Search

The article focuses on chronic pain development after the COVID-19 vaccine. Topics include the association between the vaccine and autoimmune reactions, the concept of autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA), and the management of myalgia and neuropathic pain through medication and therapy.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 78-year-old male who has a history of lumbar spondylosis with deep brain stimulation (DBS), describing the safe use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) by using the implementation of appropriate safety measures. It mentions that unipolar lumbar RFA, which requires the insertion of one needle per nerve, is less painful and can be safely performed for the treatment of lumbar spondylosis in patients with implanted DBS with appropriate safety precautions.

Background Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a validated treatment option for the treatment of chronic pain in patients with lumbar spondylosis. Lesion size has been suggested to correlate with good clinical outcomes. This has created an abundance of scientific interest in the development of products with larger lesion characteristics. Needle characteristics, energy transfer, and heat rate are known to modify lesion size. Here, we demonstrate that common intraoperative solutions, such as lidocaine, iodine, and gadolinium-based products, can also affect lesion shape. Objectives To determine whether lidocaine and contrast agents modify lesion characteristics during the performance of monopolar RFA. Study design Controlled, ex vivo study using clinically relevant conditions and pre-injections. Setting Academic institution in a procedural setting. Methods RFA lesion size was compared among six cohorts: 1) lidocaine 1%, 2) lidocaine 2%, 3) iohexol 180, 4) iohexol 240, 5) gadodiamide, and 6) control (no fluid control). Radiofrequency (RF) current was applied for 90 seconds at 80°C via 20-gauge 100-mm standard RFA needles with 10-mm active tips in orgranic chicken breasts without preservative at room temperature (21°C). Twelve lesions were performed for each medication cohort. The length, width, and depth of each lesion were measured. The statistical significance between each medication group and the control group was evaluated by t test. Results The mean lesion surface area of monopolar RFA without any pre-injection used was 80.8 mm2. The mean surface area of the monopolar RF lesion with a pre-injection of 0.2 mL of 2% lidocaine was 114 mm2, and the mean surface area of the monopolar RF lesion with a pre-injection of 0.2 mL of iohexol 240 was 130.6 mm2. The statistical analysis demonstrated that the control group had significantly smaller lesion sizes than did the groups in which lidocaine 2% and iohexol 240 were used (P <0.01). There were no statistically significant differences among the groups in which lidocaine 1%, iohexol 180, and gadodiamide were used. A notable difference was a 20% longer lesion with iohexol 240 compared with the control group and a 20% wider lesion with lidocaine 2% compared with the control group. Limitations In vivo anatomy within a human was not used in this study, nor were the chicken breasts heated to physiological temperature. Randomization of pieces of chicken breast did not occur, and thus intrinsic differences among the chicken breast pieces could play a confounding role. Conclusions Lidocaine 2% and iohexol 240, when used as pre-injections in RFAs, were found to be associated with statistically significant increases in lesion surface area. However, RFAs with lidocaine 1%, iohexol 180, or gadodiamide were not found to produce a statistically significant difference in lesion size compared with monopolar RFA without the use of injectate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 73-year-old male with traumatic rib fractures and hemothorax, complicated by severe pain and respiratory insufficiency, managed with thoracic epidural analgesia. Topics discussed include the challenges of administering intrapleural tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in the presence of neuraxial analgesia, emphasizing the lack of clear guidelines and recommending cautious management to mitigate risks of spinal epidural hematoma and systemic hemorrhage.

Introduction: Applicants to chronic pain medicine fellowship programs often express confusion regarding the importance of various selection criteria. This study sought to elucidate program directors' considerations in applicant selection for fellowship interviews and ranking and to correlate these criteria with match statistics to provide a guide for prospective candidates.Methods: An electronic survey was sent to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited chronic pain fellowship directors. The importance of various applicant characteristics were evaluated and compared with recent match data.Results: Fifty-seven program directors completed the survey. The most important factors involved in applicant interview selection were perceived commitment to the specialty, letters of recommendation from pain faculty, scholarly activities, and leadership experiences. Although completion of a pain rotation was valued highly, experience with procedures was of relatively low importance. There was no preference if rotations were completed within the responders' department. Variability was noted when considering internal applicants or the applicant's geographic location. When citing main factors in ranking applicants, interpersonal skills, interview impression and applicant's fit within the institution were highly ranked by most responders.Discussion: Assessment of an applicant's commitment to chronic pain is challenging. Most responders prioritize the applicant's commitment to chronic pain as a specialty, scholarly activity, participation in chronic pain rotations, pain-related conferences and letters of recommendation from pain faculty. Chronic pain medicine fellowship candidates should establish a progressive pattern of genuine interest and involvement within the specialty during residency training to optimize their fellowship match potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Increased utilization of telemedicine has created a need for supplemental pain medicine education, especially for the virtual physical assessment of the pain patient. Traditional clinical training utilizes manual and tactile approaches to the physical examination. Telemedicine limits this approach and thus alternative adaptations are necessary to acquire information needed for sound clinical judgement and development of a treatment plan. Clinical assessment of pain is often challenging given the myriad of underlying etiologies contributing to the sensory experience. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a dramatic increase in the use of virtual and telemedicine visits, further complicating the ease of assessing patients in pain. The increased reliance on telemedicine visits requires clinicians to develop skills to obtain objective information from afar. While eliciting a comprehensive history and medication assessment are performed in a standard fashion via telemedicine, a virtual targeted physical examination is a new endeavor in our current times. In order to appropriately diagnose and treat patients not directly in front of you, a pivot in education adaptations are necessary. Objective To summarize best care practices in the telemedicine physical exam while presenting an algorithmic approach towards virtual assessment for the pain practitioner. Design Review of the literature and expert multidisciplinary panel opinion. Setting Nationally recognized academic tertiary care centers. Subjects Multidisciplinary academic experts in pain medicine. Methods Expert consensus opinion from the literature review. Results An algorithm for the virtual physical exam for pain physicians was created using literature review and multidisciplinary expert opinion. Conclusions The authors here present simple, comprehensive algorithms for physical exam evaluations for the pain physician stemming from a review of the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]