Can the application of local anesthetics (Neural Therapy, NT) alone durably improve pain symptoms in referred patients with chronic and refractory pain? If the application of local anesthetics does lead to an improvement that far exceeds the duration of action of local anesthetics, we will postulate that a vicious circle of pain in the reflex arcs has been disrupted (hypothesis). Case series design. We exclusively used procaine or lidocaine. The inclusion criteria were severe pain and chronic duration of more than three months, pain unresponsive to conventional medical measures, written referral from physicians or doctors of chiropractic explicitly to NT. Patients with improvement of pain who started on additional therapy during the study period for a reason other than pain were excluded in order to avoid a potential bias. Treatment success was measured after one year follow-up using the outcome measures of pain and analgesics intake. 280 chronic pain patients were included; the most common reason for referral was back pain. The average number of consultations per patient was 9.2 in the first year (median 8.0). After one year, in 60 patients pain was unchanged, 52 patients reported a slight improvement, 126 were considerably better, and 41 pain-free. At the same time, 74.1 % of the patients who took analgesics before starting NT needed less or no more analgesics at all. No adverse effects or complications were observed. The good long-term results of the targeted therapeutic local anesthesia (NT) in the most problematic group of chronic pain patients (unresponsive to all evidence based conventional treatment options) indicate that a vicious circle has been broken. The specific contribution of the intervention to these results cannot be determined. The low costs of local anesthetics, the small number of consultations needed, the reduced intake of analgesics, and the lack of adverse effects also suggest the practicality and cost-effectiveness of this kind of treatment. Controlled trials to evaluate the true effect of NT are needed.

Whereas the autonomic nervous system (ANS) and the immune system used to be assigned separate functions, it has now become clear that the ANS and the immune system (and thereby inflammatory cascades) work closely together. During an acute immune response (e. g., in viral infection like Covid-19) the ANS and the immune system establish a fast interaction resulting in “physiological” inflammation. Based on our knowledge of the modulation of inflammation by the ANS we propose that a reflectory malfunction of the ANS with hyperactivity of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) may be involved in the generation of acute hyperinflammation. We believe that sympathetic hyperactivity triggers a hyperresponsiveness of the immune system (“cytokine storm”) with consecutive tissue damage. These reflectory neuroimmunological and inflammatory cascades constitute a general reaction principle of the organism under the leadership of the ANS and does not only occur in viral infections, although Covid-19 is a typical current example therefore. Within the overreaction several interdependent pathological positive feedback loops can be detected in which the SNS plays an important part. Consequently, there is a chance to regulate the hyperinflammation by influencing the SNS. This can be achieved by a stellate ganglion block (SGB) with local anesthetics, temporarily disrupting the pathological positive feedback loops. Thereafter, the complex neuroimmune system has the chance to reorganize itself. Previous clinical and experimental data have confirmed a favorable outcome in hyperinflammation (including pneumonia) after SGB (measurable e. g. by a reduction in proinflammatory cytokines).

Background: The main objective of this study was to assess and compare patient satisfaction with Neural Therapy (NT) and conventional medicine (COM) in primary care for musculoskeletal diseases. Methods: A cross-sectional study in primary care for musculoskeletal disorders covering 77 conventional primary care providers and 18 physicians certified in NT with 241 and 164 patients respectively. Patients and physicians documented consultations and patients completed questionnaires at a one-month follow-up. Physicians documented duration and severity of symptoms, diagnosis, and procedures. The main outcomes in the evaluation of patients were: fulfillment of expectations, perceived treatment effects, and patient satisfaction. Results: The most frequent diagnoses belonged to the group of dorsopathies (39% in COM, 46% in NT). We found significant differences between NT and COM with regard to patient evaluations. NT patients documented better fulfilment of treatment expectations and higher overall treatment satisfaction. More patients in NT reported positive side effects and less frequent negative effects than patients in COM. Also, significant differences between NT and COM patients were seen in the quality of the patient-physician interaction (relation and communication, medical care, information and support, continuity and cooperation, facilities availability, and accessibility), where NT patients showed higher satisfaction. Differences were also found with regard to the physicians' management of disease, with fewer work incapacity attestations issued and longer consultation times in NT. Conclusion: Our findings show a significantly higher treatment and care-related patient satisfaction with primary care for musculoskeletal diseases provided by physicians practising Neural Therapy.

