Search

Objectives: Sympathetically mediated orofacial pain is a rare form of craniofacial pain that may be refractory to conventional medical management. We report two cases of orofacial pain with sympathetic features treated with cervical spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using burst waveform with passive recharge. In addition, we present a narrative review of cervical SCS use in the management of orofacial pain., Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE (PubMed) data base was queried for studies of orofacial pain and cervical SCS by searching applicable keywords including "face," "facial pain," "trigeminal neuralgia," "complex regional pain syndrome," and "spinal cord stimulation." Studies in the English language published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2023 were reviewed for relevance., Results: Our literature review identified eight studies of cervical SCS use for treating orofacial pain. Our case series and literature review indicate that cervical SCS is probably safe and promising in the treatment of orofacial pain unresponsive to conventional management. Prior studies report positive results in patients with trigeminal nerve-related pain but are retrospective, include a small sample size, and are heterogenous regarding the follow-up period. We report significant analgesia in two patients with sympathetically mediated orofacial pain treated with cervical SCS using burst waveform with passive recharge., Conclusions: Cervical SCS is a viable therapeutic option for patients with orofacial pain syndromes including those with sympathetic features, although further randomized clinical studies are warranted that should include a comprehensive set of outcomes measuring pain intensity, physical function, emotional function, quality of life, and general well-being., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Ryan S. D’Souza receives investigator-initiated research grant funding paid to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics. The remaining authors reported no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical interest in and utilization of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for treating chronic pain has significantly increased in recent years owing to its potential for providing analgesia and improved function and quality of life in comparison with pharmacologic treatments. However, the relative infancy of PNS-specific systems and limited clinical practice guidance likely contribute to significant variation in PNS utilization patterns., Objectives: We sought to conduct a survey study to characterize PNS-specific clinical practices and propose the next steps in standardizing key practices for PNS utilization., Materials and Methods: A 19-question survey exploring PNS-relevant clinical parameters was disseminated online to pain physicians in practice. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results., Results: A total of 94 responses were collected. Regarding patient selection, most practitioners would apply PNS to treat nociceptive pain from major joint osteoarthritis (77.7%) and chronic low back pain (64.9%), but not for axial neck pain (50.0%). In contrast, most would apply PNS to treat neuropathic pain from peripheral neuralgia (94.7%), pericranial neuralgia (77.7%), and cancer-related neuropathic pain (64.9%). In treating complex regional pain syndrome, most practitioners would apply PNS before all other forms of neuraxial neuromodulation (>50% for each form). Similarly, for treating nonsurgical low back pain, most would apply PNS before neuraxial neuromodulation (>50% for each form) but not before radiofrequency ablation (19.2%). Most routinely performed nerve blocks before PNS, mainly to confirm anatomical coverage (84.0%), and regarded a 50% to 75% interquartile range as the minimum analgesic benefit required before proceeding with PNS. Regarding nerve target selection for treating complex regional pain syndrome of the wrist/hand or ankle/foot, or knee osteoarthritis, we observed a very wide variance of PNS target locations and discrete nerves. Regarding "minor" adverse events, most reported not changing PNS utilization on encountering skin/soft tissue reactions (85.1%), minor infections (76.6%), or lead migration/loss of efficacy (50.0%). In comparison, most reported reducing PNS utilization on encountering skin erosion (58.5%), major infections (58.5%), or lead fractures (41.5%)., Conclusions: There is significant practice variation regarding the utilization of PNS across numerous key clinical considerations. Future research that explores the reasons driving these differences might help optimize patient selection, target selection, periprocedural management, and ultimately outcomes., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Amitabh Gulati reports consulting for Medtronic, AIS HealthCare, Neurovasis, SPR Therapeutics, Tersera Medical, Hinge Health, Nalu Medical, and Bausch Health, outside the submitted work. Ryan S. D’Souza receives investigator-initiated research grant funding paid to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics. The remaining authors reported no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: RSD is an Associate Editor of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. RSD receives investigator-initiated research grant funding paid to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics.

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, conflicts of interest (COIs) can compromise the scientific integrity in these trials. This study characterized COIs in RCTs on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain, focusing on the prevalence, disclosure, and monetary value of COIs., Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed RCTs published from January 1, 2013 to July 27, 2023. Primary outcomes included the presence, disclosure, and monetary value of COIs, while secondary outcomes assessed the presence of direct/indirect COIs, sponsor access to data, and associations between COIs and select variables, including journal impact factor, publication year, and study outcomes., Results: Of 38 RCTs, 30 (78.9%) reported COIs. On average, 35.6% of authors per RCT had at least one COI, with a mean of 0.7 COIs per author. The mean annual monetary value of COIs was US$41,157.83 per author per RCT. 29 RCTs (76.3%) had undisclosed COIs, with an average of 24.2% of authors per RCT having undisclosed COIs. Sponsor access to data was reported in 67.6% of RCTs. No associations were observed between the mean percentage of authors with COIs and the monetary value of COIs and select dependent variables (impact factor, publication year, and study outcomes)., Conclusions: A substantial majority of RCTs reported COIs with many authors having undisclosed conflicts, highlighting the need for stringent COI disclosure guidelines to maintain research integrity. Expanding COI registry systems globally and increasing non-industry funding are crucial steps toward enhancing transparency and reducing biases in medical research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RSD received investigator-initiated grant funding from Nevro and Saol Therapeutics paid to his institution., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients receiving methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone for either chronic pain or substance use disorder (SUD) pose perioperative challenges. Due to their complex pharmacology, perioperative recommendations continue to evolve. Deviations from these recommendations may result in worse perioperative outcomes. A formal preoperative evaluation (POE) and optimization of patients on these medications are recommended to address these concerns., Methods: A single-center retrospective electronic health record review was performed with adult patients on methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone undergoing elective surgery between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020. The primary outcome of interest was the percentage of patients referred to the POE clinic for evaluation prior to the scheduled elective surgery. In addition, we assessed differences in variables (perioperative opioid, hospital length of stay, perioperative multimodal analgesics, perioperative complications, inpatient pain service consult, readmission within 30 days, cancellation of surgery, addiction medicine consult) based on POE clinic evaluation. This analysis was performed separately for patients prescribed these medications for SUD versus chronic pain. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using linear regression with generalized estimating equations (GEE) and robust variance estimates., Results: A total of 714 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 572 (80%) took buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone for chronic pain and 142 (20%) took these medications for SUD. Within the chronic pain and SUD subpopulations, 193 (34%) and 35 (25%) patients had formal POE clinic assessments, respectively. Among those taking these medications for chronic pain, POE clinic evaluation was associated with a higher likelihood for receiving non-opioid multimodal analgesics perioperatively (p = 0.016)., Conclusion: Formal preoperative evaluations are currently underutilized in patients who take buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone for chronic pain or SUD. These patients may benefit from POE clinic assessment to optimize perioperative outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the materials discussed in the manuscript., (© 2024 Sand et al.)

