[Consultation or liaison psychotherapy service--what difference does it make for an outpatient pain clinic?]. / Psychosomatischer Konsil-oder Liaisondienst in einer Schmerzambulanz Was verändert sich?

OBJECTIVES: Even if the effectiveness of psychotherapy emphasising a cognitive behavioral approach is clearly shown by randomised controlled trials, it is difficult to motivate chronic pain patients to use this type of treatment. We compared the effectiveness of consultation and liaison models of co-operation between an outpatient pain clinic and a psychosomatic department in creating motivation to psychotherapy. METHODS: In a retrospective design we collected data of all patients seen in the pain clinic during two periods of 6 months before ( N=165) and after ( N=277) changing from a consultation to a liaison model. Clinical data were documented by the MASK system (Hildebrandt u. Pfingsten 1993). Depression was screened using a depression scale (vgl. Zerssen 1973), somatic complaints by listing of complaints (vgl. Zerssen u. Koeller 1976) and two short screening questionnaires. RESULTS: In the liaison model diagnostic sessions with the consulting psychotherapist were significantly more often recommended by physicians from anaesthesia departments (25.6% vs 13.9%; p<0.01) and accepted by patients (63.3 vs 30.4%; p<0.01). In both systems 80% of the patients accepted the suggested psychotherapy. After changing to the liaison type of co-operation, there was a significant decrease in the prescription of opioid and benzodiazepine drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The liaison model of co-operation was significantly more effective to enhance physician's and patient's motivation for a psychosomatic approach to pain treatment. Psychotherapy is better accepted by patients suffering from chronic pain if it is offered in a multidisciplinary context and in the familiar surroundings of the pain clinic.

[Does intrathecal clonidine prolong the effect of spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric mepivacaine? A randomized double-blind study]. / Verlängert intrathekal injiziertes Clonidin die Wirkung einer Spinalanästhesie mit hyperbarem Mepivacain? Eine randomisierte Doppelblindstudie.

BACKGROUND: Clonidine, an alpha 2-receptor agonist, has been reported to prolong the blocking actions of local anaesthetics. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of spinally injected clonidine on the duration of spinal anaesthesia by mepivacaine and on the postoperative demand for analgesics. METHODS: Forty-five patients who had transurethral urological surgery under spinal anaesthesia were randomized to 3 groups (n = 15 each) and studied in a double-blind fashion. Group I received 80 mg mepivacaine 4% only, while in group II mepivacaine was combined with 75 micrograms clonidine intraspinally and in group III with 150 micrograms clonidine. Onset time, spread of anaesthesia, duration of sensory and motor blockade, regression of anaesthesia and postoperative demand for analgesics were recorded. In addition heart rate and mean arterial pressure were measured at regular intervals. RESULTS: Clonidine had no effect on the onset time and spread or intensity of spinal anaesthesia. The higher dose of clonidine significantly prolonged the duration of sensory blockade by 50 min and the duration of motor block by 40 min, while 75 micrograms had no significant effect. Heart rate and mean arterial pressure were significantly reduced in both clonidine groups when compared to plain mepivacaine. There was no significant reduction in postoperative analgesic demand. CONCLUSION: While clonidine prolonged sensory analgesia, there was also an undesirable prolongation of motor block postoperatively. In addition, there was a significant and long lasting reduction in heart rate and mean arterial pressure in both clonidine groups. Unfavourably, postoperative demand of analgesics was not reduced by spinal injection of clonidine. Thus, the routine addition of clonidine for spinal anaesthesia with local anaesthetics is not recommended.