CHRONIC PAIN

慢性疼痛
  • DOI:
    文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:在接受抗凝和抗血小板治疗的慢性疼痛患者中,介入技术的表现频率持续增加。了解持续慢性抗凝治疗的重要性,对介入技术的需求,确定抗凝治疗的持续时间和停药或暂时停药对避免破坏性并发症至关重要,主要是在进行神经轴手术时。抗凝剂和抗血小板作用于凝血系统,增加出血风险。然而,停用抗凝药物或抗血小板药物会使患者面临血栓形成风险,这可能导致显著的发病率和死亡率,尤其是那些患有冠状动脉或脑血管疾病的患者。这些指南总结了当前同行评审的文献,并根据在介入手术期间接受抗凝和抗血小板治疗的患者的最佳证据综合制定了基于共识的指南。
    方法:基于最佳证据综合的文献综述和指南开发。
    目的:对使用抗凝和/或抗血小板药物的患者在介入技术过程中出血和血栓形成风险评估的文献提供最新的和简明的评价。
    方法:基于最佳证据综合制定共识指南,包括对介入疼痛过程中出血风险的文献进行回顾,实践模式,抗凝和抗血小板治疗的围手术期管理。一个多学科专家小组开发了方法论,基于最佳证据综合的风险分层,以及抗凝和抗血小板治疗的管理。它还包括基于多种因素的停止抗凝和抗血小板治疗的风险。出血风险的多个数据源,实践模式,血栓形成的风险,并确定了抗凝和抗血小板治疗的围手术期管理。从1966年到2023年,通过搜索多个数据库来确定相关文献。在制定共识声明和准则时,我们使用了一种改进的Delphi技术,这已经被描述为最小化与群体互动相关的偏见。没有主要利益冲突的小组成员投票批准了具体的指导方针声明。每位小组成员可以建议对指南声明的措辞进行编辑,并可以就指南在临床实践中的实施提出额外的限定意见或意见,以达成共识并纳入最终指南。每个指南声明都要求合格的小组成员之间至少有80%的同意,而没有主要的利益冲突。
    结果:共有34位作者参与了这些指南的制定。其中,29人参加了投票。共提出了20项建议。总的来说,20个项目中的16个获得了100%的验收。经过第二轮和第三轮投票,项目总数减少到18个。最终结果为16项(89%)的100%接受。有2个陈述(陈述6和7)和3个作者的建议存在分歧。其余2个项目的接受度分别为94%和89%。分歧和异议是拜伦·J·施耐德,MD,建议将所有转孔药物分类为低风险,而SanjeevaGupta,MD,希望所有转孔药物都处于中等风险。第二个分歧与VivekanandA.Manocha有关,MD,建议颈部和胸部经椎间孔为高风险手术。因此,通过适当的文献综述,为接受抗凝药和抗血小板治疗的患者的围手术期管理制定了基于共识的声明。这些声明包括:血栓栓塞风险的估计,出血风险的估计,并确定重新开始抗凝或抗血小板治疗的时机。提供了风险分层,将介入技术分为三类低风险,中度或中度风险,和高风险。Further,在低风险和中等或中等风险类别的多种情况下,建议禁止停止抗凝治疗或抗血小板治疗.
    结论:文献的持续缺乏与不一致的建议。
    结论:根据现有文献的回顾,出版的临床指南,和建议,一个多学科专家小组介绍了围手术期接受抗凝或抗血小板治疗的患者的介入技术管理指南.这些指南提供了对风险分类的全面评估,适当的建议,以及基于现有最佳证据的建议。
    BACKGROUND: The frequency of performance of interventional techniques in chronic pain patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy continues to increase. Understanding the importance of continuing chronic anticoagulant therapy, the need for interventional techniques, and determining the duration and discontinuation or temporary suspension of anticoagulation is crucial to avoiding devastating complications, primarily when neuraxial procedures are performed. Anticoagulants and antiplatelets target the clotting system, increasing the bleeding risk. However, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs exposes patients to thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. These guidelines summarize the current peer reviewed literature and develop consensus-based guidelines based on the best evidence synthesis for patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy during interventional procedures.
    METHODS: Review of the literature and development of guidelines based on best evidence synthesis.
