Responses after spinal interventions in a clinical pain practice – a pragmatic observational study

Author:

Måwe Leif1,Thorén Lena Måwe1,Kvarstein Gunnvald23

Affiliation:

1. Karlstad Nacke and Rygg Klinik , Karlstad , Sweden

2. Department of Clinical Medicine, UIT , The Arctic University of Norway , Tromsø , Norway

3. Department of Pain Management and Research, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care , Oslo University Hospital , Oslo , Norway

Abstract

Abstract Introduction There is limited evidence for effect of interventional treatment, and pragmatic studies are needed to assess these interventions within a clinical setting. The aim of this study was to describe patients referred to an interventional pain clinic and investigate responses after spinal intervention in general and for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and transforaminal epidural corticosteroid administration (TECA), specifically. Methods This is a prospective, non-controlled study of patients with chronic spinal pain. The procedures were performed in accordance with the Spine Intervention Society recommendations. Outcome data after a median of 4.5 months are presented, and for those treated with RFA also after 6 and 12 months. Results Among 815 patients, 190 patients underwent diagnostic blocks only and 625 interventional treatment, of these 94 RFA and 246 TECA. Of the whole sample 70% reported pain reduction, for 49% ≥ 50%, while 9% were pain free (p < 0.001). Highest pain intensity decreased from 7.1 to 5.4 [95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (95%-CI): 1.4–1.9] (p < 0.001), while Euroqual – visual analogue scale for general health (EQ-VAS) improved from 48 to 58 (95%-CI: 7.6–11.9) (p < 0.001), and Euroqual-5 Dimensions-5 Levels Index for health related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Index) from 0.489 to 0.628 (95%-CI: 0.123–0.157) (p < 0.001). The proportions, not taking analgesics, increased from 16% to 30%, and proportion taking strong opioids decreased from 14% to 9% (p < 0.001). We found no significant change in proportion receiving physiotherapy/other treatment nor occupational status. No complications were reported. Among patients treated with RFA, 77% reported pain reduction, for 56% ≥ 50%, while 9% were pain free (p < 0.001). Highest pain intensity decreased from 6.9 to 4.6 (95%-CI: 1.6–3.0) (p < 0.001), while EQ-VAS improved from 47 to 57 (95%-CI: 4.8–13.6 (p < 0.001), and EQ-5D-5L Index from 0.489 to 0.643 (95%-CI: 0.117–0.191) (p < 0.001). The proportion not taking analgesics, increased from 7% to 23% and proportion taking strong opioids decreased from 16% to 10%. Among patients who responded at 6- and 12-month follow up, the proportions reporting pain reduction, EQ-VAS, and EQ-5D-5L Index remained significantly improved from baseline, and the change in proportions taking analgesic and opioids achieved statistical significance. We found no significant change in proportion receiving physiotherapy/other treatment nor occupational status. Among patients treated with TECA, 58% reported pain reduction, for 36% ≥ 50%, while 5% were pain free (p < 0.001). Highest pain intensity decreased from 7.2 to 6.2 (95%-CI 0.5–1.4) (p < 0.001), while EQ-VAS improved from 46 to 52 (95%-CI: 2.0–3.6) (p < 0.001), and EQ-5D-5L Index from 0.456 to 0.571 (95%-CI: 0.077–0.138) (p < 0.001). The proportions, not taking analgesics, increased from 17% to 27% and proportion taking strong opioids decreased from 15% to 10%, but the changes did not reach statistical significance. We found no significant changes in the proportion who recieved physiotherapy/other treatment nor occupational status. Conclusion The study demonstrates substantial short-term responses after spinal intervention and long-lasting improvement for a subsample of the RFA treated patients. We observed larger proportions reporting pain reduction among those treated with cervical RFA. Implementation Quality assessment should be implemented in interventional pain clinics to improve treatment quality.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Clinical Neurology

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3