Search

Timothy Deer,1,* Robert Heros,2,* Edward Tavel,3 Sayed Wahezi,4 Robert Funk,5 Patrick Buchanan,6 Anne Christopher,7 Jacqueline Weisbein,8 Christopher Gilligan,9 Denis Patterson,10 Ajay Antony,11 Mohab Ibrahim,12 Nathan Miller,13 Keith Scarfo,14 Gayle Johnson,15 Thadchaigeni Panchalingam,15 Udoka Okaro,15 James Yue16 1Pain Management, The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 2Pain Management, Spinal Diagnostics, Tualatin, OR, USA; 3Pain Management, Clinical Trials of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA; 4Pain Management, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; 5Pain Management, Indiana Spine Group, Indianapolis, IN, USA; 6Pain Management, Spanish Hills Interventional Pain Specialists, Camarillo, CA, USA; 7Pain Management, Saint Louis Pain Consultants, Chesterfield, MO, USA; 8Pain Management, Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 9Pain Management, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 10Pain Management, Nevada Advanced Pain Specialists, Reno, NV, USA; 11Pain Management, the Orthopedic Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA; 12Pain Management, Coastal Pain & Spinal Diagnostics Medical Group, Carlsbad, CA, USA; 13Pain Management, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ, USA; 14Pain Management, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA; 15Neuromodulation, Abbott Labs, Austin, TX, USA; 16Orthopaedic spine Surgery, Connecticut Orthopedics, Hamden, CT, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Timothy Deer, Pain Management, The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, 400 Court Street, Suite 100, Charleston, WV, 25301, USA, Tel +1 304 347 – 6120, Fax +1 304 347 – 6126, Email doctdeer@aol.comAim: Low Back Pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a more effective, long-term treatment compared to conventional medical management (CMM). The DISTINCT study enrolled and randomized chronic LBP patients with no indication of traditional spine surgery. This analysis focuses comparing study outcomes on patients initially randomized to receive CMM treatment and subsequently crossed over to SCS after 6 months.Purpose: To compare the therapeutic effectiveness and cost-efficiency of passive recharge burst SCS to CMM.Patients and Methods: A total of 269 patients were enrolled with 162 randomly assigned to SCS and 107 to CMM. The DISTINCT study design allowed a crossover to the alternative treatment arm after 6 months. Patients underwent a trial and received a permanent implant if they reported ≥ 50% pain reduction. Outcome analysis included pain (NRS), disability (ODI), catastrophizing (PCS), quality of life (PROMIS-29) and health care utilization.Results: Seventy out of eighty-one patients opted to cross over to trial SCS at 6M with 94% (66/70) undergoing a trial. Among those, 88% (58/66) reported a ≥ 50% or more pain relief and 55 received a permanent implant. At 12M visit, 71.4% reported a ≥ 50% pain improvement sustained at the 18M visit, with 24.5% (12/49) indicating a ≥ 80% improvement. Disability reductions (79% meeting the minimally important difference of a 13-point decrease), decreased catastrophizing, and significant improvements in all PROMIS-29 domains were noted. Furthermore, 42% of the patients reported decreased or discontinued opioid usage. Clinical benefits at the 12M visit were sustained through the 18M visit accompanied by a significant reduction in healthcare utilization and a $1214 cost savings.Conclusion: SCS demonstrates superior, long-term performance and safety outcomes compared to CMM therapy in LBP patients who received both CMM and SCS therapy. Additionally, SCS patients experienced reduced healthcare resource utilization and lower costs compared to those receiving CMM.Keywords: DISTINCT, low back pain, BurstDR, spinal cord stimulation, healthcare utilization, persistent spinal pain syndrome, neuromodulation

Natalie Strand,1 Ryan S D’Souza,2 Jay Karri,3 Hemant Kalia,4 Jackie Weisbein,5 Brian J Kassa,6 Nasir Hussain,7 Ahish Chitneni,8 Ryan R Budwany,9 Jonathan Hagedorn,2 Jason E Pope,10 Timothy R Deer,11 Dawood Sayed,12 Alaa Abd-Elsayed13 1Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 3Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 4Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, NY, USA; 5Napa Valley Orthopaedic, Napa, CA, USA; 6Resident in the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Wayne State University School of Medicine at the Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, Detroit, MI, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 8Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, New York-Presbyterian, New York, NY, USA; 9Resident in the Department of Anesthesiology, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV, USA; 10Interventional Pain Management, Evolve Restorative Center, Santa Rosa, CA, USA; 11Department of Anesthesiology, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, WV, USA; 12Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 13Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USACorrespondence: Natalie Strand, Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA, Email Strand.Natalie@mayo.eduAbstract: Cannabinoids have recently gained a renewed interest due to their potential applicability to various medical conditions, specifically