Patients from a multi-disciplinary university pain clinic experience strikingly low quality of life, whereby low back pain patients and patients with multiple pain localisations have the lowest quality of life. Pain catastrophising showed the strongest association with quality of life, and stronger than pain intensity.

Cervical radicular pain affects approximately 1 on 1000 adults per year. Although many treatment modalities are described in the literature, the available evidence for efficacy is not sufficient to allow definitive conclusions on the optimal therapy to be made. The effect of pulsed radiofrequency treatment for this type of patients was evaluated in a prospective audit that showed satisfactory pain relief for a mean period of 9.2 months, justifying a randomized sham controlled trial. Twenty-three patients, out of 256 screened, met the inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned in a double blind fashion to receive either pulsed radiofrequency or sham intervention. The evaluation was done by an independent observer. At 3 months the pulsed radiofrequency group showed a significantly better outcome with regard to the global perceived effect (>50% improvement) and visual analogue scale (20 point pain reduction). The quality of life scales also showed a positive trend in favor of the pulsed radiofrequency group, but significance was only reached in the SF-36 domain vitality at 3 months. The need for pain medication was significantly reduced in the pulsed radiofrequency group after six months. No complications were observed during the study period. These study results are in agreement with the findings of our previous clinical audit that pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the cervical dorsal root ganglion may provide pain relief for a limited number of carefully selected patients with chronic cervical radicular pain as assessed by clinical and neurological examination.

The numerical Box-21 scale is an excellent choice for pain intensity assessment in heterogeneous patient groups. The verbal descriptor scales may be considered when the study population consists of a majority of older persons.

BackgroundCervicogenic headache (CEH) is a unilateral headache localised in the neck or occipital region, projecting to the frontal and temporal regions. Since the pathogenesis of this syndrome appears to have an anatomical basis in the cervical region, several surgical procedures aimed at reducing the nociceptive input on the cervical level, have been tested. We developed a sequence of various cervical radiofrequency neurotomies (facet joint denervations eventually followed by upper dorsal root ganglion neurotomies) that proved successful in a prospective pilot trial with 15 CEH patients. To further evaluate this sequential treatment program we conducted a randomised controlled trialMethods30 patients with cervicogenic headache according to the Sjaastad diagnostic criteria, were randomised. 15 patients received a sequence of radiofrequency treatments (cervical facet joint denervation, followed by cervical dorsal root ganglion lesions when necessary), and the other 15 patients underwent local injections with steroid and anaesthetic at the greater occipital nerve, followed by transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) when necessary. Visual analogue scores for pain, global perceived effects scores, quality of life scores were assessed at 8, 16, 24 and 48 weeks. Patients also kept a headache diary.ResultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups at any time point in the trial.ConclusionWe did not find evidence that radiofrequency treatment of cervical facet joints and upper dorsal root ganglions is a better treatment than the infiltration of the greater occipital nerve, followed by TENS for patients fulfilling the clinical criteria of cervicogenic headache.

The objective of this study was to investigate the test-retest stability of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) and their subscales in chronic pain patients over relatively long period of times like those that are most often seen in clinical practice. Fifty non-malignant chronic pain patients filled out the PCS and TSK twice with a mean interval between testing of 52 days. Both assessment instruments showed sufficient test-retest stability, even with long time intervals between testing.