Purpose: Injectable biologics have not only been described and developed to treat dermal wounds, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but have also been reported to treat chronic pain conditions. Despite emerging evidence supporting regenerative medicine therapy for pain, many aspects remain controversial., Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified the educational need for an evidence-based guideline on regenerative medicine therapy for chronic pain. The executive board nominated experts spanning multiple specialties including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and sports medicine based on expertise, publications, research, and clinical practice. A steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were reviewed and refined. Evidence was appraised using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence level and degree of recommendation. Using a modified Delphi approach, consensus points were distributed to all collaborators and each collaborator voted on each point. If collaborators provided a decision of "disagree" or "abstain", they were invited to provide a rationale in a non-blinded fashion to the committee chair, who incorporated the respective comments and distributed revised versions to the committee until consensus was achieved., Results: Sixteen questions were selected for guideline development. Questions that were addressed included type of injectable biologics and mechanism, evidence in treating chronic pain indications (eg, tendinopathy, muscular pathology, osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc disease, neuropathic pain), role in surgical augmentation, dosing, comparative efficacy between injectable biologics, peri-procedural practices to optimize therapeutic response and quality of injectate, federal regulations, and complications with mitigating strategies., Conclusion: In well-selected individuals with certain chronic pain indications, use of injectable biologics may provide superior analgesia, functionality, and/or quality of life compared to conventional medical management or placebo. Future high-quality randomized clinical trials are warranted with implementation of minimum reporting standards, standardization of preparation protocols, investigation of dose-response associations, and comparative analysis between different injectable biologics., Competing Interests: RSD received investigator-initiated research grant funding from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics paid to his institution. MES is a research consultant for Apurano, outside the submitted work. AKC is a consultant for Medtronic, Companion Spine, PainTeq, and Vertos; a speaker for Relievant; and receives research support from Medtronic, Nevro Corp, Stryker, Boston Scientific, Spine Biopharma, Biorestorative, Vivex, Vertos, DiscGenics, ReGelTec, Saol Therapeutics, PainTeq, Saluda, and Relievant. SGP is a consultant for Bioness, SPR Therapeutics, Nalu Medical, Medtronic; receives royalties from Oxford University Press and Wolters Kluwer; and receives research grant funding from Medtronic, Nevro Corp, Abbott, and Biotronik. CC is a shareholder and patent holder and chief medical officer of Regenexx LLC. SAS is on the board of directors for The Biologic Association (non-profit). YE is a research consultant for Autonomous Healthcare Inc, is on the advisory board for Saluda Medical Americas Inc and SPR Therapeutics. DS is a consultant to Abbott, Painteq, Saluda, Mainstay, Surgentec, Nevro, and holds stock options with Painteq, Neuralace, Mainstay, Vertos, and SPR Therapeutics. SD serves on the advisory board for CornerLoc. TRD is a consultant for Abbott, Vertos, SpineThera, Saluda Medical, Cornerloc, SPR Therapeutics, PainTeq, Spinal Simplicity, Aurora and Biotronik; he is an advisory board member for Abbott, Vertos, SPR Therapeutics, and Biotronik; he has a DRG Lead patent that is pending with Abbott; he has funded research with Abbott, Vertos, Saluda, Mainstay, SPR Therapeutic, Boston Scientific, and PainTeq. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 D’Souza et al.)

Objective: To retrospectively assess the Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Score (TLICS) in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) and compare the treatment given with that predicted by the TLICS score., Methods: All medical records of patients presenting from January 2014 to November 2017 for acute atraumatic or low impact OVCF were screened, and eligible patients were retrospectively reviewed. The TLICS score was determined based upon magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings and clinical records. Clinical records (including pain score data), imaging data, operative procedures, and stability of neurological examination were tracked over three months for each patient., Results: Of the 56 patients included, 36 patients had a TLICS score of 1, 18 had a TLICS score of 2, and two had a TLICS score of 4. Only one patient with a TLICS score of 4 underwent surgical stabilization, while the rest of the cohort was managed non-operatively, with or without kyphoplasty. TLICS score 1 corresponded to simple compression and TLICS score 2 corresponded to burst morphology with retropulsion and without neurological deficits. Of the patients with a TLICS score of 1 and 2 who underwent kyphoplasty, there was a statistically significant improvement in pain scores in both groups; however no significant difference was observed, between each TLICS score (i.e., 1 or 2). None of the patients developed instability or neurological decline., Conclusion: TLICS score correctly predicted operative versus non-operative management in all patients with OVCF. TLICS may be used in making management decisions, and in the triage of these patients for operative versus non-operative evaluations. Our study suggests that patients with TLICS score of 4 or higher require surgical evaluation, while those with TLICS of 1 or 2 are likely to have satisfactory non-surgical management with augmentation or conservative care. In general, patients with OVCF typically present with low TLICS score. Kyphoplasty appears to be similarly beneficial in patients with a TLICS score of 1 or a TLICS score of 2. A modification of the TLICS score by adding TLICS Zero to include uncompressed OVCF with edema is suggested. The limitations of this study include a small size; a larger study is needed to confirm these findings., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Chronic pain is increasing in prevalence, with new cases now outnumbering those of diabetes, depression, or hypertension. Advanced practice providers have reported that their training in pain management inadequately prepared them to care for patients suffering from painful conditions. In response, the authors of this work developed a basic pain management conceptual framework to provide physician assistant (PA) students with the foundational knowledge necessary to manage and treat patients suffering from a wide variety of painful conditions. The devised framework activity includes categories of pain management such as conservative therapies, medications, injections, minimally invasive procedures, and moderately to highly invasive procedures. This framework can be incorporated into the existing PA educational curriculum and presented alongside a realistic pain patient case study. Furthermore, other health science educational programs, such as nurse practitioner or pharmacy programs, could adopt this framework to increase student knowledge in pain management.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: RSD is an associate editor of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. RSD receives investigator-initiated research grant funding paid to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics.

Neuromodulation is being utilized across a variety of medical subspecialties to treat both painful and non-painful medical conditions. However, publications on neuromodulation topics infrequently occur in journals targeting generalists and medical specialties outside of pain medicine and neurosurgery. This study reviewed implantable neuromodulation devices, their respective Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for use, as well as off-label usage, and the associated potential risks and benefits for each device. PubMed and Medline databases were queried for systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials of implantable neuromodulation devices. The literature review resulted in 106 studies eligible for inclusion, and 67 were included in the final review. In conclusion, as the clinical volume of neuromodulation continues to grow, supporting and educating medical professionals who care for patients that receive implanted neuromodulation devices is paramount. It is likely the use of neuromodulation will continue to expand across all medical subspecialties, and as such, every clinician should have a baseline understanding of this treatment.

