排序方式: 共有217条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
41.
Jan Willem Kallewaard MD Michel A. M. B. Terheggen MD Gerbrand J. Groen MD PhD Menno E. Sluijter MD PhD FIPP Richard Derby MD FIPP Leonardo Kapural MD PhD FIPP Nagy Mekhail MD PhD FIPP Maarten Van Kleef MD PhD FIPP 《Pain practice》2010,10(6):560-579
An estimated 40% of chronic lumbosacral spinal pain is attributed to the discus intervertebralis. Degenerative changes following loss of hydration of the nucleus pulposus lead to circumferential or radial tears within the annulus fibrosus. Annular tears within the outer annulus stimulate the ingrowth of blood vessels and accompanying nociceptors into the outer and occasionally inner annulus. Sensitization of these nociceptors by various inflammatory repair mechanisms may lead to chronic discogenic pain. The current criterion standard for diagnosing discogenic pain is pressure‐controlled provocative discography using strict criteria and at least one negative control level. The strictness of criteria and the adherence to technical detail will allow an acceptable low false positive response rate. The most important determinants are the standardization of pressure stimulus by using a validated pressure monitoring device and avoiding overly high dynamic pressures by the slow injection rate of 0.05 mL/s. A positive discogram requires the reproduction of the patient's typical pain at an intensity of > 6/10 at a pressure of < 15 psi above opening pressure and at a volume less than 3.0 mL. Perhaps the most important and defendable response is the failure to confirm the discus is symptomatic by not meeting this strict criteria. Various interventional treatment strategies for chronic discogenic low back pain unresponsive to conservative care include reduction of inflammation, ablation of intradiscal nociceptors, lowering intranuclear pressure, removal of herniated nucleus, and radiofrequency ablation of the nociceptors. Unfortunately, most of these strategies do not meet the minimal criteria for a positive treatment advice. In particular, single‐needle radiofrequency thermocoagulation of the discus is not recommended for patients with discogenic pain (2 B?). Interestingly, a little used procedure, radiofrequency ablation of the ramus communicans, does meet the (2 B+) level for endorsement. There is currently insufficient proof to recommend intradiscal electrothermal therapy (2 B±) and intradiscal biacuplasty (0). It is advised that ozone discolysis, nucleoplasty, and targeted disc decompression should only be performed as part of a study protocol. Future studies should include more strict inclusion criteria. 相似文献
42.
43.
Koen Van Boxem MD FIPP Jianguo Cheng MD PhD Jacob Patijn MD PhD Maarten Van Kleef MD PhD FIPP Arno Lataster MSc Nagy Mekhail MD PhD FIPP Jan Van Zundert MD PhD FIPP 《Pain practice》2010,10(4):339-358
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. 相似文献
44.
Paul Cornelissen MD ; Maarten van Kleef MD PhD FIPP ; Nagy Mekhail MD PhD FIPP ; Miles Day MD FIPP DABIPP ; Jan van Zundert MD PhD FIPP 《Pain practice》2009,9(6):443-448
Persistent idiopathic facial pain, previously known as atypical facial pain, is described as a persistent facial pain that does not have the classical characteristics of cranial neuralgias and for which there is no obvious cause (International Classification of Headache Disorders in 2004). According to these criteria, the diagnosis is possible if the facial pain is localized, present daily, and throughout all or most of the day. By definition, neurological and physical examination findings in persistent idiopathic facial pain should be normal. Forming a diagnosis is not simple and follows a process of elimination of other causes of facial pain.
The precise incidence is unknown. The affliction is seen primarily in older adults and rarely in children. The pathophysiology is unknown. In persistent idiopathic facial pain, there is no abnormal processing of somatosensory stimuli in the pain area or facial area of the primary somatosensory cortex of the brain.
The treatment is difficult and often requires a multidisciplinary approach. The most important part of the treatment is psychological counseling and pharmacological therapy. Pharmacological treatment with tricyclic antidepressants and anti-epileptic drugs can be tried. The conservative, pharmacological treatment with amitryptiline is the primary choice. Venlafaxine and fluoxetine treatment can also be considered.
When the pharmacological treatment fails, pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the ganglion pterygopalatinum (sphenopalatinum) can be considered (2 C+). 相似文献
The precise incidence is unknown. The affliction is seen primarily in older adults and rarely in children. The pathophysiology is unknown. In persistent idiopathic facial pain, there is no abnormal processing of somatosensory stimuli in the pain area or facial area of the primary somatosensory cortex of the brain.
The treatment is difficult and often requires a multidisciplinary approach. The most important part of the treatment is psychological counseling and pharmacological therapy. Pharmacological treatment with tricyclic antidepressants and anti-epileptic drugs can be tried. The conservative, pharmacological treatment with amitryptiline is the primary choice. Venlafaxine and fluoxetine treatment can also be considered.
When the pharmacological treatment fails, pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the ganglion pterygopalatinum (sphenopalatinum) can be considered (2 C+). 相似文献
45.
46.
47.
Abstract: Opioids remain an important cornerstone in the treatment of cancer pain. Effective analgesia is obtained in the majority of cancer pain patients with the application of fairly straightforward algorithms using opioids as the main therapy. Many rational treatment algorithms exist. In this tutorial we will describe the role of opioids in the treatment of cancer pain, including a brief overview of cancer pain syndromes, essential aspects of opioid therapy, opioid pharmacology, opioid rotation, properties of the individual opioids, and management of common side effects of opioids. 相似文献
48.
49.
Frans Van de Perck MD FIPP Filiep Soetens MD Christophe Lebrun MD FIPP Arno Lataster MSc Amaury Verhamme MD FIPP Jan Van Zundert MD PhD FIPP 《Pain practice》2016,16(2):E42-E45
Radiofrequency denervation of the cervical medial branches is a possible treatment for chronic cervical facet pain syndrome when conservative management has failed. According to the literature, complications after radiofrequency denervation of the cervical medial branches are rare. We report a case of possible phrenic nerve injury after ipsilateral radiofrequency denervation of the cervical medial branches following a posterolateral approach. 相似文献