Search

Rajesh N Janapala,1 Laxmaiah Manchikanti,2– 4 Mahendra R Sanapati,5,6 Srinivasa Thota,5 Alaa Abd-Elsayed,7 Alan D Kaye,8,9 Joshua A Hirsch10 1School of Medicine and Health Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA; 2Pain Management Centers of America, Paducah, KY, USA; 3Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA; 5Pain Management Centers of America, Evansville, IN, USA; 6Anesthesiology and Research, School of Medicine, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA; 7UW Health Pain Services, and Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 8Departments of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Neurosciences, LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, LA, USA; 9Ochsner Shreveport Hospital and Pain Clinic Feist-Weiller Cancer Center, Shreveport, LA, USA; 10Neurointerventional Radiology and Spine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Laxmaiah ManchikantiPain Management Centers of America, 67 Lakeview Drive, Paducah, KY, 42001, USATel +1 270 554 8373Fax +1 270 554 8987Email drlm@thepainmd.comPurpose: The objective of the systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic lumbar facet joint intervention.Patients and Methods: Utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. A comprehensive literature search of multiple data sources from 1966 to September 2020 including manual searches of bibliography of known review articles was performed. The inclusion criteria were based on the selection of patients with chronic low back pain with diagnosis confirmed based on controlled diagnostic blocks and with the publication of at least 6 months of results of appropriate outcome parameters. Quality assessment of the trials was performed with Cochrane review criteria and interventional pain management techniques-quality appraisal of reliability and risk of bias assessment (IPM-QRB). The level of evidence of effectiveness is classified at five levels ranging from Level I to Level V. The primary outcome measure was a significant reduction in pain, eg, short term (up to 6 months) and long term (more than 6 months). The secondary outcome measure was an improvement in functional status.Results: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria for evaluating the efficacy of lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. Radiofrequency neurotomy showed Level II evidence for efficacy for both the short term and long term.Conclusion: This systematic review of the assessment of the efficacy of radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic low back pain was based on the inclusion of 12 RCTs with a diagnostic block and at least 6 months of follow-up results that showed Level II evidence for both short-term and long-term improvement.Keywords: diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint pain, facet joint nerve blocks, randomized trials, radiofrequency neurotomy, systematic review, meta-analysis

Background: The role of antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy is well known for its primary and secondary prevention of sequela from cardiovascular disease by decreasing the incidence of acute cerebral, cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and other thrombo-embolicevents. The overwhelming data show that the risk of thrombotic events is significantly higher than that of bleeding during surgery after antiplatelet drug discontinuation. It has been assumed that discontinuing antiplatelet therapy prior to performing interventional pain management techniques is a common practice, even though doing so may potentially increase the risk of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events. A survey of practice patterns was conducted in 2012, since then the risks associated with thromboembolic events and bleeding, has not been systematically evaluated., Objective: To conduct an updated assessment of the perioperative antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice patterns of U.S. interventional pain management physicians and compare this with data collected in 2012 with 2021 data regarding practice patterns of continuing or discontinuing anticoagulant therapy. STUDY DESIGNn: Postal survey of interventional pain management physicians., Study Setting: Interventional pain management practices in the United States., Methods: The survey was conducted based on online responses of the members of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) in 2021. The survey was designed similar to the 2012 survey to assess updated practice patterns., Results: The questionnaire was sent out to 1,700 members in October 2021. Out of these, 185 members completed the survey, while 105 were returned due to invalid addresses. The results showed that 23% changed their practice patterns during the previous year. The results also showed that all physicians discontinued warfarin therapy with the majority of physicians accepting an INR of 1.5 as a safe level. Low dose aspirin (81 mg) was discontinued for 3 to 7 days for low-risk procedures by 8% of the physicians, 34% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate risk procedures, whereas they were discontinued by 76% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. High dose aspirin (325 mg) was discontinued at a higher rate. Antiplatelet agents, including dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox (aspirin, extended-release dipyridamole) were discontinued from 3 to 5 days by 18%-23% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 60% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 90% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. Platelet aggregation inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticlopidine, and ticagrelor were discontinued for 3 to 5 days by approximately 26% to 41% for low-risk procedures, almost 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 97% for high-risk procedures. Thrombin inhibitor dabigatran was discontinued by 33% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, 92% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. Anti-Xa agents, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and Edoxaban were discontinued in over 25% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures., Limitations: This study was limited by its being an online survey of the membership of one organization in one country, that there was only a 11.6% response rate, and the sample size is relatively small. Underreporting in surveys is common. Further, the incidence of thromboembolic events or epidural hematomas was not assessed., Conclusion: The results in the 2021 survey illustrate a continued pattern of discontinuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in the perioperative period. The majority of discontinuation patterns appear to fall within guidelines.

Background: The frequency of performance of interventional techniques in chronic pain patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy continues to increase. Understanding the importance of continuing chronic anticoagulant therapy, the need for interventional techniques, and determining the duration and discontinuation or temporary suspension of anticoagulation is crucial to avoiding devastating complications, primarily when neuraxial procedures are performed. Anticoagulants and antiplatelets target the clotting system, increasing the bleeding risk. However, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs exposes patients to thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. These guidelines summarize the current peer reviewed literature and develop consensus-based guidelines based on the best evidence synthesis for patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy during interventional procedures., Study Design: Review of the literature and development of guidelines based on best evidence synthesis., Objectives: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding the assessment of bleeding and thrombosis risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications., Methods: Development of consensus guidelines based on best evidence synthesis included review of the literature on bleeding risks during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. A multidisciplinary panel of experts developed methodology, risk stratification based on best evidence synthesis, and management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. It also included risk of cessation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy based on a multitude of factors. Multiple data sources on bleeding risk, practice patterns, risk of thrombosis, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy were identified. The relevant literature was identified through searches of multiple databases from 1966 through 2023. In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, we used a modified Delphi technique, which has been described to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted on approving specific guideline statements. Each panelist could suggest edits to the guideline statement wording and could suggest additional qualifying remarks or comments as to the implementation of the guideline in clinical practice to achieve consensus and for inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without primary conflict of interest., Results: A total of 34 authors participated in the development of these guidelines. Of these, 29 participated in the voting process. A total of 20 recommendations were developed. Overall, 100% acceptance was obtained for 16 of 20 items. Total items were reduced to 18 with second and third round voting. The final results were 100% acceptance for 16 items (89%). There was disagreement for 2 statements (statements 6 and 7) and recommendations by 3 authors. These remaining 2 items had an acceptance of 94% and 89%. The disagreement and dissent were by Byron J. Schneider, MD, with recommendation that all transforaminals be classified into low risk, whereas Sanjeeva Gupta, MD, desired all transforaminals to be in intermediate risk. The second disagreement was related to Vivekanand A. Manocha, MD, recommending that cervical and thoracic transforaminal to be high risk procedures.Thus, with appropriate literature review, consensus-based statements were developed for the perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulants and antiplatelets These included the following: estimation of the thromboembolic risk, estimation of bleeding risk, and determination of the timing of restarting of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.Risk stratification was provided classifying the interventional techniques into three categories of low risk, moderate or intermediate risk, and high risk. Further, on multiple occasions in low risk and moderate or intermediate risk categories, recommendations were provided against cessation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy., Limitations: The continued paucity of literature with discordant recommendations., Conclusion: Based on the review of available literature, published clinical guidelines, and recommendations, a multidisciplinary panel of experts presented guidelines in managing interventional techniques in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period. These guidelines provide a comprehensive assessment of classification of risk, appropriate recommendations, and recommendations based on the best available evidence.

Purpose of Review: To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain utilizing a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies., Recent Findings: The prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated at around 25% of low back pain cases, and its diagnosis lacks a gold standard. Treatments include exercise therapy, injections, ablation, and fusion, with variable effectiveness. COVID-19 altered utilization patterns of interventions, including sacroiliac joint procedures, and the evidence for these interventions remains inconclusive. Recently, Medicare has issued its local coverage determinations (LCDs) in the United States, which provides noncoverage of sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy. Additionally, a recent systematic review of sacroiliac joint injections showed Level III or fair evidence. The sacroiliac joint, a critical axial joint linking the spine and pelvis, contributes to low back pain. Its complex innervation pattern varies among individuals. Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, causing pain and stiffness, arises from diverse factors.The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate radiofrequency neurotomy's effectiveness for sacroiliac joint pain management by applying rigorous methodology, considering both RCTs and observational studies. Despite methodological disparities, the evidence from this review, supported by changes in pain scores and functional improvement, suggests Level III evidence with fair recommendation for radiofrequency neurotomy as a treatment option. The review's strengths include its comprehensive approach and quality assessment. However, limitations persist, including variations in criteria and technical factors, underscoring the need for further high-quality studies in real-world scenarios., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of disability. Literature shows that spending on low back and neck pain and musculoskeletal disorders continues to escalate, not only with disability, but also with increasing costs, accounting for the highest amount of various disease categories. Based on the current literature utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks, facet joints, nerve root dura, and sacroiliac joints have been shown as potential sources of spinal pain. Therapeutic facet joint interventional modalities of axial spinal pain include radiofrequency neurotomy, therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks, and therapeutic intraarticular injections., Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of facet joint nerve blocks as a therapeutic modality in managing chronic axial spinal pain of facet joint origin., Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist., Methods: The available literature on facet joint nerve blocks in axial spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias, the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials, and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for nonrandomized studies. The evidence was graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment criteria. The level of evidence was based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from 1966 to July 2023, including manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles was performed. Quality assessment of the included studies and best evidence synthesis were incorporated into qualitative and quantitative evidence synthesis., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with significant relief and functional improvement of greater than 50% of at least 3 months. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (greater than 6 months)., Results: This assessment identified 8 high-quality and one moderate quality RCTs and 8 high quality and 4 moderate quality non-randomized studies with application of spinal facet joint nerve blocks as therapeutic modalities. However, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment, only 3 of the 21 studies showed high levels of evidence and clinical applicability, with 11 studies showing moderate levels of GRADE evidence and clinical applicability., Limitations: Despite the availability of multiple studies, the paucity of literature is considered as the major drawback. Based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment, only 3 of the 21 studies showed high levels of evidence and clinical applicability., Conclusion: Based on the present systematic review and meta-analysis with 9 RCTs and 12 non-randomized studies, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing spinal facet joint pain.

