitations: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-022-00455-0.

11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36231365

ABSTRACT

An umbrella review of systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was developed to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of qigong, tai chi, and yoga in chronic spinal pain outcomes. The CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed and SPORTDiscus databases were searched. Pain, psychological factors, and quality of life (QOL) were the outcomes of interest. The methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The overlap was calculated using the corrected covered area. A total of 72 meta-analyses drawn from 20 systematic reviews were included and often were rated at a critically low quality. The effects of qigong on chronic low back and neck pain (CLBP and CNP, respectively) were inconsistent, although it improved the physical component of QOL after 12 weeks for CNP. Tai chi was superior to the controls in reducing CLBP; no reviews of interest were found on CNP. Yoga was superior to multiple controls in reducing CLBP, but no relevant effects on depression or QOL were found. QOL, anxiety, depression, and general mood improved with yoga for CNP. Inconsistencies arose related to yoga and CNP. Our findings mainly supported the potential effects of yoga and tai chi on pain-related outcomes, psychological factors, and QOL in populations with CLBP and NP. Clinical and methodological considerations were discussed.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Qigong , Tai Ji , Yoga , Chronic Pain/psychology , Chronic Pain/therapy , Exercise Therapy , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Quality of Life , Systematic Reviews as Topic
12.
Phys Ther ; 102(8)2022 08 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35689809

ABSTRACT

Most people who have nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP) report comorbid insomnia. However, in current treatment strategies for nCSP, insomnia is usually not addressed. Considering the bidirectional interaction between pain and sleep and its underlying psychophysiological mechanisms, insomnia may increase the risk of developing adverse physical and psychological health outcomes and should thus no longer be left untreated. As suggested by previous pilot studies, adding cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia to the contemporary evidence-based biopsychosocial physical therapy approach may also improve pain outcomes in nCSP. This manuscript aims to provide practical guidelines on hybrid physical therapy, including the combination of the following components: (1) pain neuroscience education (eg, to reconceptualize pain) and cognition-targeted exercise therapy (eg, graded exposure to functional daily life movements), and (2) cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (sleep psychoeducation, behavioral and cognitive therapy, correction of sleep hygiene, and relaxation therapy) can be deployed for the management of patients who have chronic spinal pain. Impact. Due to the major impact sleep disturbances have on pain and disability, insomnia as a comorbidity should no longer be ignored when treating patients with chronic spinal pain.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Cognitive Behavioral Therapy , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders , Chronic Pain/therapy , Humans , Physical Therapy Modalities , Sleep , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/therapy
13.
Pain Physician ; 25(3): 223-238, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35652763