Objectives: Inadvertent dural puncture (IDP) is a known complication associated with traditional neuraxial procedures; however, its characterization after percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS) lead placement has yet to be clearly established in large population studies. This retrospective analysis aims to understand the incidence and associated characteristics of patients with IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement., Materials and Methods: The PearlDiver Mariner database of national all-payer claims was used to identify patients who received percutaneous SCS leads and had a claim for IDP (intraoperative IDP or postdural puncture headache [PDPH] claim) within 45 days. The primary outcome was to determine the overall incidence of IDP. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of associated risk factors for IDP and treatments used in symptomatic management., Results: A total of 90,952 patients who underwent percutaneous lead SCS placement were included. The incidence of IDP was 0.48% (436/90,952 patients). Older age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97; p < 0.0001) and male sex (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53-0.81; p < 0.001) had a lower odds of having a claim for IDP, whereas a history of IDP was associated with a higher OR (95% CI) by 13.72 times (10.72-17.58) (p < 0.0001). Of the IDP patients, 64% (277/436 patients) had a claim for a therapeutic blood patch. Discrepancy in type of claim for IDP was observed, with most being for PDPH., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement is an uncommon event; however, certain factors are associated with its development. Overall, early recognition of IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement is imperative to facilitate the delivery of targeted treatments and prevent further harmful consequences to the patient., (Copyright © 2022 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Nationally representative rates of incident prescription opioid use in the United States adult population and selected subpopulations are unknown. Using the National Health Interview Survey (2019-2020) longitudinal cohort, a cohort with 1-year follow-up created using random cluster probability sampling of noninstitutionalized civilian U.S. adults, we estimated rates and predictors of incident opioid use. Of 21,161 baseline (2019) participants randomly chosen for follow-up, the final analytic sample included 10,415 who also participated in 2020. Exposure variables were selected per the socio-behavioral model of health care utilization: predisposing characteristics (sex, age, race, etc), enabling characteristics (socioeconomic status, insurance status), health status (pain, disability, comorbidities, etc), and health care use (office visits, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations). Among adults who did not use prescription opioids in 2019, a 1-year cumulative incidence of 4.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.5-4.6) was seen in 2020, with an incidence rate (IR) of 32.6 cases of new prescription opioid use per 1,000 person-years (PYs). Cumulative incidence, IR, and adjusted relative risk (RR) varied by participant characteristics. We observed the highest IR in those with ineffective pain treatment (81.6 cases per 1,000 PY) and those who visited the emergency room ≥3 times (93.8 cases per 1,000 PY). Participants reporting ≥4 painful conditions had an adjusted RR of 2.9 (95% CI: 2.0-4.1), while the RR for those with sleep problems was 2.3 (95% CI: 1.7-3.1). Overall, this study presents nationally representative rates of incident prescription opioid use and suggests that some participants are using prescription opioids as an early-resort analgesic contrary to best-practice guidelines. PERSPECTIVE: This longitudinal cohort study presents nationally representative rates of incident prescription opioid use in U.S. adults and selected subpopulations. Our data suggest that some participants are using prescription opioids as a first-line or early-resort analgesic, contrary to best-practice guidelines., (Copyright © 2024 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this narrative review is to evaluate the efficacy of the most commonly studied intradiscal biologics used for the treatment and alleviation of chronic intractable discogenic low back pain. Additionally, it explores the therapeutic potential and durability of these novel treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently published literature highlights the therapeutic potential of intradiscal biologics, such as mesenchymal stem cells, platelet-rich plasma, and alpha-2-macroglobulin, in promoting chondrogenesis within the lumbar intervertebral discs to treat discogenic low back pain. Studies demonstrate significant improvements in pain relief, physical function, and quality of life post-treatment. A comprehensive review of the literature evaluating the efficacy of intradiscal biologics suggests some evidence supporting its efficacy in treating discogenic low back pain. However, more rigorous studies into mechanistic modulation and large-scale randomized trials as well as a more thorough understanding of adverse events will be instrumental for including these therapies into clinical practice paradigms., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a complication that may occur after treatment with various anticancer drugs. In refractory CIPN cases, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has garnered increased attention. The use of gait analysis and psychophysical quantitative sensory testing (QST) as an objective measurement of CIPN-related damage has burgeoned; however, these changes have not been reported for patients with CIPN after SCS implantation using either burst or tonic stimulation., Materials and Methods: This manuscript encompasses two parts: 1) a presentation of pain improvement in a series of patients who underwent tonic vs burst SCS for CIPN measured by gait and QST analysis and 2) a narrative review on gait and psychophysical QST outcomes between burst and tonic SCS stimulation pertaining to pain and the extrapolation to CIPN-related sequalae., Results: In these cases, gait scores improved in both patients. Touch thresholds were higher before SCS whereas skin temperatures were lower at the dorsal foot, subtalus, and posterior calf. Sharpness detection was drastically improved after SCS. In the review, the patients aligned with pain relief, suggesting good response to interventional outcomes with SCS. QST outcomes, particularly touch, sharpness, heat, and cold stimuli, however, were not fully corroborated. Similarly to other non-CIPN SCS gait studies, both tonic and burst studies provided positive outcomes on spatiotemporal gait parameters, gait form, and standardized gait scales., Conclusion: We emphasize the use of different SCS waveforms as a therapy for CIPN management and the use of psychophysical testing as a measure for diagnosis and monitoring CIPN's progress in our case series and review., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors reported no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: DS is a consultant to Abbott, PainTEQ, Saluda, Mainstay, Surgentec, Nevro, and holds stock options with PainTEQ, Neuralace, Mainstay, Vertos, and SPR. TRD is a consultant PainTEQ, CornerLoc, and Spinal Simplicity. VTF receives research funding from Nevro Corporation part of an investigator-initiated study grant that is not related to this manuscript. TEW is a consultant for Medtronic and has received research funding from Medtronic, SPR Therapeutics, Nevro, and Boston Scientific. JSW is a consultant for Abbott, SI Bone, Vertos Medical, Biotronik, Saluda, and AbbVie, receives research funding from Abbott, SI Bone, Saluda, and Medtronic, serves on an advisory board for Abbott, SI Bone, Vertos Medical, and Biotronik, and serves on a speaker board for Abbott, SI Bone, & AbbVie. RSD receives investigator- initiated research grant funding from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics that is paid to his institution. KA is a consultant for Nevro, Saluda, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Presidio, reports minor options from PainTEQ. MJD is a consultant for Globus, Camber, LifeSpine, Vyrsa, PainTEQ, Nevro, Abbott, and Biotronik. DTDN is a consultant for SI Bone, Stratus Medical, and Neurovassis. CB is a consultant for Nevro, Abbott, Vertos, Spinal Simplicity, and PainTEQ; reports personal fees from Nevro, Spinal Simplicity, PainTEQ, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. AA is a consultant for Curonix, Medtronic and Avanos. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this communication.

