Search

Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) and chronic neck pain (cNP) are highly prevalent conditions and common reasons for disability among military personnel. Yoga and other mind-body interventions have been shown to safely decrease pain and disability in persons with cLBP and/or cNP but have not been adequately studied in active duty military personnel. The objective of this study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of delivering 2 types of yoga (hatha and restorative) to a sample of active-duty military personnel with cLBP/cNP., Methods: Military personnel with cLBP and/or cNP (n = 49; 59% men) were randomized to either hatha or restorative yoga interventions. Interventions consisted of in-person yoga 1-2x weekly for 12 weeks. Feasibility and acceptability were measured by rates of recruitment, intervention attendance, attrition, adverse events, and satisfaction ratings. Health outcomes including pain and disability were measured at baseline, 12 weeks, and 6 months. Means and effect sizes are presented., Results: Recruitment was completed ahead of projections. Over 90% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they enjoyed participation, liked the instructor, and would like to continue yoga. Retention rates were 86% and 80% at 12 week and 6 month assessments, respectively. Intervention attendance was adequate but lower than expected. There were small to moderate reductions in back-pain related disability, pain severity and pain interference, and improvements in quality of life, grip strength, and balance. In general, effects were larger for those who attended at least 50% of intervention classes. Participants with cNP tended to have smaller outcome improvements, but conclusions remain tentative given small sample sizes., Conclusions: Results demonstrate feasibility for conducting a randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial of yoga for cLBP and cNP among active duty military personnel. Acceptability was also established. Ongoing work will enhance the intervention for cNP and establish feasibility at another military facility in preparation for a fully-powered comparative effectiveness trial.ClinicalTrials #NCT03504085; registered April 20, 2018., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Copyright Statement for Military Service member authors CDR Fowler is a military Service member or employee of the U.S. Government.  This work was prepared as part of my official duties.  Title 17, U.S.C., §105 provides that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the U.S. Government.  Title 17, U.S.C., §101 defines a U.S. Government work as a work prepared by a military Service member or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person’s official duties., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Background: It is nearly impossible to overestimate the burden of chronic pain, which is associated with enormous personal and socioeconomic costs. Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the world, is associated with multiple psychiatric comorbidities, and has been causally linked to the opioid crisis. Access to pain treatment has been called a fundamental human right by numerous organizations. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained medical resources, creating a dilemma for physicians charged with the responsibility to limit spread of the contagion and to treat the patients they are entrusted to care for., Methods: To address these issues, an expert panel was convened that included pain management experts from the military, Veterans Health Administration, and academia. Endorsement from stakeholder societies was sought upon completion of the document within a one-week period., Results: In these guidelines, we provide a framework for pain practitioners and institutions to balance the often-conflicting goals of risk mitigation for health care providers, risk mitigation for patients, conservation of resources, and access to pain management services. Specific issues discussed include general and intervention-specific risk mitigation, patient flow issues and staffing plans, telemedicine options, triaging recommendations, strategies to reduce psychological sequelae in health care providers, and resource utilization., Conclusions: The COVID-19 public health crisis has strained health care systems, creating a conundrum for patients, pain medicine practitioners, hospital leaders, and regulatory officials. Although this document provides a framework for pain management services, systems-wide and individual decisions must take into account clinical considerations, regional health conditions, government and hospital directives, resource availability, and the welfare of health care providers., (The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. This work is written by a US Government employee and is in the public domain in the US.)

