Search

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.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for neuropathic pain. Outcomes of SCS may be influenced by peri-implant opioid management; however, to date, standard practices of opioid management in this scenario remain undefined and unreported.Methods: A survey inquiring SCS management practices in the peri-implant period was sent to the members of the Spine Intervention Society and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia. The results of three questions pertaining to peri-implant opioid management are presented here.Results: For each of the three questions examined, there were between 181 and 195 responses. Among respondents, 40 percent encouraged reduction of opioids prior to SCS trial, and 17 percent mandated reduction. After a SCS trial, 87 percent of respondents did not provide any additional opioids for periprocedure pain. After implant, the majority of respondents provided 1-7 days of opioids for post-operative pain.Conclusion: Based upon survey results and current literature, it is advisable to recommend or attempt opioid reduction before SCS and to not provide additional opioid for post-operative pain after trial lead insertion. Routine prescribing for the pain of the SCS implant beyond 7 days is not favored.

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 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.

Intrathecal drug delivery systems are a well-established intervention for chronic pain. The localized delivery of analgesics allows for reduced side effect profiles and pain scores in patients with chronic pain. Given their proven benefits and the development of novel intrathecal medications, intrathecal drug delivery systems are being used earlier in chronic pain management treatment pathways. Success is reliant on proper patient selection and mitigating the risks of various adverse events stemming from the implantation procedure, medications, and the device itself. This article discusses patient selection criteria, medication selection, risks, complications, supporting data, and future directions of intrathecal drug delivery systems.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited blood disorder. The disease affects approximately 100,000 Americans and is most prevalent among African Americans. SCD is an autosomal recessive disorder caused by mutations of the gene that encodes the β-globin chain of hemoglobin. Acute vaso-occlusive (VOC) pain episodes are the hallmark of the disease presentation. Pain is the most common reason that patients with SCD are admitted to the hospital. A multidisciplinary care team model and use of multimodal analgesic regimens can provide optimal pain management in patients with SCD. Lines of management include pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic modalities for pain control. It is important to distinguish between VOC pain and pain that signifies more serious complications of the disease.

ObjectiveTo describe the process of revising the Pain Medicine Milestones 1.0 and implementing changes into the Pain Medicine Milestones 2.0 along with implications for pain medicine trainees.BackgroundCompetency-based medical education has been implemented in graduate medical education, including pain medicine. Milestones 1.0, introduced by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), has been used to assess learners in six competencies and respective sub-competencies. Recognizing areas for improvement in Milestones 1.0, the ACGME initiated the process of Milestones 2.0 and a working group was created to execute this task for pain medicine. The working group discussed revisions; consensus was sought when changes were introduced. Final milestones were agreed upon and made available for public comment prior to publication.ResultsRedundant sub-competencies were either merged or eliminated, reducing the number of sub-competencies. A maximum of three rows representing skill, knowledge, behavior and attitude were included for each sub-competency. Harmonized Milestones, aligning with other specialties in a predetermined ACGME framework, were adopted and modified to meet the needs of pain medicine. A supplemental guide was developed to assist educators in implementation of Milestones 2.0 and assessment of trainees.ConclusionsThe intent of the Milestones 2.0 was to create an improved tool that is comprehensive, easier to utilize, and of increased value for pain medicine training programs. It is expected that implementation of Milestones 2.0 will streamline pain medicine trainee assessments by educators and prepare trainees for the future practice of pain medicine while serving to be the foundation of an iterative process to match the evolution of the specialty.

Introduction Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a commonly utilized therapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions. The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) has recommended that the placement of percutaneous SCS leads be performed in an awake patient capable of providing feedback. It is not currently known how commonly this recommendation is adhered to by physicians in clinical practice. This article presents the findings of a survey designed to answer this important question. Methods We conducted a survey of the active membership of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) regarding practice patterns with SCS therapy. We analyzed the percent of respondents who indicated that they use deep sedation and general anesthesia during SCS placement as well as any reported complications. Results Many practitioners frequently utilize deep sedation as well as general anesthesia when performing SCS implants. Our findings demonstrate that 77% of physicians reported that they utilize deep sedation for permanent SCS implants at times, and 45% of physicians reported the use of general anesthesia for 10 kHz implants. Additionally, 94% of physicians reported that they have never had a complication related to the use of general anesthesia for a spinal cord stimulator placement. Conclusions This survey provides initial data on SCS practices among a large cohort of clinicians who utilize SCS. SCS lead placement under deep sedation and general anesthesia appears to be common practice for many physicians who perform implants. This survey should stimulate further research on this topic, given that the current safety guidelines and the rate of physicians reporting the use of deep sedation and general anesthesia for spinal cord stimulator placement remain at odds.

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a novel challenge for healthcare delivery and implementation in the United States (US) in 2020 and beyond. Telemedicine arose as a significant and effective medium for safe and efficacious physician-patient interactions. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine while available, had infrequently been utilized in pain medicine practices due to difficulties with reimbursement, the learning curve associated with new technology usage, and the need for new logistical systems in place to implement telemedicine effectively. Given the unique constraints on the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic, the ubiquitous utilization of telemedicine among pain medicine physicians increased, giving insight into potential future roles for the technology beyond the pandemic.To survey and understand the state of implementation of telemedicine into pain medicine practices across practice settings and geographical areas; to identify potential barriers to the implementation of telemedicine in pain medicine practice; and to identify the likelihood of telemedicine continuing beyond the pandemic in pain medicine practice.Online questionnaire targeting Pain Medicine physicians in the US. Participants were asked questions related to the use of telemedicine during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.Online-based questionnaire distributed to academic and private practice pain medicine physicians nationally in the United States.A 34 web-based questionnaires were distributed by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the Society of Interventional Spine to all active members. Data were analyzed using SAS v9.4.Between December 3, 2020, and February 18, 2021, 164 participants accessed the survey with a response rate of 14.3%. Overall, academic physicians were more likely to implement telemedicine than private practice physicians. Telemedicine was also more frequently utilized for follow-up appointments rather than initial visits.Although our n = 164, the overall low response rate of 14.3% warrants further investigation into the utilization of telemedicine throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.Telemedicine as an emerging technology for efficient communication played a key role in mitigating the adverse effects of the COVID -19 pandemic on chronic pain patients. The utilization of telemedicine remarkably increased after the start of the pandemic within 1 to 2 weeks. Overall, private hospital-based centers were significantly less likely to implement telemedicine than academic centers, possibly due to limited access to secure telemedicine platforms and high start-up costs. Telemedicine was used more frequently for follow-up visits than initial visit encounters at most centers. In spite of the unforeseen consequences to the healthcare system and chronic pain practices in the US from COVID-19, telehealth has emerged as a unique model of care for patients with chronic pain. Although it has flaws, telehealth has the ability to increase access to care beyond the end of the pandemic. Further identification of barriers to the use of telemedicine platforms in private practices should be addressed from a policy perspective to facilitate increased care access.

IntroductionApplicants 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsFifty-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.DiscussionAssessment 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.

The medical field has been experiencing numerous drug shortages in recent years. The most recent shortage to impact the field of interventional pain medicine is that of iodinated contrast medium. Pain physicians must adapt to these changes while maintaining quality of care. This position statement offers guidance on adapting to the shortage.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an important modality for intractable pain not amenable to less conservative measures. During percutaneous SCS lead insertion, a critical step is safe access to the epidural space, which can be complicated by a dural puncture. Objectives: In this review, we present and analyze the practices patterns in the event of a dural puncture during a SCS trial or implantation. Methods: We conducted a survey of the practice patterns regarding spinal cord stimulation therapy. The survey was administered to members of the Spine Intervention Society and American Society of Regional Anesthesia specifically inquiring decision making in case of inadvertent dural puncture during spinal cord stimulator lead insertion. Results: A maximum of 193 responded to a question regarding dural punctures while performing a SCS trial and 180 responded to a question regarding dural punctures while performing a SCS implantation. If performing a SCS trial and a dural puncture occurs, a majority of physicians chose to continue the procedure at a different level (56.99%), followed by abandoning the procedure (27.98%), continuing at the same level (10.36%), or choosing another option (4.66%). Similarly, if performing a permanent implantation and a dural puncture occurs, most physicians chose to continue the procedure at a different level (61.67%), followed by abandoning the procedure (21.67%), continuing at the same level (10.56%), or choosing another option (6.11%). Conclusions: Whereas the goals of the procedure would support abandoning the trial but continuing with the permanent in case of inadvertent dural puncture, we found that decision choices were minimally influenced by whether the dural puncture occurred during the trial or the permanent implant. The majority chose to continue with the procedure at a different level while close to a quarter chose to abandon the procedure. This article sets a time stamp in practice patterns from March 20, 2020 to June 26, 2020. These results are based on contemporary SCS practices as demonstrated by this cohort, rendering the options of abandoning or continuing after dural puncture as reasonable methods. Though more data is needed to provide a consensus, providers can now see how others manage dural punctures during SCS procedures.

Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation has emerged as a treatment option for patients with painful knee osteoarthritis who have failed conservative management but who may not qualify or wish to avoid a surgical procedure. Radiofrequency ablation techniques targeting the genicular nerves have evolved as our understanding of the anatomy of the anterior knee joint capsule has become more defined. The article aims to review the basic anatomy of the anterior knee joint and both the traditional and revised approaches to nerve ablation.

Background and objectives: The opioid epidemic is a public health crisis in the United States (US) and is associated with devastating consequences, including opioid misuse and related overdose. In response to the opioid crisis, the US Department of Health and Human Services is advancing improved practices in pain management. Strategies to help mitigate opioid risks include physician safety programs, hospital- or practice-based initiatives, patient education, and harm reduction campaigns that include the use of naloxone. To date, little information is available regarding the use of these strategies among healthcare providers. A survey was conducted to identify the presence of opioid safety initiatives, prescribing patterns of opioids and naloxone, and perceived barriers to prescribing naloxone. The presence of these strategies was compared between different practice types (hospital-based/academic vs. private practice), practice scope (chronic pain vs. “other”), and practice location (in the US vs. outside the US) Regarding “outside the US,” the actual geographical distribution of those countries was not captured by respondents. Methods: A 13-question web-based anonymous cross-sectional survey was sent to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the Women in Pain Medicine online community via email and social media (Twitter and Facebook). Survey questions were designed to ascertain the presence of opioid safety initiatives, opioid and naloxone prescribing patterns, and perceived barriers to prescribing naloxone based on practice type (hospital-based/ academic vs. private practice), scope (chronic pain vs. “other”), and location (in the US vs. outside the US). Results: Opioid safety initiatives: The presence of physician safety initiatives was found to be statistically higher among hospital-based/academic practices. No statistical difference was found for hospital- or practice-based, patient education, or harm reduction initiatives for different practice types (hospital-based/academic vs. private practice). The presence of patient education initiatives is statistically higher for chronic pain providers versus others. No statistical difference was found for physician safety, hospital- or practice-based, or harm reduction initiatives among the different practice scopes (chronic pain vs. others). The presence of opioid safety initiatives is statistically higher in the US compared with outside the US Prescribing patterns for opioids: Hospital-based/academic practices are more likely to prescribe opioids to patients suspected of the following: illicit or nonmedical drug use, recently released from prison or correctional facility, in opioid detoxification, a mandatory medication treatment program, and/or a current methadone maintenance program, and those having difficulty accessing emergency medical services. Chronic pain providers are more likely to prescribe opioids to patients taking antidepressants compared with “other” providers. Other providers are more likely to prescribe opioids to patients suspected of the following: illicit or nonmedical drug use, recently released from prison or correctional facility, in opioid detoxification, in mandatory medication treatment programs, in current methadone maintenance programs, and patients having difficulty accessing emergency medical services. There is no difference in opioid prescribing patterns based on practice location. Prescribing pattern for naloxone: Chronic pain providers and providers in the US are more likely to prescribe/recommend naloxone and are more aware of a state’s medical board guidelines on naloxone prescribing. There is no statistical difference between practice types. Most providers, regardless of practice type, scope, or location, will coprescribe naloxone at a morphine milligram equivalent per day threshold of >50. Hospital-based/academic practices are more likely to prescribe naloxone to patients with opioid prescriptions and coexisting respiratory disease. Chronic pain providers are more likely to prescribe naloxone for patients with methadone prescriptions in opioid-naive populations, coexisting respiratory, hepatic and/or renal dysfunction, known or suspected alcohol use, coprescribed benzodiazepine or antidepressants, and those having difficulty accessing emergency medical services. Based on practice location, providers in the US are more likely to prescribe naloxone for patients with opioid prescriptions and coexisting hepatic and/or renal dysfunction, known or suspected alcohol use, coprescribed benzodiazepine or antidepressants, recently released from a correctional facility, opioid detoxification program or mandatory abstinence program, and those having difficulty accessing emergency medical services. Perceived barriers to prescribing naloxone: We found no statistical difference regarding obstacles to prescribing naloxone based on practice type. The cost of the medication and lack of interest from patients are perceived barriers encountered by chronic pain providers versus other providers who do not have enough knowledge regarding when and how to prescribe for a patient. Based on practice location, perceived barriers for providers in the US are related to medication costs and lack of interest from patients. Conclusion: While some improvements have been achieved in the fight against the opioid epidemic, our survey results indicate that further knowledge is needed to determine the potential obstacles to implementing opioid safety initiatives, understanding prescribing practices for opioids and naloxone, and lowering the barriers to prescribing naloxone based on practice type, scope, and location.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is a public health crisis of unprecedented proportions that has altered the practice of medicine. The pandemic has required pain clinics to transition in-person visits to telemedicine, postpone procedures and cancel face-to-face educational sessions. There are no data on how fellowship programs have adapted. METHODS: A 17-question survey was developed covering topics including changes in education, clinical care, and psychological stress due to the COVID pandemic. The survey was hosted by Qualtrics Inc. and disseminated by the Association of Pain Program Directors on April 10, 2020 to program directors at ACGME-accredited fellowships. Results are reported descriptively and stratified by COVID infection rate, which was calculated from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on state infections, and census data. RESULTS: Among 107 surveys distributed, 70 (65%) programs responded. Twenty-nine programs were located in states in the upper tertile for per capita infection rates, 17 in the middle third, and 23 in the lowest tertile. Nearly all programs (93%) reported a decreased workload, with 11 (16%) reporting a dramatic decrease (only urgent or emergent cases). Just over half of programs had either already deployed (14%) or credentialed (39%) fellows to provide non-pain care. Higher state infection rates were significantly associated with reduced clinical demand (Rs = 0.31, 95% CI [0.08, 0.51], P = .011) and redeployment of fellows to non-pain areas (Rs = 0.30, 95% CI [0.07, 0.50], P = .013). Larger program size but not infection rate was associated with increased perceived anxiety level of trainees. CONCLUSIONS: We found a shift to online alternatives for clinical care and education, with correlations between per capita infection rates, and clinical care demands and redeployment, but not with overall trainee anxiety levels. It is likely that medicine in general, and pain medicine in particular, will change after COVID-19, with greater emphasis on telemedicine, virtual education, and greater national and international cooperation. Physicians should be prepared for these changes.