Objective: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging neuromodulation modality, yet there remains limited data highlighting its long-term effectiveness. The objective of this study was to report real-world data on pain intensity and opioid consumption after temporary and permanent PNS for chronic pain up to 24 months postimplantation., Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on all patients who received PNS implants at a multi-centered enterprise between January 1, 2014 and February 24, 2022. The two co-primary outcomes were: (1) change in pain intensity (11-point Numerical Rating Scale) from baseline to 12 months postimplant; and (2) comparison of the change in pain intensity between temporary and permanent PNS cohorts 12 months postimplant., Results: 126 patients were included in this analysis. Pain intensity significantly decreased 12 months postimplant in the overall cohort (mean difference (MD) -3.0 (95% CI -3.5 to -2.4), p<0.0001). No significant difference in this reduction was identified between temporary and permanent PNS cohorts (MD 0.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 1.0), p=1.00) 12 months postimplantation. Pain intensity significantly decreased in the overall, temporary, and permanent cohorts at all secondary time points (3, 6, and 24 months). No change in daily opioid consumption was observed at 6 and 12 months postimplant in the overall cohort., Conclusion: This study found that both temporary and permanent PNS may be effective for reducing pain intensity in patients with chronic pain up to 24 months postimplantation, although no changes in opioid consumption were observed. The decrease in pain intensity was comparable between patients receiving temporary versus permanent implants, highlighting that temporary PNS may achieve long-lasting clinical benefits. However, given the substantial loss to follow-up, further large-scale studies are needed to solidify conclusions about the efficacy of PNS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AB has received consultancy fees from Medtronic and Bioventus. His institution has also received funding for studies to track outcomes of neuromodulation therapies from Medtronic. RSD has received investigator-initiated grant funding paid to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess whether patient response to targeted diagnostic peripheral nerve block before peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) device implantation is associated with efficacy after PNS implantation., Materials and Methods: The electronic medical records from the Mayo Clinic Enterprise (three quarternary care medical centers and additional satellite medical centers) were reviewed to identify patients who underwent PNS implantation between January 2014 and January 2023. A primary outcome of interest was to assess whether administration of a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block predicted pain relief at three months and six months after temporary and permanent PNS implantation. Another primary outcome was to investigate whether there was an association between the pain relief from a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block and pain relief after three and six months after temporary or permanent PNS therapy. Linear regression analysis was conducted for outcomes of interest., Results: Of 193 eligible patients who underwent PNS therapy, a total of 173 patients were included in the final analysis and were stratified into either the temporary PNS cohort (n = 112) or the permanent PNS cohort (n = 61). Overall, 77.5% of all patients (134/173) underwent a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block and reported a mean percentage relief of 70.1 ± 27.0 from the diagnostic block. Of patients in the temporary PNS cohort, there was no difference in postimplant percentage pain relief between patients who received a diagnostic block (n = 93) and control patients (n = 19) at three months (35.4 ± 36.0 vs 49.8 ± 36.1, respectively; β -14.45, 95% CI -32.98 to 4.07, p = 0.125) or at six months (23.3 ± 30.8 vs 45.7 ± 40.0, respectively; β -22.39, 95% CI -46.86 to 2.08, p = 0.072). Of patients in the permanent PNS cohort, there was no difference in postimplant percentage pain relief between patients who received a diagnostic block (n = 41) and control patients (n = 20) at three months (42.4 ± 34.3 vs 43.2 ± 42.4, respectively; β -0.79, 95% CI -23.56 to 21.99, p = 0.945) or at six months (44.3 ± 35.0 vs 38.8 ± 40.9, respectively; β 5.42, 95% CI -20.04 to 30.88, p = 0.669). Pain relief from preimplant diagnostic blocks was associated with postimplant pain relief from temporary PNS at three months (β 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-0.61, p = 0.025). However, pain relief from preimplant diagnostic blocks did not predict postimplant pain relief from temporary PNS at six months, or permanent PNS at three months and six months., Conclusions: Administration of a diagnostic block is not associated with superior pain relief at three or six months after PNS implantation to that of an approach without diagnostic block. Pain relief from a diagnostic block may potentially predict short-term pain relief after temporary PNS therapy, although future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the prognostic utility of diagnostic blocks., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Chelsey M. Hoffmann provides general consulting for Nalu Medical and SPR Therapeutics. Ryan S. D’Souza receives investigator-initiated research funding from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics that is paid to his institution. The remaining authors reported no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic pain studies is traditionally assessed by pain scores, which do not reflect the multidimensional nature of pain perception. Despite the evidence of SCS's influence on emotional functioning comprehensive assessments of its effect remain lacking., Objective: To assess changes in emotional and psychosocial functioning in patients who underwent SCS implantation for chronic pain., Evidence Review: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL and Scopus databases were searched for original peer-reviewed publications reporting emotional functioning after SCS. The primary outcomes were a pooled mean difference (MD) in anxiety, depression, global functioning, mental well-being and pain catastrophizing at 12 months. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the quality of evidence., Findings: Thirty-two studies were included in the primary analysis. Statistically significant improvements were observed in anxiety (MD -2.16; 95% CI -2.84 to -1.49; p<0.001), depression (MD -4.66; 95% CI -6.26 to -3.06; p<0.001), global functioning (MD 20.30; 95% CI 14.69 to 25.90; p<0.001), mental well-being (MD 4.95; 95% CI 3.60 to 6.31; p<0.001), and pain catastrophizing (MD -12.09; 95% CI -14.94 to -9.23; p<0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed differences in Global Assessment of Functioning and mental well-being based on study design and in depression based on waveform paradigm., Conclusion: The results highlight the statistically and clinically significant improvements in emotional and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic pain undergoing SCS therapy. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution due to the very low certainty of evidence per the GRADE criteria., Prospero Registration: CRD42023446326., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RDS received investigator-initiated grant funding pain to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: RSD is an Associate Editor of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. RSD receives investigator-initiated research grant funding paid to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics.

Well-established guidelines and checklists for authors, reviewers, and readers of systematic reviews and scoping reviews are readily available. However, the availability of such for narrative reviews is lacking, including, but not limited to, field-specific guidelines in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. In this brief article, we review the differences between the major types of reviews, followed by a more detailed description of narrative reviews that clearly differentiates them from other types of reviews. We include a recommended checklist that will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews as well as examples specific to the field of anesthesia and pain medicine. It is the hope that the guidelines recommended here will aid producers, editors, reviewers, and consumers of narrative reviews in anesthesia and pain medicine, including Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine Adherence to such should help differentiate between narrative reviews and other types of reviews as well as provide consistency in what elements are necessary to include in a narrative review in the field of anesthesia and pain medicine., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia ., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RSD’S is an Associate Editor for Anesthesia & Analgesia, and an Associate Editor for Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. MJB is a Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine Executive Section Editor of Anesthesia & Analgesia. AS received a honorarium for his contribution to this manuscript. EJM is Statistical Editor for Anesthesia & Analgesia. GAK is the Statistical Advisor for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework-participants (P), interventions (I),comparators (C), outcomes (O)-and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJB is a Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine Executive Section Editor of Anesthesia & Analgesia. RSD None. EJM is Statistical Editor for Anesthesia & Analgesia. SN is a President of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. GAK is a Statistical Consultant for Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Lumbar medial branch nerve radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) is an interventional procedure used to treat chronic lumbar facet joint pain. Because the medial branch nerves also innervate the multifidus muscle, it has been proposed that LRFA may pose a risk of multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction. However, the quality and level of evidence to answer this clinical question have not been established. Therefore, this review aimed to systematically appraise the literature to discern whether the prevailing evidence substantiates the hypothesis in question., Methods: A systematic review compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed to evaluate the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting functional and/or structural changes in the multifidus muscle following LRFA., Results: Only five cohort studies met inclusion criteria. Two studies assessed changes in multifidus function following LRFA with confirmed denervation at electromyography and significant reduction in multifidus shear modulus with ultrasound shear wave elastography. Of the four studies that evaluated changes in multifidus structure with magnetic resonance imaging following LRFA, two demonstrated a decrease in cross-sectional area or an increase in fat infiltration, one demonstrated no change, and one revealed an apparent increase. Given the destructive nature attributed to LRFA, some degree of multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction may be plausible, albeit with a very low certainty that relies on a restricted body of literature of modest quality and with a presence of high bias., Conclusion: There is a paucity of studies discussing the potential association between LRFA and multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction. In light of the shortage of high-quality studies and the absence of standardized protocols to assess both changes in the structure and function of the multifidus subsequent to LRFA, there is a pressing need for more prospective studies with a high methodological rigor to comprehensively address and answer this enduring debate in clinical practice., (© 2024 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)

Clinical management of sacroiliac disease has proven challenging from both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Although it is widely regarded as a common source of low back pain, little consensus exists on the appropriate clinical management of sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction. Understanding the biomechanics, innervation, and function of this complex load bearing joint is critical to formulating appropriate treatment algorithms for SI joint disorders. ASPN has developed this comprehensive practice guideline to serve as a foundational reference on the appropriate management of SI joint disorders utilizing the best available evidence and serve as a foundational guide for the treatment of adult patients in the United States and globally., Competing Interests: All authors were required to disclose conflicts of interest prior to assignment of topics. The senior authors determined the extent of the conflict of interest ensuring balanced inquiry and evaluation for each manuscript section. One of the co-primary authors without conflict were identified for each section and was the adjudication determination official for any issues of potential conflict. All authors were asked to recuse themselves on any recommendation potentially affected by a disclosed conflict. Additionally, authors without conflict vetted all recommendations for bias.DS is a consultant to Abbott, PainTEQ, Saluda, Mainstay, Surgentec, Nevro, and holds stock options with PainTEQ, Neuralace, Mainstay, Vertos, and SPR. TRD is a consultant PainTEQ, CornerLoc, and Spinal Simplicity. VTF receives research funding from Nevro Corporation part of an investigator-initiated study grant that is not related to this manuscript. TEW is a consultant for Medtronic and has received research funding from Medtronic, SPR Therapeutics, Nevro, and Boston Scientific. JSW is a consultant for Abbott, SI Bone, Vertos Medical, Biotronik, Saluda, and AbbVie, receives research funding from Abbott, SI Bone, Saluda, and Medtronic, serves on an advisory board for Abbott, SI Bone, Vertos Medical, and Biotronik, and serves on a speaker board for Abbott, SI Bone, & Abbvie. RSD receives investigator-initiated research grant funding from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics that is paid to his institution. KA is a consultant for Nevro, Saluda, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Presidio, reports minor options from PainTEQ. MJD is a consultant for Globus, Camber, LifeSpine, Vyrsa, PainTEQ, Nevro, Abbott, and Biotronik. DTDN is a consultant for SI Bone, Stratus Medical, and Neurovassis. CB is a consultant for Nevro, Abbott, Vertos, Spinal Simplicity, and PainTEQ; reports personal fees from Nevro, Spinal Simplicity, PainTEQ, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. AA is a consultant for Curonix, Medtronic and Avanos. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Sayed et al.)

Introduction: Acupuncture is commonly used to treat chronic pain. Patients often access public social media platforms for healthcare information when querying acupuncture. Our study aims to appraise the utility, accuracy, and quality of information available on YouTube, a popular social media platform, on acupuncture for chronic pain treatment., Methods: Using search terms such as "acupuncture for chronic pain" and "acupuncture pain relief", the top 54 videos by view count were selected. Included videos were >1 minute duration, contained audio in English, had >7000 views, and was related to acupuncture. One primary outcome of interest was categorizing each video's usefulness as useful, misleading, or neither. Another primary outcome of interest was the quality and reliability of each video using validated instruments, including the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). The means were calculated for the video production characteristics, production sources, and mDISCERN and GQS scores. Continuous and categorical outcomes were compared using Student's t -test and chi-square test, respectively., Results: Of the 54 videos, 57.4% were categorized as useful, 14.8% were misleading, and 27.8% were neither. Useful videos had a mean GQS and mDISCERN score of 3.77±0.67 and 3.48±0.63, respectively, while misleading videos had mean GQS and mDISCERN score of 2.50±0.53 and 2.38±0.52, respectively. 41.8% of the useful videos were produced by a healthcare institution while none of the misleading videos were produced by a healthcare institution. However, 87.5% of the misleading videos were produced by health media compared to only 25.8% of useful videos from health media., Discussion: As patients increasingly depend on platforms like YouTube for trustworthy information on complementary health practices such as acupuncture, our study emphasizes the critical need for more higher-quality videos from unbiased healthcare institutions and physicians to ensure patients are receiving reliable information regarding this topic., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Greer et al.)

Introduction: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a leading cause of pain and disability globally with a lack of consensus on the appropriate treatment of those suffering from this condition. Recent advancements in both pharmacotherapy and interventional approaches have broadened the treatment options for PDN. There exists a need for a comprehensive guideline for the safe and effective treatment of patients suffering from PDN., Objective: The SWEET Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with the most comprehensive guideline for the safe and appropriate treatment of patients suffering from PDN., Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for PDN. A multidisciplinary group of international experts developed the SWEET guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Meeting Abstracts, and Scopus to identify and compile the evidence for diabetic neuropathy pain treatments (per section as listed in the manuscript) for the treatment of pain. Manuscripts from 2000-present were included in the search process., Results: After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN SWEET guideline was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades for most available treatments for PDN utilizing the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria., Conclusion: The ASPN SWEET Guideline represents the most comprehensive review of the available treatments for PDN and their appropriate and safe utilization., Competing Interests: All authors were required to disclose conflicts of interest prior to assignment of topics. The senior authors determined the extent of the conflict of interest ensuring balanced inquiry and evaluation for each manuscript section. One of the co-primary authors without conflict was identified for each section and is the adjudication determination official for any issues of potential conflict. All authors were asked to recuse themselves on any recommendation potentially affected by a disclosed conflict. Additionally, authors without conflict vetted all recommendations for bias.DS is a consultant to Abbott, Painteq, Saluda, Mainstay, Surgentec, Nevro, and holds stock options with Painteq, Neuralace, Mainstay, Vertos, and SPR. TRD is a consultant for Abbott, Vertos, SpineThera, Saluda Medical, Cornerloc, SPR Therapeutics, Boston Scientific, PainTeq, Spinal Simplicity, and Biotronik; an advisory board member for Abbott, Vertos, SPR Therapeutics, and Biotronik; has a pending patent with Abbott; and has received research funding from Abbott, Vertos, Saluda, Mainstay, SPR Therapeutic, Boston Scientific, and PainTeq. RSD receives investigator-initiated research grant funding from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics that is paid to his institution. NK is a consultant to Saluda Medical and serves on an advisory board for Vertos Inc. ZH has agreements with Averitas, PainTEQ, SPR, Vertos, and Nevro. SGP is consultant to Bioness, SPR Therapeutics, Nalu Medical, and EBT Medical; receives royalties from Oxford University Press and Wolters Kluwer, and receives research grants from Biotronik, Medtronic, Nevro Corp, and Abbott. VTF receives research funding from Nevro Corporation part of an investigator-initiated study grant that is not related to this manuscript. SMF is a consultant to Abbott, Medtronic, Saluda, Vertos, CornerLoc, and Mainstay; has equity in SurgenTec, SynerFuse, Aurora Spine, Thermaquil, SPR Therapeutics, Saluda, CornerLoc, PainTeq, SpineThera, and Celeri; and has research agreements with Aurora, Mainstay, Medtronic, Abbott, Vertiflex, Saluda, CornerLoc, and Biotronik. MNM has consulting agreements with Abbott, Nalu Medical, BiotronikNEURO, and SI Bone Inc.; and serves on the scientific advisory board of BiotronikNEURO. MN is a consultant for Nevro. DWL is a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Mainstay Medical, and Petal Surgical. LK serves on advisory boards for Avanos, Biotronik, Medtronic, Gimer, Neuralace, Neuros, Nevro, PainTEQ, and Presidio; and has research agreements with Avanos, Neuros, Nevro, Fus Mobile, Saluda, and Nalu. MDB is a consultant for Neuralace Medical and Boston Scientific. EAP has received research support from Mainstay, Medtronic, Nalu, Neuros Medical, Nevro Corp, ReNeuron, SPR, and Saluda, as well as personal fees from Abbott Neuromodulation, Biotronik, Medtronic Neuromodulation, Nalu, Neuros Medical, Nevro, Presidio Medical, Saluda, and Vertos; and holds stock options from SynerFuse and neuro42. KA is a consultant for Nevro, Saluda, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Presidio. MES is a consultant with Modoscript, Collegium, and Syneos Health (all outside of the scope of this work). The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Sayed et al.)

Objectives: Lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for treating disabling spine-related pain. In recent decades, both the number and cost of spine surgeries have increased despite technological advances and modification in surgical technique. For those patients that have continued uncontrolled back and/or lower extremity pain following lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a viable treatment option. However, the impact of lumbar spine surgical history remains largely unstudied. Specifically, the current study considers the impact of number of prior lumbar spine surgeries on pain relief outcomes following SCS implantation., Materials and Methods: We queried the electronic medical record of five separate pain practices for all patients who have undergone a SCS implant between January 1, 2017, and March 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of any patients with an SCS implant who underwent a prior lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome was the mean calculated percentage pain relief in patients based on number of prior lumbar spine surgeries., Results: There was a total of 1974 total SCS implant cases identified across five separate pain clinics. There was no difference in mean calculated pain relief in patients with one prior spine surgery versus those with two or more prior spine surgeries (28.2% vs. 25.8%, adjusted β-coefficient -3.1, 95% CI -8.9 to 2.7, p = 0.290). Similarly, when analyzing number of spine surgeries as a continuous variable, there was no association between number of spine surgeries and calculated pain relief (adjusted β-coefficient -1.5, 95% CI -4.0 to 1.1, p = 0.257). Additionally, after patients were stratified based on waveform, there was no association between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries (analyzed both as a categorical and continuous variable) and calculated percentage pain relief., Conclusions: This multicentered retrospective study found that there was no significant difference in pain scores in individuals who received SCS following one or more lumbar spine surgeries. Additionally, the waveform of the SCS device had no statistically significant impact on post-operative pain scores following one or more lumbar spine surgeries., (© 2024 World Institute of Pain.)

This series of FactFinders presents a brief summary of the evidence and outlines recommendations to improve our understanding and management of potential procedure-related complications. Evidence in support of the following facts is presented. (1) Epidural Steroid injections for Radicular Pain Due to Spinal Stenosis Caused by Lipomatosis -- There is low-level evidence of an association between epidural steroid injections (ESIs) and the development and/or worsening of spinal epidural lipomatosis (SEL). However, there is insufficient evidence to establish whether ESIs independently result in an increase in spinal stenosis with neurological compromise in individuals with pre-existing SEL . (2) Steroid Exposure Postpartum -- There is no absolute contraindication to steroid injections based on postpartum or lactating status, but there may be disruption of both maternal and breastfed child hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis response to steroid administration. For the duration of breastfeeding, milk production may be affected after steroid exposure, and withholding breast milk produced for several hours after exposure minimizes infant exposure., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 International Pain and Spine Intervention Society.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Purpose of Review: The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize healthcare disparities experienced by Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients with chronic pain, evaluate the existing literature exploring the specific therapeutic inequities affecting this patient population, and identify gaps in the literature requiring future study., Recent Findings: Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients experience disparities in chronic pain management. They are less likely to be prescribed pharmacologic therapies, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids. Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients are also less likely to receive spinal cord stimulators and may be charged higher costs for them. There are no published studies specifically assessing Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients' utilization and outcomes from other common interventional pain procedures (e.g., epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablation). Limited data suggest non-pharmacologic treatments, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and complementary/integrative health modalities, might have more benefit for this population, potentially because of greater utilization. Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients experience disparities in chronic pain management. There is a paucity of data available pertaining specifically to pain-related outcomes and the utilization of pain treatment modalities, especially in regard to interventional procedures. Additional research is urgently needed in order to understand the full extent of these disparities and develop solutions to provide more equitable care., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Introduction: Amid a lack of effective chronic pain treatments, psychedelics have gained attention as a potential solution, although their Schedule 1 classification poses challenges. Psychedelics, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and psilocybin, have gained popularity as alternatives and adjuncts for chronic pain treatment. Studies suggest that they may modulate pain processing through agonism primarily at the serotonin receptor, 5-HT 2A . One of the first of its nature, we present an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered scoping review primarily focusing on evaluating psychedelics for chronic pain conditions such as cluster headache, phantom limb pain, and fibromyalgia., Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we used an AI-powered comprehensive search strategy utilizing the ChatGPT4.0 Bing chat to search Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for articles addressing chronic pain. The query was performed on June 1, 2023, focusing on psychedelics for chronic, non-cancer pain including headache disorders. Inclusion criteria were English-only, peer-reviewed articles involving human participants >18 years, focusing on chronic pain conditions (eg, phantom limb pain and cluster headache), using LSD, 2.5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B), N, N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), psilocybin, or mescaline. Exclusion criteria were reviews, editorials, and opinion articles and studies focusing on tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabis and/or ketamine., Results: A total of 186 unique database entries were retrieved, of which nine studies were included in the scoping review. These included four case reports/series, an open-label study, a cohort study, two online surveys, and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. They comprised three studies addressing phantom limb pain, four addressing cluster headaches, and two addressing fibromyalgia, spinal cord injury, complex regional pain syndrome, and lumbar radiculopathy., Conclusion: Psychedelics may have potential in alleviating pain symptoms secondary to a multitude of chronic pain conditions. However, further randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are needed to further explore and evaluate the role of psychedelics in chronic, non-cancer pain., Competing Interests: Dr Christopher Robinson reports personal fees from TrueLearn, Doc2Doc, Augmend Health, outside the submitted work. Dr Michael Schatman is a research consultant for Modoscript, scientific steering committee for Collegium Pharma, and advisory committee for Syneos Health, outside the submitted work. Dr Trent Emerick reports stock/equity for Vanish Therapeutics, Inc, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Robinson et al.)

