The Clinical journal of pain
-
To control costs, the University of Tennessee Center for Pain Management added an ambulatory pain rehabilitation program to its existing inpatient hospitalization program. The impact of this program was assessed by comparing the first 25 patients treated in 1985 (prior to the introduction of outpatient management) with the first 25 patients treated in 1987 (after outpatient management was established). ⋯ Hospital charges were the greatest single cost factor in 1985 ($321,500) but were only $61,000 in 1987. Success rates as measured by a return to previous employment were not significantly changed (13 of 25 returned to work in 1985, and 11 of 25 returned to work in 1987).
-
One hundred-eight questionnaires were mailed to Pain and Headache Centers evenly spread throughout Italy to evaluate the current status of pain clinics and therapy. Sixty-three centers (58.3%) responded: fifty-two (82.5%) were Pain Clinics, while eleven (17.5%) were Headache Clinics. Approximately half of the clinics were run by anesthesiologists (43.3%), followed by neurosurgeons (15%), and neurologists (10%). ⋯ A multidisciplinary team approach was used by 65% of the respondents. Treatment modalities most frequently used were drugs (mean utilization index, MUI: 138), followed by anesthesiological methods (MUI: 70), neuroaugmentive procedures (MUI: 51), psychiatric and psychophysiological methods (MUI: 33), and neurosurgical procedures (MUI: 28). Mean percent immediate and long-term treatment successes (pain relief 50%) were the following: (a) cancer pain (74.7-63.3%): (b) non-oncologic pain (66.7-50.3%); (c) chronic primary headache (64.2-52.6%); and (d) orofacial pain (64.2-52.5%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
-
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of outpatient group treatment for chronic pain patients and their spouses on psychological symptomatology, marital adjustment, and locus of control. There was a significant improvement in mean scores on four of the seven measures pre- and post-treatment. ⋯ It also supports other findings for the effectiveness of brief group therapy programs for chronic pain patients. Although this study has several limitations the results warrant further investigation using control groups and a larger sample size.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
A comparison of regional intravenous guanethidine and reserpine in reflex sympathetic dystrophy. A controlled, randomized, double-blind crossover study.
Both regional intravenous guanethidine and reserpine have been reported as effective in the treatment of reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Reserpine depletes storage of norepinephrine, and guanethidine interferes with transport of norepinephrine while depleting storage in the sympathetic nerve terminal. The purpose of this study was to compare drug efficacy in double-blind fashion. ⋯ Pain relief from 2 to 14 months was achieved in two patients receiving reserpine, one receiving guanethidine, and none receiving lidocaine. None of the patients experienced permanent relief. No difference was found between reserpine and guanethidine.
-
Case Reports
A behavioral treatment for sitting and standing intolerance in a patient with chronic low back pain.
This study reports on the effectiveness of an individualized shaping treatment program for sitting and standing intolerance in a patient with chronic low back pain following a laminectomy for removal of an intradural tumor. Functional assessment of sitting and standing tolerance, observation of pain behaviors, and a self-report measure regarding the pain experience were carried out during baseline, treatment, posttreatment, and at a 6-month follow-up. ⋯ The overall pain behavior diminished significantly. These findings underscore the importance of relatively simple and cost-effective individualized behavioral programs for chronic pain patients.