2d The place of nerve blocks and invasive methods in pain therapy: evidence-based results in chronic pain relief

Bailliere's clinical anaesthesiology Pub Date : 1998-03-01 DOI:10.1016/S0950-3501(98)80007-X

MD, PhD Hugo Adriaensen (Head of the Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy), MD Jan Maeyaert (Anaesthesiologist), MD Jean Pierre van Buyten (Anaesthesiologist), MD Erik Vanduynhoven (Anaesthesiologist), MD, PhD Marcel Vercauteren (Anaesthesiologist), MD Gery Vermaut (Anaesthesiologist), MD Kris Vissers (Anaesthesiologist)

{"title":"2d The place of nerve blocks and invasive methods in pain therapy: evidence-based results in chronic pain relief","authors":"MD, PhD Hugo Adriaensen (Head of the Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Therapy), MD Jan Maeyaert (Anaesthesiologist), MD Jean Pierre van Buyten (Anaesthesiologist), MD Erik Vanduynhoven (Anaesthesiologist), MD, PhD Marcel Vercauteren (Anaesthesiologist), MD Gery Vermaut (Anaesthesiologist), MD Kris Vissers (Anaesthesiologist)","doi":"10.1016/S0950-3501(98)80007-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Since the emergence of locoregional anaesthesia, nerve blocks with local anaesthetic or neurolytic agents have been used in chronic pain patients for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.</p><p>A critical evaluation of this type of intervention has only begun during the past 10 years. In the literature, few clinical reports on nerve blockade have withstood criticism. A scientific basis for legitimating the daily use of nerve blocks in our clinical practice is missing.</p><p>This has led not only to controversy and discussion, but also to a renewed interest and a more scientific approach towards nerve blockade. Other invasive techniques have also emerged, such as radiofrequency lesioning and dorsal column stimulation; they have partially replaced the older neurolytic or destructive techniques.</p><p>With the help of several co-authors, this chapter outlines the points of this evolution.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":80610,"journal":{"name":"Bailliere's clinical anaesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0950-3501(98)80007-X","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bailliere's clinical anaesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095035019880007X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Since the emergence of locoregional anaesthesia, nerve blocks with local anaesthetic or neurolytic agents have been used in chronic pain patients for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

A critical evaluation of this type of intervention has only begun during the past 10 years. In the literature, few clinical reports on nerve blockade have withstood criticism. A scientific basis for legitimating the daily use of nerve blocks in our clinical practice is missing.

This has led not only to controversy and discussion, but also to a renewed interest and a more scientific approach towards nerve blockade. Other invasive techniques have also emerged, such as radiofrequency lesioning and dorsal column stimulation; they have partially replaced the older neurolytic or destructive techniques.

With the help of several co-authors, this chapter outlines the points of this evolution.

查看原文本刊更多论文

神经阻滞和侵入性方法在疼痛治疗中的地位:慢性疼痛缓解的循证结果

自从局部麻醉出现以来，神经阻滞与局部麻醉剂或神经溶解剂已被用于慢性疼痛患者的诊断和治疗目的。对这类干预措施的批判性评估在过去10年才开始。在文献中，很少有关于神经阻滞的临床报告经受住了批评。在我们的临床实践中，日常使用神经阻滞的合理性缺乏科学依据。这不仅引起了争议和讨论，而且引起了对神经阻滞的重新兴趣和更科学的方法。其他侵入性技术也出现了，如射频损伤和背柱刺激;它们部分地取代了旧的神经溶解或破坏技术。在几位合著者的帮助下，本章概述了这一演变的要点。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Bailliere's clinical anaesthesiology

自引率

0.00%

发文量