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in patient pain medicine education has the potential to revolutionize pain management. By harnessing the power of AI, patient education becomes more personalized, interactive, and supportive, empowering patients to understand their pain, make informed decisions, and actively participate in their pain management journey. AI tailors the educational content to individual patients' needs, providing personalized recommendations. It introduces interactive elements through chatbots and virtual assistants, enhancing engagement and motivation. AI-powered platforms improve accessibility by providing easy access to educational resources and adapting content to diverse patient populations. Future AI applications in pain management include explaining pain mechanisms, treatment options, predicting outcomes based on individualized patient-specific factors, and supporting monitoring and adherence. Though the literature on AI in pain medicine and its applications are scarce yet growing, we propose avenues where AI may be applied and review the potential applications of AI in pain management education. Additionally, we address ethical considerations, patient empowerment, and accessibility barriers., Competing Interests: Dr Christopher Robinson is a consultant for TrueLearn, Augmend Health, and Doc2Doc, outside the submitted work. Dr Michael Schatman is a research consultant for Modoscript, takes part in the Scientific Steering Committee for Collegium, and is part of the advisory committee for Syneos Health, outside the submitted work. Dr Trent Emerick is the founder for and reports stock/equity from Vanish Therapeutics, Inc, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Robinson et al.)

Background Context: Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression., Purpose: To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis., Study Design/setting: Retrospective review., Patient Sample: Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image-guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery., Methods: Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver-Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors., Results: A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively., Conclusions: Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis., (© 2023 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

Background: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and tumour resection carries a high prevalence of chronic persistent postsurgical pain (CPSP). Perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion has been proposed as protective against CPSP; however, evidence of its benefits is conflicting. This review evaluates the effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for breast cancer surgery., Methods: Randomised trials comparing perioperative lidocaine infusions with parenteral analgesia in breast cancer surgery patients were sought. The two co-primary outcomes were the odds of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after operation. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0-24 and 25-48 h; quality of recovery; opioid-related side-effects; and lidocaine infusion side-effects. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) random effects modelling was used., Results: Thirteen trials (1039 patients; lidocaine: 518, control: 521) were included. Compared with control, perioperative lidocaine infusion did not decrease the odds of developing CPSP at 3 and 6 months. Lidocaine infusion improved postoperative pain at 1 h by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.65 cm (-0.73 to -0.57 cm) (P<0.0001); however, this difference was not clinically important (1.1 cm threshold). Similarly, lidocaine infusion reduced oral morphine consumption by 7.06 mg (-13.19 to -0.93) (P=0.029) over the first 24 h only; however, this difference was not clinically important (30 mg threshold). The groups were not different for any of the remaining outcomes., Conclusions: Our results provide moderate-quality evidence that perioperative lidocaine infusion does not reduce CPSP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Routine use of lidocaine infusions for perioperative analgesia and CPSP prevention is not supported in this population., Systematic Review Protocol: PROSPERO CRD42023420888., (Copyright © 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools., Objective: To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes., Evidence Review: An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool., Findings: Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered "high" quality, three "low" quality, and 19 "critically low" quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI -0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β -0.168; 95% CI -0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320).According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%)., Conclusions: The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023431155., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RSD received investigator-initiated grant funding paid to his institution from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Artificial intelligence was introduced 60 years ago and has evolved immensely since that time. While artificial intelligence is found in nearly all aspects of our life, the use of artificial intelligence in the healthcare industry has only recently become apparent and more widely discussed. It is expected that artificial intelligence will allow improved disease recognition, treatment optimization, cost and time savings, product development, decision making, and marketing. For pain medicine specifically, these same benefits will be translatable and we can expect better disease recognition and treatment selection. As adoption occurs with this impressive technology, it will be imperative for the pain medicine community to be informed on proper definitions and expected use cases for artificial intelligence. Our objective was to provide pain medicine physicians an overview of artificial intelligence, including important definitions to aid understanding, and to offer potential clinical applications pertinent to the specialty., Competing Interests: RSD has funded research with Nevro and Saol Therapeutics. All other authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2024 Hagedorn et al.)

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of health care interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework-participants (P), interventions (I), comparators (C), outcomes (O)-and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article.

In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia ., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2023 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: R. S. D’Souza is an assistant editor for the Anesthesia & Analgesia Journal. R. S. D’Souza receives investigator-initiated grant funding from Nevro Corp and Saol Therapeutics.

Cannabinoids have recently gained a renewed interest due to their potential applicability to various medical conditions, specifically the management of chronic pain conditions. Unlike many other medications, medical cannabis is not associated with serious adverse events, and no overdose deaths have been reported. However, both safety and efficacy data for medical cannabis treatment of chronic, nonmalignant pain conditions are lacking. Therefore, representatives from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience summarize the evidence, according to level and grade, for medical cannabis treatment of several different pain conditions. Treatment of cancer-related pain has prospective evidentiary support for the use of medical cannabis. Although 3 large and well-designed randomized controlled trials investigated cannabis treatment of cancer-related pain, the evidence yielded only a grade D recommendation. Neuropathic pain has been investigated in prospective studies, but a lack of high-quality evidence renders cannabis treatment for this indication a grade C recommendation. Both safety and efficacy data are lacking for use of medical cannabis to treat chronic nonmalignant pain conditions., Competing Interests: Dr Jackie Weisbein reports consulting, advisory board, and/or research for Abbott, Saluda, Biotronik, SI Bone, Vertos, and Medtronic, outside the submitted work. Dr Jason E Pope reports research, consultant for, and/or stock from Abbott, Saluda, Biotronik, SPR Therapeutics, Thermaquil, Spark, Painteq, Vertos, Aurora, WISE, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work; In addition, Dr Jason E Pope has a patent DRG Neuromonitoring licensed to NIS. Dr Dawood Sayed reports personal fees from Nevro, Saluda, and Vertos; stocks from Painteq, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2023 Strand et al.)

