Search

Background: While low back pain is the number one cause of disability in the United States, lumbar spinal stenosis along with intervertebral disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis is one of the 3 most common diagnosis of low back and leg pain for which surgery is performed. Numerous modalities of treatments including drug therapy and complex surgical fusions have been recommended for treatment of central spinal stenosis. Epidural injections are one of the commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in managing central spinal stenosis; however, there has been paucity of literature in reference to efficacy of epidural injections in managing central spinal stenosis with lumbar interlaminar epidural injections., Study Design: A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial., Setting: Private interventional pain management practice and specialty referral center in the United States., Objective: To assess the effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief with improvement in functional status for the management of chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to lumbar central spinal stenosis., Methods: A randomized, double-blind, active-control trial was designed with the inclusion of 120 patients assigned to 2 groups. Group I patients received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 6 mL, whereas Group II received lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%) 5 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroids and 6 mg of betamethasone., Outcomes Assessment: Outcomes were assessed utilizing the numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. The primary outcome measure was significant improvement, defined as 50% improvement in pain and disability scores., Results: Significant relief and functional status improvement was seen in 72% and 73% of patients in Groups I and II at the end of 2 years considering all participants; however, this was 84% and 85% in the successful group. Overall significant improvement was achieved for 65.7 ± 37.3 weeks in Group 1 and 68.9 ± 37.7 weeks in Group II at the end of 2 years when all participants were considered; whereas, this was 77 ± 27.8 weeks and 77.9 ± 30.2 weeks when they were separated into successful categories. The average number of procedures per patient was 5 to 6 in both groups., Limitations: Limitations of this trial include lack of placebo control group and treatment of patients with multiple procedures over a period of 2 years., Conclusion: Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids provide relief in a significant proportion of patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis., Clinical Trial: NCT00681447.

Objective: To assess the prevalence of opioid-related deaths in patients in an interventional pain management tertiary referral center., Methods: Patient deaths from March 2003 to February 2007 were evaluated., Results: From March 2003 to February 2007, 2,179 patients were receiving opioids in 2003, 2,445 in 2004, 2,804 in 2005, and 2,965 in 2006, respectively. Overall, 86 percent of the patients were referred by a physician and 90 percent of patients received interventional techniques. There were a total of 91 deaths, of which 60 were categorized as natural deaths, 25 were characterized as accidental deaths, and 6 were characterized as suicidal. Of the 18 drug poisoning deaths, 5 deaths were positively related to prescription drugs, 7 deaths were probably related to prescription drugs, and 6 deaths had no relation to the prescription drugs provided. Total opioid-related deaths were 12 over this 4-year period with 0.46 in 2003, 2.04 in 2004, 2.85 in 2005, and 1.35 in 2006 per 1,000 population. In contrast, deaths definitely related to prescription opioids were 5 (0.92 per 1,000) over a period of 4 years. In the suicidal group, there were a significantly higher proportion of patients with generalized anxiety disorder., Conclusions: In an interventional pain management practice (a tertiary referral center), the total prevalence of opioid-related deaths varied from 0.46 to 1.78 per 1,000 from 2003 to 2006 with a total of 12 deaths over a period of 4 years. The deaths definitely related to opioidprescriptions were 5 with a rate of 0 to 1.43 per 1,000 over a period of 4 years.

