RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Low back pain is the leading cause of worldwide disability, with lumbosacral radiculopathy accounting for over one-third of these cases. There are limited data on the relationship between etiologies and lumbosacral radiculopathy, and it is unknown whether specific causes predict treatment outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: This study explores patient-reported etiologies for lumbosacral radiculopathy in a chronic pain clinic between January 2007 and December 2015 and examines whether these causes affected epidural steroid injection outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 1,242 patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy who received epidural steroid injections. The recording of an inciting event was done contemporaneously based on note templates. A positive outcome following an epidural steroid injection was defined as ≥30% pain relief sustained for six or more weeks without additional intervention. Factors associated with epidural steroid injection outcome were analyzed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Fifty point seven percent reported an inciting event, and 59.9% of patients experienced a positive epidural steroid injection outcome. The most commonly reported causes were falls (13.1%), motor vehicle collisions (10.7%), and lifting (7.8%). Individuals with a herniated disc (56.3%) were more likely to report a precipitating cause than those with stenosis (44.7%) or degenerative discs (47.8%, P = 0.012). An inciting event did not predict treatment outcome. Factors associated with negative treatment outcome included opioid consumption (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.39-0.95, P = 0.027), secondary gain (OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.50-0.96, P = 0.030), and baseline pain score (OR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.84-0.97, P = 0.006). The number of levels injected was associated with a positive outcome (OR = 2.72, 95% CI = 1.28-6.47, P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Reported inciting events are common in patients with lumbosacral radiculopathy but are not associated with outcome following epidural steroid injection, and their occurrence is not always consistent with the purported mechanism of injury.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapéutico , Glucocorticoides/uso terapéutico , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/tratamiento farmacológico , Vértebras Lumbares , Radiculopatía/tratamiento farmacológico , Sacro , Accidentes por Caídas , Accidentes de Tránsito , Adulto , Anciano , Dexametasona/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones Epidurales , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/complicaciones , Desplazamiento del Disco Intervertebral/complicaciones , Elevación , Modelos Logísticos , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/etiología , Región Lumbosacra , Masculino , Acetato de Metilprednisolona/uso terapéutico , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis Multivariante , Oportunidad Relativa , Dimensión del Dolor , Pronóstico , Radiculopatía/etiología , Estenosis Espinal/complicaciones , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are designed to restore baseline physiology, mitigate surgical stressors, and hasten recovery. Paramount to this approach is optimal pain control through multimodal analgesia and limiting reliance on opioid-based medications. Recent studies have fostered growing controversy surrounding the use of epidural analgesia in the ERAS setting, especially for higher-risk procedures. We examine the analgesic end points associated with the use of epidural within the ERAS framework for open hepatectomy. METHODS: From November 2013 through March 2016, postoperative analgesic end points including daily morphine equivalent administration and self-reported pain scores were prospectively collected and analyzed for 180 consecutive patients scheduled for open hepatectomy. Patients whose surgeries performed prior to July 2014 were managed using traditional strategy (pre-ERAS, n = 60), and those after July 1 underwent a comprehensive perioperative ERAS pathway (ERAS, n = 120). RESULTS: Patients managed using the ERAS pathway had a significant reduction in morphine equivalent requirements at 24 hours (median, 10.0 vs 116.0 mg; P < 0.001), 48 hours (median, 10.1 vs 85.4 mg; P < 0.001), and 72 hours (median, 2.5 vs 60.0 mg; P < 0.001) compared with pre-ERAS counterparts with a reduction in average pain scores at 24 hours (numeric pain rating scale, 4.1 ± 1.6 vs 5.1 ± 1.8) and similar scores at other time points. Within ERAS, patients who received epidural (n = 87) required significantly less morphine equivalents at 24 hours (median, 2.7 vs 65.0 mg; P < 0.001) and 48 hours (median, 8.0 vs 50.0 mg; P < 0.001) but not at 72 hours (median, 1.3 vs 4.5 mg; P = 0.56), as well as improved pain scores at 24 hours (visual analog scale score, 3.8 ± 1.3 vs 5.0 ± 1.8; P < 0.001) and 48 hours (3.4 ± 1.8 vs 4.7 ± 1.9; P = 0.001) compared with those who did not receive epidural (n = 33). Other associated postoperative end points including provision of fluids, rates of clinically significant hypotension, and lengths of stay between epidural and nonepidural groups were similar. CONCLUSIONS: A novel ERAS protocol for open hepatectomy successfully reduced reliance on perioperative opioids without expensing adequate analgesia compared with traditional care. Patients within ERAS benefitted from application of epidural, which further reduced opioid requirements and optimized pain control without increasing complication rates. Epidurals should remain an integral part of ERAS protocols for liver resection surgery.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Agudo/terapia , Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Hepatectomía/efectos adversos , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Dolor Postoperatorio/terapia , Recuperación de la Función , Dolor Agudo/diagnóstico , Dolor Agudo/epidemiología , Adulto , Anciano , Analgesia Epidural/métodos , Analgesia Epidural/tendencias , Femenino , Hepatectomía/tendencias , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Manejo del Dolor/tendencias , Dimensión del Dolor/métodos , Dolor Postoperatorio/diagnóstico , Dolor Postoperatorio/epidemiología , Cuidados Posoperatorios/métodos , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This review article outlines the recent advances, uses, and adverse effects of cell-based therapy for chronic pain management. Cell based therapies are gaining increasing ground as novel treatment modalities for a variety of pain pathologies that include, but are not limited to, neuropathic pain and degenerative disc disease. As these treatment modalities become more common practice, we have focused our review to provide pain practitioners and other practicing physicians an understanding of the technology and to summarize key clinical data and existing clinical trials that are being pursued by clinical investigators worldwide. OBJECTIVE: Review of stem cell technology and applications in pain management. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: The Pubmed NCBI and EMBASE databases was utilized to review published reports of clinical studies reported from 2000 to 2015, and ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/search) search function was used to document ongoing clinical trials [keywords: "chronic pain," "disc pain," "cell therapy," "osteoarthritis," "neuropathic," "stem cell"] currently active and recruiting patients. RESULTS: Articles were screened by title, abstract, and full article review. They were then analyzed by specific clinical indications and appropriate data were presented based on critical analysis of those articles. LIMITATIONS: More studies looking at the systematic use of stem cells in pain management will be required to draw conclusions about the benefits of the technology. CONCLUSION: Though the data from existing studies look promising for the use of stem cells as a novel therapeutic strategy for discogenic pain, neuropathic pain, and osteoarthritis, additional clinical studies will be needed to validate the benefit of the technology for clinical use. However, we hope that this narrative review will help guide pain physicians in making informed decisions for their patients about the potential of cell-based therapy for treating chronic pain conditions.