Background: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging., Objectives: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes., Methods: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations., Limitations: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states., Conclusion: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.

Evaluation of new and established patients is an integral part of interventional pain management. Over the last 3 decades, there has been significant confusion over the proper documentation for evaluation and management (E/M) services in general and for interventional pain management in particular. Interventional pain physicians have learned how to evaluate patients presenting with pain on the basis of their specialty training. Although modern training programs are introducing residents and fellows to the intricacies of E/M services and federal regulations, this has not always been the case. Multiple textbooks about pain management, physiatry, and neurology, and numerous journal articles have described the evaluation of pain patients, but they have not been specific to chronic pain patients and may not meet the regulatory perspective.A multitude of these issues led to the development of guidelines in 1995 and 1997, which were highly complicated and difficult to follow. These also led to significant criticism from clinicians. Consequently, further guidance was developed to be effective January 2021.The crucial concept in the present system of coding for E/M services is medical decision making, which includes 3 elements since 2021: 1.The number and complexity of problems addressed. 2. Amount or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed. 3. Risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management. In order to select a level of E/M service, 2 of the 3 elements of medical decision making (MDM) must be met or exceeded. This is in contrast to prior guidelines wherein for new patients, all 3 elements with history, physical examination and MDM , and for established patients have been met. For ease of appreciation, an algorithmic approach created by the American Medical Association (AMA), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved a new MDM table outlining all of the appropriate criteria.This review systematically describes the changes and provides an algorithmic approach for application in interventional pain management practices.

Background: Various regulations and practice patterns develop on the basis of Local Coverage Determination (LCD), which are variably perceived as guidelines and/or mandated polices/ regulations. LCDs developed in 2021 and effective since December 2021 mandated a minimum of 2 views for final needle placement with contrast injection which includes both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral or oblique view. Radiation safety has been a major concern for pain physicians and multiple tools have been developed to reduce radiation dose, along with improvement in technologies to limit radiation exposure while performing fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, with implementation of principles of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The mandated 2 views of epidural injections have caused concern among some physicians, because of the potential of increased exposure to ionizing radiation, despite application of various principles to minimize radiation exposure. Others, including policymakers are of the opinion that it reduces potential abuse and improves safety., Objective: To assess variations in the performance of epidural procedures prior to the implementation of the new LCD compared with after the implementation of the new LCD by comparing time and dosage for all types of epidural procedures., Study Design: A retrospective, case controlled, comparative evaluation of radiation exposure during epidural procedures in interventional pain management., Setting: An interventional pain management practice and a specialty referral center in a private practice setting in the United States., Methods: The study was performed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria. The main outcome measure was radiation exposure time measured in seconds and dose measured in mGy-kG2 (milligray to kilogray squared per procedure)., Results: Changes in exposure and dose varied by procedural type and location. Exposure time in seconds increased overall by 21%, whereas radiation dose mGy-kG increased 133%. Fluoroscopy time increased most for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of 43%, followed by 29% for cervical interlaminar epidural injections, 20% for caudal epidural injections, and 14% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. In contrast, highest increases were observed in the radiation dose mGy of 191% for caudal epidural injections, followed by 173% for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, 113% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and the lowest being cervical interlaminar epidural injections of 94%. This study also shows lesser increases for cervical interlaminar epidural injections because an oblique view is utilized rather than a lateral view resulting in a radiation dosage increase of 94% compared to overall increase of 133%, whereas the duration of time of 29% was higher than the overall combined duration of all procedures which only increased by 21%., Limitations: A retrospective evaluation utilizing the experience of a single physician., Conclusion: The results of this study showed significant increases in radiation exposure time and dosage; however, increase of dosage was overall 21% median Interquartile Range (IQR) compared to 133% of radiation dose median IQR. In addition, the results also showed variations for procedure, overall showing highest increases for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections for time (43%) and caudal epidural injections for dosage (191%).

Background: Epidural hematomas after appropriately performed cervicothoracic interlaminar epidural injections have been associated with the rapid onset of neurological symptoms and devastating outcomes, despite prompt identification and treatment. Anticoagulation issues were initially felt to be the problem, but the occurrence of fulminant hematomas in patients without coagulation forced a reassessment of the causes and responses to this problem., Objectives: To evaluate why fulminant epidural hematomas occur after cervicothoracic epidural injections, with a literature review to survey knowledge about them in the surgical literature, and to offer comments as to what the interventional pain physician can do to minimize their occurrence., Study Design: A perspective piece with a literature review., Settings: Interventional pain management practices., Methods: A perspective on the issue of fulminant cervical hematomas and an associated literature review., Results: Anatomical studies show that there are no meaningful arteries in the posterior epidural spaces which would explain hematomas. There is a dense posterior intravertebral epidural venous plexus at C1 and also at C6-C7 extending caudally to the upper thoracic region. A venous origin has been questioned because venous pressure was felt to be too low to explain the bleeding. The surgical literature, going back 80 years, contains numerous reports of engorged epidural veins causing radiculopathy and myelopathy. These engorged veins can occur in the presence or absence of spinal pathology. There is no known means of reliably identifying these engorged veins; they have been mistaken for disc protrusions. At least one report documents massive bleeding from these veins. Studies done on a feline model of cervical stenosis suggest that the epidural pressure can reach arterial levels., Limitations: No direct documentation of arterialized posterior intravertebral epidural venous pressures has been made. While anatomical anomalies and degeneration contribute to epidural scarring, we do not have a full understanding as to the cause of arterialization of veins, particularly in younger patients with no obvious intraspinal pathology., Conclusion: Fulminant cervicothoracic epidural hematomas after an epidural injection appear to arise from the unintentional and unavoidable puncture of arterialized veins with sharp needles. A technique to open a path out from the foramen so that the blood can escape is described. Alternatively, providers should consider injecting more cephalad, between C2-C3 and C6-C7 in the cervical spine, or an alternative procedure, such as a selective nerve root injection. A cervical transforaminal approach should only be attempted with a blunt needle, which cannot enter an artery. Should symptoms occur, cervical flexion rotation maneuvers should be implemented while awaiting prompt transfer to a facility where an appropriate diagnosis and treatment can be provided., Key Words: Cervical epidural hematoma, cervical epidural injection, posterior intravertebral venous plexus, arterialized epidural veins, pressurized epidural veins.

Background: Extensive research into potential sources of thoracic pain with or without referred pain into the chest wall has demonstrated that thoracic facet joints can be a potential source of pain confirmed by precise, diagnostic blocks.The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic thoracic facet joint intervention., Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of medial branch blocks and the radiofrequency neurotomy in managing thoracic pain utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was performed. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases of RCTs and observational studies of medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic thoracic pain were identified from 1996 to December 2022 with inclusion of manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles and multiple databases. Methodologic quality and risk of bias assessment was also conducted. Evidence was synthesized utilizing principles of quality assessment and best evidence synthesis, with conventional and single meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure of success was 3 months of pain reduction for medial branch blocks and 6 months for radiofrequency thermoneurolysis for a single treatment. Short-term success was defined as up to 6 months and long-term was more than 6 months., Results: This literature search yielded 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 3 were RCTs and 8 were observational studies. Of the 3 RCTs, 2 of them assessed medial branch blocks and one trial assessed radiofrequency for thoracic pain. The evidence for managing thoracic pain with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 2 RCTs and 3 observational studies for medial branch blocks was Level II. For radiofrequency neurotomy, with the inclusion of one RCT of 20 patients in the treatment group and 5 observational studies, the evidence was Level III in managing thoracic pain., Limitations: There was a paucity of literature with RCTs and real-world pragmatic controlled trials. Even observational studies had small sample sizes providing inadequate clinically applicable results. In addition, there was heterogeneity of the available studies in terms of their inclusion and exclusion criteria, defining their endpoints and the effectiveness of the procedures., Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis show Level II evidence of medial branch blocks and Level III evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic thoracic pain., Key Words: Chronic spinal pain, thoracic facet or zygapophysial joint pain, facet joint nerve blocks, medial branch blocks, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, diagnostic accuracy, radiofrequency neurotomy.

