Advertisement

Der Schmerz

pp 1–4 | Cite as

Evidenzbasierte interventionelle Schmerztherapie

Fortschritte der letzten 10 Jahre
  • Stephan KlessingerEmail author
  • Martin Legat
  • Markus Schneider
Übersichten
  • 63 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Interventionen an der Wirbelsäule sind ein wichtiger Bestandteil der Schmerztherapie bei Rücken- und Nackenschmerzen, aber auch bei radikulären Beschwerden. Allerdings sind für die interventionelle Schmerztherapie Kontroversen zwischen Befürwortern und Kritikern typisch. Kritiker behaupten gelegentlich, dass die angewendeten Verfahren nicht valide sind und keine Wirkung zeigen oder dass die Interventionen Komplikationen hervorrufen. Die Spine Intervention Society (SIS) konnte in zahlreichen Artikeln der letzten 10 Jahre die Kritikpunkte unter Verwendung von Daten, philosophischen Ansätzen oder beidem beantworten und widerlegen.

Schlüsselwörter

Wirbelsäule Interventionen Evidenz Bildwandler Schmerz 

Evidence-based interventional pain medicine

Progress over the past 10 years

Abstract

Interventional pain medicine plays an important role in pain therapy for neck and back pain. However, spine interventions are characterized by controversy between its proponents and its detractors. Detractors variously assert that the procedures practiced lack validity, are not effective, or produce complications that impugn the procedures. The Spine Intervention Society (SIS) published several articles over the last decade that answer and refute these criticisms.

Keywords

Spine Interventions Evidence Fluoroscopy Pain 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

Alle Autoren führen selber Interventionen an der Wirbelsäule durch. S. Klessinger, M. Legat und M. Schneider geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Bogduk N, Stojanovic MP (2019) Progress in evidence-based Interventional pain medicine: highlights from the spine section of pain medicine. Pain Med 20(7):1272–1274.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnz057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo TR (2011) What is the source of chronic low back pain and does age play a role? Pain Med 12(2):224–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo TR (2011) Etiology of chronic low back pain in patients having undergone lumbar fusion. Pain Med 12(5):732–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo TR (2012) Multivariable analyses of the relationships between age, gender, and body mass index and the source of chronic low back pain. Pain Med 13(4):498–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo TR et al (2011) Structural etiology of chronic low back pain due to motor vehicle collision. Pain Med 12(11):1622–1627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DePalma MJ (2015) Diagnostic nihilism toward low back pain: what once was accepted, should no longer be. Pain Med 16(8):1453–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engel A, MacVicar J, Bogduk N (2014) A philosophical foundation for diagnostic blocks, with criteria for their validation. Pain Med 15(6):998–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bogduk N, Aprill C, Derby R (2013) Lumbar discogenic pain: state-of-the-art review. Pain Med 14(6):813–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Endres S, Shufelt A, Bogduk N (2017) The risks of continuing or discontinuing anticoagulants for patients undergoing common interventional pain procedures. Pain Med 18(3):403–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ghahreman A, Ferch R, Bogduk N (2010) The efficacy of transforaminal injection of steroids for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain. Pain Med 11(8):1149–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacVicar J, King W, Landers MH et al (2013) The effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids: a comprehensive review with systematic analysis of the published data. Pain Med 14(1):14–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaufmann TJ, Geske JR, Murthy NS et al (2013) Clinical effectiveness of single lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Pain Med 14(8):1126–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Yahchouchi CA, Plastaras CT, Maus TP et al (2016) Adverse event rates associated with transforaminal and interlaminar epidural steroid injections: a multi-institutional study. Pain Med 17(2):239–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    El-Yahchouchi C, Geske JR, Carter RE et al (2013) The noninferiority of the nonparticulate steroid dexamethasone vs the particulate steroids betamethasone and triamcinolone in lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Pain Med 14(11):1650–1657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kennedy DJ, Plastaras C, Casey E et al (2014) Comparative effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections with particulate versus nonparticulate corticosteroids for lumbar radicular pain due to intervertebral disc herniation: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Pain Med 15(4):548–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Denis I, Claveau G, Filiatrault M, Fugère F, Fortin L (2015) Randomized double-blind controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal epidural injections of particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroids for lumbosacral radicular pain. Pain Med 16(9):1697–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landers MH, Dreyfuss P, Bogduk N (2012) On the geometry of fluoroscopy views for cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Pain Med 13(1):58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gill JS, Aner M, Jyotsna N, Keel JC, Simopoulos TT (2015) Contralateral oblique view is superior to lateral view for interlaminar cervical and cervicothoracic epidural access. Pain Med 16(1):68–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gill JS, Nagda JV, Aner MM, Keel JC, Simopoulos TT (2016) Contralateral oblique view is superior to the lateral view for lumbar epidural access. Pain Med 17(5):839–850PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    MacVicar J, Borowczyk J, MacVicar AM et al (2012) Cervical medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy in New Zealand. Pain Med 13(5):647–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cosman ER Jr, Dolensky JR, Hoffman RA (2014) Factors that affect radiofrequency heat lesion size. Pain Med 15(12):2020–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    MacVicar J, Borowczyk JM, MacVicar AM, Loughnan BM, Bogduk N (2013) Lumbar medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy in New Zealand. Pain Med 14(5):639–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feigl GC, Dreu M, Kastner M et al (2017) Thermocoagulation of the medial branch of the dorsal branch of the lumbal spinal nerve: flouroscopy versus CT. Pain Med 18(1):36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Engel A, Rappard G, King W, Kennedy DJ (2016) Standards division of the international spine intervention society. The effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically-guided cervical medial branch thermal radiofrequency neurotomy: a systematic review with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Pain Med 17(4):658–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    McCormick ZL, Vorobeychik Y, Gill JS et al (2018) Guidelines for composing and assessing a paper on the treatment of pain: a practical application of evidence-based medicine principles to the mint randomized clinical trials. Pain Med 19(11):2127–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bogduk N, Kennedy DJ, Vorobeychik Y, Engel A (2017) Guidelines for composing and assessing a paper on treatment of pain. Pain Med 18(11):2096–2104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan Klessinger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Legat
    • 2
  • Markus Schneider
    • 3
  1. 1.Neurochirurgie BiberachBiberachDeutschland
  2. 2.OrthopädieSchmerzzentrum ZofingenZofingenSchweiz
  3. 3.AlphaMedBambergDeutschland

Personalised recommendations