RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from osteoarthritis of the knee and patients post total knee arthroplasty often develop refractory, disabling chronic knee pain. Radiofrequency ablation, including conventional, pulsed, and cooled, has recently become more accepted as an interventional technique to manage chronic knee pain in patients who have failed conservative treatment or who are not suitable candidates for surgical treatment. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to analyze published studies on radiofrequency ablation to provide an overview of the current knowledge regarding variations in procedures, nerve targets, adverse events, and temporal extent of clinical benefit. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of published studies investigating conventional, pulsed, or cooled radiofrequency ablation in the setting of chronic knee pain. METHODS: Medline, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were reviewed for studies on radiofrequency ablation for patients with chronic knee pain through July 29, 2016. From the studies, the procedural details, outcomes after treatment, follow-up points, and complications were compiled and analyzed in this literature review. Included studies were analyzed for clinical relevance and strength of evidence was graded using either the NHLBI Quality assessment of controlled intervention studies or the NHLBI quality assessment for before-after (pre-post) studies with no control group. RESULTS: Seventeen total publications were identified in the search, including articles investigating conventional, pulsed, or cooled radiofrequency ablation. These studies primarily targeted either the genicular nerves or used an intraarticular approach. Of the studies, 5 were small-sized randomized controlled trials, although one involved diathermy radiofrequency ablation. There were 8 retrospective or prospective case series and 4 case reports. Utilizing the strength of evidence grading, there is a low level of certainty to suggest a superior benefit between targeting the genicular nerve, an intraarticular approach, or targeting the larger nerves such as femoral and tibial nerves. Utilizing the strength of evidence grading, there is a low level of certainty in supporting the superiority of any specific RFA procedure modality. The majority of the studies report positive patient outcomes, but the inconsistent procedural methodology, inconsistent patient assessment measures, and small study sizes limit the applicability of any specific study to clinical practice. LIMITATIONS: While the wide search strategy included a variety of articles, broad conclusions and pooled data could not be obtained based on the studies analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the studies showed promising results for the treatment of severe chronic knee pain by radiofrequency ablation at up to one year with minimal complications. Numerous studies, however, yielded concerns about procedural protocols, study quality, and patient follow-up. Radiofrequency ablation can offer substantial clinical and functional benefit to patients with chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis or post total knee arthroplasty.Key words: Radiofrequency ablation, knee osteoarthritis, knee pain, genicular nerve, total knee arthroplasty (TKA), cooled radiofrequency ablation, pulsed radiofrequency ablation.
Assuntos
Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Osteoartrite do Joelho/terapia , Tratamento por Radiofrequência Pulsada/métodos , Artroplastia do Joelho , Temperatura Baixa , Humanos , Articulação do Joelho/fisiopatologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
An underappreciated sequelae of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is the pain associated with the blood clot in the peripheral extremity. Although most frequently acute in nature, DVT occasionally presents with chronic pain in the affected limb. Furthermore, many individuals suffering from prothrombotic states often have recurring pain from DVT. Thus far there has been a paucity in the medical literature in how to treat post thrombotic pain. Post thrombotic syndrome (PTS) can cause a significant decrease in quality of life in individuals who have had a history of a DVT. Symptoms will typically include edema, pain, heaviness of the affected limb, skin changes, ulcers, varicosities, and gait abnormality. An underappreciated approach to treating PTS is the utilization of lumbar sympathetic blocks (LSB). A 68-year-old male who had a history of recurrent right lower extremity deep venous thrombosis presented with complaints of excruciating pain, discomfort, and erythema in his right lower extremity, which was negatively affecting his quality of life and prohibiting him from mobility. The patient attributed his lack of mobility secondary to the thrombotic pain. Compression boot/stocking therapy was not combating the discomfort associated with the PTS, often increasing the severity of the patient's pain. Sequential right lumbar sympathetic blocks were performed, which nearly completely resolved the patient's symptoms and improved the patient's ambulatory status and ability to perform activities of daily living. Sympathetic nerve blocks should be considered as a treatment option for patients who suffer with pain from PTS.
Assuntos
Bloqueio Nervoso Autônomo/métodos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Síndrome Pós-Trombótica/terapia , Trombose Venosa/terapia , Idoso , Humanos , Região Lombossacral , Masculino , Dor/diagnóstico , Dor/etiologia , Síndrome Pós-Trombótica/diagnóstico , Síndrome Pós-Trombótica/etiologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Trombose Venosa/complicações , Trombose Venosa/diagnósticoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The necessity of aggressive pain management in the hospital setting is becoming increasingly evident. It has been shown to improve patient outcomes, and is now an avenue for Medicare to assess reimbursement. In this cohort analysis, we compared the March 2008 to the December 2012 Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Survey (HCAHPS) reports in order to determine if pain management has improved in the United States after this national standardized survey was created. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether pain perception would improve in the 2012 report relative to the 2008 report. STUDY DESIGN: Statistical analyses were conducted with the HCAHPS report to compare pain control in regards to hospital type, hospital ownership, and individual hospitals. Using the question, "How often is your pain controlled?," T-tests were used to compare each hospital type. Hospital ownerships were assessed via analysis of variance (ANOVA) testing. T-tests were conducted to track the difference of hospital performance between the 2008 and the 2012 report. Paired management data were obtained from hospitals that participated in both reports and were assessed using paired T-tests. SETTING: This survey was administered to a random sample of adult inpatients between 48 hours and 6 weeks after discharge from any hospital reporting to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) across the US. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include response bias, recall bias, and there may be bias related to types of people likely to respond to a survey, but this is inherent to data that is collected on a voluntary response. Additionally, a 3% increase in the number of patients rating their pain as always well-controlled, while statistically significant, admittedly may not be clinically significant. In addition, the raw data collected is adjusted for the effects of patient-mix. The statistical analyses performed to derive the final quarterly HCAHPS reports are unavailable to us and therefore we cannot comment on how individual factors such as age, sex, race, and education or the interaction of the aforementioned affect responses about the patient's perception on how well their pain was controlled between 2008 and 2012. RESULTS: Two thousand three hundred and ninety five hospitals reported pain management data in both 2008 and 2012. In 2012, hospitals improved their ability to "always control a patients pain" by 3.07% (P < 0.0001) in comparison to the baseline March 2008 report, which was statistically significant. According to the 2012 data, the discrepancy in pain management between acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals was 3.33% which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Government hospitals were shown to manage pain better at baseline, but all 3 types of ownership improved their pain scores between the 2 reports which was shown to be statistically significant (P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: The HCAHPS survey is a national public standardized report used as a way to compare care in the United States. Patient pain perception has improved between the 2008 and 2012 reports. Further studies are needed to evaluate critical care hospitals.