Background: The sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain, ranging from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis. Despite the difficulty of diagnosis, multiple therapeutic modalities including surgical and nonsurgical interventions have been utilized. Among the interventional modalities, intraarticular injections are commonly utilized., Objective: To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of intraarticular injections in the sacroiliac joint., Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of the therapeutic effectiveness of intraarticular injections of the sacroiliac joint utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist., Methods: The available literature on therapeutic sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias, the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials, and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for nonrandomized studies. The level of evidence was based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. Data collection was performed including literature published from 1966 through December 2022, as well as manual searches of the bibliographies of known articles., Outcome Measures: Primary outcome measures include pain relief and improvement in functional status at 3 months for a single intervention. Only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (> 6 months)., Results: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses with a single-arm meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, and the inclusion of 11 RCTs (5 positive, 6 negative) and 3 observational studies (2 positive, one negative), the evidence was Level III or fair in managing low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin with sacroiliac joint injections., Limitations: This systematic review and meta-analysis are limited by lack of eligible studies, inconsistencies among the available studies, variations in techniques, variable diagnostic standards for inclusion criteria, and finally, the inability to correlate the results and perform an optimal systematic review and meta-analysis., Conclusion: The present systematic review and meta-analysis show an inability to perform conventional dual-arm analysis, whereas a single-arm meta-analysis demonstrated a difference of approximately 3 points on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and 8 points on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). However, there were no studies that considered >= 50% relief as the criterion standard. Overall, the qualitative and quantitative evidence combined shows Level III or fair evidence for therapeutic sacroiliac joint injections for managing low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin., Key Words: Chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, sacroiliitis, sacroiliac joint injection, sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, radiofrequency ablation, conventional radiofrequency, pulsed radiofrequency.

Introduction: Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain recalcitrant to conservative management and epidural injections secondary to postsurgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, and disc herniation are sometimes managed with percutaneous adhesiolysis. Consequently, this systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing low back and lower extremity pain., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was performed. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from 1966 to July 2022, including manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles was performed. Quality assessment of the included trials, meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis was performed. The primary outcome measure was a significant reduction in pain (short term up to 6 months and long term more than 6 months)., Results: The search identified 26 publications, with 9 trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The results of dual-arm and single-arm analyses showed significant improvement in pain and function at 12 months. Opioid consumption was also significantly reduced at 6 months with dual-arm analysis, whereas single-arm analysis showed a significant decrease from baseline to treatment at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month analyses. At 1 year follow-up, seven of seven trials were positive for improvements in pain relief, function, and diminution of opioid use., Discussion: Based on the present systematic review of nine RCTs, the evidence level is I to II, with moderate to strong recommendation for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing low back and lower extremity pain. The limitations of the evidence include paucity of literature, lack of placebo-controlled trials, and the majority of the trials studying post lumbar surgery syndrome., Conclusion: The evidence is level I to II or strong to moderate based on five high-quality and two moderate-quality RCTs, with 1 year follow-up that percutaneous adhesiolysis is efficacious in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study of utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population., Objectives: To update the utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the FFS Medicare population, from 2000 to 2020, and assess the impact of COVID-19., Summary of Background Data: The analysis of the utilization of interventional techniques also showed an annual decrease of 2.5% per 100,000 FFS Medicare enrollees from 2009 to 2018, contrasting to an annual increase of 7.3% from 2000 to 2009. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been assessed., Methods: This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology., Results: Epidural procedures declined at a rate of 19% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in the FFS Medicare population in the United States from 2019 to 2020, with an annual decline of 3% from 2010 to 2019. From 2000 to 2010, there was an annual increase of 8.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories of epidural procedures from 2019 to 2020. The major impact of COVID-19, with closures taking effect from April 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, will be steeper and rather dramatic compared with April 1 to December 31, 2019. However, monthly data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is not available as of now. Overall declines from 2010 to 2019 showed a decrease for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with an annual decrease of 5.6%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 4.9%, followed by 1.8% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 0.9% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals., Conclusion: Declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories was exacerbated to a decrease of 19% from 2019 to 2020, related, in part, to the COVID-19 pandemic. This followed declining patterns of epidural procedures of 3% overall annually from 2010 to 2019., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruptions in all aspects of human life including a decline of medical services utilized during 2020. An analysis of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic showed an 18.7% reduction in utilization patterns of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2019 to 2020. However, specific changes in utilization patterns of facet joint interventions have not been studied. Thus, we sought to assess the utilization patterns including an update of facet joint interventions from 2018 to 2020, with analysis of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in managing chronic spinal pain utilizing facet joint interventions in the fee-for-service Medicare population of the United States., Methods: The present investigation was designed to assess utilization patterns and variables of facet joint interventions, in managing chronic spinal pain from 2010 to 2020 in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population in the United States (US), and how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted these utilization patterns. Data for the analysis were obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020., Results: Results of this analysis showed significant impact of COVID-19 with overall decrease of 18.5% of all facet joint interventions per 100,000 Medicare population compared to 20.2 and 20.5% decrease for lumbar and cervical facet joint injections, 15 and 13.1% decrease per 100,000 Medicare population of lumbosacral and cervicothoracic facet joint neurolysis procedures. The results are significant in that comparative analysis from 2000 to 2010 and 2010 to 2019 showing an annual increase of 14.4 vs. 2.2%, illustrating a decelerating pattern. There were also significant growth patterns noted with decreases in facet joint injections and nerve blocks compared to facet joint neurolytic procedures., Conclusions: This analysis shows a significant effect of COVID-19 producing an overall decrease in utilization of facet joint interventions relative to pre-COVID data. Further, the analysis demonstrates continued deceleration of utilization patterns of facet joint interventions compared to the periods of 2000-2010 and 2010-2019., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks., Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis., Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain., Methods: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined., Results: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions., Limitations: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies., Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks., Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis., Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain., Methods: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined., Results: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions., Limitations: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies., Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches., Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-022-00455-0., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Background: Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed., Study Design: The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis., Objectives: To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis., Methods: In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed., Results: In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months., Limitations: The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed., Conclusion: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

Background: Among the multiple causes of low back and lower extremity pain, sacroiliac joint pain has shown to be prevalent in 10% to 25% of patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis. Over the years, multiple Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes have evolved with the inclusion of intraarticular injections, nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy, in addition to percutaneous sacroiliac joint fusions. Previous assessments of utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions only included sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections, since the data was not available prior to the introduction of new codes. A recent assessment revealed an increase of 11.3%, and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population from 2009 to 2018, showing a decline in growth patterns. During the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has also had significant effects on the utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions., Study Design: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions (intraarticular injections, nerve blocks, radiofrequency neurotomy, arthrodesis and fusion) was evaluated from 2010 to 2019 and 2010 to 2020, with a comparative analysis from 2019 to 2020 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic., Objectives: To update utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions with assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in the present analysis., Results: The results of this evaluation demonstrated a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a 19.2% decrease of utilization of sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections from 2019 to 2020. There was a 23.3% increase in sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and a 5.3% decrease for sacroiliac joint fusions with small numbers from 2019 to 2020. However, data was not available for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks and sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy as these codes were incorporated in 2020. Overall, from 2010 to 2019, sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections showed an annual increase of 0.9% per 100,000 Medicare population. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and fusion showed an annual increase from 2010 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population of 29% for arthrodesis and 13.3% for fusion., Limitations: Limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare Advantage patients constituting approximately 30% to 40% of the overall Medicare population. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are non-Medicare are not part of the dataset., Conclusions: The study shows the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a significant decrease of intraarticular injections of 19.2% from 2019 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population. These decreases of intraarticular injections are accompanied by a 5.3% decrease of fusion, but a 23.3% increase of arthrodesis from 2019 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population. Overall, the results showed an annual increase of 0.9% per 100,000 Medicare population for intraarticular injections, a 35.4% annual increase for sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and an increase of 15.5% for sacroiliac joint fusion from 2010 to 2019.

Background: Multiple publications have shown the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare and increasing costs over the recent years in managing low back and neck pain as well as other musculoskeletal disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many modalities of treatments, including those related to chronic pain management, including both interventional techniques and opioids. While there have not been assessments of utilization of interventional techniques specific to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, previous analysis published with data from 2000 to 2018 demonstrated a decline in utilization of interventional techniques from 2009 to 2018 of 6.7%, with an annual decline of 0.8% per 100,000 fee-for-service (FFS) in the Medicare population. During that same time, the Medicare population has grown by 3% annually., Objectives: The objectives of this analysis include an evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as an updated assessment of the utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2010 to 2019, 2010 to 2020, and 2019 to 2020 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States., Study Design: Utilization patterns and variables of interventional techniques with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in managing chronic pain were assessed from 2000 to 2020 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States., Methods: The data for the analysis was obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020., Results: The results of the present investigation revealed an 18.7% decrease in utilization of all interventional techniques per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2019 to 2020, with a 19% decrease for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, a 17.5% decrease for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks, and a 25.4% decrease for disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks. The results differed from 2000 to 2010 with an annualized increase of 10.2% per 100,000 Medicare population compared to an annualized decrease of 0.4% from 2010 to 2019, and a 2.5% decrease from 2010 to 2020 for all interventional techniques. For epidural and adhesiolysis procedures decreases were more significant and annualized at 3.1% from 2010 to 2019, increasing the decline to 4.8% from 2010 to 2020. For facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks, the reversal of growth patterns was observed but maintained at an annualized rate increase of 2.1% from 2010 to 2019, which changed to a decrease of 0.01% from 2010 to 2020. Disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks showed similar patterns as epidurals with an 0.8% annualized reduction from 2010 to 2019, which was further reduced to 3.6% from 2010 to 2020 due to COVID-19., Limitations: Data for the COVID-19 pandemic impact were available only for 2019 and 2020 and only the FFS Medicare population was utilized; utilization patterns in Medicare Advantage Plans, which constitutes almost 40% of the Medicare enrollment in 2020 were not available. Moreover, this analysis shares the limitations present in all retrospective reviews of claims based datasets., Conclusion: The decline driven by the COVID-19 pandemic was 18.7% from 2019 to 2020. Overall decline in utilization in interventional techniques from 2010 to 2020 was 22.0% per 100,000 Medicare population, with an annual diminution of 2.5%, despite an increase in the population rate of 3.3% annualized (38.9% overall) and Medicare enrollees of 33.4% and 2.9% annually.

