10. Thoracic Pain

Approximately 5% of the patients referred to outpatient pain clinics suffer thoracic pain. Thoracic pain in this article is limited to thoracic radicular pain and pain originating from the thoracic facet joints. Thoracic radicular pain is characterized by radiating pain in the localized area of a nervus intercostalis. The diagnosis of thoracic facet pain should be considered if the patient complains of paravertebral pain that is aggravated by prolonged standing, hyperextension, or rotation of the thoracic spinal column. Based on the analyses of the results in the literature combined with experience in pain management, symptoms, assessment, differential diagnosis, and treatment possibilities of thoracic radicular pain and thoracic facet pain are described and discussed. Conservative treatment consists of medications according to the World Health Organization pain ladder. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is an option. Physical therapy is usually applied in the form of manual therapy. Interventional treatment may be considered when conservative treatment fails. For thoracic radicular pain, the available evidence on efficacy and safety supports recommendation (2 C+) of pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the ganglion spinale (DRG). If this treatment has a short‐lasting effect and the pain is segmental, then radiofrequency treatment of the ganglion spinale (DRG) can be performed. Recommendation (2 C+) is applicable. However, extensive skills are required to perform this procedure above the level of Th7. This treatment should take place in specialized centers. For thoracic facet pain, radiofrequency treatment of the ramus medialis of the thoracic rami dorsales is recommended (2 C+).     

11. Lumbosacral Radicular Pain

Lumbosacral radicular pain is characterized by a radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes; it may or may not be accompanied by other radicular irritation symptoms and/or symptoms of decreased function. The annual prevalence in the general population, described as low back pain with leg pain traveling below the knee, varied from 9.9% to 25%, which means that it is presumably the most commonly occurring form of neuropathic pain. The patient's history may give a suggestion of lumbosacral radicular pain. The best known clinical investigation is the straight‐leg raising test. Final diagnosis is made based on a combination of clinical examination and potentially additional tests. Medical imaging studies are indicated to exclude possible serious pathologies and to confirm the affected level in patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain for longer than 3 months. Magnetic resonance imaging is preferred. Selective diagnostic blocks help confirming the affected level. There is controversy concerning the effectiveness of conservative management (physical therapy, exercise) and pharmacological treatment. When conservative treatment fails, in subacute lumbosacral radicular pain under the level L3 as the result of a contained herniation, transforaminal corticosteroid administration is recommended (2 B+). In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, (pulsed) radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can be considered (2 C+). For refractory lumbosacral radicular pain, adhesiolysis and epiduroscopy can be considered (2 B±), preferentially study‐related. In patients with a therapy‐resistant radicular pain in the context of a Failed Back Surgery Syndrome, spinal cord stimulation is recommended (2 A+). This treatment should be performed in specialized centers.     

13. Sacroiliac Joint Pain

The sacroiliac joint accounts for approximately 16% to 30% of cases of chronic mechanical low back pain. Pain originating in the sacroiliac joint is predominantly perceived in the gluteal region, although pain is often referred into the lower and upper lumbar region, groin, abdomen, and/ or lower limb(s). Because sacroiliac joint pain is difficult to distinguish from other forms of low back pain based on history, different provocative maneuvers have been advocated. Individually, they have weak predictive value, but combined batteries of tests can help ascertain a diagnosis. Radiological imaging is important to exclude “red flags” but contributes little in the diagnosis. Diagnostic blocks are the diagnostic gold standard but must be interpreted with caution, because false‐positive as well as false‐negative results occur frequently. Treatment of sacroiliac joint pain is best performed in the context of a multidisciplinary approach. Conservative treatments address the underlying causes (posture and gait disturbances) and consist of exercise therapy and manipulation. Intra‐articular sacroiliac joint infiltrations with local anesthetic and corticosteroids hold the highest evidence rating (1 B+). If the latter fail or produce only short‐term effects, cooled radiofrequency treatment of the lateral branches of S1 to S3 (S4) is recommended (2 B+) if available. When this procedure cannot be used, (pulsed) radiofrequency procedures targeted at L5 dorsal ramus and lateral branches of S1 to S3 may be considered (2 C+).     