the management of chronic pain conditions. Unlike many other medications, medical cannabis is not associated with serious adverse events, and no overdose deaths have been reported. However, both safety and efficacy data for medical cannabis treatment of chronic, nonmalignant pain conditions are lacking. Therefore, representatives from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience summarize the evidence, according to level and grade, for medical cannabis treatment of several different pain conditions. Treatment of cancer-related pain has prospective evidentiary support for the use of medical cannabis. Although 3 large and well-designed randomized controlled trials investigated cannabis treatment of cancer-related pain, the evidence yielded only a grade D recommendation. Neuropathic pain has been investigated in prospective studies, but a lack of high-quality evidence renders cannabis treatment for this indication a grade C recommendation. Both safety and efficacy data are lacking for use of medical cannabis to treat chronic nonmalignant pain conditions.Keywords: analgesia, chronic pain, marijuana treatment, neuralgia, postoperative pain

Angela Leitner,1 Erin Hanson,1 Nicole Soliday,1 Peter Staats,2 Robert Levy,3 Jason Pope,4 Jan W Kallewaard,5,6 Daniel Doleys,7 Sean Li,2 Jacqueline Weisbein,8 Kasra Amirdelfan,9 Lawrence Poree10 1Saluda Medical Pty Ltd, Artarmon, New South Wales, Australia; 2National Spine and Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, NJ, USA; 3Departments of Neurosurgery and Clinical Research, Anesthesia Pain Care Consultants, Tamarac, FL, USA; 4Evolve Restorative Center, Santa Rosa, CA, USA; 5Department of Anaesthesiology and Pain Management, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands; 6Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 7Pain and Rehabilitation Institute, Birmingham, AL, USA; 8Napa Valley Orthopaedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 9Boomerang Healthcare, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 10Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USACorrespondence: Angela Leitner, Saluda Medical, Ground Floor, 407 Pacific Hwy, Artarmon, NSW, 2064, Australia, Email angela.leitner@saludamedical.comBackground: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established chronic pain treatment, but the effectiveness of traditional, open-loop paradigms has been plagued by variable sustainability in a real-world setting. A new approach, utilizing evoked compound action potential (ECAP) controlled closed-loop (CL) SCS, continuously monitors spinal cord activation and automatically adjusts the stimulation amplitude of every pulse, maintaining stimulation at the prescribed ECAP level through this continual feedback mechanism. Recent studies demonstrated the long-term safety and efficacy of ECAP-controlled CL-SCS. Here, we report the design of a prospective, multicenter, single-arm feasibility study to characterize clinical outcomes in a real-world chronic pain population utilizing ECAP-controlled CL-SCS. Objective neurophysiological measurements such as device performance and patient therapy compliance, will be analyzed against baseline biopsychosocial assessments, to explore the clinical utility of these objective physiologic biomarkers in patient phenotyping.Methods: This study will enroll up to 300 subjects with chronic, intractable trunk and/or limb pain in up to 25 United States investigation sites. Subjects meeting eligibility criteria will undergo a trial procedure and a permanent implant following a successful trial. Neurophysiological measurements (measured in-clinic and continuously during home use) and clinical outcomes including pain, quality-of-life, psychological, emotional, and functional assessments will be collected at baseline, trial end, and up to 24-months post-implantation.Discussion: Associations between objective neurophysiological data, clinical evaluation and patient-reported outcomes may have important clinical and scientific implications. They may provide novel insights about the chronic pain pathophysiology, its modulation during CL-SCS, and identification of pain phenotypes and/or mechanisms associated with treatment response during SCS trials and long-term therapy. Data from the ECAP study could lead to improvements in diagnosis, assessment, patient identification and management of chronic pain. It could also provide the foundation for development of a new SCS treatment approach customized by the patient’s pain phenotype, unique neurophysiology, and disease severity.Keywords: chronic pain, closed-loop, evoked compound action potentials, spinal cord stimulation