Objectives: To determine the prevalence of intra- and extra-articular sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain, which injection is more beneficial, and whether fluoroscopy improves outcomes., Patients and Methods: This patient- and evaluator-blinded comparative effectiveness study randomized 125 participants with SIJ pain from April 30, 2014, through December 12, 2017, to receive fluoroscopically guided injections into the joint capsule (group 1) or "blind" injections to the point of maximum tenderness using sham radiographs (group 2). The primary outcome was average pain on a 0 to 10 scale 1 month after injection. A positive outcome was defined as at least a 2-point decrease in average pain score coupled with positive (>3) satisfaction on a Likert scale from 1 to 5., Results: For the primary outcome, no significant differences were observed between groups (mean ± SD change from baseline, -2.3±2.4 points in group 1 vs -1.7±2.3 points in group 2; 95% CI, -0.33 to 1.36 points for adjusted difference; P=.23), nor was there a difference in the proportions of positive blocks (61% vs 62%) or 1-month categorical outcome (48% vs 40% in groups 1 and 2, respectively; P=.33). At 3 months, the mean ± SD reductions in average pain (-1.8±2.1 vs -0.9 ± 2.0 points; 95% CI, 0.11 to 1.58 points for adjusted difference; P=.02) and worst pain (-2.2±2.5 vs -1.4±2.0 points; 95% CI, 0.01 to 1.66 points for adjusted difference; P=.049) were greater in group 1 than 2, with other outcome differences falling shy of statistical significance., Conclusion: Although fluoroscopically guided injections provide greater intermediate-term benefit in some patients, these differences are modest and accompanied by large cost differences., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02096653., (Copyright © 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Orthopedic trauma is a significant military problem, causing several of the most disabling conditions with high rates of separation from duty and erosion of military readiness. The objective of this report is to summarize the findings of case series of a non-opioid therapy-percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) - and describe its potential for postoperative analgesia, early opioid cessation, and improved function following orthopedic trauma. Percutaneous PNS has been evaluated for the treatment of multiple types of pain, including two case series on postoperative pain following total knee replacement (n = 10 and 8, respectively) and a case series on postamputation pain (n = 9). The orthopedic trauma induced during TKR is highly representative of multiple types of orthopedic trauma sustained by Service members and frequently produces intense, prolonged postoperative pain and extended opioid use following surgery. Collectively, the results of these three clinical studies demonstrated that percutaneous PNS can provide substantial pain relief, reduce opioid use, and improve function. These outcomes suggest that there is substantial potential for the use of percutaneous PNS following orthopedic trauma., (© Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

What We Already Know About This Topic: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: With facet interventions under scrutiny, the authors' objectives were to determine the effectiveness of different lumbar facet blocks and their ability to predict radiofrequency ablation outcomes., Methods: A total of 229 participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive intraarticular facet injections with bupivacaine and steroid, medial branch blocks, or saline. Those with a positive 1-month outcome (a 2-point or more reduction in average pain score) and score higher than 3 (positive satisfaction) on a 5-point satisfaction scale were followed up to 6 months. Participants in the intraarticular and medial branch block groups with a positive diagnostic block (50% or more relief) who experienced a negative outcome proceeded to the second phase and underwent radiofrequency ablation, while all saline group individuals underwent ablation. Coprimary outcome measures were average reduction in numerical rating scale pain score 1 month after the facet or saline blocks, and average numerical rating scale pain score 3 months after ablation., Results: Mean reduction in average numerical rating scale pain score at 1 month was 0.7 ± 1.6 in the intraarticular group, 0.7 ± 1.8 in the medial branch block group, and 0.7 ± 1.5 in the placebo group; P = 0.993. The proportions of positive blocks were higher in the intraarticular (54%) and medial branch (55%) groups than in the placebo group (30%; P = 0.01). Radiofrequency ablation was performed on 135 patients (45, 48, and 42 patients from the intraarticular, medial branch, and saline groups, respectively). The average numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months was 3.0 ± 2.0 in the intraarticular, 3.2 ± 2.5 in the medial branch, and 3.5 ± 1.9 in the control group (P = 0.493). At 3 months, the proportions of positive responders in the intraarticular, medial branch block, and placebo groups were 51%, 56%, and 24% for the intraarticular, medial branch, and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.005)., Conclusions: This study establishes that facet blocks are not therapeutic. The higher responder rates in the treatment groups suggest a hypothesis that facet blocks might provide prognostic value before radiofrequency ablation.

