Pedram Tabatabaei Shafiei, Josefin Åkerstedt, Amar Awad, Rickard L Sjöberg, Johan Wänman
{"title":"A prospective study of the association between pain and catastrophizing after selective nerve root blockade.","authors":"Pedram Tabatabaei Shafiei, Josefin Åkerstedt, Amar Awad, Rickard L Sjöberg, Johan Wänman","doi":"10.1111/papr.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pain, comprising sensory and emotional elements, is influenced by pain catastrophizing, which magnifies pain and promotes helplessness and rumination. This study explores the relationship between pain catastrophizing and outcomes following selective nerve root blockade (SNRB) in patients with lumbar radicular pain (LRP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort study of 103 LRP patients, confirmed by MRI, was conducted. All participants underwent SNRB at Umeå University Hospital. Outcomes were measured using PROMIS-29 and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) at baseline and several intervals up to 84 days post-intervention. Patients were categorized into responder (≥30% pain reduction) and non-responder groups and stratified into three groups based on baseline PCS scores. Changes in outcomes from baseline to 14 days post-SNRB were analyzed in relation to PCS groups. PCS changes over time were evaluated between responders and non-responders. Statistical analyses assessed PCS and outcome changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline pain catastrophizing was not a significant predictor of pain response to SNRB. However, responders demonstrated significant reductions in pain catastrophizing following the intervention, suggesting that SNRB may influence cognitive coping mechanisms related to pain.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SNRB reduces pain catastrophizing in LRP patients, although baseline catastrophizing does not predict pain outcomes. Addressing catastrophizing remains important but may serve better as an outcome measure rather than a predictor of treatment response.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"25 3","pages":"e70017"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70017","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Pain, comprising sensory and emotional elements, is influenced by pain catastrophizing, which magnifies pain and promotes helplessness and rumination. This study explores the relationship between pain catastrophizing and outcomes following selective nerve root blockade (SNRB) in patients with lumbar radicular pain (LRP).
Methods: A prospective cohort study of 103 LRP patients, confirmed by MRI, was conducted. All participants underwent SNRB at Umeå University Hospital. Outcomes were measured using PROMIS-29 and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) at baseline and several intervals up to 84 days post-intervention. Patients were categorized into responder (≥30% pain reduction) and non-responder groups and stratified into three groups based on baseline PCS scores. Changes in outcomes from baseline to 14 days post-SNRB were analyzed in relation to PCS groups. PCS changes over time were evaluated between responders and non-responders. Statistical analyses assessed PCS and outcome changes.
Results: Baseline pain catastrophizing was not a significant predictor of pain response to SNRB. However, responders demonstrated significant reductions in pain catastrophizing following the intervention, suggesting that SNRB may influence cognitive coping mechanisms related to pain.
Conclusion: SNRB reduces pain catastrophizing in LRP patients, although baseline catastrophizing does not predict pain outcomes. Addressing catastrophizing remains important but may serve better as an outcome measure rather than a predictor of treatment response.
期刊介绍:
Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.