Kenneth B Chapman,1– 3 Dawood Sayed,4 Tim Lamer,5 Corey Hunter,6 Jacqueline Weisbein,7 Kiran V Patel,1– 3 David Dickerson,8,9 Jonathan M Hagedorn,10 David W Lee,11 Kasra Amirdelfan,12 Timothy Deer,13 Krishnan Chakravarthy14,15 1The Spine & Pain Institute of New York, New York, NY, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra Northwell, Manhasset, NY, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC), Kansas City, KS, USA; 5Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 6Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management, New York, NY, USA; 7Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA; 9Department of Anesthesia & Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA; 10iSpine Pain Physicians, Maple Grove, MN, USA; 11Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group, Fullerton, CA, USA; 12IPM Medical Group, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 13The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 14Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California San Diego Health Sciences, San Diego, CA, USA; 15VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, CA, USACorrespondence: Kenneth B Chapman, NYU Langone Medical Center, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Pain Medicine at Staten Island University Hospital, 1360 Hylan Boulevard, Staten Island, NY, 10305, USA, Email chapmanken@spinepainny.comAbstract: With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and it has broad applicability across a wide range of other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the American Society for Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN), this best practices consensus document has been developed for the selection, implantation, and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. This document is composed of a comprehensive narrative literature review that has been performed regarding the role of the DRG in chronic pain and the clinical evidence for DRG-S as a treatment for multiple pain etiologies. Best practice recommendations encompass safety management, implantation techniques, and mitigation of the potential complications reported in the literature. Looking to the future of neuromodulation, DRG-S holds promise as a robust intervention for otherwise intractable pain.Keywords: dorsal root ganglion, neurostimulation, chronic pain, best practice, guidelines

Timothy R Deer,1 Jay S Grider,2 Jason E Pope,3 Tim J Lamer,4 Sayed E Wahezi,5 Jonathan M Hagedorn,6 Steven Falowski,7 Reda Tolba,8 Jay M Shah,9 Natalie Strand,10 Alex Escobar,11 Mark Malinowski,12 Anjum Bux,13 Navdeep Jassal,14 Jennifer Hah,15 Jacqueline Weisbein,16 Nestor D Tomycz,17 Jessica Jameson,18 Erika A Petersen,19 Dawood Sayed20 1Centers for Pain Relief, Charleston, WV, USA; 2UK HealthCare Pain Services, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA; 3Evolve Restorative Center, Santa Rosa, CA, USA; 4Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 5Montefiore Medical Center, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA; 6Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 7Director Functional Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA; 8Pain Management Department, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE; 9SamWell Institute for Pain Management, Colonia, NJ, USA; 10Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 11Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA; 12OhioHealth, Neurological Physicians, Columbus, OH, USA; 13Bux Pain Management, Lexington, KY, USA; 14Excel Pain and Spine, Lakeland, FL, USA; 15Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA; 16Napa Valley Orthopaedic Medical Group, Inc., Napa, CA, USA; 17Department of Neurological Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 18Axis Spine Center, Coeur d’Alene, ID, USA; 19Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA; 20Pain Medicine, Multidisciplinary Pain Fellowship, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, KS, USACorrespondence: Timothy R Deer, The Spine and Nerve Centers of the Virginias, 400 Court Street, Suite 100, Charleston, WV, 25301, USA, Tel +1 304 347-6141, Email doctdeer@aol.comIntroduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal disease of aging with a growing patient population, paralleling population growth. Minimally invasive treatments are evolving, and the use of these techniques needs guidance to provide the optimal patient safety and efficacy outcomes.Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for guidance on the prudent use of the innovative minimally invasive surgical therapies for the treatment of symptomatic LSS. The executive board nominated experts spanning anesthesiology, physiatry, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery based on expertise, publications, research, diversity and field of practice. Evidence was reviewed, graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence and recommendation strength and grade, and expert opinion was added to make consensus points for best practice.Results: The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for LSS-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using USPSTF criteria and consensus points are presented.Discussion: The algorithm for patient selection in the management of symptomatic spinal stenosis is evolving. Careful consideration of patient selection and anatomic architecture variance is critical for improved outcomes and patient safety.Conclusion: ASPN created a guidance for best practice for minimally invasive surgical treatment of symptomatic spinal stenosis.Keywords: percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression, interspinous spacers, intrathecal drug delivery, open decompression, neurostimulation, epidural steroid injections

Abd-Sayed A, Fiala K, Weisbein J, et al. J Pain Res. 2022;15:1305–1314. The authors have advised there is an error in the author list on page 1305. The author name “Alaa Abd-Sayed” should read “Alaa Abd-Elsayed”. The authors apologize for this error.