5. Cervical Facet Pain

More than 50% of patients presenting to a pain clinic with neck pain may suffer from facet‐related pain. The most common symptom is unilateral pain without radiation to the arm. Rotation and retroflexion are frequently painful or limited. The history should exclude risk factors for serious underlying pathology (red flags). Radiculopathy may be excluded with neurologic testing. Direct correlation between degenerative changes observed with plain radiography, computerized tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging and pain has not been proven. Conservative treatment options for cervical facet pain such as physiotherapy, manipulation, and mobilization, although supported by little evidence, are frequently applied before considering interventional treatments. Interventional pain management techniques, including intra‐articular steroid injections, medial branch blocks, and radiofrequency treatment, may be considered (0). At present, there is no evidence to support cervical intra‐articular corticosteroid injection. When applied, this should be done in the context of a study. Therapeutic repetitive medial branch blocks, with or without corticosteroid added to the local anesthetic, result in a comparable short‐term pain relief (2 B+). Radiofrequency treatment of the ramus medialis of the cervical ramus dorsalis (facet) may be considered. The evidence to support its use in the management of degenerative cervical facet joint pain is derived from observational studies (2 C+).     

9. Painful Shoulder Complaints

Painful shoulder complaints have a high incidence and prevalence. The etiology is not always clear. Clinical history and the active and passive motion examination of the shoulder are the cornerstones of the diagnostic process. Three shoulder tests are important for the examination of shoulder complaints: shoulder abduction, shoulder external rotation, and horizontal shoulder adduction. These tests can guide the examiner to the correct diagnosis. Based on this diagnosis, in most cases, primarily a conservative treatment with nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs possibly in combination with manual and/or exercise therapy can be started. When conservative treatment fails, injection with local anesthetics and corticosteroids can be considered. In the case of frozen shoulder, a continuous cervical epidural infusion of local anesthetic and small doses of opioids or a pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the nervus suprascapularis can be considered.     

12. Pain Originating from the Lumbar Facet Joints

Although the existence of a “facet syndrome” had long been questioned, it is now generally accepted as a clinical entity. Depending on the diagnostic criteria, the zygapophysial joints account for between 5% and 15% of cases of chronic, axial low back pain. Most commonly, facetogenic pain is the result of repetitive stress and/or cumulative low‐level trauma, leading to inflammation and stretching of the joint capsule. The most frequent complaint is axial low back pain with referred pain perceived in the flank, hip, and thigh. No physical examination findings are pathognomonic for diagnosis. The strongest indicator for lumbar facet pain is pain reduction after anesthetic blocks of the rami mediales (medial branches) of the rami dorsales that innervate the facet joints. Because false‐positive and, possibly, false‐negative results may occur, results must be interpreted carefully. In patients with injection‐confirmed zygapophysial joint pain, procedural interventions can be undertaken in the context of a multidisciplinary, multimodal treatment regimen that includes pharmacotherapy, physical therapy and regular exercise, and, if indicated, psychotherapy. Currently, the “gold standard” for treating facetogenic pain is radiofrequency treatment (1 B+). The evidence supporting intra‐articular corticosteroids is limited; hence, this should be reserved for those individuals who do not respond to radiofrequency treatment (2 B±).     

6. Cervicogenic Headache

Cervicogenic headache is mainly characterized by unilateral headache symptoms which arise from the neck radiating to the fronto‐temporal and possibly to the supra‐orbital region. Physical examination to find evidence of a disorder known to be a valid cause of headache encompasses movement tests of the cervical spinal column and segmental palpation of the cervical facet joints and soft tissues of the neck. Injection of the nervus occipitalis major is recommended after unsatisfactory results with conservative treatments (1 B+). In the case of an unsatisfactory outcome after injection of the nervus occipitalis major, radiofrequency treatment of the ramus medialis (medial branch) of the cervical ramus dorsalis can be considered (2 B±). If the result is unsatisfactory pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the ganglion spinale (dorsal root ganglion) of C2 and/or C3 can be considered in a study context (O).     

History of evidence-based medicine. Oranges, chloride of lime and leeches: barriers to teaching old dogs new tricks

Knowledge translation is the process of taking evidence from research and applying it in clinical practice. In this article I will cite some pivotal moments in the history of medicine to highlight the difficulties and delays associated with getting evidence into practice. These historical examples have much in common with modern medical trials and quality improvement processes. I will also review the reasons why evidence is not used and consider what factors facilitate the uptake of evidence. Understanding these concepts will make it easier for individual clinicians and institutions to change clinical behaviour and provide a starting point for those looking at implementing 'new' practices, new therapies and clinical guidelines. Finally, I will offer a list of criteria that clinicians might choose to consider when deciding on whether or not to adopt a new practice, treatment or concept.     