Background: The prevalence of persistent low back pain with the involvement of lumbar facet or zygapophysial joints has been described in controlled studies as varying from 15% to 45% based on the criteria of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Therapeutic interventions utilized in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin include intraarticular injections, medial branch nerve blocks, and neurolysis of medial branch nerves., Objective: To determine the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin., Design: A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial., Setting: An interventional pain management setting in the United States., Methods: In this preliminary analysis, data from a total of 60 patients were included, with 15 patients in each of 4 groups. Thirty patients were in a non-steroid group consisting of Groups I (control, with lumbar facet joint nerve blocks using bupivacaine ) and II (with lumbar facet joint nerve blocks using bupivacaine and Sarapin); another 30 patients were in a steroid group consisting of Groups III (with lumbar facet joint nerve blocks using bupivacaine and steroids) and IV (with lumbar facet joint nerve blocks using bupivacaine, Sarapin, and steroids). All patients met the diagnostic criteria of lumbar facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic blocks., Outcome Measures: Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain scale, the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake., Results: Significant improvement in pain and functional status were observed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, compared to baseline measurements. The average number of treatments for 1 year was 3.7 with no significant differences among the groups. Duration of average pain relief with each procedure was 14.8 +/- 7.9 weeks in the non-steroid group, and 12.5 +/- 3.3 weeks in the steroid group, with no significant differences among the groups., Conclusion: Therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with local anesthetic, with or without Sarapin or steroids, may be effective in the treatment of chronic low back pain of facet joint origin.

Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of facet joint pain in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) after surgical intervention(s)., Design: A prospective, nonrandomized, consecutive study., Setting: An ambulatory interventional pain management setting., Participants: The prevalence of facet joint pain was evaluated in patients with CLBP after various surgical intervention(s) referred to an interventional pain management practice. The sample was derived from 282 patients with persistent CLBP after various surgical intervention(s). Of these, 242 patients consented to undergo interventional techniques. A total of 117 consecutive patients with chronic, nonspecific low back pain, after lumbar surgical intervention(s) were evaluated with controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks., Interventions: Controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks (1% lidocaine or 1% lidocaine followed by .25% bupivacaine) under fluoroscopic visualization using 0.5mL to block each facet joint nerve., Main Outcome Measures: A positive response was defined as at least 80% reduction of pain with ability to perform previously painful movements. A positive response was considered to be pain relief from the lidocaine block lasting at least 1 hour or at least 2 hours or greater than duration of relief with lidocaine when bupivacaine was used. Controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks were used to eliminate false-positive results. Valid information is only obtained by performing controlled blocks in the form of comparative local anesthetic blocks, in which, on 2 separate occasions, the same joint is anesthetized by using local anesthetics with different durations of action. If patients obtained appropriate response with both blocks, they were considered a positive. If they obtained appropriate response with lidocaine but not with bupivacaine, they were considered false-positive, whereas if the response was negative with lidocaine, they were considered negative., Results: The prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in patients with recurrent pain after various surgical intervention(s) was 16% (95% confidence interval, 9%-23%). The false-positive rate with a single block with lidocaine was 49%., Conclusions: Facet joints are clinically important pain generators in a small but significant proportion of patients with recurrent CLBP after various surgical intervention(s).

Background: Opioids are used extensively for chronic pain management in the United States. The frequency of opioid use prior to presenting to interventional pain management settings and in interventional pain management settings has been shown to be above 90%. Opioid abuse has been demonstrated in 9% to 41% of patients receiving chronic pain management. Illicit drug use has been reported in 14% to 34% of patients in chronic pain management settings., Objectives: To evaluate and correlate multiple variables with opioid abuse and illicit drug use., Design: A prospective, consecutive study., Setting: Interventional pain management practice setting in the United States., Methods: A total of 500 consecutive patients prescribed opioids, considered to be receiving stable doses of opioids supplemental to their interventional techniques were evaluated for opioid abuse and for illicit drug use. Abuse was defined as a patient receiving controlled substances from any source other than the prescribing physician at our center with the exception of controlled substances for acute injuries unrelated to the problem being treated, or for emergencies. Urine drug testing for illicit drugs was performed by urine rapid drug screen (Instant Technologies, iCup Norfolk, VA). Results were considered positive if one or more of the monitored illicit drugs including cocaine, marijuana (THC), phencycledane methamphetamine or amphetamines were detected., Results: Opioid abuse was seen in 9% of patients, with illicit drug use in 16% of patients. Significant differences were noted in the prevalence of opioid abuse in patients who developed chronic pain following motor vehicle accident(s) and in patients presenting with pain in three regions of the body. Illicit drug use (marijuana) was more common in females. Illicit drug use was also more common in patients younger than 45, after motor vehicle injury, and in patients with involvement of three regions of the body., Conclusion: Opioid abuse and illicit drug use were common in chronic pain patients with a prevalence of 9% and 16%, respectively. Age, pain after motor vehicle accident, involvement of multiple regions and past history of illicit drug use were identified as risk factors.