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Multiple publications have shown the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare and increasing costs over the recent years in managing low back and neck pain as well as other musculoskeletal disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many modalities of treatments, including those related to chronic pain management, including both interventional techniques and opioids. While there have not been assessments of utilization of interventional techniques specific to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, previous analysis published with data from 2000 to 2018 demonstrated a decline in utilization of interventional techniques from 2009 to 2018 of 6.7%, with an annual decline of 0.8% per 100,000 fee-for-service (FFS) in the Medicare population. During that same time, the Medicare population has grown by 3% annually. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis include an evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as an updated assessment of the utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2010 to 2019, 2010 to 2020, and 2019 to 2020 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Utilization patterns and variables of interventional techniques with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in managing chronic pain were assessed from 2000 to 2020 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States. METHODS: The data for the analysis was obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020. RESULTS: The results of the present investigation revealed an 18.7% decrease in utilization of all interventional techniques per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2019 to 2020, with a 19% decrease for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, a 17.5% decrease for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks, and a 25.4% decrease for disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks. The results differed from 2000 to 2010 with an annualized increase of 10.2% per 100,000 Medicare population compared to an annualized decrease of 0.4% from 2010 to 2019, and a 2.5% decrease from 2010 to 2020 for all interventional techniques. For epidural and adhesiolysis procedures decreases were more significant and annualized at 3.1% from 2010 to 2019, increasing the decline to 4.8% from 2010 to 2020. For facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks, the reversal of growth patterns was observed but maintained at an annualized rate increase of 2.1% from 2010 to 2019, which changed to a decrease of 0.01% from 2010 to 2020. Disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks showed similar patterns as epidurals with an 0.8% annualized reduction from 2010 to 2019, which was further reduced to 3.6% from 2010 to 2020 due to COVID-19. LIMITATIONS: Data for the COVID-19 pandemic impact were available only for 2019 and 2020 and only the FFS Medicare population was utilized; utilization patterns in Medicare Advantage Plans, which constitutes almost 40% of the Medicare enrollment in 2020 were not available. Moreover, this analysis shares the limitations present in all retrospective reviews of claims based datasets. CONCLUSION: The decline driven by the COVID-19 pandemic was 18.7% from 2019 to 2020. Overall decline in utilization in interventional techniques from 2010 to 2020 was 22.0% per 100,000 Medicare population, with an annual diminution of 2.5%, despite an increase in the population rate of 3.3% annualized (38.9% overall) and Medicare enrollees of 33.4% and 2.9% annually.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chronic Pain , Aged , Chronic Pain/epidemiology , Humans , Medicare , Pain Management/methods , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , United States
14.
Pain Physician ; 24(S1): S27-S208, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33492918

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and  recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Physicians , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Epidural Space , Humans , Injections, Epidural , Pain Management , United States
15.
Pain Physician ; 24(1): 1-15, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33400424

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite epidurals being one of the most common interventional pain procedures for managing chronic spinal pain in the United States, expenditure analysis lacks assessment in correlation with utilization patterns. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess expenditures for epidural procedures in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was described as receiving epidural procedures throughout the year.• A visit was considered to include all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one treatment per region utilizing primary codes only.• Services or procedures were considered as all procedures including bilateral and multiple levels. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: Total expenditures were $723,981,594 in 2009, whereas expenditures of 2018 were $829,987,636, with an overall 14.6% increase, or an annual increase of 1.5%. However, the inflation-adjusted rate was $847,058,465 in 2009, compared to $829,987,636 in 2018, a reduction overall of 2% and an annual reduction of 0.2%. Inflation-adjusted per patient annual costs decreased from $988.93 in 2009 to $819.27 in 2018 with a decrease of 17.2% or an annual decline of 2.1%. In addition, inflation-adjusted costs per procedure decreased from $399.77 to $377.94, or 5.5% overall and 0.6% annually. Per procedure, episode, visit, and patient expenses were higher for transforaminal epidural procedures than lumbar interlaminar/caudal epidural procedures. Overall, costs of transforaminal epidurals increased 27.6% or 2.7% annually, whereas lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections cost were reduced 2.7%, or 0.3% annually. Inflation-adjusted costs for transforaminal epidurals increased 9.1% or 1.0% annually and declined 16.9 or 2.0% annually for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Expenditures for epidural procedures in chronic spinal pain were assessed only in the FFS Medicare population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for inflation, there was a decrease of expenditures for epidural procedures of 2%, or 0.2% annually, from 2009 to 2018. However, prior to inflation, the increases were noted at 14.6% and 1.5%. Inflation-adjusted costs per patient, per visit, and per procedure also declined. The proportion of Medicare patients per 100,000 receiving epidural procedures decreased 9.1%, or 1.1% annually. However, assessment of individual procedures showed higher costs for transforaminal epidural procedures compared to lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural procedures.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Epidural/economics , Anesthesia, Epidural/methods , Pain Management/economics , Pain Management/methods , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. , Chronic Pain/therapy , Health Expenditures/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Medicare/economics , Retrospective Studies , United States
16.
Global Spine J ; 11(8): 1248-1265, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33034233