Evidence‐based nursing: clarifying the concepts for nurses in practice

Aim. To provide a critical analysis of key concepts associated with evidence‐based nursing (EBN) to substantiate an operational definition for nurses to use in practice. Background. Despite the plethora of literature surrounding what evidence‐based nursing is and is not and how it differs from its cousins, evidence‐based medicine and evidence‐based practice, nurses still struggle to get evidence into practice. Several reasons for this have been reported, for example, a lack of understanding about what evidence‐based nursing means or time to engage with and apply the evidence into practice. Design. An in‐depth critical review and synthesis of literature was undertaken. Method. Using the key words; evidence‐based nursing, evidence‐based medicine and evidence‐based practice 496 articles were yielded. These articles were limited to 83. Using Burns and Grove’s (2001) phased approach to reviewing the literature the articles were critically reviewed and categorised into key concepts and themes. Results. The in‐depth critical review and synthesis of the literature demonstrated that evidence‐based nursing could be defined as a distinct concept. The review clearly shows that for evidence‐based nursing to occur, nurses need to be aware of what evidence‐based nursing means, what constitutes evidence, how evidence‐based nursing differs from evidence‐based medicine and evidence‐based practice and what the process is to engage with and apply the evidence. Conclusion. The in‐depth critical review and synthesis of the evidence‐based nursing literature reinforces the need to consolidate a position for nursing in the evidence‐based field. The review confirms that evidence‐based nursing can be defined and conceptualised; however, for nurses to engage and apply with the evidence‐based processes they need to be informed of what these are and how to engage with them in practice. Relevance to clinical practice. This paper examines the concept of evidence‐based nursing and its application to clinical practice.     

‘One mission accomplished,more important ones remain’: commentary on Every‐Palmer,S., Howick,J. (2014) How evidence‐based medicine is failing due to biased trials and selective publication. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 20 (6), 908–914

Every‐Palmer and Howick suggest that evidence‐based medicine (EBM) is failing in its mission because of contamination of research by manufacturer and researcher‐motivated bias and self‐interest. They fail to define that mission and to distinguish between the EBM movement and the research enterprise it was developed to critique. An educational movement, EBM accomplished its mission to simplify and package clinical epidemiological concepts in a form accessible to clinical learners. Its wide adoption within educational circles fostered critical literacy among several generations of practitioners. Illumination of bias, subterfuge and incomplete reporting of research has been a strength of EBM. Increased uptake and use of clinical research within the health care system properly defines the failing mission that eludes Every‐Palmer and Howick. Responsibility for failure to make progress towards its achievement is shared by virtually all relevant streams within the system, including policy, clinical guideline development, educational movements and the development of approaches to evidence synthesis. Discordance between the epistemological premises pervading today's research and health care community and the complex social processes that ultimately determine research use constitutes an important factor that must be addressed as part of a remedy. Enhanced emphasis on and demonstration of alternative approaches to research such as realism and realist synthesis and the momentum towards development of a learning health care system hold promise as guideposts for the rapidly evolving health care environment.     

8. Occipital Neuralgia

Occipital neuralgia is defined as a paroxysmal shooting or stabbing pain in the dermatomes of the nervus occipitalis major and/or nervus occipitalis minor. The pain originates in the suboccipital region and radiates over the vertex. A suggestive history and clinical examination with short‐term pain relief after infiltration with local anesthetic confirm the diagnosis. No data are available about the prevalence or incidence of this condition. Most often, trauma or irritation of the nervi occipitales causes the neuralgia. Imaging studies are necessary to exclude underlying pathological conditions. Initial therapy consists of a single infiltration of the culprit nervi occipitales with local anesthetic and corticosteroids (2 C+). The reported effects of botulinum toxin A injections are contradictory (2 C±). Should injection of local anesthetic and corticosteroids fail to provide lasting relief, pulsed radio‐frequency treatment of the nervi occipitales can be considered (2 C+). There is no evidence to support pulsed radio‐frequency treatment of the ganglion spinale C2 (dorsal root ganglion). As such, this should only be done in a clinical trial setting. Subcutaneous occipital nerve stimulation can be considered if prior therapy with corticosteroid infiltration or pulsed radio‐frequency treatment failed or provided only short‐term relief (2 C+).     

Better evaluating mechanisms in medicine. Book Review: Evaluating Evidence of Mechanisms in Medicine

Evidence of mechanisms plays an important role in medical decision‐making, but this role is less well articulated than that of clinical trial evidence. A new book, Evaluating Evidence of Mechanisms in Medicine: Principles and Procedures, provides a framework and resources for explicitly evaluating evidence of mechanisms when assessing claims of efficacy and external validity. This review outlines the overall approach of the book, the contribution it makes to evidence evaluation in medicine and makes some suggestions for further work that will aid implementation of the framework into clinical decision‐making.