Background: Prescription drug abuse and illicit drug use are common in chronic pain patients. Adherence monitoring with screening tests, and urine drug testing, periodic monitoring with prescription monitoring programs, has become a common practice in recent years. Random drug testing for appropriate use of opioids and use of illicit drugs is often used in pain management practices. Thus, it is expected that random urine drug testing will deter use of illicit drugs, and also improve compliance., Objectives: To study the prevalence of illicit drug use in patients receiving opioids for chronic pain management and to compare the results of illicit drug use with the results from a previous study., Design: A prospective, consecutive study., Setting: Interventional pain management practice setting in the United States., Methods: A total of 500 consecutive patients on opioids, considered to be receiving stable doses of opioids supplemental to their interventional techniques, were studied by random drug testing. Testing was performed by rapid drug screen. Results were considered positive if one or more of the monitored illicit drugs including cocaine, marijuana (THC), methamphetamine or amphetamines were present., Results: Illicit drug use was evident in 80 patients, or 16%, with marijuana in 11%, cocaine in 5%, and methamphetamine and/or amphetamines in 2%. When compared with previous data, the overall illicit drug use was significantly less. Illicit drug use in elderly patients was absent., Conclusion: The prevalence of illicit drug abuse in patients with chronic pain receiving opioids continues to be a common occurence. This study showed significant reductions in overall illicit drug use with adherence monitoring combined with random urine drug testing.

Background: Opioids are used extensively for chronic pain management in the United States. The frequency of opioid use prior to presenting to interventional pain management settings and in interventional pain management settings has been shown to be above 90%. Given that controlled substance abuse and illicit drug use are prevalent phenomena, adherence monitoring of patients that are prescribed opioids is becoming common. Adherence monitoring is carried out by an appropriate history, periodic evaluation of appropriate intake of drugs, random drug testing, and pill counts. Crucial to adherence monitoring is an initial controlled substance agreement and repeated review of the terms of this agreement with on-going education. However, the effect of adherence monitoring on drug abuse is unclear., Objective: To identify controlled substance abuse through implementation of the terms of a controlled substance agreement, including periodic review and monitoring outside the organization., Study Design: Prospective evaluation with historical controls., Methods: Five hundred consecutive patients receiving prescription controlled substances were followed in a prospective manner. The evaluation consisted of a chart review to monitor controlled substance intake, with special attention to drugs obtained from outside the organization. Data collection for this purpose included information from records, pharmacies, referring physicians, and all the physicians involved in the treatment of the patient., Results: Results from 500 consecutive patients were evaluated. Controlled substance abuse was seen in 9% of patients; overall, 5% of patients were obtaining controlled substances from other physicians, and 4% from illegal sources., Conclusion: Adherence monitoring, including controlled substance agreements and various periodic measures of compliance was associated with a 50% reduction in opioid abuse.