The sympathetic nervous system has an important role in generating pain. Various pathomechanisms are involved that respond well to the application of local anesthetics (LA), for example to the stellate ganglion block (SGB). We wanted to know more about the effects of SGB on cardiovascular parameters. We included 15 healthy volunteers; another 15 healthy volunteers as a control group (sham injection of LA). In order to produce a more precise SGB, we employed only a small volume of LA (3mL), a LA with a lower permeability (procaine 1%), and a modified injection technique. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), heart rate (HR), and echocardiographic parameters were recorded before and after SGB. We also investigated whether there are side differences (left and right SBG). At baseline all parameters were within the normal range. After performing right and left SGB DBP significantly increased (on the right side from 68.73±8.61 to 73.53±11.10, p=0.015; on the left side from 70.66±13.01 to 77.93±10.40, p=0.003). In the control group no increase in DBP was observed. No side-specific differences were found, except a significant reduction in the maximum velocity of myocardial contraction during the systole with left-sided SGB. Even with our methods we could not prevent the simultaneous occurrence of a partial parasympatholytic effect. For this reason, the SGB has only minor hemodynamic effects, which is desirable as it enhances the safety of the SGB.

The use of low-dose local anesthetics (LAs) has significantly transformed patient care by providing rapid and effective relief of pain and other clinical conditions while minimizing recovery time. This study aims to identify and describe the existing scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of low-dose LAs in various conditions and to identify gaps in the current literature in order to prioritize future research. This systematic scoping review adhered to the methodological guidelines outlined in the Arksey and O’Malley framework, which includes five distinct stages. Of the 129 studies included, 37.98% (n = 49) were clinical trials, 55.03% (n = 71) were observational studies, and 6.97% (n = 9) were systematic reviews. The most commonly reported indication for the use of low-dose LAs was chronic pain management (72.86%), followed by acute pain management (13.17%). Additionally, non-pain-related indications were also identified (13.95%). Overall, the administration of low-dose, short-acting LAs demonstrated favorable outcomes in terms of pain management and reduction in anxiety and depression scales, thereby having a positive impact on the patients’ quality of life. This review represents the first systematic scoping review regarding the therapeutic role of LAs. To substantiate the reported positive effects on efficacy and safety, further rigorous research comprising larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and long-term outcome monitoring is imperative.

Background: In neural therapy, local anesthetics are injected for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. In this process, therapy makes use of the regulatory functions and plastic properties of the nervous system, especially its autonomic part. Up until now, a distinction has been made between “local/segmental neural therapy” and “interference field therapy.” This division dating back to the middle of the last century was based on the assumption that anatomical and clinical segments were identical. However, this is only true for the projection symptoms, which are limited to metamerism. All pathophysiological processes beyond this segment were called “interference field events” (“outside of any segmental order” and “not explainable by neuroanatomical circuitry”). Summary: However, modern neurophysiology no longer recognizes segmental boundaries, taking into account the occurrence of cross-segmental sensitization processes, neuroplastic changes, immune processes, and neurogenic inflammation. In addition, new insights into neuroanatomical circuitry have also contributed to segmental expansion. Thus, in recent years, much of the interference field activity has been assigned to an “extended” segment; however, even there, no segment boundaries can be defined. Thus, the former definition of the interference field effect (considered to be outside any segmental order) is considered obsolete. Nowadays, interference fields are called “neuromodulatory triggers.” They can act anywhere, both locally and fairly distant, and even systemically. Key Messages: Thus, it is no longer tenable to classify interference field therapy as “unscientific” and “not recognized” while local and segmental neural therapy is being scientifically recognized. In the work at hand, the interference fields discovered by the Huneke brothers become scientifically definable as “neuromodulatory triggers” by showing that clinically and pathologically, hardly any segmental boundaries exist.