    OBJECTIVE: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding the assessment of bleeding and thrombosis risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications.
    METHODS: Development of consensus guidelines based on best evidence synthesis included review of the literature on bleeding risks during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. A multidisciplinary panel of experts developed methodology, risk stratification based on best evidence synthesis, and management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. It also included risk of cessation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy based on a multitude of factors. Multiple data sources on bleeding risk, practice patterns, risk of thrombosis, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy were identified. The relevant literature was identified through searches of multiple databases from 1966 through 2023. In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, we used a modified Delphi technique, which has been described to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted on approving specific guideline statements. Each panelist could suggest edits to the guideline statement wording and could suggest additional qualifying remarks or comments as to the implementation of the guideline in clinical practice to achieve consensus and for inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without primary conflict of interest.
    RESULTS: A total of 34 authors participated in the development of these guidelines. Of these, 29 participated in the voting process. A total of 20 recommendations were developed. Overall, 100% acceptance was obtained for 16 of 20 items. Total items were reduced to 18 with second and third round voting. The final results were 100% acceptance for 16 items (89%). There was disagreement for 2 statements (statements 6 and 7) and recommendations by 3 authors. These remaining 2 items had an acceptance of 94% and 89%. The disagreement and dissent were by Byron J. Schneider, MD, with recommendation that all transforaminals be classified into low risk, whereas Sanjeeva Gupta, MD, desired all transforaminals to be in intermediate risk. The second disagreement was related to Vivekanand A. Manocha, MD, recommending that cervical and thoracic transforaminal to be high risk procedures.Thus, with appropriate literature review, consensus-based statements were developed for the perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulants and antiplatelets These included the following: estimation of the thromboembolic risk, estimation of bleeding risk, and determination of the timing of restarting of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.Risk stratification was provided classifying the interventional techniques into three categories of low risk, moderate or intermediate risk, and high risk. Further, on multiple occasions in low risk and moderate or intermediate risk categories, recommendations were provided against cessation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.
    CONCLUSIONS: The continued paucity of literature with discordant recommendations.
    CONCLUSIONS: Based on the review of available literature, published clinical guidelines, and recommendations, a multidisciplinary panel of experts presented guidelines in managing interventional techniques in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period. These guidelines provide a comprehensive assessment of classification of risk, appropriate recommendations, and recommendations based on the best available evidence.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    30-40%的癌症患者经历神经性癌症疼痛。它显著降低了癌症患者和癌症患者的生活质量和整体健康状况。癌症患者神经性疼痛的潜在机制是复杂的,涉及肿瘤的直接参与,神经压迫或浸润,化疗和/或放疗引起的神经损伤,或手术后并发症。对于医疗保健专业人员来说,有效评估和管理神经性癌症疼痛至关重要。人们越来越认识到神经性疼痛评估的标准化导致定制的管理和改善的患者结果。疼痛管理策略,包括药物,介入镇痛,物理和补充治疗,有助于缓解神经性疼痛,提高患者的舒适度和生活质量。
    UNASSIGNED: Neuropathic cancer pain is experienced by 30-40% of patients with cancer. It significantly reduces quality of life and overall wellbeing for patients living with and beyond cancer. The underlying mechanisms of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer are complex and involve direct tumour involvement, nerve compression or infiltration, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy-induced nerve damage, or post-surgical complications. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to assess and manage neuropathic cancer pain effectively. There is increasing recognition that standardisation of neuropathic pain assessment leads to tailored management and improved patient outcomes. Pain management strategies, including medication, interventional analgesia, physical and complementary therapy, can help alleviate neuropathic pain and improve the patient\'s comfort and quality of life.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:临床医生定期开阿片类药物来治疗急性和慢性癌症疼痛,经常解决急性术后疼痛,偶尔治疗慢性非癌性疼痛。由于副作用和/或反应不良,某些患者的临床疗效可能欠佳。和阿片样物质的旋转/转换(转换)经常是必要的。尽管实践广泛,阿片类药物转化率在临床医生之间不一致,实践,和国家。因此,我们对阿片类药物转化研究进行了范围界定系统评价,为国际eDelphi指南提供信息.
    方法:为了确保全面审查,我们在多个数据库中进行了系统的搜索(OVIDMedline,PsycINFO,Embase,EBM-Cochrane系统评价和注册试验数据库,LILACS,IMEMR,AIM,WPRIM)使用截至2022年6月发表的研究。此外,我们进行了手工和GoogleScholar搜索,以验证我们发现的完整性。我们的纳入标准包括随机和非随机研究,没有年龄限制,只有少数儿科研究确定。我们纳入了癌症研究,非癌症,急性,和慢性疼痛。根据多国癌症支持护理(MASCC)标准确定证据的水平和等级。
    结果:我们的搜索产生了21,118份摘要,包括140项随机(RCT)和68项非随机(NRCT)临床试验。我们将这些结果与最近公布的转化率进行了比较。已发表的评论与本范围界定的系统评论之间存在适度的相关性。
    结论:本范围系统评价发现低质量的证据支持阿片类药物转换指南。我们将使用这些数据,包括转化率、给药类型和途径,通知eDelphi指南。
    BACKGROUND: Clinicians regularly prescribe opioids to manage acute and chronic cancer pain, frequently to address acute postoperative pain, and occasionally to manage chronic non-cancer pain. Clinical efficacy may be suboptimal in some patients due to side effects and/or poor response, and opioid rotation/switching (conversions) is frequently necessary. Despite the widespread practice, opioid conversion ratios are inconsistent between clinicians, practices, and countries. Therefore, we performed a scoping systematic review of opioid conversion studies to inform an international eDelphi guideline.
    METHODS: To ensure a comprehensive review, we conducted a systematic search across multiple databases (OVID Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, EBM-Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Registered Trials, LILACS, IMEMR, AIM, WPRIM) using studies published up to June 2022. Additionally, we performed hand and Google Scholar searches to verify the completeness of our findings. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized and non-randomized studies with no age limit, with only a few pediatric studies identified. We included studies on cancer, non-cancer, acute, and chronic pain. The level and grade of evidence were determined based on the Multinational Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) criteria.
    RESULTS: Our search yielded 21,118 abstracts, including 140 randomized (RCT) and 68 non-randomized (NRCT) clinical trials. We compared these results with recently published conversion ratios. Modest correlations were noted between published reviews and the present scoping systematic review.
    CONCLUSIONS: The present scoping systematic review found low-quality evidence to support an opioid conversion guideline. We will use these data, including conversion ratios and type and route of administration, to inform an eDelphi guideline.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:皮质类固醇注射有可能导致不良事件,包括血糖升高,降低骨密度和抑制下丘脑-垂体轴。已发表的研究指出,低于通常注射的剂量可提供类似的益处。
    方法:实践指南的制定得到了美国区域麻醉和疼痛医学学会董事会的批准,其他几个学会也同意参与。商定的准则范围包括注射技术的安全性(地标指导,超声或放射学辅助注射);添加皮质类固醇对注射剂(局部麻醉剂或盐水)功效的影响;以及与注射相关的不良事件。根据初步讨论,决定将主题分为以下三个单独的指南:(1)同情,周围神经阻滞和触发点注射;(2)关节;(3)神经轴,facet,骶髂关节和相关主题(疫苗和抗凝剂)。为专家们分配了主题,以对文献进行全面审查,并起草声明和建议,使用修改的Delphi过程对其进行了改进并投票通过了共识(≥75%同意)。美国预防服务工作队对证据和建议力度进行了分级。
    结果:本指南涉及皮质类固醇注射治疗交感神经的使用和安全性。成人慢性疼痛的周围神经阻滞和触发点注射。经过四轮讨论,所有与会者都批准了所有声明和建议。参与协会的实践准则委员会和董事会也批准了所有声明和建议。一些程序的安全性,包括星状块,下肢周围神经阻滞和一些触发点注射的部位,通过成像指导进行改进。在局部麻醉剂中添加非颗粒皮质类固醇对丛集性头痛有益,但对其他类型的头痛无效。皮质类固醇可能在腹部横切平面阻滞和髂腹股沟/髂腹下神经阻滞治疗术后疼痛中提供额外的益处,但没有阴部神经阻滞的证据。在触发点注射中使用皮质类固醇的益处微乎其微。
    结论:在本实践指南中,我们提供了在交感神经阻滞中使用皮质类固醇的建议,周围神经阻滞,并触发点注射,以帮助临床医生做出明智的决定。
    BACKGROUND: There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit.
    METHODS: Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed.
    RESULTS: This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections.
    CONCLUSIONS: In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:国际神经调节学会(INS)已经认识到有必要建立最佳实践,以优化可植入设备并在未实现理想结果时进行救助。该小组成立了神经刺激适当性共识委员会(NACC)®,为我们的成员和受神经调节设备影响的更广泛的社区所需的事项提供指导。
    方法:INS执行委员会根据专业知识提名了该NACC®出版物的教师,出版物,和职业工作在这个问题上。此外,选择教师是考虑到多样性和不同的职业道路和人口类别的包容性。一旦被选中,教师被要求对当前证据进行评分,并与专家意见一起制定共识建议,以解决有关该主题的信息中的失误。
    结果:NACC®小组为使用留置装置的患者提供了有关抢救和优化护理的信息和权威建议。这些建议基于证据和专家意见,随着每个主题的新数据生成,预计将不断发展。
    结论:NACC®指导应考虑植入刺激装置治疗慢性疼痛的任何患者。应考虑这些共识点,以在外植体之前挽救可能发生故障的设备。
    BACKGROUND: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has recognized a need to establish best practices for optimizing implantable devices and salvage when ideal outcomes are not realized. This group has established the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC)® to offer guidance on matters needed for both our members and the broader community of those affected by neuromodulation devices.
    METHODS: The executive committee of the INS nominated faculty for this NACC® publication on the basis of expertise, publications, and career work on the issue. In addition, the faculty was chosen in consideration of diversity and inclusion of different career paths and demographic categories. Once chosen, the faculty was asked to grade current evidence and along with expert opinion create consensus recommendations to address the lapses in information on this topic.
    RESULTS: The NACC® group established informative and authoritative recommendations on the salvage and optimization of care for those with indwelling devices. The recommendations are based on evidence and expert opinion and will be expected to evolve as new data are generated for each topic.
    CONCLUSIONS: NACC® guidance should be considered for any patient with less-than-optimal outcomes with a stimulation device implanted for treating chronic pain. Consideration should be given to these consensus points to salvage a potentially failed device before explant.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    脊髓损伤(SCI)幸存者的慢性疼痛会损害身心健康。SCI患者对其慢性疼痛的管理表现出不满。
    本研究旨在确定SCI人群慢性疼痛的现有临床实践指南。
    对西开普大学提供的各种数据库进行了范围审查,除了指南票据交换所(BioMedCentral,剑桥在线期刊,CINAHL,科克伦图书馆,Medline[EbscoHost],Medline[发布],Sabinet参考,SAGE在线期刊,ScienceDirect,Scopus,Wiley在线图书馆,Springerlink,PubMed,指南中心,和医疗保健研究和质量机构)。人群包括患有SCI的成年人,所包括的干预措施是慢性疼痛的药理学和非药理学管理。使用AGREEII工具,本研究的两名审阅者对符合纳入标准的指南进行了严格评估。使用SPSS27计算了评分者间的可靠性,并建立了科恩的卡帕系数。
    数据提取中包含了五篇文章,分析和评估。两项指南被评为高质量,根据AGREEII工具。此外,大多数指南集中在神经性疼痛(NeuP),只有一个指南包括伤害性疼痛和NeuP.
    一个指南符合本次范围审查的目标。
    未来制定的指南应包括一种筛查工具,以识别特定类型的疼痛并区分外周NeuP和中枢NeuP。
    UNASSIGNED: Chronic pain among survivors of spinal cord injury (SCI) hurts physical and mental health. Persons with SCI have demonstrated dissatisfaction with the management of their chronic pain.
    UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to identify existing clinical practice guidelines for chronic pain in the SCI population.
    UNASSIGNED: A scoping review was conducted across various databases available at the University of the Western Cape, in addition to guideline clearing houses (BioMedCentral, Cambridge Journals Online, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Medline [EbscoHost], Medline [Pubmed], Sabinet Reference, SAGE Journals Online, ScienceDirect, SCOPUS, Wiley Online Library, Springerlink, PubMed, Guideline Central, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). The population consisted of adults with SCI, and the interventions that were included were pharmacological and nonpharmacological management of chronic pain. Guidelines that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised by two reviewers from this study using the AGREE II instrument. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using SPSS 27, and Cohen\'s kappa coefficients were established.
    UNASSIGNED: Five articles were included in the data extraction, analysis and appraisal. Two guidelines were rated as high quality, according to the AGREE II tool. In addition, most guidelines focused on neuropathic pain (NeuP) and only one guideline included nociceptive pain and NeuP.
    UNASSIGNED: One guideline met the objectives of this scoping review.
    UNASSIGNED: Guidelines developed in the future should include a screening tool to identify the specific type of pain and distinguish peripheral NeuP from central NeuP.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    评估西班牙物理治疗师对纤维肌痛临床实践指南的知识水平和依从性。实施了一项使用临时在线调查的横断面研究,以评估评估中的各个方面,治疗,以及纤维肌痛治疗方法的长度的决定。根据结果,专业人士被归类为信徒,部分粘附,或者不坚持。在接受调查的专业人员中,还评估了与该条件的几个陈述的协议水平,以评估潜在的共识。共有240名物理治疗师符合纳入标准,其中68(28.33%)是粘附性的。研究的学术水平(卡方=48.601,p值=0.001)和先前接受过纤维肌痛训练(卡方=151.011,p值=0.001)在基于依从性的组中显示出统计学上的显着差异。24份声明中有15份达成了共识。我们的发现强调了西班牙物理治疗师在纤维肌痛领域的知识水平和对临床实践指南的依从性。实践含义我们的结果还揭示了该领域存在证据与实践的差距,有潜在的改进空间:需要进一步努力促进和加强循证疗法的重要性,从大学教学计划到日常实践的临床更新。
    To evaluate the level of knowledge and adherence to Clinical Practice Guidelines on fibromyalgia of physiotherapists in Spain. A cross-sectional study using an ad-hoc online survey was implemented to assess aspects on the assessment, treatment, and decision of the length of the therapeutic approach on fibromyalgia. Based on the results, professionals were classified as adherent, partially adherent, or non-adherent. The level of agreement with several statements on the condition was also evaluated across the professionals surveyed to evaluate the potential consensus. A total of 240 physiotherapists met inclusion criteria, amongst which 68 (28.33%) were adherent. The academic level of studies (Chi-square = 48.601, p-value = 0.001) and having had previous training in fibromyalgia (Chi-square = 151.011, p-value = 0.001) displayed statistically significant differences across adherence-based groups. Consensus was reached for 15 out of 24 statements. Our findings highlight the presence of an acceptable level of knowledge and adherence to clinical practice guidelines in the field of fibromyalgia among physiotherapists in Spain.Practice implicationsOur results also reveal the existence of an evidence-to-practice gap in the field, with potential room for improvement: further efforts on promoting and reinforcing the importance of evidence-based therapies are needed, from university teaching plans to clinical updates for daily practice.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:这项横断面研究的主要目的是研究乳腺癌幸存者(BCS)中疼痛表型的患病率。次要目标是检查BCS中主要疼痛表型之间与健康相关的生活质量是否不同。
    方法:要求经历慢性疼痛的BCS完成疼痛数字评定量表,Margolis疼痛图,和短表36(SF-36)。在进行问卷调查和定量感官检查之后。为了确定主要类型的疼痛的患病率,使用了癌症疼痛表型分析(CANPPHE)网络最近提出的分类系统.
    结果:在86名女性参与者中,19人(22.09%)有显性神经性疼痛,18例(20.93%)有显性伤害性疼痛,14例(16.28%)有显性伤害性疼痛。35名参与者(40.70%)被归类为混合疼痛。单因素方差分析显示,SF-36一般健康状况的四个疼痛组之间存在显着差异(F=3.205,p=0.027),社会功能(F=4.093,p=0.009),和疼痛(F=3.603,p=0.017)子量表评分。
    结论:这项研究发现BCS的疼痛主要是混合表型,其次是主要的神经性和伤害性疼痛。此外,人们发现,与以神经性和伤害性疼痛为主的BCS相比,具有主要伤害性疼痛的BCS在身体疼痛和社会功能方面具有较低的健康相关生活质量。
    OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this cross-sectional study is to examine the prevalence of pain phenotypes in breast cancer survivors (BCS). A secondary aim entails examining whether health related quality of life differs between the main pain phenotypes in BCS.
    METHODS: BCS who experienced chronic pain were asked to complete the numeric pain rating scale for pain, Margolis pain diagram, and short form 36 (SF-36). Following administration of questionnaires and quantitative sensory examinations were applied. To determine the prevalence of the predominant type of pain, a recently proposed classification system by the Cancer Pain Phenotyping (CANPPHE) Network was used.
    RESULTS: Of the 86 female participants, 19 (22.09%) had dominant neuropathic pain, 18 (20.93%) had dominant nociceptive pain and 14 (16.28%) had dominant nociplastic pain. 35 participants (40.70%) were classified as having mixed pain. One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference between the four pain groups for the SF-36 general health (F = 3.205, p = 0.027), social functioning (F = 4.093, p = 0.009), and pain (F = 3.603, p = 0.017) subscale scores.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study found that pain in BCS was mostly of mixed phenotype, followed by predominantly neuropathic and nociplastic pain. Furthermore, it was found that, compared to BCS with predominant neuropathic and nociceptive pain, BCS with predominant nociplastic pain have lower health related quality of life in the areas of bodily pain and social functioning.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:国际神经调节学会召集了一个由医生和科学家组成的多专业小组,以具有国际代表性的专业知识为基础,建立了鞘内给药治疗慢性疼痛的循证指导。这个多重镇痛共识会议(PACC)®项目,创建于二十多年前,旨在为鞘内给药的重要安全性和有效性问题及其对神经调节实践的影响提供循证指导。
    方法:根据作者的临床专业知识选择作者,熟悉同行评审的文献,研究生产力,以及对神经调节文献的贡献。科领导监督MEDLINE的文献检索,BioMedCentral,当前内容连接,Embase,国际医药文摘,WebofScience,谷歌学者,和PubMed从2017年(PACC®上次发布指南时)到现在。使用美国预防服务工作组标准对确定的研究进行了分级,以证明净收益的证据和确定性。建议基于证据的强度或在证据不足时的共识。
    结果:PACC®审查了已发表的文献,并建立了基于证据和共识的建议,以指导最佳实践。在此过程的未来迭代中,随着新证据的发展,将出现其他指导。
    结论:PACC®建议鞘内给药的最佳实践,以提高安全性和有效性。基于证据和共识的建议应用作指导,以在临床上适当时协助决策。
    BACKGROUND: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians and scientists based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on intrathecal drug delivery in treating chronic pain. This Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC)® project, created more than two decades ago, intends to provide evidence-based guidance for important safety and efficacy issues surrounding intrathecal drug delivery and its impact on the practice of neuromodulation.
    METHODS: Authors were chosen on the basis of their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when PACC® last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence is scant.
    RESULTS: The PACC® examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process.
    CONCLUSIONS: The PACC® recommends best practices regarding intrathecal drug delivery to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be used as a guide to assist decision-making when clinically appropriate.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    从诊断和治疗的角度来看,骶髂疾病的临床管理已被证明具有挑战性。尽管它被广泛认为是下腰痛的常见来源,关于骶髂关节疼痛和功能障碍的适当临床管理几乎没有共识。了解生物力学,神经支配,这种复杂的承载关节的功能对于制定针对SI关节疾病的适当治疗算法至关重要。ASPN制定了这一综合实践指南,以利用现有的最佳证据作为SI关节疾病适当管理的基础参考,并作为美国和全球成人患者治疗的基础指南。
    Clinical management of sacroiliac disease has proven challenging from both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Although it is widely regarded as a common source of low back pain, little consensus exists on the appropriate clinical management of sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction. Understanding the biomechanics, innervation, and function of this complex load bearing joint is critical to formulating appropriate treatment algorithms for SI joint disorders. ASPN has developed this comprehensive practice guideline to serve as a foundational reference on the appropriate management of SI joint disorders utilizing the best available evidence and serve as a foundational guide for the treatment of adult patients in the United States and globally.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

公众号