Background: Zygapophysial or facet joint pain in patients suffering with chronic spinal pain without disc herniation or radiculopathy may be diagnosed with certainty by the use of controlled diagnostic blocks. But, in patients suffering with either lumbar or cervical facet joint pain, even this diagnostic approach may be confounded by false-positives when using a single diagnostic block. It may also be confounded by the administration of anxiolytics and narcotics prior to, or during, the controlled diagnostic facet joint blocks. The effect of sedation on the validity and potential differential results in patients suffering with combined cervical and lumbar facet joint pain has not been evaluated., Objective: To assess the effects of midazolam and fentanyl on the diagnostic validity of facet joint blocks in patients suffering with both cervical and lumbar facet joint pain., Study Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study., Methods: The design consisted of a placebo group receiving a sodium chloride solution and two experimental groups receiving either midazolam or fentanyl. Patients included in the study had been diagnosed with facet joint pain using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks of the medial branches and L5 dorsal rami. They had been treated with lumbar and cervical facet joint nerve blocks and experienced good pain relief; and were presenting for repeat treatment after a period of symptom relief. The study was performed in an interventional pain management practice in the United States; a total of 60 patients participated with 20 patients randomly allocated into each group. Outcome measures included numeric pain scores, proportion of pain relief, and ability to perform prior painful movements., Outcome Measures: Outcomes were assessed at baseline and after the administration of 1 of the 3 solutions (Group I, sodium chloride solution; Group II, midazolam; or Group III, fentanyl)., Results: Overall, 50% of the patients were relaxed or sedated in the placebo group, while 100% of the patients in the midazolam and fentanyl groups were relaxed or sedated. As many as 10% of the patients reported significant relief (>= 80%) with the ability to perform prior painful movements., Conclusions: Perioperative administration of sodium chloride, midazolam, or fentanyl can confound results in the diagnosis of combined cervical and lumbar facet joint pain. False-positive results with placebo or sedation may be seen in a small proportion of patients.

Background: Psychological disorders may be associated with poor pain related treatment outcomes. However, there may be limitations with studies evaluating the relationship between pain and psychopathology., Objective: To assess the reliability of psychological evaluations in interventional pain management by MCMI-III(R) and P-3(R)., Study Design: Prospective evaluation of consecutive patients in an interventional pain management center., Methods: Patients were evaluated using a DSM-IV-TR(R) questionnaire with a physician interview as an integral part of their comprehensive evaluation. In addition, all the patients participating in this study also underwent psychological evaluation with MCMI-III and P-3. A positive diagnosis of major depression or generalized anxiety disorder based on DSM-IV-TR criteria was considered as the criterion standard. All of the patients presented for treatment of chronic pain. The data based on the criterion standard were compared with results of the diagnostic impression from the MCMI-III and the P-3 evaluation utilizing criteria for average, and above average, patient pain scores., Results: Major depression was diagnosed in a total of 59 of 100 patients using DSM-IV-TR criteria, in 32 patients based on MCMI-III criteria, and in 55 patients based on P-3 evaluations utilizing average pain patient criteria. Generalized anxiety disorder was diagnosed in 55 patients by means of DSM-IV-TR, 45 patients by MCMI-III, and 55 patients by P-3 Profile utilizing average pain patient scores. The specificity of MCMI-III was 100% with a sensitivity of 54% for diagnosis of depression; whereas it was 78% specificity and sensitivity for P-3, with average pain patient scores. For generalized anxiety disorder, specificity of MCMI-III was 89% with a sensitivity of 73% compared to specificity of 80% and sensitivity of 84% for average pain patient scores for P-3., Conclusion: MCMI-III and P-3 are highly specific in diagnosing depression and generalized anxiety disorder, with variable sensitivity. A DSM-IV-TR questionnaire evaluation incorporated into the pain management questionnaire, along with a short clinical interview, is a reliable means of assessing depression and anxiety in patients suffering with chronic pain.

