4.4 Review

Complex regional pain syndromes (reflex sympathetic dystrophy and causalgia) and spinal cord stimulation

期刊

PAIN MEDICINE
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 S64-S96

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2006.00124.x

关键词

complex regional pain syndrome; reflex sympathetic dystrophy; causalgia; spinal cord stimulation; multiple independent constant-current architecture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS I and CRPS II), also known as reflex sympathetic dystrophy and causalgia, have been recognized for the past 2,500 years and believed in for the past 150, but they have yet to be understood. These syndromes can be characterized by discrete sensory, motor, and autonomic findings, but many patients with CRPS continue to suffer for years without a diagnosis. The role of the sympathetic nervous system in maintaining these syndromes and its appropriateness as a target for treatment continue to be subjects of enduring controversy. As might be expected in a group of disorders that we still have trouble naming, much less diagnosing, it has been very difficult to reach a consensus on how to treat people afflicted with the CRPS. Recent insights into how the nervous system responds to injury are beginning to explain some of the impossible neurological findings that are characteristic of CRPS. These research findings may soon be translated into specific therapies targeted at the processes of neural inflammation that appear to play an important role in these syndromes. Using currently available techniques of quantitative sensory testing should allow us to improve our approach to diagnosing our patients and monitoring their responses to treatment. Incorporating these diagnostic techniques into clinical studies now promises to improve the utility of clinical research in this field. Case-series studies suggest that spinal cord stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for many people with advanced CRPS who have not obtained adequate relief with other treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据