Portuguese Version of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory: A Multicenter Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to perform the translation, cultural adaptation, and validation of the Pain Beliefs and Perceptions Inventory (PBPI) for the European Portuguese language and chronic pain population. METHODS: This is a longitudinal multicenter validation study. A Portuguese version of the PBPI (PBPI-P) was created through a process of translation, back translation, and expert panel evaluation. The PBPI-P was administered to a total of 122 patients from 13 chronic pain clinics in Portugal, at baseline and after 7 days. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed by Cronbach's alpha (α) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Construct (convergent and discriminant) validity was assessed based on a set of previously developed theoretical hypotheses about interrelations between the PBPI-P and other measures. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to test the theoretical structure of the PBPI-P. RESULTS: The internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients for each respective subscale were α = 0.620 and ICC = 0.801 for mystery; α = 0.744 and ICC = 0.841 for permanence; α = 0.778 and ICC = 0.791 for constancy; and α = 0.764 and ICC = 0.881 for self-blame. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure (performance, constancy, self-blame, and mystery) that explained 63% of the variance. The construct validity of the PBPI-P was shown to be adequate, with more than 90% of the previously defined hypotheses regarding interrelations with other measures confirmed. CONCLUSION: The PBPI-P has been shown to be adequate and to have excellent reliability, internal consistency, and validity. It may contribute to a better pain assessment and is suitable for research and clinical use.

Pharmacological versus microvascular decompression approaches for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia: clinical outcomes and direct costs.

In idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia (TN) the neuroimaging evaluation is usually normal, but in some cases a vascular compression of trigeminal nerve root is present. Although the latter condition may be referred to surgery, drug therapy is usually the first approach to control pain. This study compared the clinical outcome and direct costs of (1) a traditional treatment (carbamazepine [CBZ] in monotherapy [CBZ protocol]), (2) the association of gabapentin (GBP) and analgesic block of trigger-points with ropivacaine (ROP) (GBP+ROP protocol), and (3) a common TN surgery, microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve (MVD protocol). Sixty-two TN patients were randomly treated during 4 weeks (CBZ [n = 23] and GBP+ROP [n = 17] protocols) from cases of idiopathic TN, or selected for MVD surgery (n = 22) due to intractable pain. Direct medical cost estimates were determined by the price of drugs in 2008 and the hospital costs. Pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and number of pain crises; the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Sickness Impact Profile, and satisfaction with treatment and hospital team were evaluated. Assessments were performed at day 0 and 6 months after the beginning of treatment. All protocols showed a clinical improvement of pain control at month 6. The GBP+ROP protocol was the least expensive treatment, whereas surgery was the most expensive. With time, however, GBP+ROP tended to be the most and MVD the least expensive. No sequelae resulted in any patient after drug therapies, while after MDV surgery several patients showed important side effects. Data reinforce that, (1) TN patients should be carefully evaluated before choosing therapy for pain control, (2) different pharmacological approaches are available to initiate pain control at low costs, and (3) criteria for surgical interventions should be clearly defined due to important side effects, with the initial higher costs being strongly reduced with time.

Effectiveness of the association between carbamazepine and peripheral analgesic block with ropivacaine for the treatment of trigeminal neuralgia.

Treatment of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is achieved by using adjuvant analgesics like antiepileptics, with carbamazepine (CBZ) being the first-line approach for TN patients, although side effects may be present. Other approaches using gabapentin, namely when associated with peripheral analgesic block of TN trigger points with the local anesthetic ropivacaine (ROP), resulted in decreased pain and daily drug intake (reduced side effects). This study evaluates if the association between CBZ and the peripheral block with ROP reinforces the clinical value of CBZ. In this parallel, double-blinded study, idiopathic TN patients were randomized to receive during 4 weeks either CBZ (CBZ; n = 21) or CBZ associated with the peripheral analgesic block using ROP (CBZ + ROP; n = 24). The primary outcome measures were the following: i) pain intensity, evaluated by the numerical rating scale; ii) number of pain crises; and iii) number needed to treat. Evaluation points were at the beginning (day 1) and end (day 29) of treatment and after a follow-up of 5 months (month 6). Both protocols resulted in a decrease of pain intensity and number of pain crises, but only the association CBZ + ROP showed i) a significant stronger reduction in pain intensity at month 6 and ii) a significant decrease in the daily dose of CBZ given to patients (both at day 29 and month 6). In contrast, the daily dose in CBZ-only patients remained constant or even increased. The number needed to treat for the association CBZ + ROP over the CBZ protocol reduced from 5 at the end of the 4-week treatment to 3 after the 5-month follow-up. Data reinforce the use of CBZ as a primary tool to control pain in TN patients, as the association CBZ + ROP i) improves the clinical qualities of CBZ, ii) strongly reduces the daily dose of CBZ, and iii) reduces the potential side effects attributed to high doses of CBZ.

Gabapentin supplemented with ropivacain block of trigger points improves pain control and quality of life in trigeminal neuralgia patients when compared with gabapentin alone.

OBJECTIVE: Pain control in trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is achieved using anticonvulsivants, mainly carbamazepine. When this drug cannot be used, other drugs like gabapentin (GBP) have been used to provide adequate pain control. To improve the therapeutic effect of GBP, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of associating GBP with ropivacain (ROP) analgesic block of facial trigger points in TN patients. DESIGN: Thirty-six TN patients were randomly assigned during 4 weeks to 1 of the following protocols: Protocol I-daily oral GBP administered in a titrated dose; Protocol II-ROP applied as analgesic block to TN trigger points once a week; Protocol III-daily oral GBP plus ROP once a week. Protocol II had to be discontinued in 7/12 patients owing to insufficient pain control. Pain intensity was evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and disability was assessed by Sickness Impact Profile. RESULTS: When compared with Protocol I, Protocol III (GBP+ROP) patients showed (1) a reduction of VAS score after 7 and 28 days of treatment, an effect that was still present 6 and 12 months later; (2) a faster reduction of VAS score using a significantly lower dose of GBP; (3) a smaller total and daily GBP dose at the end of the treatment, which resulted in a total absence of adverse side effects; and (4) an improvement of the functional well-being measured by the Sickness Impact Profile. The number needed to treat (NNT) (GBP+ROP vs. GBP protocols) to obtain 1 GBP+ROP-treated patient with at least 50% pain relief was 1.71 (day 7) and 2.40 (day 28). CONCLUSIONS: The association of GBP and ROP is safe, without side effects and results in an important clinical benefit associated to an improvement of the functional health status of TN patients when compared with GBP alone. This may constitute a therapeutic alternative for pain control in TN patients who cannot be treated with carbamazepine.