GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians  (5)
Material
Publisher
  • American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians  (5)
Person/Organisation
Language
Years
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians ; 2021
    In:  Pain Medicine Case Reports Vol. 5, No. 8 ( 2021-11-30), p. 393-397
    In: Pain Medicine Case Reports, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Vol. 5, No. 8 ( 2021-11-30), p. 393-397
    Abstract: BACKGROUND: Pudendal neuralgia (PN) can cause severe, disabling chronic pain. Though common, PN is frequently unrecognized and misdiagnosed. Historically, the last-resort treatment for PN has been permanent implantation of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), but SCS for PN carries high risk of complications and explantation. We report the first case of temporary (60-day) peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment for refractory PN. CASE REPORT: A 63-year-old woman presented with one year of chronic bilateral suprapubic vaginal pain radiating to the bilateral proximal medial thighs with concomitant dysuria, urinary frequency, and pain with intercourse. PN was confirmed via diagnostic pudendal nerve block. Using fluoroscopic guidance, we implanted PNS leads on the left and, subsequently, the right pudendal nerves, with explantation at 60 days for each lead. The patient reported continuing pain reduction with 80% improvement in the Visual Analog Scale score at 6 months, resumption of normal activity and functionality, discontinued use of opioids, and high satisfaction with treatment. This case is notable for the sustained pain relief provided by this temporary and minimally invasive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This case suggests that 60-day PNS with fluoroscopic guidance is a viable treatment for refractory PN in correctly selected patients. This treatment is low-risk, minimally invasive, and may be used early in the care continuum, potentially sparing patients multiple failed treatments and the risks associated with permanently implanted devices. KEY WORDS: Pudendal nerve, peripheral nerve stimulation, neuromodulation, chronic pain, pelvic pain, perineal pain, case report
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2768-5152
    URL: Issue
    Language: Unknown
    Publisher: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians
    Publication Date: 2021
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians ; 2020
    In:  Pain Physician Vol. 4S;23, No. 8;4S ( 2020-8-14), p. S367-S380
    In: Pain Physician, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Vol. 4S;23, No. 8;4S ( 2020-8-14), p. S367-S380
    Abstract: Background: The unexpected COVID-19 crisis has disrupted medical education and patient care in unprecedented ways. Despite the challenges, the health-care system and patients have been both creative and resilient in finding robust “temporary” solutions to these challenges. It is not clear if some of these COVID-era transitional steps will be preserved in the future of medical education and telemedicine. Objectives: The goal of this commentary is to address the sometimes substantial changes in medical education, continuing medical education (CME) activities, residency and fellowship programs, specialty society meetings, and telemedicine, and to consider the value of some of these profound shifts to “business as usual” in the health-care sector. Methods: This is a commentary is based on the limited available literature, online information, and the front-line experiences of the authors. Results: COVID-19 has clearly changed residency and fellowship programs by limiting the amount of hands-on time physicians could spend with patients. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medicine Education has endorsed certain policy changes to promote greater flexibility in programs but still rigorously upholds specific standards. Technological interventions such as telemedicine visits with patients, virtual meetings with colleagues, and online interviews have been introduced, and many trainees are “technoomnivores” who are comfortable using a variety of technology platforms and techniques. Webinars and e-learning are gaining traction now, and their use, practicality, and cost-effectiveness may make them important in the post-COVID era. CME activities have migrated increasingly to virtual events and online programs, a trend that may also continue due to its practicality and cost-effectiveness. While many medical meetings of specialty societies have been postponed or cancelled altogether, technology allows for virtual meetings that may offer versatility and time-saving opportunities for busy clinicians. It may be that future medical meetings embrace a hybrid approach of blending digital with face-toface experience. Telemedicine was already in place prior to the COVID-19 crisis but barriers are rapidly coming down to its widespread use and patients seem to embrace this, even as health-care systems navigate the complicated issues of cybersecurity and patient privacy. Regulatory guidance may be needed to develop safe, secure, and patient-friendly telehealth applications. Telemedicine has affected the prescribing of controlled substances in which online counseling, informed consent, and follow-up must be done in a virtual setting. For example, pill counts can be done in a video call and patients can still get questions answered about their pain therapy, although it is likely that after the crisis, prescribing controlled substances may revert to face-to-face visits. Limitations: The health-care system finds itself in a very fluid situation at the time this was written and changes are still occurring and being assessed. Conclusions: Many of the technological changes imposed so abruptly on the health-care system by the COVID-19 pandemic may be positive and it may be beneficial that some of these transitions be preserved or modified as we move forward. Clinicians must be objective in assessing these changes and retaining those changes that clearly improve health-care education and patient care as we enter the COVID era. Key words: Continuing medical education, COVID-19, fellowship program, medical education, medical meetings, residency program, telehealth, telemedicine
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2150-1149 , 1533-3159
    URL: Issue
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2244163-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians ; 2020
    In:  Pain Physician Vol. 4S;23, No. 8;4S ( 2020-8-14), p. S161-S182
    In: Pain Physician, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Vol. 4S;23, No. 8;4S ( 2020-8-14), p. S161-S182
