Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain
-
It has been suggested that performing a nerve block under general anesthesia, as customary in pediatric population, may predispose to nerve injury. However, few clinical data exist to either support or refute this assertion. ⋯ Definitive conclusions cannot be drawn because of disparities in patient group demographics (majority of pediatric patients were in the general anesthesia group) and the retrospective nature of this study. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that the conduct of axillary block under general anesthesia in pediatric patients holds a greater potential for nerve injury than when the block is performed under sedation in adults.
-
The infraclavicular approach to the brachial plexus is a safe and reliable technique for surgery of the upper extremity. When performing the block, the anesthesiologist must appreciate three variables: needle direction, needle angle to the chest wall, and needle depth. Surface stimulation is an easy technique that can reliably predict both needle direction and needle angle.
-
It has recently been suggested that peripheral nerve or plexus blocks performed with the use of a nerve stimulator at low currents (<0.5 mA) may result in neurologic damage. We studied the infraclavicular nerve block, performed with the use of a nerve stimulator and an insulated needle, in a prospective evaluation of efficacy and safety. During a one-year period, 248 patients undergoing infraclavicular nerve block were evaluated for block success rate and incidence of neurologic complication. ⋯ There were no intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications noted. After one week, only one patient had a neurologic complaint, and this was surgically related, referable to surgery performed on the radial nerve. We conclude that infraclavicular nerve blocks performed at low currents (< or =0.3 mA) are safe and effective.
-
Intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) is a proven and effective treatment alternative in carefully selected patients with chronic pain that cannot be controlled by a well-tailored drug regime and/or spinal cord stimulation (SCS), and may be specifically trialed in patients who fail to respond to SCS. While the lack of randomized controlled trials is often perceived as a limitation of IDD, many studies attest to the efficacy of this therapy, and a number are large-scale and with follow-up periods of up to five years. Good to excellent pain relief is achieved in many patients who have failed more conservative therapies, and there is often a reduced need for analgesia. ⋯ Some patients are able to return to work. The benefits of IDD (including a potent analgesic response with a more stable therapeutic drug level, decreased latency, increased duration of action, and decreased pharmacological complications) mean that side effects such as nausea, vomiting, sedation, and constipation are reduced. In addition, IDD demonstrates long-term cost-effectiveness when compared to conventional pain therapies, addressing a concern that affects many physicians in clinical practice today.
-
Although neuropathic pain can be acute in nature, in most patients the pain is persistent (or "refractory"). Patients with chronic neuropathic pain are seen most often in clinical practice. It consists of a number of different disease-specific indications, each of which can have differing diagnostic definitions and cutoffs. ⋯ The burden of neuropathic pain on patients and healthcare systems appears to be potentially large, with an estimated prevalence of 1.5%. Patients with neuropathic pain experience a poor health-related quality of life and consume a high level of healthcare resources, and costs. The future prioritization by healthcare policy makers for neuropathic pain treatment funding requires further data to clarify its epidemiology, the burden on the health of patients, and the demand on healthcare budgets.