Pain medicine : the official journal of the American Academy of Pain Medicine
-
The use of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for treatment of the medial branch is controversial. ⋯ The setup of our study does not permit a comparison with the results of continuous radiofrequency (CRF) for the same procedure, other than the detection of an obvious trend. When comparing our results with various studies on CRF of the medial branch such a trend could not be found. Based on these retrospective data, prospective and randomized trials, for example, radiofrequency vs PRF are justified.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Duloxetine for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain: a 6-month open-label safety study.
Duloxetine is a relatively balanced and potent reuptake inhibitor of both serotonin and norepinephrine. Because these neurotransmitters play a role in pain inhibition, duloxetine was considered a possible treatment for diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP). This study assessed the 6-month safety and tolerability of duloxetine in patients with DPNP; evaluation of efficacy was a secondary objective. ⋯ In this study, duloxetine 60 mg BID and 120 mg QD were safely administered and well tolerated in patients with DPNP for up to 28 weeks. There were few differences in safety or tolerability between the two dosages. At both doses, duloxetine provided clinically significant pain relief.
-
Current therapies for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction offer discouraging results in alleviating low back pain. The innervation and target nerves for radiofrequency denervation (RFD) of the SIJ remain unclear. We present a prospective case series on the treatment of intractable SIJ dysfunction with pulsed radiofrequency denervation (PRFD) of lateral branches from L4-S3. ⋯ PRFD of the lateral branch of the medial branch of L4, posterior primary rami of L5, and lateral branches S1 and S2 is an effective treatment for some patients with SIJ pain unresponsive to other forms of therapy.
-
The objective of this analysis is to apprise pain physicians of the ethical concerns and practical considerations that arise when a treating physician is called upon to testify as an expert witness in a legal proceeding involving his or her own patient. The provision of expert testimony in medico-legal proceedings has come under heightened scrutiny in recent years. When a physician testifies as an expert witness, such testimony is considered to be the practice of medicine, and hence subject to the same ethical and professional obligations as patient care. Increasingly, medical professional organizations have promulgated guidelines for such activities, and even implemented oversight mechanisms to review complaints concerning expert testimony by their members. Additional issues are raised when the expert witness is also the treating physician for the patient who is a party to the legal proceeding in which the expert testimony is offered. ⋯ While it is not categorically unethical or inadvisable for a physician to testify as an expert witness in a medico-legal proceeding involving his or her own patient, such activity raises special issues and concerns. Prospective expert witnesses in such situations should be cognizant of these issues and insure that they have been adequately addressed before and during the testimony.