Mansoor M Aman,1 Ammar Mahmoud,2 Timothy Deer,3 Dawood Sayed,4 Jonathan M Hagedorn,5 Shane E Brogan,6 Vinita Singh,7 Amitabh Gulati,8 Natalie Strand,9 Jacqueline Weisbein,10 Johnathan H Goree,11 Fangfang Xing,12 Ali Valimahomed,13 Daniel J Pak,14 Antonios El Helou,15 Priyanka Ghosh,16 Krishna Shah,17 Vishal Patel,1 Alexander Escobar,18 Keith Schmidt,19 Jay Shah,20 Vishal Varshney,21 William Rosenberg,22 Sanjeet Narang23 1Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Advocate Aurora Health, Oshkosh, WI, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Northern Light Health Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, ME, USA; 3The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 5Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 6Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; 9Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 10Department of Anesthesiology, Chronic Pain Division, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA; 11Interventional Pain Medicine, Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 12Swedish Pain Services, Swedish Health Services, Seattle, WA, USA; 13Gramercy Pain Center, Holmdel, NJ, & Advanced Orthopedics Sports Medicine Institute, Freehold, NJ, USA; 14Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; 15Department of Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, The Moncton Hospital, Moncton, NB. Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada; 16Remedy Medical Group, San Francisco, CA, USA; 17Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 18Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA; 19AMITA Neurosciences Institute, Comprehensive Pain Management Program, St. Alexius Medical Center, Hoffman Estates, IL, USA; 20SamWell Institute for Pain Management, Colonia, NJ, USA; 21Department of Anesthesia, Providence Healthcare, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 22Center for the Relief of Pain, Midwest Neurosurgery Associates, Kansas City, Missouri, USA; 23Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Mansoor M AmanInterventional Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Advocate Aurora Health, Oshkosh, WI, 54904, USATel +1 920-456-7715Email aman.mansoorm@gmail.comAbstract: Moderate to severe pain occurs in many cancer patients during their clinical course and may stem from the primary pathology, metastasis, or as treatment side effects. Uncontrolled pain using conservative medical therapy can often lead to patient distress, loss of productivity, shorter life expectancy, longer hospital stays, and increase in healthcare utilization. Various publications shed light on strategies for conservative medical management for cancer pain and a few international publications have reviewed limited interventional data. Our multi-institutional working group was assembled to review and highlight the body of evidence that exists for opioid utilization for cancer pain, adjunct medication such as ketamine and methadone and interventional therapies. We discuss neurolysis via injections, neuromodulation including targeted drug delivery and spinal cord stimulation, vertebral tumor ablation and augmentation, radiotherapy and surgical techniques. In the United States, there is a significant variance in the interventional treatment of cancer pain based on fellowship training. As a first of its kind, this best practices and interventional guideline will offer evidenced-based recommendations for reducing pain and suffering associated with malignancy.Keywords: cancer pain, neurolysis, ketamine, pain pump, intrathecal drug delivery, neuromodulation, radiofrequency, spinal cord stimulation, vertebral augmentation

Dawood Sayed,1 Timothy R Deer,2,3 Vinicius Tieppo Francio,1 Christopher M Lam,1 Kamil Sochacki,4 Nasir Hussain,5 Tristan E Weaver,5 Jay Karri,6,7 Vwaire Orhurhu,8,9 Natalie Holmes Strand,10 Jacqueline Soicher Weisbein,11 Jonathan M Hagedorn,12 Ryan S D’Souza,12 Ryan R Budwany,2 Ahish Chitneni,13 Kasra Amirdelfan,14 Michael J Dorsi,15 Dan TD Nguyen,16 Christopher Bovinet,17 Alaa Abd-Elsayed18 1Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 2Pain Services, Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 3Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Charleston, WV, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 5Anesthesiology, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 6Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Williamsport, PA, USA; 9Pain Medicine, MVM Health, East Stroudsburg, PA, USA; 10Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 11Interventional Pain Management, Napa Valley Orthopaedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 12Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 13Department of Rehabilitation & Regenerative