Cláudia Gouvinhas, Dalila Veiga, Liliane Mendonça, Rute Sampaio, Luís Filipe Azevedo, José Manuel Castro-Lopes
{"title":"Interventional Pain Management in Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Clinics: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study with One-Year Follow-Up.","authors":"Cláudia Gouvinhas, Dalila Veiga, Liliane Mendonça, Rute Sampaio, Luís Filipe Azevedo, José Manuel Castro-Lopes","doi":"10.1155/2017/8402413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventional Pain Management (IPM) is performed in multidisciplinary chronic pain clinics (MCPC), including a range of invasive techniques to diagnose and treat chronic pain (CP) conditions. Current patterns of use of those techniques in MCPC have not yet been reported.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to describe quantitatively and qualitatively the use of IPM and other therapeutic procedures performed on-site at four Portuguese MCPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort study with one-year follow-up was performed in adult patients. A structured case report form was systematically completed at baseline and six and 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 808 patients referred to the MCPC, 17.2% had been prescribed IPM. Patients with IPM were on average younger and had longer CP duration and lower levels of maximum pain and pain interference/disability. The three main diagnoses were low back pain (<i>n</i> = 28), postoperative CP, and knee pain (<i>n</i> = 16 each). From 195 IPM prescribed, nerve blocks (<i>n</i> = 108), radiofrequency (<i>n</i> = 31), and viscosupplementation (<i>n</i> = 22) were the most prevalent. Some IPM techniques were only available in few MCPC. One MCPC did not provide IPM.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IPM are seldom prescribed in Portuguese MCPC. Further studies on IPM safety and effectiveness are necessary for clear understanding the role of these techniques in CP management.</p>","PeriodicalId":19786,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research and Treatment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2017/8402413","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research and Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8402413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/10/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
Abstract
Background: Interventional Pain Management (IPM) is performed in multidisciplinary chronic pain clinics (MCPC), including a range of invasive techniques to diagnose and treat chronic pain (CP) conditions. Current patterns of use of those techniques in MCPC have not yet been reported.
Objective: We aimed to describe quantitatively and qualitatively the use of IPM and other therapeutic procedures performed on-site at four Portuguese MCPC.
Methods: A prospective cohort study with one-year follow-up was performed in adult patients. A structured case report form was systematically completed at baseline and six and 12 months.
Results: Among 808 patients referred to the MCPC, 17.2% had been prescribed IPM. Patients with IPM were on average younger and had longer CP duration and lower levels of maximum pain and pain interference/disability. The three main diagnoses were low back pain (n = 28), postoperative CP, and knee pain (n = 16 each). From 195 IPM prescribed, nerve blocks (n = 108), radiofrequency (n = 31), and viscosupplementation (n = 22) were the most prevalent. Some IPM techniques were only available in few MCPC. One MCPC did not provide IPM.
Conclusions: IPM are seldom prescribed in Portuguese MCPC. Further studies on IPM safety and effectiveness are necessary for clear understanding the role of these techniques in CP management.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
