PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Hans C Hansen

Publications and source records attributed to Hans C Hansen.

11 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Opioid guidelines in the management of chronic non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioid abuse has increased at an alarming rate. However, available evidence suggests a wide variance in the use of opioids, as documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). OBJECTIVES: The objective of these opioid guidelines by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) is to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to bring consistency in opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of drug diversion. DESIGN: A policy committee evaluated a systematic review of the available literature regarding opioid use in managing chronic non-cancer pain. This resulted in the formulation of the essentials of guidelines, a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions, followed by statements regarding relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. METHODS: Consistent with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) hierarchical and comprehensive standards, the elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentations, formal endorsement by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), and blinded peer review. Evidence was designated based on scientific merit as Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), or Level V (indeterminate). RESULTS: After an extensive review and analysis of the literature, the authors utilized two systematic reviews, two narrative reviews, 32 studies included in prior systematic reviews, and 10 additional studies in the synthesis of evidence. The evidence was limited. CONCLUSION: These guidelines evaluated the evidence for the use of opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain and recommendations for management. These guidelines are based on the best available scientific evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Because of the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Analgesics, Opioid↗
PubMed2004

Information technology in the interventional pain practice: electronic medical records, practice management software, and document management.

Electronic medical records (EMR) can both replace the paper clinical chart and perform scheduling and billing tasks. EMRs are currently used in only a small proportion of medical practices; however, EMR adoption is expected to soar in a few years. Governmental and industry concerns about safety and quality, along with medical practice needs for increased productivity, are fueling this transition. Medical practices are likely to consider transitioning to EMRs. At this point, the marketplace is fragmented in terms of suppliers, and refinement of the software is continuing. Transitioning to an EMR is a step that offers enormous benefits to interventional pain management physicians, in terms of compliance, the ability to maintain quality, and the ability to manage practices, including larger and more complex practices. Transitioning to an EMR is also a major effort in terms of time and expense: the goal is to settle on a specific EMR and continue to use it. This review focuses on (1) why physicians are or are not transitioning to EMRs; (2) the benefits of a transition; and (3) factors to consider in evaluating the various competing software products. Although EMR technology continues to develop, the review also considers areas in which future development is necessary. The most important areas are seen in document management, data input, and outcomes analysis and decision support capability. The EMR market is evolving rapidly. However, this review should in no way serve as an endorsement of any particular system, vendor, or technology.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2003

Evidence-based practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain.

Evidence-based practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are systematically developed and professionally derived statements and recommendations that assist both physicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate health care in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic or persistent pain. The guidelines were developed utilizing an evidence-based approach to increase patient access to treatment, to improve outcomes and appropriateness of care, and to optimize cost-effectiveness. All types of relevant and published evidence and consensus were utilized. The guidelines include a discussion of their purpose, rationale, and importance, including descriptions of the patient population served, the methodology, and the pathophysiologic basis for intervention. Multiple diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques are included in this document. Strong evidence was shown for diagnostic facet joint blocks for the diagnosis of facet joint pain, and lumbar provocative discography for discogenic pain. Moderate evidence was shown for sacroiliac joint blocks in the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain, and for transforaminal epidural injections in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies, but with clinical findings of nerve root irritation. Moderate to strong evidence was shown for multiple therapeutic interventional techniques including medial branch blocks and medial branch neurotomy; caudal epidural steroid injections and transforaminal epidural steroid injections; lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis; and implantable therapies. These guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. It is expected that a provider will establish a plan of care on a case-by-case basis, taking into account an individual patient's medical condition, personal needs, and preferences, and the physician's experience. Based on an individual patient's needs, treatment different from that outlined here could be warranted. These guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

Journal Article↗
PubMed2003

Methods for evidence synthesis in interventional pain management.

Healthcare decisions are increasingly being made on research-based evidence, rather than on expert opinion or clinical experience alone. Consequently, the process by which the strength of scientific evidence is evaluated and developed by means of evidence-based medicine recommendations and guidelines has become crucial resulting in the past decade in unprecedented interest in evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines. Systematic reviews, also known as evidence-based technology assessments, attempt to minimize bias by the comprehensiveness and reproducibility of the search for and selection of articles for review. Evidence-based medicine is defined as the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. Thus, the practice of evidence-based medicine requires the integration of individual clinical expertise with the best available external evidence from systematic research. To arrive at evidence-based medicine decisions all valid and relevant evidence should be considered alongside randomized controlled trials, patient preferences and resources. However, many systematic reviews in interventional pain management fail to follow evidence-based medicine principles. Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that assist clinicians, consumers and policy makers to make appropriate healthcare decisions. The complex processes of guideline development depend on integration of a number of activities, from collection and processing of scientific literature to evaluation of the evidence, development of evidence-based recommendations or guidelines and implementation and dissemination of the guidelines to relevant professionals and consumers. Guidelines are being designed to improve the quality of healthcare and decrease the use of unnecessary, ineffective or harmful interventions. This review describes various aspects of evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews in interventional pain management, evaluation of the strength of scientific evidence, differences between systematic and narrative reviews, rating the quality of individual articles, grading the strength of the body of evidence and appropriate methods for searching for the evidence.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2003

Guidelines for the use of controlled substances in the management of chronic pain.

