Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evidenzbasierte interventionelle Schmerztherapie

Fortschritte der letzten 10 Jahre

Evidence-based interventional pain medicine

Progress over the past 10 years

  • Übersichten
  • Published:
Der Schmerz Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):224–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. DePalma MJ, Ketchum JM, Saullo TR (2011) Etiology of chronic low back pain in patients having undergone lumbar fusion. Pain Med 12(5):732–739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):498–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1622–1627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DePalma MJ (2015) Diagnostic nihilism toward low back pain: what once was accepted, should no longer be. Pain Med 16(8):1453–1454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Engel A, MacVicar J, Bogduk N (2014) A philosophical foundation for diagnostic blocks, with criteria for their validation. Pain Med 15(6):998–1006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bogduk N, Aprill C, Derby R (2013) Lumbar discogenic pain: state-of-the-art review. Pain Med 14(6):813–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):403–409

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1149–1168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):14–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaufmann TJ, Geske JR, Murthy NS et al (2013) Clinical effectiveness of single lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Pain Med 14(8):1126–1133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):239–247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1650–1657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):548–555

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):1697–1708

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Landers MH, Dreyfuss P, Bogduk N (2012) On the geometry of fluoroscopy views for cervical interlaminar epidural injections. Pain Med 13(1):58–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):68–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):839–850

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. MacVicar J, Borowczyk J, MacVicar AM et al (2012) Cervical medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy in New Zealand. Pain Med 13(5):647–654

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cosman ER Jr, Dolensky JR, Hoffman RA (2014) Factors that affect radiofrequency heat lesion size. Pain Med 15(12):2020–2036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. MacVicar J, Borowczyk JM, MacVicar AM, Loughnan BM, Bogduk N (2013) Lumbar medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy in New Zealand. Pain Med 14(5):639–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):36–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):658–669

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2127–2137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2096–2104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neurochirurgie Biberach, Eichendorffweg 5, 88400, Biberach, Deutschland

    Stephan Klessinger

  2. Orthopädie, Schmerzzentrum Zofingen, Hintere Hauptgasse 9, 4800, Zofingen, Schweiz

    Martin Legat

  3. AlphaMed, Kärntenstr. 2, 96052, Bamberg, Deutschland

    Markus Schneider

Authors
  1. Stephan Klessinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Legat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Markus Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan Klessinger.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klessinger, S., Legat, M. & Schneider, M. Evidenzbasierte interventionelle Schmerztherapie. Schmerz 34, 123–126 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-019-00440-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-019-00440-1

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation