Search

Background: Poorly managed chronic spinal pain encumbers medical resources and drives healthcare costs, suggesting a target for improvement., Objectives: To determine how specialist-care pathways influence healthcare costs in the first year after a referral for chronic spine pain., Study Design: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of administrative claims from a large commercial health insurance provider, analyzing a 6-month baseline, a variable "pre-referral period," and a one-year period of specialist care., Setting: US patients covered by private commercial insurers., Methods: Adult patients diagnosed with chronic, spine-related pain between July 2016 and February 2018 and under the active care of a specialist were eligible. Patients with neurological deficits or cancer-related pain were excluded. Patients were categorized based on sequence-dependent exposure to a pain specialist, a surgeon, or both specialties. Key measures were pain-related and all-cause medical resource use and costs and opioid prescription fills., Results: Of 306,080 eligible patients (mean age 61.6; 61.5% women), 13% saw a pain specialist, 71% a surgeon, 7% a pain specialist then a surgeon, and 9% a surgeon then a pain specialist. Referral to a pain specialist alone was associated with lower resource use and per-patient adjusted cost savings of $3,311 (pain-related) and $6,447 (all-cause) compared to patients referred to a surgeon alone. The pain specialist pathway was associated with increased indicators of prescription opioid use., Limitations: Cohort design constraints temper the results' generalizability, given the need to simultaneously examine specialty pathway and medical resource incurred over the same time period., Conclusions: We observed meaningful savings in cost and resource use when chronic spine-pain patients were managed by pain specialists. Pain-management referrals should be an element of a thoughtfully designed care pathway.

Introduction: The situation generated in the health system by the COVID-19 pandemic has provoked a crisis involving the necessity to cancel non-urgent and oncologic activity in the operating room and in day-to-day practice. As the situation continues, the need to reinstate attention for patients with chronic pain grows. The restoration of this activity has to begin with on-site appointments and possible surgical procedures. On-site clinical activity has to guarantee the safety of patients and health workers., Objectives: The objective of this review was to evaluate how to manage activity in pain units, considering the scenario generated by the pandemic and the implications of chronic pain on the immune system and proposed pharmacological and interventional therapies., Methods: Besides the established general recommendations (physical distance, surgical masks, gloves, etc.), we established specific recommendations that will allow patient treatment and relieve the disruption of the immune response. It is important to highlight the use of opioids with the least influence in the immune system. Further, individualized corticoid use, risk assessment, reduced immune suppression, and dose adjustment should take patient needs into account. In this scenario, we highlight the use of radiofrequency and neuromodulation therapies, techniques that do not interfere with the immune response., Conclusions: We describe procedures to implement these recommendations for individual clinical situations, the therapeutic possibilities and safety guidelines for each center, and government recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic., (© 2020 World Institute of Pain.)

Background: Intractable neck and upper limb pain has historically been challenging to treat with conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) being limited by obtaining effective paresthesia coverage., Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of the 10-kHz SCS system, a paresthesia-independent therapy, in the treatment of neck and upper limb pain., Methods: Subjects with chronic, intractable neck and/or upper limb pain of ≥5 cm (on a 0-10 cm visual analog scale [VAS]) were enrolled in 6 US centers following an investigational device exemption from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and institutional review board approval. Each subject was implanted with 2 epidural leads spanning C2-C6 vertebral bodies. Subjects with successful trial stimulation were implanted with a Senza® system (Nevro Corp) and included in the evaluation of the primary safety and effectiveness endpoints., Results: In the per protocol population, the primary endpoint (≥50% pain relief at 3 mo) was achieved in 86.7% (n = 39/45) subjects. Compared to baseline, subjects reported a significant reduction (P < .001) in their mean (± standard error of the mean) VAS scores at 12-mo assessment for neck pain (7.6 ± 0.2 cm, n = 42 vs 1.5 ± 0.3 cm, n = 37) and upper limb pain (7.1 ± 0.3 cm, n = 24 vs 1.0 ± 0.2 cm, n = 20). At 12-mo assessment, 89.2% of subjects with neck pain and 95.0% with upper limb pain had ≥50% pain relief from baseline, 95.0% reported to be "satisfied/very satisfied" and 30.0% either eliminated or reduced their opioid intake., Conclusion: In conclusion, 10-kHz SCS can treat intractable neck and upper limb pain with stable long-term outcomes., (© Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2019.)

Cancer causes considerable suffering and 80% of advanced cancer patients experience moderate to severe pain. Surgical tumor excision remains a cornerstone of primary cancer treatment, but is also recognized as one of the greatest risk factors for metastatic spread. The perioperative period, characterized by the surgical stress response, pharmacologic-induced angiogenesis, and immunomodulation results in a physiologic environment that supports tumor spread and distant reimplantation.In the perioperative period, anesthesiologists may have a brief and uniquewindow of opportunity to modulate the unwanted consequences of the stressresponse on the immune system and minimize residual disease. This reviewdiscusses the current research on analgesic therapies and their impact ondisease progression, followed by an evidence-based evaluation of perioperativepain interventions and medications., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Interventional pain management involves diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain. This specialty utilizes minimally invasive procedures to target therapeutics to the central nervous system and the spinal column. A subset of patients encountered in interventional pain are medicated using anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs to mitigate thrombosis risk. Since these drugs target the clotting system, bleeding risk is a consideration accompanying interventional procedures. Importantly, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs exposes underlying thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. This review summarizes the literature and provides guidelines based on best evidence for patients receiving anti-clotting therapy during interventional pain procedures., Study Design: Best evidence synthesis., Objective: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding an assessment of the bleeding risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antithrombotic medications., Methods: A review of the available literature published on bleeding risk during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy was conducted. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of EMBASE and PubMed from 1966 through August 2018 and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Results: 1. There is good evidence for risk stratification by categorizing multiple interventional techniques into low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk. Also, their risk should be upgraded based on other risk factors.2. There is good evidence for the risk of thromboembolic events in patients who interrupt antithrombotic therapy. 3. There is good evidence supporting discontinuation of low dose aspirin for high risk and moderate risk procedures for at least 3 days, and there is moderate evidence that these may be continued for low risk or some intermediate risk procedures.4. There is good evidence that discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, heparin, dabigatran (Pradaxa®), argatroban (Acova®), bivalirudin (Angiomax®), lepirudin (Refludan®), desirudin (Iprivask®), hirudin, apixaban (Eliquis®), rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), edoxaban (Savaysa®, Lixiana®), Betrixaban(Bevyxxa®), fondaparinux (Arixtra®) prior to interventional techniques with individual consideration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs and individual risk factors increases safety.5. There is good evidence that diagnosis of epidural hematoma is based on severe pain at the site of the injection, rapid neurological deterioration, and MRI with surgical decompression with progressive neurological dysfunction to avoid neurological sequelae.6. There is good evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high, low molecular weight heparin bridge therapy can be instituted during cessation of the anticoagulant, and the low molecular weight heparin can be discontinued 24 hours before the pain procedure.7. There is fair evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events is higher than that of epidural hematoma formation with the interruption of antiplatelet therapy preceding interventional techniques, though both risks are significant.8. There is fair evidence that multiple variables including anatomic pathology with spinal stenosis and ankylosing spondylitis; high risk procedures and moderate risk procedures combined with anatomic risk factors; bleeding observed during the procedure, and multiple attempts during the procedures increase the risk for bleeding complications and epidural hematoma.9. There is fair evidence that discontinuation of phosphodiesterase inhibitors is optional (dipyridamole [Persantine], cilostazol [Pletal]. However, there is also fair evidence to discontinue Aggrenox [dipyridamole plus aspirin]) 3 days prior to undergoing interventional techniques of moderate and high risk. 10. There is fair evidence to make shared decision making between the patient and the treating physicians with the treating physician and to consider all the appropriate risks associated with continuation or discontinuation of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy.11. There is fair evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high antithrombotic therapy may be resumed 12 hours after the interventional procedure is performed.12. There is limited evidence that discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel [Plavix®], ticlopidine [Ticlid®], Ticagrelor [Brilinta®] and prasugrel [Effient®]) avoids complications of significant bleeding and epidural hematomas.13. There is very limited evidence supporting the continuation or discontinuation of most NSAIDs, excluding aspirin, for 1 to 2 days and some 4 to 10 days, since these are utilized for pain management without cardiac or cerebral protective effect., Limitations: The continued paucity of the literature with discordant recommendations., Conclusion: Based on the survey of current literature, and published clinical guidelines, recommendations for patients presenting with ongoing antithrombotic therapy prior to interventional techniques are variable, and are based on comprehensive analysis of each patient and the risk-benefit analysis of intervention., Key Words: Perioperative bleeding, bleeding risk, practice patterns, anticoagulant therapy, antithrombotic therapy, interventional techniques, safety precautions, pain.

Background: Regenerative medicine is a medical subspecialty that seeks to recruit and enhance the body's own inherent healing armamentarium in the treatment of patient pathology. This therapy's intention is to assist in the repair, and to potentially replace or restore damaged tissue through the use of autologous or allogenic biologics. This field is rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of underperforming conventional therapy midst the hopes and high expectations of patients and medical personnel alike. But, because this is a relatively new area of medicine that has yet to substantiate its outcomes, care must be taken in its public presentation and promises as well as in its use., Objective: To provide guidance for the responsible, safe, and effective use of biologic therapy in the lumbar spine. To present a template on which to build standardized therapies using biologics. To ground potential administrators of biologics in the knowledge of the current outcome statistics and to stimulate those interested in providing biologic therapy to participate in high quality research that will ultimately promote and further advance this area of medicine., Methods: The methodology used has included the development of objectives and key questions. A panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties as well as differing regions collaborated in the formation of these guidelines and submitted (if any) their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these guidelines. The literature pertaining to regenerative medicine, its effectiveness, and adverse consequences was thoroughly reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available literature. The grading for recommendation was provided as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)., Summary of Evidence: Lumbar Disc Injections: Based on the available evidence regarding the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT), multiple moderate-quality observational studies, a single-arm meta-analysis and evidence from a systematic review, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best-evidence synthesis. Based on the available evidence regarding the use of medicinal signaling/ mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs) with a high-quality RCT, multiple moderate-quality observational studies, a single-arm meta-analysis, and 2 systematic reviews, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Lumbar Epidural Injections Based on one high-quality RCT, multiple relevant moderate-quality observational studies and a single-arm meta-analysis, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Lumbar Facet Joint Injections Based on one high-quality RCT and 2 moderate-quality observational studies, the qualitative evidence for facet joint injections with PRP has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Sacroiliac Joint Injection Based on one high-quality RCT, one moderate-quality observational study, and one low-quality case report, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis., Conclusion: Based on the evidence synthesis summarized above, there is Level III evidence for intradiscal injections of PRP and MSCs, whereas the evidence is considered Level IV for lumbar facet joint, lumbar epidural, and sacroiliac joint injections of PRP, (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis.Regenerative therapy should be provided to patients following diagnostic evidence of a need for biologic therapy, following a thorough discussion of the patient's needs and expectations, after properly educating the patient on the use and administration of biologics and in full light of the patient's medical history. Regenerative therapy may be provided independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatment including a structured exercise program, physical therapy, behavioral therapy, and along with the appropriate conventional medical therapy as necessary. Appropriate precautions should be taken into consideration and followed prior to performing biologic therapy. Multiple guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), potential limitations in the use of biologic therapy and the appropriate requirements for compliance with the FDA have been detailed in these guidelines., Key Words: Regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma, medicinal signaling cells, mesenchymal stem cells, stromal vascular fraction, bone marrow concentrate, chronic low back pain, discogenic pain, facet joint pain, Food and Drug Administration, minimal manipulation, evidence synthesis.

Purpose: Chronic axial low-back pain is a debilitating disorder that impacts all aspects of an afflicted individual's life. Effective, durable treatments have historically been elusive. Interventional therapies, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS), have shown limited efficacy at best. Recently, a novel treatment, 10 kHz SCS, has demonstrated superior pain relief compared with traditional SCS in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In this manuscript, we report on the long-term improvements in quality of life (QoL) outcomes for subjects enrolled in this study., Methods: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-RCT) was conducted. Patients with both chronic back and leg pain were enrolled and randomized (1:1) into 10 kHz SCS or traditional SCS treatment groups. A total of 171 subjects received a permanent SCS device implant. QoL and functionality measures were collected up to 12 months. The device remote control utilization, which is an indication of patient interaction with the device for adjustments, was collected at 24-month post-implantation., Results: At 12 months, a higher proportion of 10 kHz SCS subjects had marked improvement of their disability (Oswestry Disability Index) to a "moderate" or "minimal" impact on their daily function versus the control group. The subjects also reported better improvement in the Global Assessment of Functioning, Clinician Global Impression of Change, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, compared to traditional SCS subjects. The 10 kHz SCS subjects also reported far higher rates of both driving and sleeping with their device turned on, as well as reduced reliance on their programmers to adjust therapy settings., Conclusions: In addition to superior pain relief, 10 kHz SCS provides long-term improvements in quality of life and functionality for subjects with chronic low-back and leg pain., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01609972).

Study Design: This study was a prospective, randomized, crossover, multicenter trial for the evaluation of comparative effectiveness of intradiscal biacuplasty (IDB) versus conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of lumbar discogenic pain., Objective: The objective was to demonstrate the superiority of IDB over CMM in the treatment of discogenic pain with respect to the primary outcome measure., Summary of Background Data: Current therapeutic options for the treatment of chronic low back pain of discogenic origin are limited. CMM is often unsatisfactory with regard to the treatment of discogenic pain. IDB offers a minimally invasive treatment that has been demonstrated to be superior to placebo in the past., Methods: A total of 63 subjects with lumbar discogenic pain diagnosed via provocation discography were randomized to IDB + CMM (n = 29) or CMM-alone (n = 34). At 6 months, patients in the CMM-alone group were eligible for crossover if desired. The primary outcome measure was the change in visual analog scale (VAS) from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included treatment "responders," defined as the proportion of subjects with a 2-point or 30% decrease in VAS scores. Other secondary measures included changes from baseline to 6 months in (1) short form (SF) 36-physical functioning, (2) Oswestry Disability Index, (3) Beck Depression Inventory, (4) Patient Global Impression of Change, (5) EQ-5D VAS, and (6) back pain-related medication usage., Results: In the IDB cohort, the mean VAS score reduction exceeded that in the CMM cohort (-2.4 vs. -0.56; P = 0.02), and the proportion of treatment responders was substantially greater (50% vs. 18%). Differences in secondary measures favored IDB. No differences in opioid utilization were noted between groups., Conclusion: Superior performance of IDB with respect to all study outcomes suggests that it is a more effective treatment for discogenic pain than CMM-alone., Level of Evidence: 2.

Background: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results., Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain., Methods: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Results: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level III for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level III in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level III with cervical interlaminar epidural injections., Limitations: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence., Conclusion: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions.

Background: The therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate., Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain., Methods: The available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake consumption., Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement., Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections., Conclusion: Based on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy.

Background: A major component of a systematic review is an assessment of the methodological quality and bias of randomized trials. The most commonly utilized methodological quality assessment and bias assessment for randomized trials is by the Cochrane Review Group. While this is not a "gold standard," it is an indication of the current state-of-the-art review methodology. There is, however, no specific instrument to assess the methodological quality of manuscripts published for interventional techniques., Objectives: Our objective was to develop an instrument specifically for interventional pain management, to assess the methodological quality of randomized trials of interventional techniques., Methods: Item generation for the instrument was based on a definition of quality, to the extent to which the design and conduct of the trial were congruent with the objectives of the trial. Applicability was defined as the extent to which the trial produced procedures could be applied with contemporary interventional pain management techniques. Multiple items based on Cochrane review criteria were utilized along with specific requirements for interventional techniques., Results: A total of 22 items were developed which formed IPM-QRB or Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment tool. This included 9 of the 12 items from the Cochrane review criteria with definition of some items that were repetitive or duplicate, and the addition of 13 new items. The results were compared for inter-rater reliability of Cochrane review criteria and IPM-QRB, and inter-instrument reliability. The assessment was performed in multiple stages with an initial learning curve. The final assessment was for 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing both Cochrane review criteria and IPM-QRB criteria. The inter-rater agreement for Cochrane review criteria with overall intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.407 compared to an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.833 for IPM-QRB criteria. The inter-rater agreement was superior for IPM-QRB criteria compared to Cochrane review criteria despite twice the items of Cochrane review criteria as IPM-QRB criteria with the detailed nature of assessment., Limitations: Limited validity or accuracy assessment of the instrument and the large number of items to be scored., Conclusion: We have developed a new comprehensive instrument to assess the methodological quality of randomized trials of interventional techniques. This instrument is superior to Cochrane review methodology criteria in that it provides more extensive and specific information for interventional techniques that will be useful in assessing the methodologic quality and bias of interventional techniques.

Background: The major component of a systematic review is assessment of the methodologic quality and bias of randomized and nonrandomized trials. While there are multiple instruments available to assess the methodologic quality and bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there is a lack of extensively utilized instruments for observational studies, specifically for interventional pain management (IPM) techniques. Even Cochrane review criteria for randomized trials is considered not to be a "gold standard," but merely an indication of the current state of the art review methodology. Recently a specific instrument to assess the methodologic quality of randomized trials has been developed for interventional techniques., Objectives: Our objective was to develop an IPM specific instrument to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized trials or observational studies of interventional techniques., Methods: The item generation for the instrument was based on a definition of quality, to the extent to which the design and conduct of the trial were congruent with the objectives of the study. Applicability was defined as the extent to which procedures produced by the study could be applied using contemporary IPM techniques. Multiple items based on Cochrane review criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) were utilized., Results: A total of 16 items were developed which formed the IPM-QRBNR tool. The assessment was performed in multiple stages. The final assessment was 4 nonrandomized studies. The inter-rater agreement was moderate to good for IPM-QRBNR criteria., Limitations: Limited validity or accuracy assessment of the instrument and the large number of items to be scored were limitations., Conclusion: We have developed a new comprehensive instrument to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized studies of interventional techniques. This instrument provides extensive information specific to interventional techniques is useful in assessing the methodological quality and bias of observational studies of interventional techniques.

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain., Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature., Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events., Conclusions: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed., Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

Introduction: In a prospective observational study conducted in an urban pain management center, we evaluated whether spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in relieving discogenic pain of IDD origin., Methods: Thirteen patients with intractable discogenic low back pain were enrolled. Four patients never underwent permanent implantation due to insurance denial, medical reasons or failed trial and served as a control group. Nine patients underwent SCS implantation (treatment group). All patients were followed for 12 months and assessed at each interval for pain (NRS), disability (ODI), and opioid use., Results: Nine patients completed the SCS trial with > 50% pain relief. The pretrial NRS score was 7.8 ± 0.5 mm in treated patients vs. 6.5 ± 1.7 mm in control patients. At 3, 6 and 12 months, the NRS was reduced to 2.9 ± 0.7 mm, 1.7 ± 0.5 mm, and 2.9 ± 0.5 mm, respectively in treated patients. NRS was unchanged in the control patients (6.5 ± 1.9 mm). The ODI score prior to the SCS trial in treated patients was 53.1 ± 3.4% vs. 54.0 ± 20.5 in control patients. At 3, 6 and 12 months the ODI scores were 39.0 ± 8.0%, 38.7 ± 4.6%, and 41.1 ± 3.9%, respectively in the treated patients, and 48.5 ± 29.5 at 12 months in control patients. In 6 patients receiving opioids prior to the SCS trial, average consumption was reduced by 69% (P = 0.036) over 12 months of therapy as compared with a 54% increase in the control patients. SCS usage was stable over the 12-month study., Conclusions: The current study indicates that SCS may provide effective pain relief, improve disability, and reduce opioid usage in patients with discogenic pain., (© 2011 The Authors. Pain Practice © 2011 World Institute of Pain.)