Medicine, New York Presbyterian – Columbia & Cornell, New York, NY, USA; 14Director of Clinical Research, Boomerang Healthcare, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 15Neurosurgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 16Neuroradiology & Pain Solutions of Oklahoma, Edmond, OK, USA; 17The Spine Center of SE Georgia, Brunswick, GA, USA; 18Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USACorrespondence: Dawood Sayed, Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA, Tel +1 785-550-5800, Email dsayed@kumc.eduAbstract: Clinical management of sacroiliac disease has proven challenging from both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Although it is widely regarded as a common source of low back pain, little consensus exists on the appropriate clinical management of sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction. Understanding the biomechanics, innervation, and function of this complex load bearing joint is critical to formulating appropriate treatment algorithms for SI joint disorders. ASPN has developed this comprehensive practice guideline to serve as a foundational reference on the appropriate management of SI joint disorders utilizing the best available evidence and serve as a foundational guide for the treatment of adult patients in the United States and globally.Keywords: sacroiliac joint, sacroiliitis, chronic pain, best practices, radiofrequency ablation, sacroiliac joint fusion

Corey W Hunter,1,2 Timothy R Deer,3 Mark R Jones,4 George Chiang Chien,5 Ryan S D’Souza,6 Timothy Davis,7 Erica R Eldon,2 Michael F Esposito,8 Johnathan H Goree,9 Lissa Hewan-Lowe,2 Jillian A Maloney,10 Anthony J Mazzola,2 John S Michels,4 Annie Layno-Moses,7 Shachi Patel,11 Jeanmarie Tari,1 Jacqueline S Weisbein,12 Krista A Goulding,13 Anikar Chhabra,13 Jeffrey Hassebrock,13 Chris Wie,10 Douglas Beall,14 Dawood Sayed,15 Natalie Strand10 1Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management, New York, NY, USA; 2Department of Rehabilitation & Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; 3The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 4Interventional Spine and Pain, Dallas, TX, USA; 5County Medical Center, Ventura, CA, USA; 6Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 7Source Healthcare, Santa Monica, CA, USA; 8Interventional Spine and Pain Institute, Vero Beach, FL, USA; 9Department of Anesthesiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA; 10Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 11Delmarva Pain and Spine Center, Newark, DE, USA; 12Napa Valley Orthopaedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 13Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 14Comprehensive Specialty Care, Oklahoma City, OK, USA; 15Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USACorrespondence: Corey W Hunter, Email chunter@ainPain.comAbstract: Knee pain is second only to the back as the most commonly reported area of pain in the human body. With an overall prevalence of 46.2%, its impact on disability, lost productivity, and cost on healthcare cannot be overlooked. Due to the pervasiveness of knee pain in the general population, there are no shortages of treatment options available for addressing the symptoms. Ranging from physical therapy and pharmacologic agents to interventional pain procedures to surgical options, practitioners have a wide array of options to choose from – unfortunately, there is no consensus on which treatments are “better” and when they should be offered in comparison to others. While it is generally accepted that less invasive treatments should be offered before more invasive ones, there is a lack of agreement on the order in which the less invasive are to be presented. In an effort to standardize the treatment of this extremely prevalent pathology, the authors present an all-encompassing set of guidelines on the treatment of knee pain based on an extensive literature search and data grading for each of the available alternative that will allow practitioners the ability to compare and contrast each option.Keywords: knee, knee pain, genicular nerve, ablation, regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma, dorsal root ganglion, peripheral nerve stimulation