Background: Piriformis muscle injections are most often performed using fluoroscopic guidance; however, ultrasound (US) guidance has recently been described extensively in the literature. No direct comparisons between the 2 techniques have been performed. Our objective was to compare the efficacy and efficiency of fluoroscopic- and US-guided techniques., Methods: A randomized, comparative trial was carried out to compare the 2 techniques. Twenty-eight patients with a diagnosis of piriformis syndrome, based on history and physical examination, who had failed conservative treatment were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomized to receive the injection either via US or fluoroscopy. Injections consisted of 10 mL of 1% lidocaine with 80 mg of triamcinalone. The primary outcome measure was numeric pain score, and secondary outcome measures included functional status as measured by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory, patient satisfaction as measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, and procedure timing characteristics. Outcome data were measured preprocedure, immediately postprocedure, and 1 to 2 weeks and 3 months postprocedure., Results: We found no statistically significant differences in numeric pain scores, patient satisfaction, procedure timing characteristics, or most functional outcomes when comparing the 2 techniques. Statistically significant differences between the 2 techniques were found with respect to the outcome measures of household chores and outdoor work., Conclusions: Ultrasound-guided piriformis injections provide similar outcomes to fluoroscopically guided injections without differences in imaging, needling, or overall procedural times.

A 23-year-old female with an 18-month history of left anterolateral thigh paresthesias and burning pain consistent with meralgia paresthetica was referred to our clinic after failing trials of physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories, gabapentin, and amitriptyline. We performed 3 lateral femoral cutaneous nerve blocks with corticosteroid over a 4-month period; however, each block provided only temporary relief. As this pain was limiting the patient's ability to perform her functions as an active duty service member, we elected to perform a pulsed radiofrequency treatment of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve with ultrasound guidance and nerve stimulation. After locating the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve with ultrasound and reproducing the patient's dysthesia with stimulation, pulsed radiofrequency treatment was performed at 42°C for 120 seconds. The needle was then rotated 180° and an additional cycle of pulsed radiofrequency treatment was performed followed by injection of 0.25% ropivacaine with 4 mg of dexamethasone. At 1.5 and 3 month follow-up visits, the patient reported excellent pain relief with activity and improved ability to perform her duties as an active duty service member. ▪, (Published 2011. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Pain Practice © 2011 World Institute of Pain.)

We present the cases of two patients who suffered severe lower extremity injuries and subsequently developed phantom limb pain (PLP) that was refractory to high dose opioids and adjunctive pain medications. Both patients were receiving large doses of oral methadone, IV hydromorphone via a patient-controlled analgesia delivery system, and adjunctive medications including tricyclic antidepressants, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, and anti-epileptics. Despite these treatments, the patients had severe PLP. Upon induction of the oral N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine, both patients had a profound reduction in their PLP without any apparent side effects from the medication.

Idiopathic male infertility may be due to exposure to environmental toxicants that alter spermatogenesis or sperm function. We studied the relationship between air pollutant levels and semen quality over a 2-year period in Los Angeles, California, by analyzing repeated semen samples collected by sperm donors. Semen analysis data derived from 5,134 semen samples from a sperm donor bank were correlated with air pollutant levels (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter < 10 microm in aerodynamic diameter) measured 0-9, 10-14, and 70-90 days before semen collection dates in Los Angeles between January 1996 and December 1998. A linear mixed-effects model was used to model average sperm concentration and total motile sperm count for the donation from each subject. Changes were analyzed in relationship to biologically relevant time points during spermatogenesis, 0-9, 10-14, and 70-90 days before the day of semen collection. We estimated temperature and seasonality effects after adjusting for a base model, which included donor's date of birth and age at donation. Forty-eight donors from Los Angeles were included as subjects. Donors were included if they collected repeated semen samples over a 12-month period between January 1996 and December 1998. There was a significant negative correlation between ozone levels at 0-9, 10-14, and 70-90 days before donation and average sperm concentration, which was maintained after correction for donor's birth date, age at donation, temperature, and seasonality (p < 0.01). No other pollutant measures were significantly associated with sperm quality outcomes. Exposure to ambient ozone levels adversely affects semen quality.