Search

Background: Approximately 17.3 million adults in the United States have had a minimum of one major depressive episode. Comorbidity of depression and pain can affect individuals of any age, but is more prevalent in the elderly affecting up to 13% of people in the elderly population. Given that depression and suicidal ideation (SI) pose a considerable burden resulting in enormous suffering, there is a need to understand the factors of the relationship between chronic pain (CP), depression, and SI., Objectives: Our primary objective in this study was to compare suicidality (SI/attempt [SA]) between patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and CP and a matched control group. The secondary objective was to compare length of stay, total hospital costs, and discharge disposition in these populations., Study Design: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) dataset developed by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project was used for this study. The NIS is a database of hospital inpatient stays derived from billing data submitted by hospitals to statewide data organizations across the United States. We obtained patient records from the NIS dataset for the years 2006 to 2017. All data were de-identified so Institutional Review Board approval was waived., Methods: We used mean and standard error to describe continuous data and counts (percentage) to describe categorical data. Categorical data were compared using Rao-Scott adjusted chi-square tests and continuous data were compared using Student's t tests. Matching was performed using propensity scores in random order with a caliper size of 0.001. To assess predictors associated with suicidality, logistic regression analysis was performed., Results: A total of 393,481 patients having MDD with CP (MDD+CP) were included in the analysis. The mean age was 49.4 years, and 54.9% of patients were women. Overall, rate of composite outcome of SI/SA was more prevalent in MDD+CP group (51% vs 41%, P < 0.001). Rate of SI was 48% vs 39% (P < 0.001) in the MDD+CP and MDD without CP (MDD-CP) groups, respectively. MDD+CP was one of the strongest predictors of suicidality, responsible for 48% more risk of SI/SA compared to MDD-CP group. In comparison to non-Whites, the rate of suicidality was 7.5% less in White population. Alcohol abuse and substance abuse were associated with 17% and 8% greater risk of SI/SA, respectively. For women, the odds of having SI/SA was 1.20 greater compared to men., Limitations: No information was available on the causal relationship between MDD+CP disorder and SI/SA. Retrospective studies are susceptible to recognition, reporting, and coding bias. There is no information available on medications use or the duration and severity of CP and bipolar disorder, which can all be confounding factors., Conclusions: Psychiatrists and other physicians must be cognizant of the presence of CP and the risk of suicide, especially when patients present with depressive symptoms. The treatment plan for this patient population should include routine screening for pain symptoms and risk assessment for SI.

Background: A major component of a systematic review is an assessment of the methodological quality and bias of randomized trials. The most commonly utilized methodological quality assessment and bias assessment for randomized trials is by the Cochrane Review Group. While this is not a "gold standard," it is an indication of the current state-of-the-art review methodology. There is, however, no specific instrument to assess the methodological quality of manuscripts published for interventional techniques., Objectives: Our objective was to develop an instrument specifically for interventional pain management, to assess the methodological quality of randomized trials of interventional techniques., Methods: Item generation for the instrument was based on a definition of quality, to the extent to which the design and conduct of the trial were congruent with the objectives of the trial. Applicability was defined as the extent to which the trial produced procedures could be applied with contemporary interventional pain management techniques. Multiple items based on Cochrane review criteria were utilized along with specific requirements for interventional techniques., Results: A total of 22 items were developed which formed IPM-QRB or Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment tool. This included 9 of the 12 items from the Cochrane review criteria with definition of some items that were repetitive or duplicate, and the addition of 13 new items. The results were compared for inter-rater reliability of Cochrane review criteria and IPM-QRB, and inter-instrument reliability. The assessment was performed in multiple stages with an initial learning curve. The final assessment was for 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing both Cochrane review criteria and IPM-QRB criteria. The inter-rater agreement for Cochrane review criteria with overall intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.407 compared to an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.833 for IPM-QRB criteria. The inter-rater agreement was superior for IPM-QRB criteria compared to Cochrane review criteria despite twice the items of Cochrane review criteria as IPM-QRB criteria with the detailed nature of assessment., Limitations: Limited validity or accuracy assessment of the instrument and the large number of items to be scored., Conclusion: We have developed a new comprehensive instrument to assess the methodological quality of randomized trials of interventional techniques. This instrument is superior to Cochrane review methodology criteria in that it provides more extensive and specific information for interventional techniques that will be useful in assessing the methodologic quality and bias of interventional techniques.