Mehul J Desai,1,2 Nasir Khatri,3,4 Jonathan M Hagedorn,5 Natalie Strand,6 Ryan S D’Souza,7 Vinicius Tieppo Francio,8 Alaa Abd-Elsayed,9 David W Lee,10 Erika Petersen,11 Johnathan H Goree,12 Jacqueline S Weisbein,13 Timothy R Deer14 1International Spine, Pain & Performance Center, Washington, DC, USA; 2George Washington University, School of Medicine & Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA; 3University of Kansas, Department of Anesthesiology, Kansas City, KS, USA; 4Novant Spine Specialists, Division of Interventional Pain Medicine, Charlotte, NC, USA; 5iSpine Pain Physicians, Maple Grove, MN, USA; 6Mayo Clinic, Division of Pain Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 7Mayo Clinic, Department of Anesthesiology, Rochester, MN, USA; 8University of Kansas, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Kansas City, KS, USA; 9University of Wisconsin, Department of Anesthesiology, Madison, WI, USA; 10Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group, Fullerton, CA, USA; 11University of Arkansas, Department of Neurosurgery, Little Rock, AR, USA; 12University of Arkansas, Department of Anesthesiology, Little Rock, AR, USA; 13Interventional Pain Management, Napa Valley Orthopaedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 14Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USACorrespondence: Mehul J Desai, International Spine, Pain & Performance Center, 2021 K St NW Suite 615, Washington, DC, 20006, USA, Email drdesai@isppcenter.comAbstract: Social media has revolutionized internet communication and become ubiquitous in modern life. Though it originated as a medium for friendship, social media has evolved into an ideal venue for professional networking, scientific exchange, and brand building. As such, it is a powerful tool with which interventional pain physicians should become familiar. However, given the permanence and visibility of online posts, it is prudent for interventional pain physicians to utilize social media in a manner that is consistent with the ethical and professionalism standards to which they are held by their patients, employers, peers, and state medical boards. While there are extensive publications of professional codes of conduct by medical societies, there is a paucity of literature regarding social media best practices guidelines. Further, to date there have been no social media best practices recommendations specific to interventional pain medicine physicians. While not exhaustive, the aim of this document is to provide recommendations to pain physicians on how to maintain an effective professional and ethical online presence. Specifically, we provide guidance on online persona and professional image, patient–physician interactions online, patient privacy, industry relations, patient education, and brand building.Keywords: professionalism, social media, ethics, best practices, LinkedIn, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent, disabling condition affecting millions of people. Patients with an identifiable anatomic pain generator and resulting neuropathic lower extremity symptoms often undergo spine surgery, but many patients lack identifiable and/or surgically corrective pathology. Nonoperative treatment options often fail to provide sustained relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is sometimes used to treat these patients, but the lack of level 1 evidence limits its widespread use and insurance coverage. The DISTINCT RCT study evaluates the efficacy of passive recharge burst SCS compared to conventional medical treatment (CMM) in alleviating chronic, refractory axial low back pain., Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, study with an optional 6-month crossover involved patients who were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), back pain-related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to SCS therapy or CMM at 30 US study sites., Results: The SCS arm reported an 85.3% NRS responder rate (≥ 50% reduction) compared to 6.2% (5/81) in the CMM arm. After the 6M primary endpoint, SCS patients elected to remain on assigned therapy and 66.2% (49/74) of CMM patients chose to trial SCS (crossover). At the 12M follow-up, SCS and crossover patients reported 78.6% and 71.4% NRS responder rates. Secondary outcomes indicated significant improvements in ODI, PCS, and reduced healthcare utilization. Six serious adverse events were reported and resolved without sequelae., Conclusion: DISTINCT chronic low back pain patients with no indication for corrective surgery experienced a significant and sustained response to burst SCS therapy for up to 12 months. CMM patients who crossed over to the SCS arm reported profound improvements after 6 months. This data advocates for a timely consideration of SCS therapy in patients unresponsive to conservative therapy., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors declare financial or professional relationships on ICMJE-NASSJ disclosure forms., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Objective: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for relieving chronic intractable pain conditions. The Dorsal spInal cord STImulatioN vs mediCal management for the Treatment of low back pain study evaluates the effectiveness of SCS compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who