ABSTRACT

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect and safety of acupuncture for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, the WHO Clinical Trial Registry, and the US National Library of Medicine clinical trial registry were searched from January 1, 2000, to November 1, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with chronic spinal pain treated by acupuncture versus sham acupuncture, no treatment, or another treatment were included. RESULTS: Data was extracted from 22 RCTs including 2588 patients. Pooled analysis revealed that acupuncture can reduce chronic spinal pain compared to sham acupuncture (weighted mean difference [WMD] -12.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.86 to -8.24), mediation control (WMD -18.27, 95% CI -28.18 to -8.37), usual care control (WMD -9.57, 95% CI -13.48 to -9.44), and no treatment control (WMD -17.10, 95% CI -24.83 to -9.37). In terms of functional disability, acupuncture can improve physical function at immediate-term follow-up (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.74, 95% CI -2.04 to -1.44), short-term follow-up (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.15 to -0.62), and long-term follow-up (SMD -1.25, 95% CI -1.48 to -1.03). CONCLUSION: In summary, compared to no treatment, sham acupuncture, or conventional therapy such as medication, massage, and physical exercise, acupuncture has a significantly superior effect on the reduction in chronic spinal pain and function improvement. Acupuncture might be an effective treatment for patients with chronic spinal pain and it is a safe therapy.

17.
Complement Ther Med ; 56: 102590, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33197665

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Psychomotor therapy is an innovative complementary approach that enhances the mind-body connection. It could have a positive effect on chronic pain syndromes but has not yet been specifically studied for spinal pain. We thus aimed to explore the experiences of chronic spinal pain patients with psychomotor therapy. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. 17 patients with chronic spinal pain were recruited from a multidisciplinary spinal pain program in a rehabilitation hospital in Switzerland. Participants received psychomotor therapy as part of this care. All interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was performed. SETTING: Division of General Medical Rehabilitation, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from thematic analysis: 1) Connecting body and mind; 2) Passive individualized care; 3) Effect on mobility and well-being versus pain; and 4) Need for further care. Participants particularly appreciated the person-centered approach, relaxation and link between body and mind in the psychomotor therapy sessions. They shared positive effects of psychomotor therapy on mobility, kinesiophobia and overall well-being, rather than on pain. Finally, they would have liked more follow-up care at the end of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences reported by patients in this study suggest that psychomotor therapy could be a promising complementary therapy for chronic spinal pain within a biopsychosocial approach. To better understand the benefits of psychomotor therapy for chronic spinal pain, further research is needed and should consider patient-reported outcome measures such as well-being, fear-avoidance belief and disability.


Subject(s)
Back Pain/therapy , Chronic Pain/therapy , Mind-Body Therapies , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Qualitative Research , Treatment Outcome
18.
J Appl Biomech ; 37(1): 43-51, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33176277

ABSTRACT

Although current lumbar stabilization exercises are beneficial for chronic mechanical low back pain, further research is recommended focusing on global spinal alignment normalization. This randomized, controlled, blinded trial was conducted to determine the effects of adding cervical posture correction to lumber stabilization on chronic mechanical low back pain. Fifty adult patients (24 males) with chronic mechanical low back pain and forward head posture received 12 weeks treatment of either both programs (group A) or lumbar stabilization (group B). The primary outcome was back pain. The secondary outcomes included the craniovertebral angle, Oswestry Disability Index, C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis, and sagittal intervertebral movements. The multivariate analysis of variance indicated a significant group-by-time interaction (P = .001, partial η2 = .609). Pain, disability, C7-S1 sagittal vertical axis, and l2-l3 intervertebral rotation were reduced in group A more than B (P = .008, .001, .025, and .001). Craniovertebral angle was increased in A when compared to B (P = .001). However, there were no significant group-by-time interactions for other intervertebral movements. Within-group comparisons were significant for all outcomes except for craniovertebral angle within patients in the control group. Adding cervical posture correction with lumber stabilization for management of chronic low back pain seemed to have better effects than the application of a stabilization program only.


