Search

Objective: To formulate timely evidence-based guidelines for the management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction., Setting: Constipation is a major untoward effect of opioids. Increasing prescription of opioids has correlated to increased incidence of opioid-induced constipation. However, the inhibitory effects of opioids are not confined to the colon, but also affect higher segments of the gastrointestinal tract, leading to the coining of the term "opioid-induced bowel dysfunction.", Methods: A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and EMBASE Classic, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Predefined search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to identify and categorize relevant papers. A series of statements were formulated and justified by a comment, then labeled with the degree of agreement and their level of evidence as judged by the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) system., Results: From a list of 10,832 potentially relevant studies, 33 citations were identified for review. Screening the reference lists of the pertinent papers identified additional publications. Current definitions, prevalence, and mechanism of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction were reviewed, and a treatment algorithm and statements regarding patient management were developed to provide guidance on clinical best practice in the management of patients with opioid-induced constipation and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction., Conclusions: In recent years, more insight has been gained in the pathophysiology of this "entity"; new treatment approaches have been developed, but guidelines on clinical best practice are still lacking. Current knowledge is insufficient regarding management of the opioid side effects on the upper gastrointestinal tract, but recommendations can be derived from what we know at present., (© 2016 American Academy of Pain Medicine.)

Objectives: Pain encountered at the site of the implantable pulse generator (IPG) after invasive neuromodulation is a well-known and important complication. The reported incidence of implant site pain is variable, ranging between 0.4 and 35%. Implant site pain has never been systematically studied and no treatment guidelines are available., Material and Methods: We performed an observational study (study registration number mp05728) on the incidence and the determining factors of implant site pain, the subjective rating of intensity by sending questionnaires (n = 554) to our cohort of neuromodulation patients with IPGs. The number of revision surgeries and explants due to implant site pain were also analyzed., Results: Total response rate was 50% (n = 278). Pain patients suffered significantly (p < 0.05) more often from IPG site pain than other patients undergoing neuromodulation therapies. Up to 64% of patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation reported IPG site discomfort or pain. Severe pocket pain was found in up to 8% of patients. No association was found between other variables (age, BMI, duration of follow-up, gender, smoking, number of pocket surgeries) and implant site pain., Conclusion: Pocket pain represents an important problem after invasive neuromodulation and is more prevalent in pain patients. We believe further technological improvements with miniaturized IPGs will impact the incidence of pocket pain and could even obviate the need for an IPG pocket., (© 2017 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Aim: To review pharmacological management of chronic low back pain (LBP), with respect to management of nociceptive and neuropathic components., Methods: Studies were identified by a PubMed search of English-language papers from the last 10  years, with additional hand searches of relevant reviews., Discussion: Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors target the nociceptive component of chronic LBP, and do not affect neuropathic pain mechanisms. Antidepressants target the neuropathic component of chronic LBP; however, conflicting efficacy results have been reported. Opioids target both nociceptive and to a lesser extent neuropathic pain. They are effective in chronic LBP, but many patients require higher doses or combination treatment. The long-term efficacy of opioids in chronic LBP has been questioned because of the absence of high-quality data and concerns regarding tolerability and dependence. The topical preparation lidocaine 5% plaster, indicated in post-herpetic neuralgia, is effective in localized neuropathic pain in patients with chronic LBP. Pregabalin is ineffective as monotherapy for chronic LBP but is effective when combined with celecoxib or opioids. Muscle relaxant monotherapy is ineffective in chronic LBP. Combination therapy is often necessary in patients with chronic LBP, in order to manage both nociceptive and neuropathic pain components., Conclusion: Chronic LBP often comprises both nociceptive and neuropathic components, therefore a multimodal and individualized treatment approach is necessary. Combining drugs with different mechanisms of action (e.g. an agent with µ-receptor activity plus an agent of a different class) represents a rational approach to management of chronic LBP with both nociceptive and neuropathic components.