Pain research and treatment · 2017
Interventional Pain Management in Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Clinics: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study with One-Year Follow-Up.
Название и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gouvinhas C, Veiga D, Mendonça L, Sampaio R, Azevedo LF, Castro-Lopes JM
Аннотация
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.
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.