Background: The unexpected COVID-19 crisis has disrupted medical education and patient care in unprecedented ways. Despite the challenges, the health-care system and patients have been both creative and resilient in finding robust “temporary” solutions to these challenges. It is not clear if some of these COVID-era transitional steps will be preserved in the future of medical education and telemedicine. Objectives: The goal of this commentary is to address the sometimes substantial changes in medical education, continuing medical education (CME) activities, residency and fellowship programs, specialty society meetings, and telemedicine, and to consider the value of some of these profound shifts to “business as usual” in the health-care sector. Methods: This is a commentary is based on the limited available literature, online information, and the front-line experiences of the authors. Results: COVID-19 has clearly changed residency and fellowship programs by limiting the amount of hands-on time physicians could spend with patients. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medicine Education has endorsed certain policy changes to promote greater flexibility in programs but still rigorously upholds specific standards. Technological interventions such as telemedicine visits with patients, virtual meetings with colleagues, and online interviews have been introduced, and many trainees are “technoomnivores” who are comfortable using a variety of technology platforms and techniques. Webinars and e-learning are gaining traction now, and their use, practicality, and cost-effectiveness may make them important in the post-COVID era. CME activities have migrated increasingly to virtual events and online programs, a trend that may also continue due to its practicality and cost-effectiveness. While many medical meetings of specialty societies have been postponed or cancelled altogether, technology allows for virtual meetings that may offer versatility and time-saving opportunities for busy clinicians. It may be that future medical meetings embrace a hybrid approach of blending digital with face-toface experience. Telemedicine was already in place prior to the COVID-19 crisis but barriers are rapidly coming down to its widespread use and patients seem to embrace this, even as health-care systems navigate the complicated issues of cybersecurity and patient privacy. Regulatory guidance may be needed to develop safe, secure, and patient-friendly telehealth applications. Telemedicine has affected the prescribing of controlled substances in which online counseling, informed consent, and follow-up must be done in a virtual setting. For example, pill counts can be done in a video call and patients can still get questions answered about their pain therapy, although it is likely that after the crisis, prescribing controlled substances may revert to face-to-face visits. Limitations: The health-care system finds itself in a very fluid situation at the time this was written and changes are still occurring and being assessed. Conclusions: Many of the technological changes imposed so abruptly on the health-care system by the COVID-19 pandemic may be positive and it may be beneficial that some of these transitions be preserved or modified as we move forward. Clinicians must be objective in assessing these changes and retaining those changes that clearly improve health-care education and patient care as we enter the COVID era. Key words: Continuing medical education, COVID-19, fellowship program, medical education, medical meetings, residency program, telehealth, telemedicine