had not undergone and were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery., Methods and Materials: Patients were randomized to passive recharge burst therapy (n = 162) or CMM (n = 107). They reported severe pain and disability for more than a decade and had failed a multitude of therapies. Common diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, stenosis, and scoliosis-yet not to a degree amenable to surgery. The six-month primary end point compared responder rates, defined by a 50% reduction in pain. Hierarchical analyses of seven secondary end points were performed in the following order: composite responder rate (numerical rating scale [NRS] or Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), NRS, ODI, Pain Catastrophizing Scale responder rate, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responder rate, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 in pain interference and physical function., Results: Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant difference in pain responders on NRS between SCS (72.6%) and CMM (7.1%) arms (p < 0.0001). Of note, 85.2% of those who received six months of therapy responded on NRS compared with 6.2% of those with CMM (p < 0.0001). All secondary end points indicated the superiority of burst therapy over CMM. A composite measure on function or pain relief showed 91% of subjects with SCS improved, compared with 16% of subjects with CMM. A substantial improvement of 30 points was observed on ODI compared with a

Background: The use of intrathecal drug delivery for chronic and cancer pain medicine has been established for decades. However, optimization and utilization of this technique still lag behind other modalities for pain control. Some of this may be due to variability of surgical technique, medication usage and education. It is currently unclear on whether or not practitioners follow available algorithms for the use of intrathecal drug delivery systems., Methods: A survey developed by the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) was sent to its members via email using the cloud-based SurveyMonkey . After 30 days of being available, 159 different providers responded to the survey that consisted of 31 various multiple choice and free response questions. Each question was not required and the number of responses to each varied from 128 to 159., Results: Approximately 9% of those who successfully received and opened the email containing the survey responded, likely due to a small number of providers working with intrathecal drug delivery systems. Eighty-six of respondents practice medicine in the United States, and 87% of the respondents were attending physicians. A majority of respondents, approximately 74%, were board certified in pain medicine with 69% of respondents being train in anesthesiology. The first and second most used medications for intrathecal pump trial were morphine and fentanyl, respectively. Most respondents, approximately 96%, provide pre-operative/intra-operative antibiotics. The most common first-choice medication for implanted intrathecal pumps was also morphine with the most common implanted location being the abdomen., Conclusion: Interestingly, there is currently fairly substantial variation in the way providers utilize intrathecal pump delivery for both chronic and cancer pain. There is variation from the training background of the providers providing care, to the pre-implantation trial medications, to where the pump is implanted for each patient, to if the patient has the option to give themselves boluses once implanted. Further research is needed to elucidate current and best practices for intrathecal drug delivery system trials, implantations, and utilization., Competing Interests: Dr Jacqueline Weisbein received fees for consulting and research form Medtronic, Abbott, Saluda, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Dr Pooja Chopra reports personal fees from Flowonix, outside the submitted work. Dr Amitabh Gulati reports personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Flowonix, personal fees from AIS Healthcare, personal fees from Tremeau medical, personal fees from SPR therapeutics, personal fees from Nalu Medical, during the conduct of the study. Dr Dawood Sayed reports personal fees from Medtronic, personal fees from Flowonix, outside the submitted work. Dr Timothy Deer reports personal fees from Medtronic, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbott fees, Vertos, Flowonix, SpineThera, Saluda, Mainstay, Nalu, Cornerloc, Ethos, SPR Therapeutic, SI Bone, Nevro, Boston Scientific, PainTeq, Tissue Teq, and Avanos, outside the submitted work. In addition, Dr Timothy Deer has a patent Abbott pending to Abbott & Tim Deer., (© 2022 Abd-Sayed et al.)