Background: The major component of a systematic review is assessment of the methodologic quality and bias of randomized and nonrandomized trials. While there are multiple instruments available to assess the methodologic quality and bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), there is a lack of extensively utilized instruments for observational studies, specifically for interventional pain management (IPM) techniques. Even Cochrane review criteria for randomized trials is considered not to be a "gold standard," but merely an indication of the current state of the art review methodology. Recently a specific instrument to assess the methodologic quality of randomized trials has been developed for interventional techniques., Objectives: Our objective was to develop an IPM specific instrument to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized trials or observational studies of interventional techniques., Methods: The item generation for the instrument was based on a definition of quality, to the extent to which the design and conduct of the trial were congruent with the objectives of the study. Applicability was defined as the extent to which procedures produced by the study could be applied using contemporary IPM techniques. Multiple items based on Cochrane review criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) were utilized., Results: A total of 16 items were developed which formed the IPM-QRBNR tool. The assessment was performed in multiple stages. The final assessment was 4 nonrandomized studies. The inter-rater agreement was moderate to good for IPM-QRBNR criteria., Limitations: Limited validity or accuracy assessment of the instrument and the large number of items to be scored were limitations., Conclusion: We have developed a new comprehensive instrument to assess the methodological quality of nonrandomized studies of interventional techniques. This instrument provides extensive information specific to interventional techniques is useful in assessing the methodological quality and bias of observational studies of interventional techniques.

Background: Since the descriptions by Mixter and Barr of surgical treatment for rupture of the intervertebral disc in 1934, open surgical procedures have become a common practice. Disc herniations are often classified as being contained or non-contained. The results of open surgical discectomy for contained disc herniation have been poor. Consequently, several less invasive techniques have been developed including percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression., Study Design: A systematic review of the literature of percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression., Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate and update the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy in managing radicular pain secondary to contained disc herniation., Methods: The available literature on lumbar laser disc decompression in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. Quality assessment and clinical relevance of randomized trials were graded according to the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for interventional techniques, and observational studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria.The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return-to-work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as effectiveness lasting one year or less, whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined as benefit persisting for greater than one year., Results: Based on USPSTF criteria, the indicated level of evidence for percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression is limited for short- and long-term relief., Limitations: Although laser discectomy has been utilized for many years, there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials., Conclusion: This systematic review shows limited evidence for percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression.

Background:   Lumbosacral selective nerve root blocks and/ or transforaminal epidural injections are used for diagnosis and treatment of different disorders causing low back and lower extremity pain. A clear consensus on the use of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool does not currently exist. Additionally, the validity of this procedure as a diagnostic tool is not clear., Objective: To evaluate and update the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing lumbar spinal disorders., Study Design: A systematic review of selective nerve root blocks for the diagnosis of low back and lower extremity pain., Methods: Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited or poor based on the quality of evidence grading scale developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Outcome Measures: In this review, we evaluated studies in which controlled local anesthetic blocks were performed using at least 50% pain relief as the reference standard., Results: There is limited evidence for the accuracy of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool for lumbosacral disorders. There is limited evidence for their use in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies., Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature, variations in technique, and variable criterion standards for the diagnosis of lumbar radicular pain., Conclusions: There is limited evidence for selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool in evaluating low back pain with radicular features. However, their role needs to be further clarified by additional research and consensus.

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain., Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature., Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events., Conclusions: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed., Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

Background: The intervertebral disc has been implicated as a major cause of chronic lumbar spinal pain based on clinical, basic science, and epidemiological research. There is, however, a lack of consensus regarding the diagnosis and treatment of intervertebral disc disorders. Based on controlled evaluations, lumbar intervertebral discs have been shown to be the source of chronic back pain without disc herniation in 26% to 39% of patients. Lumbar provocation discography, which includes disc stimulation and morphological evaluation, is often used to distinguish a painful disc from other potential sources of pain. Despite the extensive literature, intense debate continues about lumbar discography as a diagnostic tool., Study Design: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar provocation and analgesic discography literature., Objective: To systematically assess and re-evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar discography., Methods: The available literature on lumbar discography was reviewed. A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. However, studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and critically analyzed. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles., Results: Over 160 studies were considered for inclusion. Of these, 33 studies compared discography with other diagnostic tests, 30 studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of discography, 22 studies assessed surgical outcomes for discogenic pain, and 3 studies assessed the prevalence of lumbar discogenic pain. The quality of the overall evidence supporting provocation discography based on the above studies appears to be fair. The prevalence of internal disc disruption is estimated to be 39% to 42%, whereas the prevalence of discogenic pain without assessing internal disc disruption is 26%., Conclusion: This systematic review illustrates that lumbar provocation discography performed according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) criteria may be a useful tool for evaluating chronic lumbar discogenic pain.

