Search

Introduction: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is defined as pain localized in the anatomical region of the SI joint. The reported prevalence of SI joint pain among patients with mechanical low back pain varies between 15% and 30%., Methods: In this narrative review, the literature on the diagnosis and treatment of SI joint pain was updated and summarized., Results: Patient's history provides clues on the source of pain. The specificity and sensitivity of provocative maneuvers are relatively high when three or more tests are positive, though recent studies have questioned the predictive value of single or even batteries of provocative tests. Medical imaging is indicated only to rule out red flags for potentially serious conditions. The diagnostic value of SI joint infiltration with local anesthetic remains controversial due to the potential for false-positive and false-negative results. Treatment of SI joint pain ideally consists of a multidisciplinary approach that includes conservative measures as first-line therapies (eg, pharmacological treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy, manual medicine, exercise therapy and rehabilitation treatment, and if necessary, psychological support). Intra- and extra-articular corticosteroid injections have been documented to produce pain relief for over 3 months in some people. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-3 (or 4) lateral branches has been shown to be efficacious in numerous studies, with extensive lesioning strategies (eg, cooled RFA) demonstrating the strongest evidence. The reported rate of complications for SI joint treatments is low., Conclusions: SI joint pain should ideally be managed in a multidisciplinary and multimodal manner. When conservative treatment fails, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency treatment can be considered., (© 2023 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy to reduce pain in patients who suffer from failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). In order to inform patients optimally prior to this therapy, knowing their expectations is crucial., Methods: Thirteen patients suffering from FBSS and scheduled for SCS were interviewed using a semistructured protocol. Patients were interviewed either at home or at their treating hospital. Data from these interviews were analyzed using directed content analysis. In addition to the qualitative interviews, an adjusted Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire was used to quantify expectations., Results: The expectations of patients with regard to SCS could be subdivided into 13 categories, which could be grouped into 6 general themes: (1) physical well-being, (2) social well-being, (3) material well-being, (4) emotional well-being, (5) development and activity, and (6) constraints of the procedure of SCS. These findings confirm patients' expectations about the improvement of their quality of life by SCS for FBSS. This indicates that assessing pain relief is not enough to adequately evaluate the effects of SCS. The small diversity within the studied population and the lack of patient-to-patient education are 2 possible limitations of this study., Conclusions: To improve education for patients prior to SCS surgery and to evaluate the effects of SCS, a multidimensional approach needs to be implemented. Possible disadvantages of SCS need to be discussed prior to the treatment., (© 2017 World Institute of Pain.)

Background: Many patients with cancer suffer from pain, which is often not optimally treated. In 2008, the evidence-based, multidisciplinary Dutch guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of pain in this patient group was published. We assessed knowledge about and adherence to the guideline by pain specialists., Methods: A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a palliative patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 350 Dutch anesthesiologists registered as pain specialists at the Netherlands Association of Anesthesiology. Descriptive statistics were conducted., Results: Ninety-three pain specialists completed the questionnaire (27%). The majority appeared to follow the guideline recommendations on pharmacological (99%) and invasive treatment (95%) in the diverse stages of the disease. However, the recommendation to use a one-dimensional pain scale to evaluate the effect of pain treatment and the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment if the patient in pain is in a deteriorating stage were only followed by a minority of the respondents (23% and 15%, respectively)., Conclusions: Regarding most recommendations, Dutch pain specialists know and intend to follow the national multidisciplinary cancer pain guideline. Yet, only a minority of them perform structural pain assessment of the patient with cancer pain. However, as the response rate was low (27%), the results should be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to the entire population of pain specialists in the Netherlands. We recommend that, in the guideline update and implementation programs, more attention be given to thorough assessment of the patient with pain and cancer., (© 2016 World Institute of Pain.)