RESUMEN

Neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury (NPBPI) is a highly disabling clinical condition and is increasingly prevalent due to increased motorcycle accidents. Currently, no randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effectiveness of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) in patients suffering from NPBPI. In this study, we directly compare the efficacy of 10-Hz rTMS and anodal 2 mA tDCS techniques applied over the motor cortex (5 daily consecutive sessions) in 20 patients with NPBPI, allocated into 2 parallel groups (active or sham). The order of the sessions was randomised for each of these treatment groups according to a crossover design and separated by a 30-day interval. Scores for "continuous" and "paroxysmal" pain (primary outcome) were tabulated after the last stimulation day and 30 days after. Secondary outcomes included the improvement in multidimensional aspects of pain, anxiety state and quality of life from a qualitative and quantitative approach. Active rTMS and tDCS were both superior to sham in reducing continuous (p < 0.001) and paroxysmal (p = 0.002; p = 0.02) pain as well as in multidimensional aspects of pain (p = 0.001; p = 0.002) and anxiety state (p = < 0.001; p = 0.005). Our results suggest rTMS and tDCS are able to treat NPBPI with little distinction in pain and anxiety state, which may promote the use of tDCS in brachial plexus injury pain management, as it constitutes an easier and more available technique.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/, RBR-5xnjbc - Sep 3, 2018.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Although transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and mirror therapy (MT) have benefits in combating chronic pain, there is still no evidence of the effects of the simultaneous application of these techniques in patients with neuropathic pain. This study aims to assess the efficacy of tDCS paired with MT in neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury. Methods: In a sham controlled, double-blind, parallel-group design, 16 patients were randomized to receive active or sham tDCS administered during mirror therapy. Each patient received 12 treatment sessions, 30 min each, during a period of 4 weeks over M1 contralateral to the side of the injury. Outcome variables were evaluated at baseline and post-treatment using the McGill questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory, and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Long-term effects of treatment were evaluated at a 3-month follow-up. Results: An improvement in pain relief and quality of life were observed in both groups (p ≤ 0.05). However, active tDCS and mirror therapy resulted in greater improvements after the endpoint (p ≤ 0.02). No statistically significant differences in the outcome measures were identified among the groups at follow-up (p ≥ 0.12). A significant relationship was found between baseline pain intensity and outcome measures (p ≤ 0.04). Moreover, the results showed that state anxiety is closely linked to post-treatment pain relief (p ≤ 0.05). Conclusion: Active tDCS combined with mirror therapy has a short-term effect of pain relief, however, levels of pain and anxiety at the baseline should be considered. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04385030.

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic 5 min before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

RESUMO A colonoscopia é um dos procedimentos mais feitos. Sedação e analgesia diminuem a ansiedade e o desconforto e minimizam riscos. Em razão disso, os pacientes preferem que o exame seja feito sob anestesia, embora não tenha sido determinada a melhor combinação de fármacos. A associação de benzodiazepínicos com opioides é usada para aliviar a dor e o desconforto do paciente. Mais recentemente, o propofol assumiu posição de destaque. Este estudo, prospectivo e randomizado, é único na literatura médica e especificamente comparou o uso do propofol e fentanil associado ou não ao midazolam na sedação para colonoscopia feita por anestesiologistas. Os objetivos do estudo foram avaliar os efeitos colaterais da sedação, as condições de alta, a qualidade da sedação e o consumo de propofol durante a colonoscopia, com ou sem o midazolam como pré-anestésico. Envolveu 140 pacientes submetidos à colonoscopia, no Hospital Universitário da Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora. Os pacientes foram divididos em dois grupos. O Grupo I recebeu, por via endovenosa, midazolam como pré-anestésico, cinco minutos antes da sedação, seguido do fentanil e propofol. O Grupo II recebeu, por via endovenosa, anestesia com fentanil e propofol. Os pacientes do Grupo II apresentaram maior incidência de reação (motora ou verbal) à introdução do colonoscópio, bradicardia, hipotensão arterial e maior consumo de propofol. A satisfação dos pacientes foi maior no Grupo I. De acordo com a metodologia empregada, a associação de midazolam ao propofol e fentanil para sedação em colonoscopia reduz o consumo de propofol e cursa com maior satisfação do paciente.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic 5min before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Colonoscopy is one of the most common procedures. Sedation and analgesia decrease anxiety and discomfort and minimize risks. Therefore, patients prefer to be sedated when undergoing examination, although the best combination of drugs has not been determined. The combination of opioids and benzodiazepines is used to relieve the patient's pain and discomfort. More recently, propofol has assumed a prominent position. This randomized prospective study is unique in medical literature that specifically compared the use of propofol and fentanyl with or without midazolam for colonoscopy sedation performed by anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to evaluate the side effects of sedation, discharge conditions, quality of sedation, and propofol consumption during colonoscopy, with or without midazolam as preanesthetic. The study involved 140 patients who underwent colonoscopy at the University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I received intravenous midazolam as preanesthetic five minutes before sedation, followed by fentanyl and propofol; Group II received intravenous anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol. Patients in Group II had a higher incidence of reaction (motor or verbal) to the colonoscope introduction, bradycardia, hypotension, and increased propofol consumption. Patient satisfaction was higher in Group I. According to the methodology used, the combination of midazolam, fentanyl, and propofol for colonoscopy sedation reduces propofol consumption and provides greater patient satisfaction.