Subject(s)
Exercise Therapy , Low Back Pain/therapy , Posture , Adult , Female , Humans , Lumbosacral Region , Male , Young Adult
19.
Pain Physician ; 23(6): 531-540, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33185369

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Research into cervical spinal pain syndromes has indicated that the cervical facet joints can be a potent source of neck pain, headache, and referred pain into the upper extremities. There have been multiple diagnostic accuracy studies, most commonly utilizing diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks and an acute pain model, as Bogduk has proposed. Subsequently, Manchikanti has focused on the importance of the chronic pain model and longer lasting relief with diagnostic blocks. OBJECTIVE: To assess diagnostic accuracy of cervical facet joint nerve blocks with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with updated assessment of prevalence, false-positive rate, and a description of philosophical paradigm shift from acute to chronic pain model, with concordant pain relief. STUDY DESIGN: This diagnostic accuracy study was performed with retrospective assessment of data to assess prevalence and false-positive rates. SETTING: The study was performed in a non-university-based, multidisciplinary, interventional pain management, private practice in the United States. METHODS: Cervical medial branch blocks were performed utilizing lidocaine 1% followed by bupivacaine 0.25% when appropriate response was obtained in an operating room under fluoroscopic guidance with 0.5 mL of lidocaine or bupivacaine from C3-C6 medial branches (levels blocked on joints involved). If a patient failed to respond to lidocaine with appropriate >= 80% pain relief, that patient was considered as negative for facet joint pain. If the response was positive with lidocaine block, a bupivacaine block was performed. RESULTS: The chronic cervical facet joint pain was diagnosed with cervical facet joint nerve blocks at a prevalence of 49.3% (95% CI, 43.6%, 55.0%) and with a false-positive rate of 25.6% (95% CI, 19.5%, 32.8%). This study also showed a single block prevalence rate of 66.3% (95% CI, 71.7%, 60.9%). Assessment of the duration of relief with each block showed greater than 80% for 6 days with lidocaine block and total relief of >= 50% of 31 days. In contrast, with bupivacaine, average duration of pain relief of >= 80% was 12 days with a total relief of >= 50% lasting for 55 days. CONCLUSION: Based on this investigation, utilizing a chronic pain model, there was significant difference in the relief patterns. This assessment showed prevalence and false-positive rates of 49.3% and 25.6% in chronic neck pain. Duration of relief >= 80% pain relief was 6 days with lidocaine and 12 days with bupivacaine, with total relief of >= 50% of 31 days with 55 days respectively.


Subject(s)
Arthralgia/diagnostic imaging , Arthralgia/epidemiology , Neck Pain/diagnosis , Neck Pain/epidemiology , Nerve Block , Adult , Anesthetics, Local/therapeutic use , Bupivacaine/therapeutic use , Chronic Pain , Female , Humans , Lidocaine/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Management , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Zygapophyseal Joint
20.
Pain Physician ; 23(5): 439-450, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32967386

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates of sacroiliac joint pain range from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. Over the years, utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections have been increasing in comparison to other interventional techniques. Further, the development of new current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and coverage policies for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy, and evolving evidence for sacroiliac joint fusion will further increase the utilization patterns. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018 with comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis. RESULTS: The results of the evaluation from 2009 to 2018 showed an increase of 11.3% and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population. However, from 2000 to 2009, an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 16.6% per 100,000 Medicare population. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study included a lack of data on the new sacroiliac joint nerve block and radiofrequency neurotomy codes. Further, this data did not include utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint fusions. In addition, Medicare Advantage patients were not included, which constitute approximately 30% of overall Medicare population. Further, there is also a possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows increases in utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections; however, at a significantly lower rate with an annual increase of 16.6% prior to 2009 and only 1.2% from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries.


Subject(s)
Injections, Intra-Articular/statistics & numerical data , Low Back Pain/therapy , Pain Management/methods , Chronic Pain/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Medicare , Retrospective Studies , Sacroiliac Joint , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...