多学科慢性疼痛临床的介入疼痛管理:一项为期一年随访的前瞻性多中心队列研究。

Q2 Medicine
Pain Research and Treatment Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-10-15 DOI:10.1155/2017/8402413
Cláudia Gouvinhas, Dalila Veiga, Liliane Mendonça, Rute Sampaio, Luís Filipe Azevedo, José Manuel Castro-Lopes
{"title":"多学科慢性疼痛临床的介入疼痛管理:一项为期一年随访的前瞻性多中心队列研究。","authors":"Cláudia Gouvinhas,&nbsp;Dalila Veiga,&nbsp;Liliane Mendonça,&nbsp;Rute Sampaio,&nbsp;Luís Filipe Azevedo,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Interventional Pain Management in Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Clinics: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study with One-Year Follow-Up.\",\"authors\":\"Cláudia Gouvinhas,&nbsp;Dalila Veiga,&nbsp;Liliane Mendonça,&nbsp;Rute Sampaio,&nbsp;Luís Filipe Azevedo,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

背景:介入性疼痛管理(IPM)在多学科慢性疼痛临床(MCPC)中进行,包括一系列侵入性技术来诊断和治疗慢性疼痛(CP)状况。目前在MCPC中使用这些技术的模式还没有报道。目的:我们旨在定量和定性地描述在四个葡萄牙MCPC现场使用IPM和其他治疗程序。方法:对成年患者进行为期一年的前瞻性队列研究。在基线、第6个月和第12个月系统地完成结构化病例报告表。结果:808例MCPC患者中,17.2%的患者使用了IPM。IPM患者平均年龄较小,CP持续时间较长,最大疼痛和疼痛干扰/残疾水平较低。三个主要诊断为腰痛(n = 28)、术后CP和膝关节疼痛(n = 16)。从处方的195例IPM中,神经阻滞(n = 108)、射频(n = 31)和粘剂补充(n = 22)是最普遍的。一些IPM技术仅适用于少数MCPC。一个MCPC没有提供IPM。结论:葡萄牙MCPC患者很少开IPM。进一步研究IPM的安全性和有效性是明确这些技术在CP管理中的作用的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interventional Pain Management in Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Clinics: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study with One-Year Follow-Up.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Research and Treatment
Pain Research and Treatment Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信