Objectives: The primary aim of this review was to analyze the literature for the efficacy of neuromodulation interventions in treating both male and female sexual dysfunction., Materials and Methods: Studies were identified from PubMed, Scopus, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Results were synthesized qualitatively without pooling owing to the heterogeneous nature of outcome assessments., Results: Overall findings from studies generally supported that neuromodulation interventions were associated with improvement in sexual function. Specific domains that improved in male patients included erectile function, desire, and satisfaction, whereas desire, arousal, orgasm, lubrication, quality of "sex life," intercourse capability, and dyspareunia improved in female patients. Male ejaculation, orgasm, and intercourse capability were the only domains that continued to decline after the use of neuromodulation interventions, although this was only reported in one study., Conclusion: Our review suggests that there may be promise and potential utility of neuromodulation in improving sexual dysfunction; however, further research is needed., (Copyright © 2022 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Since its foundation in the 1960s, neuromodulation has become an increasingly used treatment option for chronic pain. This bibliometric analysis examines the most cited research in this field with the aim of uncovering existing trends and future directions., Materials and Methods: Clarivate's Web of Science data base was searched for the top 25 most cited studies focusing on neuromodulation for chronic pain. Various bibliometric parameters were then extracted and analyzed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were compared with non-RCTs., Results: The top 25 articles had a mean of 347 citations and 22.2 citations per year, with more recent articles having a higher citation rate. Most were published in the last two decades and predominantly originated from the United States. There were 13 RCTs, which were significantly more recent (p = 0.004) and more cited per year (p = 0.001) than the 12 non-RCTs. Sources included 15 journals with a mean impact factor of 13.896. The most studied modality was spinal cord stimulation with 20 articles (76.9%), followed by intrathecal drug delivery (15.4%), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (3.8%), and peripheral nerve stimulation (3.8%)., Conclusions: Analysis of the most cited articles on neuromodulation reveals a focal shift from historical reports to innovative RCTs that have increasingly guided pain practice in the recent years. As novel techniques and technologies continue to develop, high-quality evidence coupled with broadening indications will likely direct further expansion of this field., (Copyright © 2022 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic intractable pain from peripheral neuropathy is a debilitating condition that might not respond to conventional medical management and pharmacotherapy. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess change (or reduction) in pain intensity in patients with length-dependent peripheral neuropathy after spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy., Methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcome was change (or reduction) in pain intensity after 12 months of SCS therapy compared with baseline in participants with length-dependent peripheral neuropathy. Secondary outcomes included change in pain intensity after 6 months and change in opioid consumption after 12 months. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to appraise the quality of evidence., Results: Nineteen studies consisting of 376 participants who underwent SCS implantation met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative synthesis revealed that all eligible studies reported a significant improvement in pain intensity after 12 months of SCS therapy as compared with baseline. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for 4 studies, all of which achieved the minimal clinically important difference for change in pain intensity at 12 months. The GRADE quality of evidence for this outcome was appraised as very low quality., Conclusion: This systematic review highlights that SCS could lead to significant improvement in pain intensity for length-dependent peripheral neuropathy, although future well-powered randomized controlled trials are warranted to increase the certainty of evidence in this finding., Study Registration: PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) ID: CRD42022377572., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The analgesic effectiveness of contemporary motor-sparing nerve blocks used in combination for analgesia in total knee arthroplasty is unclear. This network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of adding single-injection or continuous adductor canal block (ACB) with or without infiltration of the interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee (iPACK) to intraoperative local infiltration analgesia (LIA), compared to LIA alone, after total knee arthroplasty., Methods: Randomized trials examining the addition of single-injection or continuous ACB with or without single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA for total knee arthroplasty were considered. The two primary outcomes were area-under-the-curve pain scores over 24 to 48 h and postoperative function at greater than 24 h. Secondary outcomes included rest pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h; opioid consumption (from 0 to 24 h and from 25 to 48 h); and incidence of nausea/vomiting. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach., Results: A total of 27 studies (2,317 patients) investigating the addition of (1) single-injection ACB, (2) continuous ACB, (3) single-injection ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK, and (4) continuous ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA, as compared to LIA alone, were included. For area-under-the-curve 24- to 48-h pain, the addition of continuous ACB with single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P-score probability (89%) of being most effective for pain control. The addition of continuous ACB without single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P-score probability (87%) of being most effective for postoperative function., Conclusions: The results suggest that continuous ACB, but not single-injection ACB and/or single-injection block at the iPACK, provides statistically superior analgesia when added to LIA for total knee arthroplasty compared to LIA alone. However, the magnitude of these additional analgesic benefits is clinically questionable., (Copyright © 2023 American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Objectives: Chronic headache remains a major cause of disability and pain worldwide. Although the literature has extensively described pharmacologic options for headache treatment and prophylaxis, there remains a paucity of data on the efficacy of neuromodulation interventions for treatment of headache unresponsive to conventional pharmacologic therapy. The primary aim of this review was to appraise the literature for the efficacy of cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) in treating any intractable chronic headache, including migraine headaches (with or without aura), cluster headache, tension headache, and other types of headaches., Materials and Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, we performed a systematic review by identifying studies in PubMed, Embase (Scopus), Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials that assessed cSCS to treat chronic headache. Data were synthesized qualitatively, with primary outcomes of headache intensity and frequency. The secondary outcome was adverse effects., Results: In total, 16 studies comprising 107 patients met the inclusion criteria. Findings were presented based on type of headache, which included migraine headache with or without aura, cluster headache, trigeminal neuropathy, occipital neuralgia, posttraumatic headache, cervicogenic headache, short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache with autonomic symptoms, and poststroke facial pain. Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations criteria, there was very low-quality evidence that cSCS is associated with a decrease in migraine headache frequency, migraine headache intensity, and trigeminal neuropathy intensity. Placement for cSCS leads ranged from C1 to C4., Conclusions: Our review suggests promising data from observational studies that cSCS may be helpful in decreasing frequency and intensity of chronic intractable headache. Future well-powered, randomized controlled trials are needed., (Copyright © 2022 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The goal of this meta-analysis was to estimate the incidence of total hematomas, neuraxial hematomas, and non-neuraxial hematomas in patients who underwent temporary spinal cord stimulator (SCS) lead trial placement and permanent implantation of SCS leads and internal pulse generator (IPG)., Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted of databases of any publications before October 21, 2021. Eligible study designs included randomized control trials and prospective or retrospective observational studies with more than ten patients. The primary outcome variables were the incidences of total hematomas, neuraxial hematomas, and non-neuraxial hematomas in patients with SCS. These dichotomous categorical outcomes were abstracted from studies after Freeman-Tukey arcsine square root transformation using random-effects meta-analysis (DerSimonian and Laird method). Pooled incidence rates and 95% CIs were calculated for each outcome variable., Results: A total of 40 studies met the inclusion criteria. Included in the neuraxial and non-neuraxial hematoma analyses were 4751 patients and 3862 patients, respectively. The pooled incidence of any hematoma in patients with SCS was 0.81% (95% CI, 0.45%-1.27%). The pooled incidence of neuraxial hematoma in patients with SCS was 0.32% (95% CI, 0.18%-0.50%). This included primarily epidural hematomas (11/4751) but also comprised an intracranial hemorrhage in a patient on enoxaparin bridge therapy from warfarin and one patient not on anticoagulation with an intracranial subdural hematoma that resulted in death. The pooled incidence of non-neuraxial hematomas in patients with SCS was 0.59% (95% CI, 0.29%-1.00%)., Conclusion: The overall incidence of hematomas in patients with temporary SCS trial lead placement and permanent SCS/IPG implantations is less than 1%. Furthermore, the incidence of neuraxial hematomas is less than 0.5%, which is of particular interest given the potential devastating consequences of this complication. The results of this study can be used to inform patients and implanting physicians on hematoma complications from SCS and highlight that the benefits of SCS outweigh the hematoma risks if anticoagulation is appropriately managed perioperatively., (Copyright © 2022 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Despite numerous first-line treatment interventions, adequately managing a patient's postamputation pain can be difficult. Peripheral nerve stimulation has emerged as a safe neuromodulatory intervention that can be used for many etiologies of chronic pain. We performed a systemic review to appraise the evidence of peripheral nerve stimulation use for improvement in postamputation pain. This was performed in Ovid, Cochrane databases, OVID, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and PubMed. The primary outcome was improvement in postamputation pain after use of peripheral nerve stimulation. Secondary outcomes included improvements in functional status, opioid usage, and mood. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently in a blinded manner. Of the 989 studies identified, 13 studies were included consisting of three randomized control trials, seven observational studies, and three case series. While large heterogeneity limited definitive conclusions, the included studies generally demonstrated favorable outcomes regarding pain reduction. Each included study that used an objective pain scale demonstrated clinically significant pain improvements. Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria, there is very low-quality Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations evidence supporting that peripheral nerve stimulation is associated with improvements in pain intensity for postamputation pain. Future prospective, comparative, and well-powered studies assessing the use of peripheral nerve stimulation for postamputation pain are warranted., Competing Interests: Financial disclosure statements have been obtained, and no conflicts of interest have been reported by the authors or by any individuals in control of the content of this article., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)