Pain is a common source of suffering for seriously ill patients. Typical first-line treatments consist of lifestyle modifications and medication therapy, including opioids. However, medical treatments often fail or are associated with limiting systemic toxicities, and more targeted interventional approaches are necessary. Herein, we present options for minimally invasive techniques for the alleviation of pain in palliative patients from a head-to-toe approach, with a focus on emerging therapies and advanced techniques. Head and neck: image-guided interventions targeted to sympathetic ganglia of the head and neck, such as sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) and stellate ganglion, have been shown to be effective for some forms of sympathetically-maintained and visceral pain. Interventions targeting branches of cranial nerves and upper cervical nerves, such as the glossopharyngeal nerve (GPN), are options in treating somatic head and face pain. Abdominal and pelvic: sympathetic blocks, including celiac plexus, inferior hypogastric, and ganglion impar can relieve visceral abdominal and pelvic pain. Spine and somatic pain: fascial plane blocks of the chest and abdominal wall and myofascial trigger point injections can be used for somatic pain indications. Cementoplasties, such as kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty, are used for pain related to bony metastases and compression fractures. Tumor ablative techniques can also be used for lytic lesions of the bone. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS), and cordotomy have also been used successfully in patients requiring advanced options, such as those with significant spinal, ischemic, or visceral pain.

Introduction: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the use of neurostimulation in the cervical region to improve outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for an often-overlooked area of neurostimulation practice., Materials and Methods: Authors were chosen based upon their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant., Results: The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process., Conclusions: The NACC recommends best practices regarding the use of cervical neuromodulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be utilized as a guide to assist decision making when clinically appropriate., (Copyright © 2021 International Neuromodulation Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common degenerative spine condition. In properly selected patients, minimally invasive lumbar decompression ( mild ® ) may be an option to improve outcomes. This review provides an in-depth description of the mild  procedure and a comprehensive examination of safety and efficacy. Two randomized controlled trials, together with 11 other controlled clinical studies, have established the efficacy of mild , which is a minimally invasive procedure that does not involve implants and has demonstrated excellent efficacy and safety. With an established safety profile equivalent to epidural steroid injections, and efficacy that has been shown to be superior to such injections, mild can reasonably be positioned early in the treatment algorithm for these patients. Based on extensive review of the literature, robust safety and efficacy through 2 years, and in accordance with minimally invasive spine treatment guidelines, mild is recommended as the first intervention after failure of conservative measures for lumbar spinal stenosis patients with neurogenic claudication and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy.

Objective:   Long-term follow-up with the use of low-dose opioids in intrathecal (IT) drug delivery system (DDS) for the treatment of intractable, severe chronic nonmalignant pain., Design:   This is a prospective, cohort long-term outcome study. Intervention.  The intervention was the implantation of DDS., Method and Patients:   A total of 61 consecutive patients (60% females, 40% males) with a mean age of 59.2 years and a mean duration of symptoms prior to implant of 6.2 years were referred for implant of DDS for severe intractable noncancer pain. After adequate patient evaluation, each underwent a trial with IT opioids. Three patients failed the trial and 58 patients were implanted. Follow-up was 36 months, with intervals at 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months. The Brief Pain Inventory was used for follow-up assessment criteria at baseline prior to implant as well as throughout the duration of the study., Outcome Measures:   Outcome measures included self-reported pain scores (worst and average), functional improvement, and IT dose, and oral opioid consumption., Results:   We observed a statistically significant reduction in both worst and average pain from baseline (8.91 and 7.47 at baseline) throughout the duration of the study (4.02 and 3.41, respectively, at 36 months) (P = 0.012 and P < 0.001, respectively). We also documented a statistically significant improvement in physical and behavioral function. All subjects showed a significant reduction in the oral opioid consumption. The dose of IT opioids remained low and virtually unchanged for 36 months of follow-up: 1.4 morphine equivalent/day at 6 months and 1.48 at 36 months. Oral opioid averaged 128.9 mg of morphine equivalent/patient/day at baseline to 3.8 at 3 month and remained at the same level throughout the study., Conclusion:   Low-dose IT opioid can provide sustained significant improvement in pain and function for long-term follow-up in chronic noncancer pain., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)