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]

Background: Oxaliplatin is a chemotherapeutic agent used to treat malignancies of the gastrointestinal tract. Neuropathy is a frequent dose-limiting side-effect of oxaliplatin therapy, without preventive or curative strategies. Concomitant administration of intravenous lidocaine could be a promising treatment. However, the effect of intravenous lidocaine on oxaliplatin pharmacokinetics was never studied before. We evaluated the effect of lidocaine on the area under the curve and C max of oxaliplatin as a part of a larger study addressing the prevention and treatment of oxaliplatin induced peripheral neuropathy with lidocaine. Methods: In this prospective cross-over trial, patients received an oxaliplatin cycle with and without lidocaine (bolus 1.5 mg kg−1 followed by 1.5 mg kg−1 h−1 in 3 h). Levels of oxaliplatin, measured as ultrafiltrable platinum were determined at 10 min after cessation of oxaliplatin infusion and hourly thereafter. Outcomes are the difference in area under the curve of oxaliplatin (primary) and the difference in the C max of oxaliplatin (secondary). Results: No difference in the %Δ area under the curve of oxaliplatin (–2.40 ± 7.66, 90% CI +10.50 to –15.31) was found. However, %Δ C max of oxaliplatin (–28.72 ± 6.01, 90% CI –18.59 to –38.85) was lower to a statistically significant extent in the chemotherapy cycle with lidocaine. No (serious) adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Lidocaine does not affect the area under the curve of oxaliplatin, which is the most important parameter in drug interaction studies and for oxaliplatin treatment effect. The lower C max in the chemotherapeutic cycle with lidocaine is significant and remarkable, but with an unknown exact mechanism or clinical significance, making further research desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the large amount of human and experimental studies no effective (prophylactic) treatment exists for chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a disabling side effect of many cancer treatments. One of the underlying reasons for this could be that often the preclinical animal models used are not the best representation of the clinical situation. We therefore present a systematic summary and comparison of all animal models currently described in literature for CIPN focusing on stimulus evoked pain-like behaviour and neurophysiological alterations in nerve function (650 included papers, and a comparison of 183 models), that resulted in a clear overview of the most effective and robust CIPN models using an administration route used in clinical practice. Using our three-step approach (step 1: efficacy; step; 2 robustness and step 3: mimicking the clinical situation) we show that all mice CIPN models treated with either paclitaxel or cisplatin using an administration route used in clinical practice seem suitable models. Three specific models using paclitaxel or cisplatin that stand out are 1) C57BL/6 female mice receiving paclitaxel and 2) CD1 male mice receiving paclitaxel and 3) C57BL/6 male mice receiving cisplatin. This overview may help scientists selecting suitable CIPN models for their research. We hypothesize that by using effective and robust animal models that mimic the clinical situation as much as possible, the translational value of preclinical study results with respect to the potential of identifying promising treatments for CIPN in the future, will prove. The methodology described in this paper, aimed at comparing animal models, is novel and can be used by scientist in other research fields as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mindfulness‐based interventions have a positive impact on pain, craving, and well‐being in both patients with chronic pain and those with opioid use disorder (OUD). Although data are limited, mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy (MBCT) might be a promising treatment for patients with chronic noncancer pain combined with OUD. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the feasibility and process of change during MBCT in this particular population. Methods: In this qualitative pilot study, 21 patients who were hospitalized for rotation to buprenorphine/naloxone as agonist treatment for chronic pain and OUD were offered MBCT. Semistructured interviews were conducted to explore experienced barriers and facilitators to MBCT. Patients who participated in MBCT were also interviewed on their perceived process of change. Results: Of 21 patients invited to participate in MBCT, 12 initially expressed interest but only four eventually participated in MBCT. The timing of the intervention, group format, somatic complaints, and practical difficulties were identified as the main barriers to participation. Facilitating factors included having a positive attribution toward MBCT, an intrinsic motivation to change, and practical support. The four MBCT participants mentioned several important mechanisms of change, including reduction of opioid craving and improved coping with pain. Conclusions: MBCT offered in the current study was not feasible for the majority of patients with pain and OUD. Changing the timing of MBCT by providing it at an earlier stage of the treatment and offering MBCT in an online format may facilitate participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some patients with chronic abdominal pain suffer from an anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome (ACNES). This somewhat illusive syndrome is thought to be caused by the entrapment of end branches of the intercostal nerves residing in the abdominal wall. If ACNES is suspected, a local injection of an anesthetic agent may offer relief. If pain is recurrent following multiple-injection therapy, an anterior neurectomy entailing removal of the entrapped nerve endings may be considered. After 1 year, a 70% success rate has been reported. Research on minimally invasive alternative treatments is scarce. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment is a relatively new treatment for chronic pain syndromes. An electromagnetic field is applied around the nerve in the hope of leading to pain relief. This randomized controlled trial compares the effect of PRF treatment and neurectomy in patients with ACNES.Methods: Adult ACNES patients having short-lived success following injections are randomized to PRF or neurectomy. At the 8-week follow-up visit, unsuccessful PRF patients are allowed to cross over to a neurectomy. Primary outcome is pain relief after either therapy. Secondary outcomes include patient satisfaction, quality of life, use of analgesics and unanticipated adverse events. The study is terminated 6 months after receiving the final procedure.Discussion: Since academic literature on minimally invasive techniques is lacking, well-designed trials are needed to optimize results of treatment for ACNES. This is the first large, randomized controlled, proof-of-concept trial comparing two therapy techniques in ACNES patients. The first patient was included in October 2015. The expected trial deadline is December 2017. If effective, PRF may be incorporated into the ACNES treatment algorithm, thus minimizing the number of patients requiring surgery.Trial Registration: Nederlands Trial Register (Dutch Trial Register), NTR5131 ( http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5131 ). Registered on 15 April 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]