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis is a painful and sometimes debilitating disease that often affects patients for years. Current treatments include short-lasting and often repetitive nonsurgical options, followed by surgical intervention for appropriate candidates. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of pain related to knee osteoarthritis. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of CRFA with those of a single hyaluronic acid (HA) injection. METHODS Two hundred and sixty subjects with knee osteoarthritis pain that was inadequately responsive to prior nonoperative modalities were screened for enrollment in this multicenter, randomized trial. One hundred and eighty-two subjects who met the inclusion criteria underwent diagnostic block injections and those with a minimum of 50% pain relief were randomized to receive either CRFA on 4 genicular nerves or a single HA injection. One hundred and seventy-five subjects were treated (88 with CRFA and 87 with HA). Evaluations for pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), quality of life (Global Perceived Effect [GPE] score and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level [EQ-5D-5L] questionnaire), and safety were performed at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS Demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the 2 study groups. A total of 158 subjects (76 in the CRFA group and 82 in the HA group) completed the 6-month post-treatment follow-up. In the CRFA group, 71% of the subjects had ≥50% reduction in the NRS pain score (primary end point) compared with 38% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). At 6 months, the mean NRS score reduction was 4.1 ± 2.2 for the CRFA group compared with 2.5 ± 2.5 for the HA group (p < 0.0001). The mean WOMAC score improvement at 6 months from baseline was 48.2% in the CRFA group and 22.6% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). At 6 months, 72% of the subjects in the CRFA group reported improvement in the GPE score compared with 40% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS CRFA-treated subjects demonstrated a significant improvement in pain relief and overall function compared with subjects treated with a single injection of HA. No serious adverse events related to either procedure were noted, and the overall adverse-event profiles were similar. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background Pain fellowship programs are facing unique challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions from state governments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resulted in a rapidly changing and evolving learning environment for todays’ fellows. Innovative solutions must be sought to guarantee that proper education is maintained and to ensure the well-being of our trainees. Methods We assembled a panel of pain program directors who serve as officers/board members of the Association of Pain Program Directors to provide guidance and formulate recommendations to pain fellowship directors nationally. This guidance is based on reviewing current changes to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Anesthesiology policies and best available evidence and expert opinion on the use of remote educational activities, research endeavors, and trainee wellness. Conclusions The country is in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic. The impact on pain management fellowships has been severe and will likely last for months, resulting in extraordinary challenges to the administration of pain fellowship programs and the education of our fellows. Understanding revisions to ACGME policies, using technology to promote remote learning opportunities, and providing trainees with opportunities to alleviate their anxiety and encourage mental health are beneficial strategies to implement. Together, we can implement innovative solutions to help overcome these challenges.

To assess long-term outcomes of cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) of genicular nerves for chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA).A prospective, observational extension of a randomized, controlled trial was conducted on adults randomized to CRFA. Subjects were part of a 12-month clinical trial comparing CRFA of genicular nerves to a single hyaluronic injection for treatment of chronic OA knee pain, who then agreed to visits at 18- and 24-months post CRFA and had not undergone another knee procedure since. The subjects were evaluated for pain using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), subjective benefit using the Global Perceived Effect (GPE) scale, quality of life using the EuroQol-5-Dimensions-5 Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, and safety.Of 57 subjects eligible, 36 enrolled; 32 completed the 18-month visit with a mean NRS score of 2.4 and 22 (69%) reporting ≥50% reduction in pain from baseline (primary endpoint); 27 completed the 24-month visit, with a mean NRS of 3.4 and 17 (63%) reporting ≥50% pain relief. Functional and quality of life improvements persisted similarly, with mean changes from baseline of 53.5% and 34.9% in WOMAC total scores, and 24.8% and 10.7% in EQ-5D-5L Index scores, at 18- and 24-months, respectively. There were no identified safety concerns in this patient cohort.In this subset of subjects, CRFA of genicular nerves provided durable pain relief, improved function, and improved quality of life extending to 24 months post procedure, with no significant safety concerns.

The COVID-19 pandemic ushered in a shift to a video format for pain medicine fellowship interviews for the 2021-2022 academic year, which represented a major change in the fellowship interview paradigm.Our aim was to assess the experience of a video-only format in place of in-person interviews for Pain Medicine fellowship program directors and applicants after the 2020 fellowship interview season to determine the feasibility for continuation beyond COVID-19 travel restrictions.Survey via Qualtrics.Academic pain medicine programs.A consortium of program directors converged to discuss methods for determining the effectiveness and future direction of the video format for pain medicine fellowship interviews. Two surveys were formulated, one targeting pain medicine fellowship program directors and the other for candidates interviewing for the year 2021-2022.For applicants, 55 out of 170 responded for a response rate of 32.3%, and for program directors, 38 out of 95 responded for a response rate of 40%. Of the applicants, 45.7% stated that they would prefer video interviews, whereas 27.3% of program directors preferred video interviews. Savings of time and money were the most common reason for preferring video interviews.The number of pain fellowship applicants invited was limited to those who interviewed at a subset of pain fellowships, which may not have been representative of all pain fellow applicants.The video format for pain medicine fellowship interviews was viewed positively by both candidates and program directors. We suspect that the video format alone or as a part of a hybrid model will become a routine method for the interview process in the future, given its time and cost benefits.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment modality for neuropathic pain. The critical part of this technique is safe access to the epidural space for lead placement. There have been innovations in radiological views, improving access to the epidural space. Objectives: This study analyzes the adoption of these technical advantages in daily practice Methods: We conducted a survey of members in the Spine Intervention Society and American Society of Regional Anesthesia in regard to the practice patterns in SCS therapy. Here we present our findings regarding the use of contralateral oblique (CLO) and lateral views as well direct upper thoracic or cervicothoracic access for SCS lead insertion Results: A total of 195 unique responses were received between March 20, 2020 and June 26, 2020. Forty-five percent of respondents “always used” the lateral view technique while 15% “always used” CLO view for SCS lead insertion. Overall, sixty-five percent of respondents used the CLO view with varying frequency. Cervical and upper thoracic approach for cervical SCS lead placement is always or often used by 66.8% of the respondents. Conclusions: A depth view (CLO or lateral) is always used by only 45 - 60% of the respondents and CLO view has been rapidly adopted in clinical practice for SCS lead insertion. Direct cervicothoracic and upper thoracic is the preferred approach for cervical lead placement by the majority.

Significant knowledge gaps exist in the perioperative pain management of patients with a history of chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or opioid tolerance as highlighted in the US Health and Human Services Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force 2019 report. The report emphasized the challenges of caring for these populations and the need for multidisciplinary care and a comprehensive approach. Such care requires stakeholder alignment across multiple specialties and care settings. With the intention of codifying this alignment into a reliable and efficient processes, a consortium of 15 professional healthcare societies was convened in a year-long modified Delphi consensus process and summit. This process produced seven guiding principles for the perioperative care of patients with chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or preoperative opioid tolerance. These principles provide a framework and direction for future improvement in the optimization and care of ‘complex’ patients as they undergo surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Epidural blood patch (EBP) procedure timing can be difficult in patients on anticoagulant therapy when balancing the goals of EBP, safety, and efficacy. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a patient on anticoagulant therapy with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) who presented for a planned cesarean section which was complicated by dural puncture with a Tuohy needle during combined spinal-epidural placement. She then developed a postdural puncture headache (PDPH) after restarting LMWH. After holding LMWH for 18 hours, an EBP was placed resulting in symptomatic relief; LMWH was restarted 12 hours later. However, her symptoms returned and EBP was repeated 78 hours after the initial blood patch, again with relief of symptoms. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the importance of EBP procedure timing in the setting of LMWH administration in order to maximize efficacy while minimizing neuraxial hematoma and venous thromboembolism risk. KEY WORDS: Epidural blood patch, postdural puncture headache, anticoagulation, efficacy, timing

Janki Patel,1 Anne Duong,2 Tuan Tang,2 Chen Cui,3 Lynn Kohan,1 Alaa Abd-Elsayed,4 Jennie Z Ma5 1Department of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA; 2McGovern School of Medicine, University of Texas Health, Houston, TX, USA; 3Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 5Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USACorrespondence: Alaa Abd-Elsayed, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA, Email alaaawny@hotmail.comPurpose: This study was conducted to characterize the gender disparities within academic pain management departments in the United States, specifically focusing on its relation to research and academic leadership. This will allow for targeted improvements in efforts made to reduce gender gaps within academic pain medicine.&#x00A0Methods: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis study evaluating pain management faculty of various positions at academic institutions across the United States. We utilized publicly available data on faculty positions and sex to analyze research impact, H-index, number of publications and citations through bibliometric and linear regression analysis.&#x00A0Results: Our analysis found that female faculty had significantly less research output to male faculty. The three research measurement indices used in this study including H-index, number of publications, and number of citations were significantly lower in females than in males among associate and full professor faculty ranking. Multivariable analysis did not display any significant disparities of research output at the division director and department chair level.&#x00A0Discussion: As in many areas of medicine, there continues to be a significant gender disparity in academic pain management departments, particularly with regard to leadership positions and research impact within the field. Our study found that female pain physicians had a significantly less research output based on the three variables of H indices, number of publications, and number of citations compared to their male counterparts. This has been shown to have the impact on discrepancies in female faculty ranking. Interestingly, these variables were not significantly different between male and female faculty members of the same level of leadership except for program director. There are various contributory reasons for these disparities, including implicit biases, lack of mentorship, and familial obligations. Addressing some of these factors can help narrow the schism and promote greater gender equality within academic pain management.Keywords: gender equity, bibliometric analysis, academic rank, pain medicine

Phantom limb pain (PLP) is a common condition that occurs following both upper and lower limb amputation. First recognized and described in 1551 by Ambroise Pare, research into its underlying pathology and effective treatments remains a very active and growing field. To date, however, there is little consensus regarding the optimal management of phantom limb pain. With few large well-designed clinical trials of which to make treatment recommendations, as well as significant heterogeneity in clinical response to available treatments, the management of PLP remains challenging. Below we summarize the current state of knowledge in the field, as well as propose an algorithm for the approach to the treatment of PLP.

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.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment modality for neuropathic pain. Published guidelines exist to aid physicians in proper antibiotic use during and after spinal cord stimulation trials and implants. In this brief review, we present and analyze the current antibiotic practice patterns of clinicians. Methods: The study protocol was reviewed and granted an exemption by an Institutional Review Board. The survey queried practice parameters in regards to spinal cord stimulation therapy. The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and Society of Interventional Spine (SIS) distributed the survey to their active members by emails with a web link to the survey. Results: Our results indicate that 82% and 69% of physicians do not utilize nasal swabs for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), respectively, prior to SCS trial and implantation. During trials, 47% providers administer a single dose of antibiotics, 35% administer antibiotics for the duration of the trial, and 17% do not administer antibiotics. During implantation, 44% of physicians administer a single dose during the procedure, 11% administer antibiotics up to 24 hours, 24% administer antibiotics between 3-5 days, 14% administer antibiotics for more than 5 days, and 4% do not administer antibiotics. Conclusions: Our study suggests a portion of pain physicians do not adhere to the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) guidelines in regards to antibiotic administration for SCS trial and implantation. Further analysis and surveys would allow insight into common practices. More information and education would be beneficial to optimize peri-procedure antibiotic use to reduce infection risk and decrease antimicrobial resistance.

The boards of directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Addiction Medicine and American Society of Health System Pharmacists approved the creation of a Multisociety Working

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a regional neuropathic pain syndrome. Excruciating pain often interferes with patients' ability to function normally. Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) have been effective in treating pain along with signs of sympathetic overactivity in patients with CRPS. Implantation of SCS is a high-risk interventional procedure with the potential for serious bleeding and neurological consequences in the spine. Meticulous evaluation and careful optimization are needed in patients with bleeding disorders.

Purpose of review Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has become an increasingly widespread treatment tool for various chronic pain syndromes within the last two decades with the majority of publications on the topic coming after 2006. Not only are clinicians using RFA to treat more peripheral nerve pain syndromes but the technology itself is evolving quickly to the point that it is nearly impossible to stay abreast on the complexity of such a diversely utilized instrument. This review summarizes studies that focus on the use of RFA for peripheral nerve neurotomy and anatomical studies regarding RFA published between 2015 and 2020. Recent findings Topics in this review include anatomical regions or nerves of the body published since 2015. Significant findings are summarized in each section. Peripheral nerve RFA is rapidly changing. Many studies have been performed over the last 5 years showing the usefulness of RFA.

BackgroundThe past two decades have witnessed an epidemic of opioid use disorder (OUD) in the USA, resulting in catastrophic loss of life secondary to opioid overdoses. Medication treatment of opioid use disorder (MOUD) is effective, yet barriers to care continue to result in a large proportion of untreated individuals. Optimal analgesia can be obtained in patients with MOUD within the perioperative period. Anesthesiologists and pain physicians can recommend and consider initiating MOUD in patients with suspected OUD at the point of care; this can serve as a bridge to comprehensive treatment and ultimately save lives.MethodsThe Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Addiction Medicine and American Society of Health System Pharmacists approved the creation of a Multisociety Working Group on Opioid Use Disorder, representing the fields of pain medicine, addiction, and pharmacy health sciences. An extensive literature search was performed by members of the working group. Multiple study types were included and reviewed for quality. A modified Delphi process was used to assess the literature and expert opinion for each topic, with 100% consensus being achieved on the statements and each recommendation. The consensus statements were then graded by the committee members using the United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence guidelines. In addition to the consensus recommendations, a narrative overview of buprenorphine, including pharmacology and legal statutes, was performed.ResultsTwo core topics were identified for the development of recommendations with >75% consensus as the goal for consensus; however, the working group achieved 100% consensus on both topics. Specific topics included (1) providing recommendations to aid physicians in the management of patients receiving buprenorphine for MOUD in the perioperative setting and (2) providing recommendations to aid physicians in the initiation of buprenorphine in patients with suspected OUD in the perioperative setting.ConclusionsTo decrease the risk of OUD recurrence, buprenorphine should not be routinely discontinued in the perioperative setting. Buprenorphine can be initiated in untreated patients with OUD and acute pain in the perioperative setting to decrease the risk of opioid recurrence and death from overdose.

We are practitioners of pain medicine and addiction medicine and also four of the seven members of the Multi-Society Ad Hoc Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Working Group comprised of representatives from anesthesia, pain, pharmacy, and addiction medicine societies. We are finalizing “tip sheets” and a consensus-based manuscript to provide guidance on the appropriate use and initiation of buprenorphine in the hospital setting by anesthesiologists, and in the outpatient setting by pain clinicians.

Migraine remains a prevalent disease that can be hard to differentiate from other disorders with headache symptoms. It is an episodic disorder with possible characteristic symptoms prior to the headache, a headache phase, and the postdromal phase. The International Headache Society, an international professional headache association, has developed a tool to diagnose and classify migraines, which is routinely updated based on clinical evidence. The current version of this resource, the third edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3), subdivides migraine into the following six categories based on symptoms: migraine without aura, migraine with aura, chronic migraine, complications of migraine, probable migraine, and episodic syndromes that may be associated with migraine. Because this diagnostic classification relies on the quantity, quality, and duration of symptoms, finding ways to promote accurate reporting and minimize recall bias becomes important. For a small percentage of migraine sufferers, the disease can progress to a chronic condition with headaches >50% of days in the month resulting in significant disability and decreased quality of life. Understanding both the common and uncommon symptoms associated with migraine can help medical practitioners correctly diagnose the disease to more quickly initiate treatment.

Currently medical cannabis is legalized in two-thirds of US states. Policy-makers have outpaced clinical research, creating a critical mismatch between the state legalization of medical cannabis and the lack of knowledge, education, and preparedness among pain physicians.

Trigeminal nerve pathologies can often be refractory to conservative treatments. The developing technology and techniques of neuromodulation offer possible treatment. Neuromodulation techniques including deep brain stimulation, motor cortex stimulation, high cervical spinal cord stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation, gasserian ganglion stimulation, and vagal nerve stimulation have been investigated for the treatment of multiple trigeminal pain pathologies. Data collected from prospective and retrospective observational trials as well as a small number of randomized control trials indicate that neuromodulation may offer a variety of viable and safe treatments. It is likely as technology, technique, and understanding of neuromodulation develops the therapies will be refined. Currently, data to compare efficacy and safety of neuromodulation techniques between each other and with traditional treatments is lacking. Although a promising possible treatment, more studies are needed.

The aim of the study was to investigate patient satisfaction amongst academic pain management centers and associated factors. Approximately 25% of pain management centers perform better than other practices on Press Ganey surveys. The majority of respondents (96%) indicated that pain management practices were uniquely positioned to receive poorer scores on patient satisfaction surveys. The majority of respondents (20/26), who reported a reason, indicated that limiting opioid prescribing led to poor patient satisfaction scores. Eighty-three percent of respondents indicated that they received pressure from administrators to improve patient satisfaction scores. The opioid epidemic in the USA must be addressed in order to diminish the senseless loss of life that is occurring in staggering numbers. The quality of care physicians provide has increasingly been assessed via patient satisfaction surveys. The results of these surveys often are utilized to provide financial incentives to physicians to obtain higher satisfaction scores. In the field of pain management, physicians may experience pressure to prescribe opioids in order to obtain higher patient satisfaction scores.

Telemedicine is the medical practice of caring for and treating patients remotely. With the spread of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, telemedicine has become increasingly prevalent. Although telemedicine was already in practice before the 2020 pandemic, the internet, smartphones, computers, and video-conferencing tools have made telemedicine easily accessible and available to almost everyone. However, there are also new challenges that health care providers may not be prepared for, including treating and diagnosing patients without physical contact. Physician adoption also depends upon reimbursement and education to improve the telemedicine visits. We review current trends involving telemedicine, how pandemics such as COVID-19 affect the remote treatment of patients, and key concepts important to healthcare providers who practice telemedicine.