Pain Unit, Hospital de Cruces, Baracaldo (Vizcaya), Spain.
Neuromodulation. 2002 Jul;5(3):150-9. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1403.2002.02025.x.
It was the purpose of this study to retrospectively test the safety and efficacy of the use of intraspinal analgesics in a diverse population of patients with chronic nonmalignant pain. This study was conducted in 39 patients, refractory to conventional therapies for intrathecal therapy. Twenty-two patients had neuropathic pain and 17 had nociceptive pain. The mean follow-up of this patient population was 2.2 years with a range of 36 months to 6.5 years. Analgesia with intraspinal morphine, initial and final dose of intraspinal agents used, stability of morphine dose over time, and side effects and complications with or without bupivacaine and/or clonidine was assessed after 6 months of treatment, and at the end of study. After 6 months, three patients discontinued the study for differing reasons, 28 patients (77.8%) reported excellent results, and five patients (14%) reported good results. One patient reported no pain relief with intraspinal morphine and bupivacaine and five patients reported insufficient or no pain relief. At final assessment, 20 patients (55.6%) reported excellent results with no differences based on pain type or pain syndrome and eight patients (22.2%) reported good analgesia. Morphine doses remained stable throughout treatment, with an average dose of 2 mg per patient. Ninety-one percent of patients were satisfied with the method used and considered it superior to all previous therapeutic techniques tried, improving their quality of life. As for complications, one patient developed a clostridial infection during the immediate postoperative period which required pump removal and one patient developed severe urinary retention requiring system removal. There were three catheter obstructions (two in the same patient) and one catheter disconnection. Other patient-reported side effects were not considered significant by the authors to be mentioned here. After more than 6 years of experience with spinal infusion of morphine, either alone or admixed with other spinal analgesics, in patients with pain of nonmalignant origin, we consider the technique to be helpful in selected patients not responding to oral treatment or when untoward side effects exist with oral treatment. The advantages, as regards to analgesic efficacy and quality of life, clearly outweigh the drawbacks of the long-term use of spinal morphine.
本研究旨在回顾性测试椎管内镇痛在慢性非恶性疼痛患者中的安全性和有效性。该研究共纳入 39 例患者,这些患者对鞘内治疗的常规治疗方法均无反应。22 例患者为神经性疼痛,17 例为伤害性疼痛。该患者群体的平均随访时间为 2.2 年,范围为 36 个月至 6.5 年。在治疗 6 个月后和研究结束时,评估了鞘内吗啡的镇痛效果、使用的鞘内药物的初始和最终剂量、吗啡剂量随时间的稳定性以及有无布比卡因和/或可乐定的副作用和并发症。6 个月后,3 例患者因不同原因退出研究,28 例(77.8%)患者报告疗效极佳,5 例(14%)患者报告疗效良好。1 例患者报告鞘内吗啡和布比卡因无镇痛作用,5 例患者报告镇痛效果不足或无镇痛作用。最终评估时,20 例(55.6%)患者报告疗效极佳,且无论疼痛类型或疼痛综合征如何,均无差异,8 例(22.2%)患者报告镇痛效果良好。整个治疗过程中,吗啡剂量保持稳定,平均每位患者 2mg。91%的患者对所用方法满意,并认为其优于以往尝试的所有治疗技术,提高了他们的生活质量。至于并发症,1 例患者在术后即刻发生梭菌感染,需要取出泵,1 例患者发生严重尿潴留,需要取出系统。有 3 例导管阻塞(同一患者 2 例)和 1 例导管断开。其他患者报告的副作用作者认为不显著,故此处未提及。在对非恶性起源疼痛患者使用单独或混合其他鞘内镇痛药进行脊髓输注超过 6 年后,我们认为该技术对口服治疗无效或口服治疗存在不良反应的患者有帮助。从镇痛效果和生活质量的角度来看,其优势明显超过长期使用脊髓吗啡的缺点。