Background: Chronic low back pain secondary to facet joint pathology is prevalent in 27% to 40% of selected populations using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. Lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy are the most common interventional procedures for lower back pain. Nonetheless, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of each modality. Moreover, there is no agreement in reference to superiority or inferiority of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks when compared with radiofrequency neurotomy. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and almost all payers prefer radiofrequency ablation. Both procedures have been extensively studied with randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and cost utility analysis., Objective: To assess the clinical outcomes and cost utility of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks (lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with L5 dorsal ramus block) compared with radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin., Study Design: A retrospective, case-control, comparative evaluation of outcomes and cost utility., Setting: The study was conducted in an interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States., Methods: The study was performed utilizing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Analysis (STROBE) criteria. Only the patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic local anesthetic blocks were included.The main outcome measure was pain relief measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. Significant improvement was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain relief. Cost utility was calculated utilizing direct payment data for the procedures with the addition of estimated indirect costs over a period of one year based on highly regarded surgical literature and previously published interventional pain management literature., Results: A total of 326 patients met the inclusion criteria with 99 patients receiving lumbar facet joint nerve blocks (lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with L5 dorsal ramus block) and 227 receiving lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. Forty-eight patients in the facet joint nerve block group and 148 patients in the radiofrequency group completed one-year follow-up. Patients experienced significant improvement in both groups from baseline to 12 months with significant pain relief (≥ 50%) Significant pain relief was recorded in 100%, 99%, and 79% of the patients in the facet joint nerve block group, whereas, it was 100%, 74%, and 65% in the radiofrequency neurotomy group at the 3, 6, and 12 month follow-up, with a significant difference at 6 months. Cost utility analysis showed average costs for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $4,664 for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and $5,446 for lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. Twelve patients (12%) in the lumbar facet joint nerve block group and 79 patients (35%) in the lumbar radiofrequency group were converted to other treatments, either due to side effects or inadequate relief., Conclusion: This study shows similar outcomes of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks when compared with radiofrequency neurotomy as indicated by significant pain relief and cost utility.

Background: As with many others in the house of medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted the practice of interventional pain management. This in part relates to various  state health authority or medical board restrictions with reductions in patient volume for evaluations, follow-ups, and procedures. Of course, the pandemic continues to persist which is in turn leading to longer-lasting effects. Our previous survey was performed in March 2020. At that time, there was a national lockdown in the United States with COVID-19 disease qualifying as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). The pandemic caused by COVID-19 disease continues to have far-reaching implications on how we deliver routine care to patients and its effect on patient care, economic aspects, and health of interventional pain management providers., Objective: To assess the current and expected future impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interventional pain management practices in a physician survey. The study was performed based on performance in 2021 compared to the 2019 pre-COVID era., Methods: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) administered a 16-question survey to their members by contacting them via a commercially available online marketing company platform. The survey was completed on www.constantcontact.com., Results: The results showed that 88% of the providers experienced a reduction in income and a similar number expect decreases over the next 12 months. A large proportion of respondents (73.3%) reported a reduction in revenue of 11%-25%. In contrast, another 21.5% reported a revenue decline of 26%-50%, and 29% reported 11%-25% increase in expenses. Overall, new patient volume decreased 11%-25% based on the response from almost 63%, whereas almost 9% reported a decline of 26%-50%. In contrast, established patient volume declined 1%-10% as reported by 64% of the respondents, compared to an 11%-25% decrease by a small proportion of 14%. All interventional procedures showed significant decreases across the board, with 69% of the respondents reporting a decline in-office procedures, 64% in ambulatory surgery center (ASC) procedures, and 57% in hospital outpatient department (HOPD) procedures, ranging from 11%-25%., Limitations: The survey included a relatively small number of member physicians which could introduce sampling error. Consequently, it may not be generalizable for other specialties or even to pain medicine., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has put interventional pain practices throughout the United States under considerable financial and psychological stress. This study seeks to quantify the extent of economic loss and other challenges resultant from the pandemic. Almost 99% reported a decrease in revenues in the last 12 months, with 86% reporting an expected reduction in the next 12 months and 49% reporting an increase in expenses. Declines have been reported in all sectors with new patients, office procedures, ASC, and HOPD procedures, except for established patient visits, which have shown minor declines compared to other domains. Understanding the issues facing interventional pain management physicians facilitates the development of strategies to actively manage provider practice/well-being, and to minimize risk to personnel to keep patients safe.

Background: Traditional pain assessment methods have significant limitations due to the high variability in patient reported pain scores and perception of pain by different individuals. There is a need for generalized and automatic pain detection and recognition methods. In this paper, state-of-the-art machine learning (ML) and deep learning methods in this field are analyzed as well as pain management techniques., Objective: The objective of the study is to analyze the current use of artificial intelligence (AI) and ML in the analysis and management of pain and to disseminate this knowledge prompting future utilization by medical professionals., Study Design: A narrative review of the literature focusing on the latest algorithms in AI and ML for pain assessment and management., Methods: Research studies were collected using a literature search on PubMed, Science Direct and IEEE Xplore between 2018 and 2020., Results: The results of our assessment resulted in the identification of 47 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Pain assessment was the most studied subject with 11 studies, followed by automated measurements with 10 studies, spinal diagnosis with 8 studies, facial expression with 7 studies, pain assessment in special settings evaluated in 5 studies, 4 studies described treatment algorithms, and 2 studies assessed neonatal pain. These studies varied from simple to highly complex methodology. The majority of the studies suffered from inclusion of a small number of patients and without replication of results. However, considering AI and ML are dynamic and emerging specialties, the results shown here are promising. Consequently, we have described all the available literature in summary formats with commentary. Among the various assessments, facial expression and spinal diagnosis and management appear to be ready for inclusion as we continue to progress., Limitations: This review is not a systematic review of ML and AI applications in pain research. This review only provides a general idea of the upcoming techniques but does not provide an authoritative evidence-based conclusive opinion of their clinical application and effectiveness., Conclusion: While a majority of the studies focused on classification tasks, very few studies have explored the diagnosis and management of pain. Usage of ML techniques as support tools for clinicians holds an immense potential in the field of pain management.

Background: Cervical facet joint pain is often managed with either cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical medial branch blocks, or cervical intraarticular injections. However, the effectiveness of each modality continues to be debated. Further, there is no agreement in reference to superiority or inferiority of facet joint nerve blocks compared to radiofrequency neurotomy, even though cervical facet joint radiofrequency neurotomy has been preferred by many and in fact, has been mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), except when radiofrequency cannot be confirmed. Each procedure has advantages and disadvantages in reference to clinical utility, outcomes, cost utility, and side effect profile. However, comparative analysis has not been performed thus far in the literature in a clinical setting., Study Design: A retrospective, case-control, comparative evaluation of outcomes and cost utility., Setting: The study was conducted in an interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States., Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost utility of therapeutic medial branch blocks with radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic neck pain of facet joint origin., Methods: The study was performed utilizing Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Analysis (STROBE) criteria. Only the patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic local anesthetic blocks were included.The main outcome measure was pain relief measured by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. Significant improvement was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain relief. Cost utility was calculated with direct payment data for the procedures with addition of estimated indirect costs over a period of one year based on highly regarded surgical literature and previously published interventional pain management literature., Results: Overall, 295 patients met inclusion criteria with 132 patients receiving cervical medial branch blocks and 163 patients with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. One hundred and seven patients in the cervical medial branch group and 105 patients in the radiofrequency group completed one year follow-up. There was significant improvement in both groups from baseline to 12 months with pain relief and proportion of patients with >= 50% pain relief. Average relief of each procedure for cervical medial branch blocks was 13 to 14 weeks, whereas for radiofrequency neurotomy, it was 20 to 25 weeks. Significant pain relief was recorded in 100%, 94%, and 81% of the patients in the medial branch blocks group, whereas it was 100%, 69%, and 64% in the radiofrequency neurotomy group at 3, 6, and 12 month follow-up, with significant difference at 6 and 12 months.Cost utility analysis showed average cost for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $4,994 for cervical medial branch blocks compared to $5,364 for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. Six of 132 patients (5%) in the cervical medial branch group and 53 of 163 (33%) patients in the cervical radiofrequency neurotomy group were converted to other treatments, either due to side effects (6 patients or 4%) or inadequate relief (47 patients or 29%)., Conclusion: In this study, outcomes of cervical therapeutic medial branch blocks compared to radiofrequency neurotomy demonstrated significantly better outcomes with significant pain relief with similar costs for both treatments over a period of one year.

Background: Despite the high prevalence of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) associated with refractory pain, deformity, or progressive neurological symptoms, minimally invasive vertebral augmentation procedures, including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, have been declining in their relative utilization, along with expenditures., Objectives: This investigation was undertaken to assess utilization and expenditures for vertebral augmentation procedures, including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018., Study Design: The present study was designed to assess utilization and expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript:• A patient was described as receiving vertebral augmentation over the course of the year.• An episode was considered as one treatment per region per day utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered to be procedures including multiple levels.A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted for inflation to 2018 US dollars., Results: In 2009, there were 76,860 episodes of vertebral augmentation with a rate of 168 per 100,000 Medicare population, which declined to 58,760, or 99 per 100,000 population for a total decline of 41%, or an annual rate of decline of 5.7% per 100,000 Medicare population. Vertebroplasty interventions declined more dramatically than kyphoplasty from 2009. Total episodes of vertebroplasty were 27,380 with an annual rate of 60 per 100,000 Medicare population, decreasing to 9,240, or 16 per 100,000 Medicare population, a 66% decline in episodes and a 74% decline in overall rate with an annual decline of 11.4% and 13.9%. In contrast, kyphoplasty interventions were 49,480, for a rate per 100,000 population of 108 in 2009 compared to 49,520 in 2018 with a rate of 83, for a decrease of 23% and 2.9% annual decrease. Evaluation of expenditures showed a net decrease of $30,102,809, or 8%, from $378,758,311 in 2009 to $348,655,502 in 2018. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures decreased overall by 21% and 3% annually from $443,147,324 in 2009 to $345,655,502 in 2018. In addition, inflation-adjusted total expenditures per 100,000 Medicare population decreased from $967,549 to $584,992, for an overall decrease of 40%, or an annual decrease of 5%. Per patient expenditures decreased 2% overall with 0% decrease per year., Limitations: Vertebral augmentation procedures were assessed only in the FFS Medicare service population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans., Conclusions: This study shows a significant decline in relative utilization patterns of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty procedures, along with reductions in overall expenditures. The inflation-adjusted total expenditures of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty decreased 21% with an annual decline of 3%. The inflation-adjusted expenditures per 100,000 of Medicare population decreased 40% overall and 5% per year. In addition, vertebroplasty has seen substantial declines in utilization and expenditure patterns compared to kyphoplasty procedures, which showed trends of decline.

Background: The Best Practices in Pain Management from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) describes interventional techniques as part of a continuum. Epidural injections are commonly utilized modalities in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Epidural injections were initially administered in 1901 where the first descriptions of caudal epidural with local anesthetic for low back pain appeared. Since then, multiple developments have occurred. Currently, epidural injections are provided by caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal approaches. The comparative effectiveness of each modality has been studied. However, comparative assessment has been sparse., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of 3 routes of administration of epidural injections for lumbar disc herniation., Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of transforaminal, interlaminar and caudal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to lumbar disc herniation., Methods: RCTs with a placebo control or an active control design, performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 6 months of follow-up are included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed. Evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis., Results: A total of 21 trials were included. Of these, 7 studied caudal epidural injections, whereas transforaminal epidural injections were studied in 12 trials, and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections were studied in 10 trials, which all met inclusion criteria. Based on qualitative and quantitative analysis, which included conventional dual-arm and single-arm analysis for interlaminar epidural injections, and single-arm analysis for caudal and transforaminal epidural injections, and the approach to the epidural space, there is Level I evidence for local anesthetic and steroids, Level II for local anesthetic alone for transforaminal and interlaminar approaches, and Level II for the caudal approach with steroids or local anesthetic alone for short- and long-term relief., Limitations: There is a paucity of literature with intermediate or long-term relief of at least 6 months with appropriate outcome parameters. Conventional dual-arm meta-analysis was feasible only for interlaminar epidural injections., Conclusion: Epidural injections with local anesthetic and steroids showed Level I evidence for transforaminal and interlaminar approaches, whereas with local anesthetic alone Level II evidence was demonstrated. In contrast, caudal epidural injections showed Level II evidence with local anesthetic with steroids or local anesthetic alone.

Background: Epidural injections are one of the commonly performed procedures in managing low back and lower extremity pain. In the past, Pinto et al and Chou et al performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar radiculopathy. In contrast, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the efficacy and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopic guidance., Study Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of 3 categories of epidural injections for lumbar radiculopathy or sciatica performed utilizing saline with steroids, local anesthetic alone, or steroids with local anesthetic., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, RCTs with a placebo control or an active control design, performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 6 months of followed-up were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Literature search was performed through January 2021. Methodological quality assessments were performed. Evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis., Results: In this analysis, a total of 21 RCTs were utilized with at least 6 months of follow-up and performed under fluoroscopic guidance. However, only 6 of 25 trials from Cochrane review met inclusion criteria for this review. Based on qualitative analysis, of the 21 trials included in the present analysis, there was only one placebo-controlled trial found to be negative. With conventional meta-analysis, there was no significant difference among the studies because all of the studies were active control with local anesthetic or local anesthetic and steroids. Further, with single-arm analysis, of the 5 trials included in that portion of the study, significant improvement was seen with local anesthetic alone compared to local anesthetic and steroids. There was a tendency for better improvement with steroids in terms of both pain relief and functional status. The level of evidence is Level I or strong for local anesthetic with steroids and Level I to II or moderate to strong for local anesthetic as a single agent based on multiple relevant high quality RCTs., Limitations: Despite multiple trials available, there is a paucity of true RCTs performed under fluoroscopic guidance with any of the approaches., Conclusion: Epidural injections with or without steroids for radiculopathy showed significant effectiveness with Level I or strong evidence for local anesthetic with steroids and Level II to I or moderate to strong evidence with local anesthetic alone.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation has been utilized with increasing frequency in managing chronic intractable spinal pain and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in addition to other neuropathic pain states. The literature has shown the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain with improvement in quality of life and cost utility. There have not been any reviews performed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population in reference to utilization and expenditure patterns of spinal cord stimulators., Objectives: This investigation was undertaken to assess the utilization and expenditures for spinal cord stimulation in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018., Study Design: The present study was designed to assess the utilization patterns and expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars only trials and implants were included., Results: Utilization patterns showed that spinal cord stimulation trials increased from 12,680 in 2009 to 36,280 in 2018, a 186% increase with an annual increase of 12.4%. The rate of trials per 100,000 population increased from 28 in 2009 to 61 in 2018 with a 120% increase, or an annual increase of 9.1%. The pulse generator implants increased from 7,640 in 2009 to 22,960 in 2018, an increase of 201%, with an annual increase of 13%. In addition, percutaneous placement with pulse generator implants increased from 4,080 in 2009 to 14,316 in 2018, a 252% increase, or 15% annual increase. In contrast, implantation of neurostimulator electrodes with paddle leads with laminectomy and placement of spinal pulse generator increased from 3,560 in 2009 to 8,600 in 2018, a 142% increase or an annual increase of 10.3%. Analysis of expenditures showed total inflation-adjusted expenditures increased from $292,153,701 in 2009 to $1,142,434,137 in 2018, a 291% increase from 2009 to 2018 and 16.4% annual increase. These expenditures were 125% higher than facet joint interventions and 138% higher than epidural interventions in 2018. In contrast, these expenditures were 55% below the expenditures of facet joint interventions and 66% lower than epidural injections in 2009.Trial to implant ratio improved from 42.5% in 2009 to 63.6% in 2018. An overwhelming majority of trials (90%) were performed by nonsurgical physicians, whereas, 56% of implants were performed by non-surgeons., Limitations: This assessment includes only FFS Medicare population, thus eliminating approximately 30% of the population with Medicare Advantage plans. In addition, this study has not taken into consideration various revisions not included in 3 specific codes., Conclusions: The analysis of spinal cord stimulators in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 showed explosive increases of trials, implants and overall costs.

Background: Recalcitrant disc herniation may result in chronic lumbar radiculopathy or sciatica. Fluoroscopically directed epidural injections and other conservative modalities may provide inadequate improvement in some patients. In these cases, percutaneous neurolysis with targeted delivery of medications is often the next step in pain management., Methods: An evidence-based system of methodologic assessment, namely, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used. Multiple databases were searched from 1966 to January 2021. Principles of the best evidence synthesis were incorporated into qualitative evidence synthesis. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with significant pain relief and functional improvement (≥ 50%). Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (≥ 6 months)., Results: This assessment identified one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 5 moderate-quality non-randomized studies with an application of percutaneous neurolysis in disc herniation. Overall, the results were positive, with level II evidence., Conclusions: Based on the present systematic review, with one RCT and 5 nonrandomized studies, the evidence level is II for percutaneous neurolysis in managing lumbar disc herniation.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation is an effective therapy for chronic back and/or leg pain. Amplitude dose-response studies are lacking; therefore, little guidance exists regarding the minimum amplitude requirements with specific high dose parameters. This study characterized the minimum amplitude level that maintained SCS therapy satisfaction and pain relief when stimulating at 1000 Hz and 90 μsec., Materials and Methods: Qualified patients had back and leg pain, an implanted neurostimulator programmed to 1000 Hz and 90 μsec, and were very or somewhat satisfied with the therapy, and an average overall VAS pain score ≤ 4 from a daily diary. Patients received four blinded amplitudes (titrated from 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% of baseline perception threshold), approximately two weeks each, with 1000 Hz and 90 μsec and position-adaptive stimulation enabled. Patients' satisfaction and overall VAS pain scores were collected for each period. All patients continued through the study, even after reporting lack of therapy satisfaction or pain relief., Results: The minimum amplitude, which maintained therapy satisfaction, was 80% of perception threshold for two patients, 60% for one patient, and 20% for 21 patients. Additionally, six patients lost satisfaction changing from their baseline amplitude to 80% perception threshold. The minimum amplitude level, which maintained overall pain relief, was 80% perception threshold for three patients, 60% perception threshold for one patient, 40% perception threshold for two patients, and 20% perception threshold for 19 patients. Five patients required the setting they were programmed to during the baseline period., Conclusion: The qualified study patients defined an implanted population reporting good pain relief and satisfaction using HD SCS therapy at baseline. The majority of these patients were able to maintain therapy satisfaction and pain relief (70% and 63.3%, respectively) with 20% perception threshold amplitude. Amplitudes below perception threshold could potentially maintain effective SCS therapy with HD stimulation in a subset of patients., (© 2020 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Background: Epidural injections have been extensively used since their description in 1901, and steroids since their first utilization in 1952. Multiple randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews have reached discordant conclusions regarding the effectiveness of sodium chloride solution and steroids in managing spinal pain. True placebo-controlled trials with the injection of an inactive substance to unrelated structures have been nonexistent. Consequently, the discussions continue to escalate, seemingly without proper discourse. In this review, we sought to assess the true placebo nature of saline and the effectiveness of steroids., Objectives: This assessment of sodium chloride solution is undertaken to assess if it is a true placebo when injected into the epidural space, is effective alone, and whether steroids are effective when injected with sodium chloride solution rather than local anesthetic in managing spinal pain., Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials utilizing sodium chloride solution alone, steroids alone, or sodium chloride solution with steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation or spinal stenosis., Methods: The systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Cochrane review criteria and Interventional Pain Management techniques--Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) was used to assess the methodological quality assessment. Qualitative analysis was performed by utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis was performed utilizing meta-analysis with conventional methodology and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2018. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Outcome measures for the present analysis, 20% improvement from the baseline pain scores or disability scores was considered clinically significant. Effectiveness was determined short-term if it was less than 6 months, whereas longer than 6 months was considered to be long-term., Results: Of the 8 trials meeting inclusion criteria, 2 trials utilized fluoroscopic imaging and one study utilized ultrasound. All other studies performed the procedure without fluoroscopy. With dual-arm meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between epidural sodium chloride solution and epidural steroids with sodium chloride solution. Utilizing single-arm analysis, both epidural saline and epidural steroids with saline were effective in reducing 20% of pain, however, only reducing disability scores by 10% to 12%. Based on the qualitative analysis, epidural saline and epidural steroids with saline showed effect beyond placebo and showed level I, or strong evidence, that neither epidural saline, nor epidural steroids with saline are placebo and that both are effective., Limitations: Despite 8 randomized controlled trials, only 2 of them utilized fluoroscopy. Overall evidence is considered less than optimal and further studies elucidating these actions are strongly recommended., Conclusions: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that epidurally administered sodium chloride solution and sodium chloride solution with steroids may be effective in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Consequently, the findings of this review provide information that epidurally administered sodium chloride solution is not a true placebo.

Background: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines., Objective: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine., Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and  recommendations were provided., Results: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections., Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain., Conclusions: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations.

Background: Despite epidurals being one of the most common interventional pain procedures for managing chronic spinal pain in the United States, expenditure analysis lacks assessment in correlation with utilization patterns., Objectives: This investigation was undertaken to assess expenditures for epidural procedures in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018., Study Design: The present study was designed to assess expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was described as receiving epidural procedures throughout the year.• A visit was considered to include all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one treatment per region utilizing primary codes only.• Services or procedures were considered as all procedures including bilateral and multiple levels. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars., Results: Total expenditures were $723,981,594 in 2009, whereas expenditures of 2018 were $829,987,636, with an overall 14.6% increase, or an annual increase of 1.5%. However, the inflation-adjusted rate was $847,058,465 in 2009, compared to $829,987,636 in 2018, a reduction overall of 2% and an annual reduction of 0.2%. Inflation-adjusted per patient annual costs decreased from $988.93 in 2009 to $819.27 in 2018 with a decrease of 17.2% or an annual decline of 2.1%. In addition, inflation-adjusted costs per procedure decreased from $399.77 to $377.94, or 5.5% overall and 0.6% annually. Per procedure, episode, visit, and patient expenses were higher for transforaminal epidural procedures than lumbar interlaminar/caudal epidural procedures. Overall, costs of transforaminal epidurals increased 27.6% or 2.7% annually, whereas lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections cost were reduced 2.7%, or 0.3% annually. Inflation-adjusted costs for transforaminal epidurals increased 9.1% or 1.0% annually and declined 16.9 or 2.0% annually for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections., Limitations: Expenditures for epidural procedures in chronic spinal pain were assessed only in the FFS Medicare population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans., Conclusions: After adjusting for inflation, there was a decrease of expenditures for epidural procedures of 2%, or 0.2% annually, from 2009 to 2018. However, prior to inflation, the increases were noted at 14.6% and 1.5%. Inflation-adjusted costs per patient, per visit, and per procedure also declined. The proportion of Medicare patients per 100,000 receiving epidural procedures decreased 9.1%, or 1.1% annually. However, assessment of individual procedures showed higher costs for transforaminal epidural procedures compared to lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural procedures.

Background: The re-engineered definition of clinical guidelines in 2011 from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) states, "clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options." The revised definition distinguishes between the term "clinical practice guideline" and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria., Objective: To assess the literature and develop methodology for evidence synthesis and development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain., Methods: A systematic review of the literature including methodology of guideline development encompassing GRADE approach for guidance on evidence synthesis with recommendations., Results: Some of the many factors described in 2011 continue as of 2020 and impede the development of clinical practice guidelines. These impediments include biases due to a variety of conflicts and confluence of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with the elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Thus, ideally, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts with true lack of bias and confluence of interest must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence. This manuscript describes evidence synthesis from observational studies, various types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and, finally, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews. The manuscript also describes various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews., Limitations: Paucity of publications with appropriate evidence synthesis methodology in reference to interventional techniques., Conclusion: This review described comprehensive evidence synthesis derived from systematic reviews, including methodologic quality and bias measurement. The manuscript described various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews, RCTs, diagnostic accuracy studies, and observational studies.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of "elective" interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures.Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic., Objectives: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques., Methods: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge., Results: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included urgent, emergency, and elective procedures. Examples of urgent and emergency procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, emergency procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives., Limitations: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance., Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus.

Background: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids., Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency., Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome)., Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5., Outcome Measures: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term., Results: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins., Limitations: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended., Conclusion: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids.

Purpose of Review: The growing prevalence of spinal pain in the USA continues to produce substantial economic impact and strain on health-related quality of life. Percutaneous adhesiolysis is utilized for recalcitrant, resistant conditions involving spinal pain when epidural injections have failed to provide adequate improvement, especially low back and lower extremity pain, specifically in post-lumbar surgery syndrome. Despite multiple publications and systematic reviews, the debate continues in reference to effectiveness, safety, appropriate utilization, and medical necessity of percutaneous adhesiolysis in chronic pain. This systematic review, therefore, was undertaken to evaluate and to update effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain, post-surgical patients of the lumbar spine., Recent Findings: From 2009 to 2016, there was a decline of 53.2% utilization of percutaneous adhesiolysis with an annual decline of 10.3% per 100,000 fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. Multiple insurers, including Medicare, with Medicare area contractors of Noridian and Palmetto have issued noncoverage policies for percutaneous adhesiolysis resulting in these steep declines and continued noncoverage by Medicare Advantage plans, Managed Care plans of Medicaid, and other insurers. Since 2005, 4 systematic reviews of percutaneous adhesiolysis were published with 3 of them showing proper methodology and appropriate results with effectiveness of adhesiolysis, whereas one poorly performed systematic review showed negative results. In addition, there were only 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be included in the previous systematic reviews of post-surgery syndrome, whereas now, the RCTs and other studies have increased. This systematic review shows level I or strong evidence for the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to post-lumbar surgery syndrome.

Background: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain., Objective: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions., Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.Summary of Evidence and Recommendations:Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) .Interventional Diagnosis:Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥80% pain relief.Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, 9 of the 10 studies with either controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo controls with concordant pain relief with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence and false-positive rates ranged from 29% to 60% and of 27% to 63%, with high variability. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Three relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with concordant pain relief, with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence varied from 34% to 48%, whereas false-positive rates varied from 42% to 58%.Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for lumbar radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of 11 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 negative studies and 4 studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is IV with weak strength of recommendation for lumbar facet joint intraarticular injections with inclusion of 9 relevant randomized controlled trials, with majority of them showing lack of effectiveness without the use of local anesthetic. Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for cervical radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with positive results and 2 observational studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic cervical facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for cervical intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with 2 observational studies, the majority showing lack of effectiveness, whereas one study with 6-month follow-up, showed lack of long-term improvement. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation with emerging evidence for thoracic radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 2 randomized controlled trials and one observational study with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with 6 month follow-up, with emerging evidence. Antithrombotic Therapy: • Facet joint interventions are considered as moderate to low risk procedures; consequently, antithrombotic therapy may be continued based on overall general status. Sedation: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation to avoid opioid analgesics during the diagnosis with interventional techniques. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation that moderate sedation may be utilized for patient comfort and to control anxiety for therapeutic facet joint interventions., Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy., Conclusions: These facet joint intervention guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations., Key Words: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis.

Background: The trends of the expenditures of facet joint interventions have not been specifically assessed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population since 2009., Objective: The objective of this investigation is to assess trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018., Study Design: The study was designed to analyze trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009-2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was considered as undergoing facet joint interventions throughout the year. • A visit included all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered all procedures (multiple levels). Data for the analysis was obtained from the standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and also were inflation adjusted to 2018 US dollars., Results: This analysis showed expenditures increased by 79% from 2009 to 2018 in the form of total cost for facet joint interventions, at an annual rate of 6.7%. Cervical and lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy procedures increased 185% and 169%. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures with 2018 US dollars showed an overall increase of 53% with an annual increase of 4.9%. In addition, using inflation-adjusted expenditures per procedures increased, the overall 6% with an annual increase of 0.7%. Overall, per patient costs, with inflation adjustment, decreased from $1,925 to $1,785 with a decline of 7% and an annual decline of 0.8%. Allowed charges per visit also declined after inflation adjustment from $951.76 to $849.86 with an overall decline of 11% and an annual decline of 1.3%. Staged episodes of radiofrequency neurotomy were performed in 23.9% of patients and more than 2 episodes for radiofrequency neurotomy in 6.9%, in lumbar spine and 19.6% staged and 5.1% more than 2 episodes in cervical spine of patients in 2018., Limitations: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population., Conclusions: Even after adjusting for inflation, there was a significant increase for the expenditures of facet joint interventions with an overall 53% increase. Costs per patient and cost per visit declined. Inflation-adjusted cost per year declined 7% overall and 0.8% annually from $1,925 to $1,785, and inflation-adjusted cost per visit also declined 11% annually and 1.3% per year from $952 in 2009 to $850 in 2018., Key Words: Facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis, facet joint injections, Medicare expenditures.

Background: With increasing costs of health care in the United States, attention is focused on expensive conditions. Musculoskeletal disorders with low back and neck pain account for the third highest amount of various disease categories. Minimally invasive interventional techniques for managing spinal pain, including epidural injections, have been considered to be growing rapidly. However, recent analyses of utilization of interventional techniques from 2000 to 2018 has shown a decline of 2.6% and a decline of 21% from 2009 to 2018 for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures., Objectives: The objectives of this analysis of epidural procedures from 2000 to 2018 are to provide an update on utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population, with a comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018., Study Design: Utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain from 2000 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population in the United States., Methods: This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from CMS, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2018. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)., Results: Overall, epidural procedures declined at a rate of 20.7% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in FFS Medicare in the United States from 2009 to 2018, with an annual decline of 2.5%. However, from 2000 to 2009, there was an increase of 89.2%, with an annual increase of 7.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories, with an annual decrease of 4.7% for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections, 4.7% decline for cervical/thoracic transforaminal epidural injections, 1.1% decline for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidural injections, and finally 0.4% decline for cervical/thoracic interlaminar epidural injections. Overall declines from 2009 to 2018 were highest for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with 35.1%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 34.9%, followed by 9.4% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 3.5% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals., Limitations: This analysis was limited by noninclusion of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. In addition, utilization data for individual states continues to be sparse and may not be accurate or representative of the population., Conclusions: The declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories with an annual of 2.5% and overall decrease of 20.7% from 2009 to 2018 compared with annual increases of 7.3% and overall increase of 89.2% from 2000 to 2009 shows a slow decline of utilization of all epidural injections., Key Words: Chronic spinal pain, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, utilization patterns.

Background: The use of bone marrow concentrate (BMC) for treatment of musculoskeletal disorders has become increasingly popular over the last several years, as technology has improved along with the need for better solutions for these pathologies. The use of cellular tissue raises a number of issues regarding the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulation in classifying these treatments as a drug versus just autologous tissue transplantation. In the case of BMC in musculoskeletal and spine care, this determination will likely hinge on whether BMC is homologous to the musculoskeletal system and spine., Objectives: The aim of this review is to describe the current regulatory guidelines set in place by the FDA, specifically the terminology around "minimal manipulation" and "homologous use" within Regulation 21 CFR Part 1271, and specifically how this applies to the use of BMC in interventional musculoskeletal medicine., Methods: The methodology utilized here is similar to the methodology utilized in preparation of multiple guidelines employing the experience of a panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties from differing regions of the world. The collaborators who developed these position statements have submitted their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these position statements. The literature pertaining to BMC, its effectiveness, adverse consequences, FDA regulations, criteria for meeting the standards of minimal manipulation, and homologous use were comprehensively reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available and relevant literature. RESULTS/Summary of Evidence: In conjunction with evidence-based medicine principles, the following position statements were developed: Statement 1: Based on a review of the literature in discussing the preparation of BMC using accepted methodologies, there is strong evidence of minimal manipulation in its preparation, and moderate evidence for homologous utility for various musculoskeletal and spinal conditions qualifies for the same surgical exemption. Statement 2: Assessment of clinical effectiveness based on extensive literature shows emerging evidence for multiple musculoskeletal and spinal conditions. • The evidence is highest for knee osteoarthritis with level II evidence based on relevant systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies. There is level III evidence for knee cartilage conditions. • Based on the relevant systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized studies, the evidence for disc injections is level III. • Based on the available literature without appropriate systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials, the evidence for all other conditions is level IV or limited for BMC injections. Statement 3: Based on an extensive review of the literature, there is strong evidence for the safety of BMC when performed by trained physicians with the appropriate precautions under image guidance utilizing a sterile technique. Statement 4: Musculoskeletal disorders and spinal disorders with related disability for economic and human toll, despite advancements with a wide array of treatment modalities. Statement 5: The 21st Century Cures Act was enacted in December 2016 with provisions to accelerate the development and translation of promising new therapies into clinical evaluation and use. Statement 6: Development of cell-based therapies is rapidly proliferating in a number of disease areas, including musculoskeletal disorders and spine. With mixed results, these therapies are greatly outpacing the evidence. The reckless publicity with unsubstantiated claims of beneficial outcomes having putative potential, and has led the FDA Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue multiple warnings. Thus the US FDA is considering the appropriateness of using various therapies, including BMC, for homologous use. Statement 7: Since the 1980's and the description of mesenchymal stem cells by Caplan et al, (now called medicinal signaling cells), the use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders has been increasing in the management of pain and promoting tissue healing. Statement 8: The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) of the FDA requires minimal manipulation under same surgical procedure exemption. Homologous use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders is provided by preclinical and clinical evidence. Statement 9: If the FDA does not accept BMC as homologous, then it will require an Investigational New Drug (IND) classification with FDA (351) cellular drug approval for use. Statement 10: This literature review and these position statements establish compliance with the FDA's intent and corroborates its present description of BMC as homologous with same surgical exemption, and exempt from IND, for use of BMC for treatment of musculoskeletal tissues, such as cartilage, bones, ligaments, muscles, tendons, and spinal discs., Conclusions: Based on the review of all available and pertinent literature, multiple position statements have been developed showing that BMC in musculoskeletal disorders meets the criteria of minimal manipulation and homologous use., Key Words: Cell-based therapies, bone marrow concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, medicinal signaling cells, Food and Drug Administration, human cells, tissues, and cellular tissue-based products, Public Health Service Act (PHSA), minimal manipulation, homologous use, same surgical procedure exemption.

Background: Interventional techniques for managing spinal pain, from conservative modalities to surgical interventions, are thought to have been growing rapidly. Interventional techniques take center stage in managing chronic spinal pain. Specifically, facet joint interventions experienced explosive growth rates from 2000 to 2009, with a reversal of these growth patterns and in some settings, a trend of decline after 2009., Objectives: The objectives of this assessment of utilization patterns include providing an update of facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population of the United States from 2000 to 2018., Study Design: The study was designed to assess utilization patterns and variables of facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain from 2000 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population in the United States., Methods: Data for the analysis were obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2018., Results: Facet joint interventions increased 1.9% annually and 18.8% total from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 FFS Medicare population compared with an annual increase of 17% and overall increase of 309.9% from 2000 to 2009. Lumbosacral facet joint nerve block sessions or visits decreased at an annual rate of 0.2% from 2009 to 2018, with an increase of 15.2% from 2000 to 2009. In contrast, lumbosacral facet joint neurolysis sessions increased at an annual rate of 7.4% from 2009 to 2018, and the utilization rate also increased at an annual rate of 23.0% from 2000 to 2009. The proportion of lumbar facet joint blocks sessions to lumbosacral facet joint neurolysis sessions changed from 6.7 in 2000 to 1.9 in 2018. Cervical and thoracic facet joint injections increased at an annual rate of 0.5% compared with cervicothoracic facet neurolysis sessions of 8.7% from 2009 to 2018. Cervical facet joint injections increased to 4.9% from 2009 to 2018 compared with neurolysis procedures of 112%. The proportion of cervical facet joint injection sessions to neurolysis sessions changed from 8.9 in 2000 to 2.4 in 2018., Limitations: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. The utilization data for individual states also continues to be sparse and may not be accurate., Conclusions: Utilization patterns of facet joint interventions increased 1.9% per 100,000 Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. This results from an annual decline of - 0.2% lumbar facet joint injection sessions but with an increase of facet joint radiofrequency sessions of 7.4%., Key Words: Interventional techniques, facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis.

Purpose of Review: Chronic thoracic pain, even though not as prevalent as low back and neck pain, appears in approximately 30% of the general population. The severity of thoracic pain and degree of disability seems to be similar to other painful conditions. Despite this severity, interventions in managing chronic thoracic pain are less frequent, and there is a paucity of literature regarding epidural injections and facet joint interventions., Recent Findings: As with lumbar and cervical spine, a multitude of interventions are offered in managing chronic thoracic pain, including interventional techniques with epidural injections and facet joint interventions. A single randomized controlled trial (RCT) has been published with a 2-year follow-up of clinical effectiveness of the results. However, there have not been any cost-utility analysis studies pertaining to either epidural injections or facet joint interventions in thoracic pain. Based on the results of the RCT, a cost-utility analysis of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections was undertaken. Evaluation of the cost-utility analysis of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing thoracic disc herniation, thoracic spinal stenosis, and thoracic discogenic or axial pain was assessed in 110 patients with a 2-year follow-up. Direct payment data from 2018 was utilized for procedural costs and indirect costs. Costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 or addition of 40% of cost to accommodate for indirect payments and arrive at overall costs. Cost-utility analysis showed direct procedural cost of USD $1943.19, whereas total estimated costs year per QALY were USD $3245.12.

Background: Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a condition affecting a growing number of individuals resulting in significant disability and pain, leading to a multitude of interventions ranging from simple over the counter medication to opioids, and, finally, to complex surgical fusions. After failure of conservative treatment with drug therapy, physical therapy, and other conservative modalities including epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis with targeted delivery of drugs into the epidural space can be offered in lumbar central spinal stenosis prior to minimally invasive surgical options or complex surgical fusions. To date there has been only one systematic review which has assessed the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in treating central spinal stenosis, compared to post lumbar surgery syndrome which has multiple systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Study Design: A systematic review of RCTs and observational studies assessing the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central lumbar spinal stenosis, utilizing currently available literature., Methods: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, Interventional Pain Management techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB), and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) to assess methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and meta-analysis.PubMed, Cochrane library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through June 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of the best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome or hard endpoint was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in functionality, whereas the secondary outcome measures or soft endpoints were pain relief and/or improvement in functionality. Short-term effectiveness was defined as improvement of 6 months or less, whereas long-term effectiveness was defined as more than 6 months., Results: Based on search criteria, 9 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion with final inclusion of 2 RCTs and 4 observational studies in this systematic review and 5 studies for single arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II evidence for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with application of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing central lumbar spinal stenosis., Limitations: There was a significant paucity of evidence assessing the role of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis, leading to Level II or strong evidence., Conclusion: Overall, the present analysis shows Level II (moderate) evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar central spinal stenosis based on relevant high quality RCTs and observational studies., Key Words: Lumbar central spinal stenosis, percutaneous adhesiolysis, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, neuroplasty.

Background: The cost of US health care continues to increase, with treatments related to low back and neck pain and other musculoskeletal disorders accounting for the third highest amount of various disease categories. Interventional techniques for managing pain apart from conservative modalities and surgical interventions, have generally been thought to be growing rapidly. However, a recent analysis of utilization of interventional techniques from 2000 to 2016 has shown a modest decline from 2009 to 2016, compared to 2000 to 2009., Objectives: The objectives of this analysis include providing an update on utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population of the United States., Study Design: Utilization patterns and variables of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain were assessed from 2000 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States., Methods: The data for the analysis was obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2018. The analysis of data showed that there was a decline in utilization of interventional techniques from 2009 to 2018 of 6.7%, with an annual decline of 0.8% per 100,000 FFS Medicare population, despite an increase of 0.7% per year of population growth (3.2% of those 65 years or older) and a 3% annual increase in Medicare participation from 2009 to 2018. Medicare data from 2000 to 2009 showed an increase of 11.8% per year per 100,000 individuals of the Medicare population. The 2009 to 2018 data also showed a 2.6% annual decrease in the rate of utilization of epidural and adhesiolysis procedures per 100,000 population of FFS Medicare, and a 1% decrease for disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks, while there was an increase of 0.9% annually for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks., Limitations: Limitations of this analysis include: only the Medicare population was utilized, and among the Medicare population, only the FFS population was evaluated; utilization patterns in Medicare Advantage Plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the population were not considered. Further, the utilization data for individual states was sparse and may not be accurate., Conclusion: The decline in utilization of interventional techniques continued from 2009 to 2018 with 6.7% per 100,000 Medicare population, with an annual decline of 0.8%, despite an increase in the population rate and Medicare enrollees of 0.7% and 3% annually., Key Words: Interventional pain management, chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, epidural injections, adhesiolysis, facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint injections, disc procedures, other types of nerve blocks.

Background: Neck pain is one of the major conditions attributing to overall disability in the United States. There have been multiple publications assessing clinical and cost effectiveness of multiple modalities of interventions in managing chronic neck pain. Even then, the literature has been considered sparse in relation to cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck pain. In contrast, cost utility studies of lumbar interlaminar injections, caudal epidural injections, cervical and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, percutaneous adhesiolysis demonstrated costs of less than $3,500 for quality-adjusted life year (QALY)., Objectives: To assess the cost utility of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and/or upper extremity pain secondary to cervical disc herniation, post-surgery syndrome in neck, and axial or discogenic neck pain., Study Design: Analysis based on 3 previously published randomized trials of the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections assessing their role in disc herniation, cervical post-surgery syndrome, and axial or discogenic pain., Setting: A contemporary, private, specialty referral interventional pain management center in the United States., Methods: Cost utility of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing cervical disc herniation, cervical post-surgery syndrome, and cervical discogenic or axial neck back pain was conducted with data derived from 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included a 2-year follow-up, with inclusion of 356 patients. The primary outcome was significant improvement defined as at least 50% in pain reduction and disability status. Direct payment data from all carriers from 2018 was utilized for the assessment of procedural costs. Overall costs, including drug costs, were determined by multiplication of direct procedural payment data by a factor of 1.67 to accommodate for indirect payments respectively for disc herniation, discogenic pain, and cervical post-surgery syndrome., Results: The results of the 3 RCTs showed direct cost utility for one year of QALY of $2,412.31 for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, $2,081.07 for disc herniation, and $2,309.20 for post surgery syndrome, with an average cost per one year QALY of $2,267.57, with total estimated overall costs with addition of indirect costs of $3,475.38, $4,028.55, $3,856.36, and $3,785.89 respectively., Limitations: The limitation of this cost utility analysis includes that it is a single center evaluation. Indirect costs were extrapolated., Conclusion: This cost utility analysis of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in patients nonresponsive to conservative management in the treatment of disc herniation, post surgery syndrome and axial or discogenic neck pain shows $2,267.57 for direct costs with a total cost of $3,785.89 per QALY., Key Words: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections, chronic neck pain, cervical disc herniation, cervical discogenic pain, post surgery syndrome, cost utility analysis, cost effectiveness analysis, quality-adjusted life years.

Objective: Despite the high prevalence of chronic multisite pain, there is little consensus on methods to characterize it. Commonly used assessments report only one dimension of pain, that is, intensity, thus ignoring the spatial aspect of pain. We developed a novel pain quantification index, the Integrated Pain Quantification Index (IPQI), on a scale of 0 to 1 that integrates multiple distinct pain measures into a single value, thus representing multidimensional pain information with a single value., Design: Single-visit, noninterventional, epidemiological study., Setting: Fourteen outpatient multidisciplinary pain management programs., Patients: Patients with chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs for at least six months with average overall pain intensity of at least 5 on the numeric rating scale., Methods: Development of IPQI was performed in a large population (N = 810) of chronic pain patients from the Multiple Areas of Pain (MAP) study., Results: Prevalence of two or more noncontiguous painful areas was at 88.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-0.90), with a mean of 6.3 areas (SD = 5.57 areas). Prevalence of more than 10% body area in pain was at 52.8% (95% CI = 0.49-0.56), with a mean at 16.1% (17.16%). On average, IPQI values were near the middle of the scale, with mean and median IPQI at 0.52 (SD = 0.13) and 0.55, respectively. The IPQI was generalizable and clinically relevant across all domains recommended by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials., Conclusions: IPQI provided a single pain score for representing complex, multidimensional pain information on one scale and has implications for comparing pain populations across longitudinal clinical trials., (© 2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)