Asunto(s)
Dolor Crónico/terapia , Degeneración del Disco Intervertebral/terapia , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Trasplante de Células Madre , Enfermedad Crónica , Humanos , Neuralgia/terapia , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto , Osteoartritis/terapia , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Interventional pain treatment centers represent an integral part of interdisciplinary care. Barriers to effective treatment include access to care and financial issues related to pain clinic operations. To address these challenges, specialty clinics have taken steps to identify and remedy missed clinic appointments. However, no prospective study has sought to identify factors associated with pain clinic "no-shows." METHODS: We performed a prospective, longitudinal year-long study in an inner-city, academic pain clinic in which patients scheduled for office visits and procedures were categorized as to whether they showed up or did not show up for their scheduled appointment without cancelling the day before. Twenty demographic (age, employment status), clinical (eg, diagnosis, duration of pain), and environmental (season, time and day of appointment) variables were assessed for their association with missing an appointment. The logistic regression model predicting no-shows was internally validated with crossvalidation and bootstrapping methods. A predictive nomogram was developed to display effect size of predictors for no-shows. RESULTS: No-show data were collected on 5134 patients out of 5209 total appointments for a capture rate of 98.6%. The overall no-show rate was 24.6% and was higher in individuals who were young (<65 years), single, of ethnic minority background, received Medicare/Medicaid, had a primary diagnosis of low back pain or headaches, were seen on a day with rain or snow or for an initial consult, and had at least 1 previous pain provider. Model discrimination (area under curve) was 0.738 (99% confidence interval, 0.70-0.85). A minimum threshold of 350 points on the nomogram predicted greater than 55% risk of no-shows. CONCLUSIONS: We found a high no-show rate, which was associated with predictable and unpredictable (eg, snow) factors. Steps to reduce the no-show rate are discussed. To maximize access to care, operation managers should consider a regression model that accounts for patient-level risk of predictable no-shows. Knowing the patient level, no-show rate can potentially help to optimize the schedule programming by staggering low- versus high-probability no-shows.
Asunto(s)
Citas y Horarios , Clínicas de Dolor , Cooperación del Paciente , Centros Médicos Académicos , Adulto , Anciano , Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria , Baltimore , Etnicidad , Femenino , Cefalea/terapia , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Dolor de la Región Lumbar/terapia , Masculino , Medicaid , Medicare , Persona de Mediana Edad , Nomogramas , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Estudios Prospectivos , Análisis de Regresión , Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Estados Unidos , Población UrbanaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes are observed in up to 50% of infants after complex cardiac surgery. We sought to determine the association of perioperative anesthetic exposure with neurodevelopmental outcomes at age 12 months in neonates undergoing complex cardiac surgery and to determine the effect of brain injury determined by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of neonates undergoing complex cardiac surgery who had preoperative and 7-day postoperative brain MRI and 12-month neurodevelopmental testing with Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III). Doses of volatile anesthetics (VAA), benzodiazepines, and opioids were determined during the first 12 months of life. RESULTS: From a database of 97 infants, 59 met inclusion criteria. Mean ± sd composite standard scores were as follows: cognitive = 102.1 ± 13.3, language = 87.8 ± 12.5, and motor = 89.6 ± 14.1. After forward stepwise multivariable analysis, new postoperative MRI injury (P = 0.039) and higher VAA exposure (P = 0.028) were associated with lower cognitive scores. ICU length of stay (independent of brain injury) was associated with lower performance on all categories of the Bayley-III (P < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for multiple relevant covariates, we demonstrated an association between VAA exposure, brain injury, ICU length of stay, and lower neurodevelopmental outcome scores at 12 months of age. These findings support the need for further studies to identify potential modifiable factors in the perioperative care of neonates with CHD to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes.