استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

BackgroundLong-term opioid use is associated with pharmacological tolerance, a risk of misuse and hyperalgesia in patients with chronic pain (CP). Tapering is challenging in this context, particularly with comorbid opioid-use disorder (OUD). The antihyperalgesic effect of ketamine, through N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonism, could be useful. We aimed to describe the changes in the dose of opioids consumed over 1 year after a 5-day hospitalisation with ketamine infusion for CP patients with OUD.MethodsWe performed a historical cohort study using a medical chart from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2019. Patients were long-term opioid users with OUD and CP, followed by the Pain Center of the University Hospital of Toulouse, for which outpatient progressive tapering failed. Ketamine was administered at a low dose to initiate tapering during a 5-day hospitalisation.Results59 patients were included, with 64% of them female and a mean age of 48±10 years old. The most frequent CP aetiologies were back pain (53%) and fibromyalgia (17%). The baseline opioid daily dose was 207 mg (±128) morphine milligram equivalent (MME). It was lowered to 92±72 mg MME at discharge (p<0.001), 99±77 mg at 3 months (p<0.001) and 103±106 mg at 12 months. More than 50% tapering was achieved immediately for 40 patients (68%), with immediate cessation for seven patients (12%). 17 patients were lost to follow-up.ConclusionsA 5-day hospitalisation with a low-dose ketamine infusion appeared useful to facilitate opioid tapering in long-term opioid users with CP and OUD. Ketamine was well tolerated, and patients did not present significant withdrawal symptoms. Prospective and comparative studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Purpose Neurectomy of the inguinal nerves may be considered for selected refractory cases of chronic postherniorrhaphy inguinal pain (CPIP). There is to date a paucity of easily applicable clinical tools to identify neuropathic pain and examine the neurosensory effects of remedial surgery. The present quantitative sensory testing (QST) pilot study evaluates a sensory mapping technique. Methods Longitudinal (preoperative, immediate postoperative, and late postoperative) dermatomal sensory mapping and a comprehensive QST protocol were conducted in CPIP patients with unilateral, predominantly neuropathic inguinodynia presenting for triple neurectomy ( n  = 13). QST was conducted in four areas on the affected, painful side and in one contralateral comparison site. QST variables were compared according to sensory mapping outcomes: (o)/normal sensation, (+)/pain, and (−)/numbness. Diagnostic ability of the sensory mapping outcomes to detect QST-assessed allodynia or hypoesthesia was estimated through calculation of specificity and sensitivity values. Results Preoperatively, patients exhibited mechanical hypoesthesia and allodynia and pressure allodynia and hyperalgesia in painful areas mapped (+) ( p  < .05); sensory mapping outcome (+) demonstrated high ability to detect mechanical allodynia [sensitivity 0.74 (95% CI 0.61–0.86), specificity 0.94 (0.84–1.00)] and pressure allodynia [sensitivity 0.96 (0.89–1.00), specificity 1.00 (1.00–1.00)], but not thermal allodynia. Postoperatively, mapped areas of numbness (−) were associated with mechanical and thermal hypoesthesia ( p  < .05); (−) showed high sensitivity and specificity to detect mechanical and cold hypoesthesia. Conclusions Sensory mapping provides an accurate clinical neuropathic assessment with strong correlation to QST findings of preoperative mechanical and pressure allodynia, and postoperative mechanical and thermal hypoesthesia in CPIP patients undergoing neurectomy.

Neck pain imposes a considerable personal and socioeconomic burden—it is one of the top five chronic pain conditions in terms of prevalence and years lost to disability—yet it receives a fraction of the research funding given to low back pain. Although most acute episodes resolve spontaneously, more than a third of affected people still have low grade symptoms or recurrences more than one year later, with genetics and psychosocial factors being risk factors for persistence. Nearly half of people with chronic neck pain have mixed neuropathic-nociceptive symptoms or predominantly neuropathic symptoms. Few clinical trials are dedicated solely to neck pain. Muscle relaxants and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are effective for acute neck pain, and clinical practice is mostly guided by the results of studies performed for other chronic pain conditions. Among complementary and alternative treatments, the strongest evidence is for exercise, with weaker evidence supporting massage, acupuncture, yoga, and spinal manipulation in different contexts. For cervical radiculopathy and facet arthropathy, weak evidence supports epidural steroid injections and radiofrequency denervation, respectively. Surgery is more effective than conservative treatment in the short term but not in the long term for most of these patients, and clinical observation is a reasonable strategy before surgery.

Over the past decade there has been an increasing reliance on strong opioids to treat acute and chronic pain, which has been associated with a rising epidemic of prescription opioid misuse, abuse, and overdose-related deaths. Deaths from prescription opioids have more than quadrupled in the USA since 1999, and this pattern is now occurring globally. Inappropriate opioid prescribing after surgery, particularly after discharge, is a major cause of this problem. Chronic postsurgical pain, occurring in approximately 10% of patients who have surgery, typically begins as acute postoperative pain that is difficult to control, but soon transitions into a persistent pain condition with neuropathic features that are unresponsive to opioids. Research into how and why this transition occurs has led to a stronger appreciation of opioid-induced hyperalgesia, use of more effective and safer opioid-sparing analgesic regimens, and non-pharmacological interventions for pain management. This Series provides an overview of the epidemiology and societal effect, basic science, and current recommendations for managing persistent postsurgical pain. We discuss the advances in the prevention of this transitional pain state, with the aim to promote safer analgesic regimens to better manage patients with acute and chronic pain.

To present an overview of a series of studies in which the clinical validity of the National Institutes of Health's Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (NIH; PROMIS) measures was evaluated, by domain, across six clinical populations. Approximately 1,500 individuals at baseline and 1,300 at follow-up completed PROMIS measures. The analyses reported in this issue were conducted post hoc, pooling data across six previous studies, and accommodating the different designs of the six, within-condition, parent studies. Changes in T-scores, standardized response means, and effect sizes were calculated in each study. When a parent study design allowed, known groups validity was calculated using a linear mixed model. The results provide substantial support for the clinical validity of nine PROMIS measures in a range of chronic conditions. The cross-condition focus of the analyses provided a unique and multifaceted perspective on how PROMIS measures function in “real-world” clinical settings and provides external anchors that can support comparative effectiveness research. The current body of clinical validity evidence for the nine PROMIS measures indicates the success of NIH PROMIS in developing measures that are effective across a range of chronic conditions.

Breast surgery is exceedingly common and may result in significant acute as well as chronic pain. Numerous options exist for the control of perioperative breast pain, including several newly described regional anesthesia techniques, but anesthesiologists have an insufficient understanding of the anatomy of the breast, the anatomic structures disrupted by the various breast surgeries, and the theoretical and experimental evidence supporting the use of the various analgesic options. In this article, we review the anatomy of the breast, common breast surgeries and their potential anatomic sources of pain, and analgesic techniques for managing perioperative pain. We performed a systematic review of the evidence for these analgesic techniques, including intercostal block, epidural administration, paravertebral block, brachial plexus block, and novel peripheral nerve blocks.

The development of chronic pain is a complex mechanism that is still not fully understood. Multiple somatic and visceral afferent pain signals, when experienced over time, cause a strengthening of certain neural circuitry through peripheral and central sensitization, resulting in the physical and emotional perceptual chronic pain experience. The mind-altering qualities of psychedelics have been attributed, through serotonin 2A (5-HT2A) receptor agonism, to ‘reset’ areas of functional connectivity (FC) in the brain that play prominent roles in many central neuropathic states. Psychedelic substances have a generally favorable safety profile, especially when compared with opioid analgesics. Clinical evidence to date for their use for chronic pain is limited; however, several studies and reports over the past 50 years have shown potential analgesic benefit in cancer pain, phantom limb pain and cluster headache. While the mechanisms by which the classic psychedelics may provide analgesia are not clear, several possibilities exist given the similarity between 5-HT2A activation pathways of psychedelics and the nociceptive modulation pathways in humans. Additionally, the alterations in FC seen with psychedelic use suggest a way that these agents could help reverse the changes in neural connections seen in chronic pain states. Given the current state of the opioid epidemic and limited efficacy of non-opioid analgesics, it is time to consider further research on psychedelics as analgesics in order to improve the lives of patients with chronic pain conditions.

AbstractThe American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) 2012 survey of meeting attendees showed that existing ASRA anticoagulation guidelines for regional anesthesia were insufficient for their needs. Those surveyed agreed that procedure-specific and patient-specific factors required separate guidelines for pain and spine procedures. In response, a guidelines committee was formed. After preliminary review of published complications reports and studies, the committee stratified interventional spine and pain procedures according to potential bleeding risk: low-, intermediate-, and high-risk procedures. The ASRA regional anesthesia anticoagulation guidelines were largely deemed appropriate for the low- and intermediate-risk categories, but the high-risk category required further investigation. The first guidelines specific to interventional spine and pain procedures were published in 2015. Recent reviews evaluating bleeding complications in patients undergoing specific interventional pain procedures, the development of new regional anesthesia and acute pain guidelines, and the development of new anticoagulants and antiplatelet medications necessitate complementary updated guidelines. The authors desired coordination with the authors of the recently updated regional and acute pain anticoagulation guidelines. The latest evidence was sought through extensive database search strategies and the recommendations were evidence based when available and pharmacology driven otherwise. We could not provide strength and grading of these recommendations because there are not enough well-designed large studies concerning interventional pain procedures to support such grading. Although the guidelines could not always be based on randomized studies or on large numbers of patients from pooled databases, it is hoped that they will provide sound recommendations and the evidentiary basis for such recommendations. This publication is intended as a living document to be updated periodically with consideration of new evidence.

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is used to interpret the relevance of treatment effects, e.g., when developing clinical guidelines, evaluating trial results or planning sample sizes. There is currently no agreement on an appropriate MCID in chronic pain and little is known about which contextual factors cause variation. This is a systematic review. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Eligible studies determined MCID for chronic pain based on a one-dimensional pain scale, a patient-reported transition scale of perceived improvement, and either a mean change analysis (mean difference in pain among minimally improved patients) or a threshold analysis (pain reduction associated with best sensitivity and specificity for identifying minimally improved patients). Main results were descriptively summarized due to considerable heterogeneity, which were quantified using meta-analyses and explored using subgroup analyses and metaregression. We included 66 studies (31.254 patients). Median absolute MCID was 23 mm on a 0–100 mm scale (interquartile range [IQR] 12–39) and median relative MCID was 34% (IQR 22–45) among studies using the mean change approach. In both cases, heterogeneity was very high: absolute MCID I2 = 99% and relative MCID I2 = 96%. High variation was also seen among studies using the threshold approach: median absolute MCID was 20 mm (IQR 15–30) and relative MCID was 32% (IQR 15–41). Absolute MCID was strongly associated with baseline pain, explaining approximately two-thirds of the variation, and to a lesser degree with the operational definition of minimum pain relief and clinical condition. A total of 15 clinical and methodological factors were assessed as possible causes for variation in MCID. MCID for chronic pain relief vary considerably. Baseline pain is strongly associated with absolute, but not relative, measures. To a much lesser degree, MCID is also influenced by the operational definition of relevant pain relief and possibly by clinical condition. Explicit and conscientious reflections on the choice of an MCID are required when classifying effect sizes as clinically important or trivial.

Abstract Objective For many medical professionals dealing with patients with persistent pain following spine surgery, the term Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) as a diagnostic label is inadequate, misleading, and potentially troublesome. It misrepresents causation. Alternative terms have been suggested, but none has replaced FBSS. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) published a revised classification of chronic pain, as part of the new International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), which has been accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO). This includes the term Chronic pain after spinal surgery (CPSS), which is suggested as a replacement for FBSS. Methods This article provides arguments and rationale for a replacement definition. In order to propose a broadly applicable yet more precise and clinically informative term, an international group of experts was established. Results 14 candidate replacement terms were considered and ranked. The application of agreed criteria reduced this to a shortlist of four. A preferred option—Persistent spinal pain syndrome—was selected by a structured workshop and Delphi process. We provide rationale for using Persistent spinal pain syndrome and a schema for its incorporation into ICD-11. We propose the adoption of this term would strengthen the new ICD-11 classification. Conclusions This project is important to those in the fields of pain management, spine surgery, and neuromodulation, as well as patients labeled with FBSS. Through a shift in perspective, it could facilitate the application of the new ICD-11 classification and allow clearer discussion among medical professionals, industry, funding organizations, academia, and the legal profession.