Controlled substance abuse has increased at an alarming rate. However, available evidence suggests a wide variance in the use of controlled substances, as documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The primary objective of controlled substance guidelines by American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) is to provide guidance for the use of controlled substances for the treatment of chronic pain. It is anticipated that these practical guidelines will improve quality of care, patient access, and quality of life. Additional benefits include improved treatment efficiency and efficacy, and cost containment by improving the risk-benefit ratio of treating patients with chronic pain. Further goals of this manuscript are to bring consistency in opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic pain patients with medically appropriate controlled substances, and to reduce the incidence of drug diversion. These guidelines also reinforce the need for systematic evaluation and ongoing care of patients with chronic or persistent pain. ASIPP controlled substance guidelines also provide a discussion of the epidemiology of chronic pain, the role of controlled substances in treating chronic pain, various aspects of drug abuse, pharmacological considerations, clinical effectiveness of controlled substances, options for treatment monitoring and drug testing and a review of terminology used in addiction medicine. These guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. It is expected that a provider will establish a plan of care on a case-by-case basis, taking into account an individual patient's medical condition, personal needs, and preferences, and the physician's experience. Based on an individual patient's needs, controlled substance prescribing and treatment different from that outlined here may be warranted. These guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

Journal Article↗
PubMed2003

Epidural steroids in the management of chronic spinal pain and radiculopathy.

Epidural injections with or without steroids are used extensively in the management of chronic spinal pain. However, evidence is contradictory with continuing debate about the value of epidural steroid injections in chronic spinal syndromes. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections in the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Data sources include relevant literature identified through searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE (Jan 1966- Mar 2003), manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and abstracts from scientific meetings. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included in the review based on the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Studies were excluded from the analysis if they were simply review or descriptive and failed to meet minimum criteria. The results showed that there was strong evidence to indicate effectiveness of transforaminal epidural injections in managing lumbar nerve root pain. Further, evidence was moderate for caudal epidural injections in managing lumbar radicular pain. The evidence in management of chronic neck pain, chronic low back pain, cervical radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, and post laminectomy syndrome was limited or inconclusive. In conclusion, the evidence of effectiveness of transforaminal epidural injections in managing lumbar nerve root pain was strong, whereas, effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in managing lumbar radiculopathy was moderate, while there was limited or inconclusive evidence of effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain without radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, and cervical radiculopathy.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2003

Is fluoroscopy necessary for sacroiliac joint injections?

The use of sacroiliac joint injection has been a steadily increasing for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes in the United States. Because of the conceivably easy accessibility of sacroiliac joint and reported low incidence of morbidity, the sacroiliac joint injection is felt to be a procedure that maybe performed easily in the office based setting. While this procedure may be common, the sacroiliac joint injection is not performed accurately without the aide of imaging. Further complicating the issue of sacroiliac joint injections is the lack of specific and reliable diagnostic testing. Clinical evaluation and imaging studies are often unreliable and practitioners often mistakenly assume that pain over the posterior superior iliac spine is pathognomonic for sacral joint pain. In addition, referral patterns are unreliable and bedside testing is often non-diagnostic. Sixty patients undergoing sacroiliac joint injections were studied. Sacroiliac joint injections were placed blindly then examined under fluoroscopy for accurate needle placement. The needle was placed by a single this experienced spinal injectionist. Results of blind needle placement revealed that only 5 of 60 patients were felt to have needle placement approximating a therapeutic point of contact with the sacroiliac joint. Furthermore, the posterior superior iliac spine, was found to be a poor indicator of sacroiliac joint anatomic access. The results of this study show that accurate placement of sacroiliac joint injections is successful without fluoroscopy in only 12% of the patients, even in experienced hands.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2003

Sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction.

The purpose of this current opinion on sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction is to assist interventional pain physicians to apply appropriate treatment decisions and rationale to their patients in pain. Discussion of relevant scientific data and controversial positions will be provided. This review is intended to help characterize the sacroiliac joint as a pain generator, and explore its contribution to the differential diagnosis of low back pain. Historical, technical, and current treatment practice will be characterized against current evidence. Discussion will provoke support or criticism of the relevant scientific data, and general recommendations for interventional pain management physicians should be considered within the context of the individual practitioners skill and practice patterns. Current Opinion is not intended to provide a standard of care.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2002

Medial branch neurotomy in management of chronic spinal pain: systematic review of the evidence.

Zygapophysial or facet joints have been implicated as cause of low back, mid back, upper back and neck pain with referred pain. Cervical, thoracic and lumbar facet joints are innervated by the medial branches of the dorsal rami. Zygapophysial (facet) joints have been implicated as the source of chronic pain in 15% to 45% of the patients with chronic low back pain, 54% to 60% of the patients with chronic neck pain and 48% of the patients with thoracic pain. A systematic review of the evidence of effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation in the management of chronic spinal pain was undertaken. This review included randomized clinical trials, as well as non-randomized or observational studies in the analysis. Literature search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, cross-references to the reviews and various published trials; and peer reviewed abstracts from scientific meetings during the past two years. An algorithmic approach was followed in study evaluation with a description of inclusion and exclusion criteria. A set of high-performing scales or checklists pertaining to randomized clinical trials and observational trials derived from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was utilized; Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Qualitative analysis was conducted, using five levels of evidence for effectiveness of medial branch neurotomy. Our search strategy identified over 1,000 citations as the result of electronic and manual screening. A total of 7 randomized trials of radiofrequency neurotomy for spinal pain were identified. However, only 4 related to medial branch neurotomy. Two of the four met the inclusion criteria. Among the multiple observational studies considered for inclusion, 4 prospective evaluations were included in the systematic review. In addition, 3 retrospective evaluations were also included. Two randomized trials comprised of 27 patients receiving active treatment. The first study consisted of cervical facet joint pain and the second consisted of lumbar facet joint pain. Both studies showed positive results. Similar to randomized trials, prospective, as well as retrospective evaluations showed positive evidence, both in short-term and long-term. The results of this systematic review of 2 well-designed randomized trials, 4 prospective well-designed trials without randomization and 3 retrospective evaluations provided strong evidence that radiofrequency denervation offers short-term relief and moderate evidence of long-term pain relief of facet joint origin.

Journal Article↗