暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH.
METHODS: Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach.
RESULTS: Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients\' interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

This article summarizes recommendations made by six pain specialists who discussed the rationale for ziconotide intrathecal analgesia (ITA) and the requirement for evidence-based guidance on its use, from a European perspective. Riemser Pharma GmbH (Greifswald, Germany), which holds the European marketing authorization for ziconotide, hosted the meeting. The group agreed that ITA is under-used in Europe, adding that ziconotide ITA has potential to be a first-line alternative to morphine; both are already first-line options in the USA. Ziconotide ITA (initiated using a low-dose, slow-titration approach) is suitable for many patients with noncancer- or cancer-related chronic refractory pain and no history of psychosis. Adopting ziconotide as first-line ITA could reduce opioid usage in these patient populations. The group advocated a risk-reduction strategy for all candidate patients, including compulsory prescreening for neuropsychosis, and requested US-European alignment of the licensed starting dose for ziconotide: the low-and-slow approach practiced in the USA has a better tolerability profile than the fixed high starting dose licensed in Europe. Of note, an update to the European Summary of Product Characteristics is anticipated in early 2021. The group acknowledged that the Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) treatment algorithms for ziconotide ITA provide useful guidance, but recommendations tailored specifically for European settings are required. Before a consensus process can formally begin, the group called for additional European prospective studies to investigate ziconotide in low-and-slow dosing strategies, in different patient settings. Such data would enable European guidance to have the most appropriate evidence at its core.

Caesarean section is associated with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding success and mother-child bonding. The aim of this systematic review was to update the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after elective caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia. A systematic review utilising procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language between 1 May 2014 and 22 October 2020 evaluating the effects of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating pain management for emergency or unplanned operative deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia were excluded. A total of 145 studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients undergoing elective caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia, recommendations include intrathecal morphine 50-100 µg or diamorphine 300 µg administered pre-operatively; paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone administered after delivery. If intrathecal opioid was not administered, single-injection local anaesthetic wound infiltration; continuous wound local anaesthetic infusion; and/or fascial plane blocks such as transversus abdominis plane or quadratus lumborum blocks are recommended. The postoperative regimen should include regular paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with opioids used for rescue. The surgical technique should include a Joel-Cohen incision; non-closure of the peritoneum; and abdominal binders. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation could be used as analgesic adjunct. Some of the interventions, although effective, carry risks, and consequentially were omitted from the recommendations. Some interventions were not recommended due to insufficient, inconsistent or lack of evidence. Of note, these recommendations may not be applicable to unplanned deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: The evolution of neuromodulation devices in order to enter magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners has been one of understanding limitations, engineering modifications, and the development of a consensus within the community in which the FDA could safely administer labeling for the devices. In the initial decades of neuromodulation, it has been contraindicated for MRI use with implanted devices. In this review, we take a comprehensive approach to address all the major products currently on the market in order to provide physicians with the ability to determine when an MRI can be performed for each type of device implant.
METHODS: We have prepared a narrative review of MRI guidelines for currently marketed implanted neuromodulation devices including spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal drug delivery systems, peripheral nerve stimulators, deep brain stimulators, vagal nerve stimulators, and sacral nerve stimulators. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, MEDLINE/OVID, SCOPUS, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, as well as manufacturer-provided information.
RESULTS: Guidelines and recommendations for each device and their respective guidelines for use in and around MR environments are presented.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive guideline with regards to various devices in the market and MRI compatibility from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Intrathecal baclofen (ITB) pumps are an effective treatment for spasticity; however infection rates have been reported in 3-26% of patients in the literature. The multidisciplinary ITB service has been established at The National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, UCLH, Queen Square, London for over 20 years. Our study was designed to clarify the rate of infection in our ITB patient cohort and secondly, to formulate and implement best practice guidelines and to determine prospectively, whether they effectively reduced infection rates.
METHODS: Clinical record review of all patients receiving ITB pre-intervention; January 2013-May 2015, and following practice changes; June 2016-June 2018.
RESULTS: Four of 118 patients receiving ITB during the first time period (3.4%, annual incidence rate of infection 1.4%) developed an ITB-related infection (three following ITB pump replacement surgery, one after initial implant). Infections were associated with 4.2% of ITB-related surgical procedures. Three of four pumps required explantation. Following change in practice (pre-operative chlorhexidine skin wash and intraoperative vancomycin wash of the fibrous pocket of the replacement site), only one of 160 ITB patients developed infection (pump not explanted) in the second time period (0.6%, annual incidence rate 0.3%). The infection rate related to ITB surgical procedures was 1.1%. In cases of ITB pump replacement, the infection rate was reduced to 3.3% from 17.6%.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a straightforward change in clinical practice may lower infection rates in patients undergoing ITB therapy.