    Abstract: Background: Chronic pain patients require continuity of care even during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has drastically changed healthcare and other societal practices. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-ASIPP Risk Mitigation and Stratification (COVID-ARMS) Return to Practice Task Force in order to provide guidance for safe and strategic reopening. Objectives: The aims are to provide education and guidance for interventional pain specialists and their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic that minimizes COVID-related morbidity while allowing a return to interventional pain care. Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various regions, specialities, and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification were reviewed. The principles of best-evidence synthesis of available literature and grading for recommendations as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), typically utilized in ASIPP guideline preparation, was not utilized in these guidelines due to the limitation based on lack of available literature on COVID-19, risk mitigation and stratification. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best-available research and practice knowledge. Results: Numerous risk factors have emerged that predispose patients to contracting COVID-19 and/or having a more severe course of the infection. COVID-19 may have mild symptoms, be asymptomatic, or may be severe and life-threatening. Older age and certain comorbidities, such as underlying pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, have been associated with worse outcomes. In pain care, COVID-19 patients are a heterogeneous group with some individuals relatively healthy and having only a short course of manageable symptoms, while others become critically ill. It is necessary to assess patients on a case-by-case basis and craft individualized care recommendations. A COVID-19 ARMS risk stratification tool was created to quickly and objectively assess patients. Interventional pain specialists and their patients may derive important benefits from evidenceinformed risk stratification, protective strategies to prevent infection, and the gradual resumption of treatments and procedures to manage pain. Limitations: COVID-19 was an ongoing pandemic at the time these recommendations were developed. The pandemic has created a fluid situation in terms of evidence-informed guidance. As more and better evidence is gathered, these recommendations may be modified. Conclusions: Chronic pain patients require continuity of care, but during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, steps must be taken to stratify risks and protect patients from possible infection to safeguard them from COVID-19-related illness and transmitting the disease to others. Pain specialists should optimize telemedicine encounters with pain patients, be cognizant of risks of COVID-19 morbidity, and take steps to evaluate risk-benefit on a case-by-case basis. Pain specialists may return to practice with lower-risk patients and appropriate safeguards. Key words: Cardiovascular disease, COVID-19, interventional pain management, COVID risk factors, diabetes, hypertension, interventional pain care, novel coronavirus, obesity, SARS-nCoV2, steroids
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2150-1149 , 1533-3159
    URL: Issue
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2244163-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians ; 2011
    In:  Pain Physician Vol. 3;14, No. 2;3 ( 2011-3-14), p. E249-E250
    In: Pain Physician, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Vol. 3;14, No. 2;3 ( 2011-3-14), p. E249-E250
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2150-1149 , 1533-3159
    URL: Issue
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians
    Publication Date: 2011
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2244163-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians ; 2010
    In:  Pain Physician Vol. 3;13, No. 3;5 ( 2010-5-14), p. 289-293
    In: Pain Physician, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Vol. 3;13, No. 3;5 ( 2010-5-14), p. 289-293
    Abstract: Introduction: The synthetic opioid methadone is a promising analgesic for the management of chronic neuropathic pain. Methadone therapy is increasing as its advantages are being realized over other opioids. Methadone’s lack of known active metabolites, high oral bioavailability, low cost, and its additional receptor activity as an antagonist of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors make it an attractive analgesic. Methods: We surveyed 550 pain physicians to determine their prescribing practices of methadone. The study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. A list of 550 pain physicians, which included practitioners in private practice, university settings, and community hospitals, were obtained and surveys sent via mail. The list was obtained through the American Pain Society’s membership list. Out of 550 surveys sent, 124 replies were returned. Results: The 124 surveys that were returned included pain physicians from various settings: 20 responses from physicians practicing at a university setting, 16 responses from a community setting, 54 responses from a private setting, one from university and community settings, 7 from community and private settings, 3 from university and community and private settings; 23 did not specify. Of the 124 physicians, 111 prescribe methadone in their pain practice. Of the 13 physicians who do not prescribe methadone, the main reason for not using the drug for 5 physicians was because of social stigma, 2 because of minimal experience with the drug, 2 because the drug was not effective, one because of lack of knowledge, and one because of potential adverse effects. Of the 111 physicians who use methadone, 55 stated that social stigma was the most common reason patients refuse to take methadone for the treatment of pain, 44 because of adverse effects, and 5 stated “other” as the reason patients refuse to take methadone. Of 111 physicians who prescribe methadone, 100 prescribed it for neuropathic pain, 101 for somatic pain, 80 for visceral pain, 78 for cancer pain, and 34 for sickle cell pain. Also, 21 stated that methadone was the primary opioid they prescribed. Of the 111 physicians who prescribe methadone, 86 start methadone at low dose and titrate up to minimize side effects. Fourteen clinicians load methadone and titrate down to minimize adverse effects while maintaining analgesia. Conclusion: The majority of survey responders (90%) prescribed methadone in their pain practice, but on a very limited basis; 59% state 〈 20% of their patients are on methadone. Three times a day dosing schedule was the most typical regimen (57%) while 77% prefer to titrate up on the dosage. It seems interesting that many clinicians do not prescribe methadone as a primary analgesic. One reason for this is due to the social stigma of its use in treatment of heroin addicts. Also, a lack of widely recognized treatment algorithms or guidelines to assist clinicians with opioid conversions and maintenance might be playing a role. The role of stigma as a barrier to adequate treatment of chronic pain among pain physicians prescribing practices is a fundamental, yet unexplored issue. Key words: Methadone, chronic pain, behavior, stigma, survey, opioid, education, society
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2150-1149 , 1533-3159
    URL: Issue
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians
    Publication Date: 2010
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2244163-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...