Search

Introduction: Pain originating from the lumbar facets can be defined as pain that arises from the innervated structures comprising the joint: the subchondral bone, synovium, synovial folds, and joint capsule. Reported prevalence rates range from 4.8% to over 50% among patients with mechanical low back pain, with diagnosis heavily dependent on the criteria employed. In well‐designed studies, the prevalence is generally between 10% and 20%, increasing with age. Methods: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar facet joint pain was retrieved and summarized. Results: There are no pathognomic signs or symptoms of pain originating from the lumbar facet joints. The most common reported symptom is uni‐ or bilateral (in more advanced cases) axial low back pain, which often radiates into the upper legs in a non‐dermatomal distribution. Most patients report an aching type of pain exacerbated by activity, sometimes with morning stiffness. The diagnostic value of abnormal radiologic findings is poor owing to the low specificity. SPECT can accurately identify joint inflammation and has a predictive value for diagnostic lumbar facet injections. After "red flags" are ruled out, conservatives should be considered. In those unresponsive to conservative therapy with symptoms and physical examination suggesting lumbar facet joint pain, a diagnostic/prognostic medial branch block can be performed which remains the most reliable way to select patients for radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions: Well‐selected individuals with chronic low back originating from the facet joints may benefit from lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown measures disrupted global healthcare provision, including opioid prescribing. In North America, opioid sales declined while opioid-related deaths increased. In Europe, the effect of the pandemic on prescribing is not yet known. Given the ongoing increase in opioid-related harm and mortality, it is crucial to analyse the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and lockdown measures on opioid prescribing. Therefore, the objective of this study was to characterise opioid prescribing in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: A nationwide register-based study characterising opioid prescribing using aggregated insurance reimbursement data., Setting: Dutch healthcare during the first 2 years of the COVID lockdown., Participants: The whole Dutch population., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Comparing the number of opioid prescriptions during the pandemic with a prepandemic period using a risk ratio (RR), with separate analysis on the prescription type (first-time or repeat prescription), patients' sex, age and socioeconomic status. We also explored lockdown effects., Results: During the first lockdown, the total number of new opioid prescriptions and prescriptions to young patients (briefly) decreased (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.89 and RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.75, respectively), but the overall number of opioid prescriptions remained stable throughout the pandemic compared with prepandemic. Women, older patients and patients living in lower socioeconomic areas received more opioids per capita, but the pandemic did not amplify these differences., Conclusions: The pandemic appears to have had a limited impact on opioid prescribing in the Netherlands. Yet, chronic use of opioids remains an important public health issue., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

There is general agreement that acute pain management is an important component of perioperative medicine. However, there is no consensus on the best model of care for perioperative pain management, mainly because evidence is missing in many aspects. Comparing the similarities and differences between countries might reveal some insights into different organisational models and how they work. Here, we performed a narrative review to describe and compare the structures, processes and outcomes of perioperative pain management in the healthcare systems of four European countries using Donabedian's framework as a guide. Our comparison revealed many similarities, differences and gaps. Different structures of acute pain services in the four countries with no common definition and standards of care were found. Protocols have been implemented in all countries and guidelines in some. If outcome is assessed, it is mainly pain intensity, and many patients experiencing more intense pain than others have common risk factors (e.g. preoperative pain, preoperative opioid intake, female sex and young age). Outcome assessment beyond pain intensity (such as pain-related physical function, which is important for early rehabilitation and recovery) is currently not well implemented. Developing common quality indicators, a European guideline for perioperative pain management (e.g. for patients at high risk for experiencing severe pain and other outcome parameters) and common criteria for acute pain services might pave the way forward for improving acute pain management in Europe. Finally, the education of general and specialist staff should be aligned in Europe, for example, by using the curricula of the European Pain Federation (EFIC)., (Copyright © 2023 European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

Although opioids are frequently used as treatment for chronic non-cancer related pain, the long term benefits on pain intensity and physical functioning are rather limited. Prolonged use of opioids is accompanied by multiple risks and side effects. It is important to regularly evaluate the effectiveness and the possibility of tapering of an opioid therapy. Tapering opioid use may improve physical function. Structured counselling by a healthcare professional facilitates successful tapering. In most cases, it will be possible to taper opioids in a primary care setting. If the treating physician feels incompetent to manage the tapering process, referral to specialized psychiatric care or a pain specialist can be considered. We propose a tapering rate between 10-35% of the previous dose per week in the primary care setting. Both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions can be used to ease the tapering.