Persistent pain interfering with daily activities is common. Chronic pain has been defined in many ways. Chronic pain syndrome is a separate entity from chronic pain. Chronic pain is defined as, "pain that persists 6 months after an injury and beyond the usual course of an acute disease or a reasonable time for a comparable injury to heal, that is associated with chronic pathologic processes that cause continuous or intermittent pain for months or years, that may continue in the presence or absence of demonstrable pathologies; may not be amenable to routine pain control methods; and healing may never occur." In contrast, chronic pain syndrome has been defined as a complex condition with physical, psychological, emotional, and social components. The prevalence of chronic pain in the adult population ranges from 2% to 40%, with a median point prevalence of 15%. Among chronic pain disorders, pain arising from various structures of the spine constitutes the majority of the problems. The lifetime prevalence of spinal pain has been reported as 54% to 80%. Studies of the prevalence of low back pain and neck pain and its impact in general have shown 23% of patients reporting Grade II to IV low back pain (high pain intensity with disability) versus 15% with neck pain. Further, age related prevalence of persistent pain appears to be much more common in the elderly associated with functional limitations and difficulty in performing daily life activities. Chronic persistent low back and neck pain is seen in 25% to 60% of patients, one-year or longer after the initial episode. Spinal pain is associated with significant economic, societal, and health impact. Estimates and patterns of productivity losses and direct health care expenditures among individuals with back and neck pain in the United States continue to escalate. Recent studies have shown significant increases in the prevalence of various pain problems including low back pain. Frequent use of opioids in managing chronic non-cancer pain has been a major issue for health care in the United States placing a significant strain on the economy with the majority of patients receiving opioids for chronic pain necessitating an increased production of opioids, and escalating costs of opioid use, even with normal intake. The additional costs of misuse, abuse, and addiction are enormous. Comorbidities including psychological and physical conditions and numerous other risk factors are common in spinal pain and add significant complexities to the interventionalist's clinical task. This section of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)/Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) guidelines evaluates the epidemiology, scope, and impact of spinal pain and its relevance to health care interventions.

Background: The sacroiliac joint is a diarthrodial synovial joint with abundant innervation and capability of being a source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity. There are no definite historical, physical, or radiological features to provide definite diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain, although many authors have advocated provocational maneuvers to suggest sacroiliac joint as a pain generator. An accurate diagnosis is made by controlled sacroiliac joint diagnostic blocks. The sacroiliac joint has been shown to be a source of pain in 10% to 27% of suspected cases with chronic low back pain utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. Intraarticular injections, and radiofrequency neurotomy have been described as therapeutic measures. This systematic review was performed to assess diagnostic testing (non-invasive versus interventional diagnostic techniques) and to evaluate the clinical usefulness of interventional techniques in the management of chronic sacroiliac joint pain., Objective: To evaluate and update the available evidence regarding diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions in the management of sacroiliac joint pain., Study Design: A systematic review using the criteria as outlined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Cochrane Review Group Criteria for therapeutic interventions and AHRQ, and Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) for diagnostic studies., Methods: The databases of EMBASE and MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), and Cochrane Reviews were searched. The searches included systematic reviews, narrative reviews, prospective and retrospective studies, and cross-references from articles reviewed. The search strategy included sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction, sacroiliac joint injections, interventions, and radiofrequency., Results: The results of this systematic evaluation revealed that for diagnostic purposes, there is moderate evidence showing the accuracy of comparative, controlled local anesthetic blocks. Prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated to range between 10% and 27% using a double block paradigm. The false-positive rate of single, uncontrolled, sacroiliac joint injections is around 20%. The evidence for provocative testing to diagnose sacroiliac joint pain is limited. For therapeutic purposes, intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections with steroid and radiofrequency neurotomy were evaluated. Based on this review, there is limited evidence for short-term and long-term relief with intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections and radiofrequency thermoneurolysis., Conclusions: The evidence for the specificity and validity of diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is moderate. The evidence for accuracy of provocative maneuvers in diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for therapeutic intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections is limited. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic sacroiliac joint pain is limited.

Background: Chronic postsurgical thoracic pain (CPTP) represents a major therapeutic challenge characterized by an absence of clinical studies to guide treatment. Recently, the implementation of pulsed radiofrequency (RF) has generated intense interest in the medical community as a safe and potentially effective treatment for neuropathic pain. To date, there are no studies comparing pulsed RF to more conventional therapeutic modalities for any pain condition., Objectives: To compare treatment outcomes between pharmacotherapy, pulsed RF of the intercostal nerves (ICN) and pulsed RF of the dorsal root ganglia (DRG) in CPTP., Methods: Retrospective data analysis involving 49 patients., Results: At 6-week follow-up, 61.5% of the pulsed RF DRG group reported > or =50% pain relief vs. 27.3% in the medical management (MM) group and 21.4% in the IC group (P = 0.12). At 3-month follow-up, 53.8% in the DRG group continued to report > or = 50% pain relief vs. 19.9% in the MM and 6.7% in the ICN groups, respectively (P = 0.02). Among the pulsed RF patients who did report a successful outcome, the mean duration of pain relief was 2.87 months in the ICN group and 4.74 months in the DRG group (P = 0.01)., Conclusions: Pulsed RF of the DRG was a superior treatment to pharmacotherapy and pulsed RF of the ICN in patients with CPTP. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and identify the best candidates for this treatment.