Background: Postoperative epidural fibrosis may contribute to between 5% to 60% of the poor surgical outcomes following decompressive surgery. Correlations have been reported between epidural scarring and radicular pain, poor surgical outcomes, and a lack of any form of surgical treatment. The use of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in recent years in the management of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain has been described., Methods: A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to determine the outcome of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to reduce pain and improve function and psychological status in patients with chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. A total of 83 patients were evaluated, with 33 patients in Group I and 50 patients in Group II. Group I served as the control, with endoscopy into the sacral level without adhesiolysis, followed by injection of local anesthetic and steroid. Group II received spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, followed by injection of local anesthetic and steroid., Results: Among the 50 patients in the treatment group receiving spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, significant improvement without adverse effects was shown in 80% at 3 months, 56% at 6 months, and 48% at 12 months. The control group showed improvement in 33% of the patients at one month and none thereafter. Based on the definition that less than 6 months of relief is considered short-term and longer than 6 months of relief is considered long-term, a significant number of patients obtained long-term relief with improvement in pain, functional status, and psychological status., Conclusion: Spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis with targeted delivery of local anesthetic and steroid is an effective treatment in a significant number of patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain without major adverse effects.

Background: Multiple studies have documented the incidence of illicit drug use and abuse of opioids. Over the years, several hypotheses have been proposed. Short-acting opioids such as hydrocodone are generally considered to predispose patients to poor pain management, dependency, misuse, or abuse; whereas long-acting opioids such as methadone are thought to provide sustained pain management without dependency or abuse., Objectives: To evaluate and identify the prevalence of illicit drug use and prescription drug abuse or misuse in patients receiving hydrocodone or methadone., Study Design: A prospective, comparative evaluation., Methods: A total of 200 patients from an interventional pain management setting, divided into two groups of 100 consecutive patients receiving either hydrocodone (Group I) or methadone (Group II) were evaluated with urine testing for illicit drug use, and/or misuse or abuse of opioids. Drug testing was carried out by Rapid Drug Screen(R)., Results: Results of this study showed that 22% (95% CI, 13% - 30%) of Group I patients receiving hydrocodone used illicit drugs as compared with 24% (95% CI, 15% - 32%) of those in Group II who were receiving methadone. The misuse or abuse of a prescription opioid was seen in 3% (95% CI, 0% - 6%) of the patients in Group I and 12% (95% CI, 5% - 18%) in Group II. In a significant proportion of patients in both groups, the drug prescribed for them was not detected on testing. The combined use of illicit drugs and misuse of prescription drugs was noted in 24% (95% CI, 15% - 32%) in Group I and 33% (95% CI, 23% - 42%) in Group II., Conclusions: There were no significant differences as to illicit drug use and/or misuse of opioids in patients treated with hydrocodone or methadone. These findings suggest that the use of a long acting opioid formulation by patients with chronic pain does not reduce the risk of drug abuse or improve compliance with medical therapy.

The abuse of prescription-controlled substances is a common phenomenon, associated with illicit drug use, in patients suffering with chronic pain and receiving controlled substances for the management of pain. Prescription drug abuse in Kentucky has led to an increase in Medicare and Medicaid fraud, as well as physician indictments for unscrupulous practices and increased vigilance and prosecution by the authorities. This study was undertaken to evaluate 400 consecutive patients receiving controlled substances in an interventional pain management practice in Western Kentucky to evaluate the prevalence of illicit drug use and opioid abuse and noncompliance with opioid therapy. Results indicated that patients covered by third-party insurance showed 17% (95% CI, 10%-24%) prevalence of illicit drug use, with patients on Medicare, with or without third-party insurance, showing 10% (95% CI, 4%-6%) prevalence, compared to patients on Medicare and Medicaid with 24% (95% CI, 16%-32%) prevalence, and patients with only Medicaid with 39% (95% CI, 29%-49%) prevalence of illicit drug use. In addition, combined use of illicit drugs and misuse of prescription drugs was also seen in a substantially greater proportion of patients in Groups III and IV, with the highest (60%) in Group IV with Medicaid only, followed by Group III with Medicaid supplementation of Medicare insurance in 40% of the patients. Overall illicit drug use, opioid abuse, and noncompliance of opioids is significant in patients in Western Kentucky receiving Medicaid as a primary insurance or as a supplemental insurance to Medicare, despite extensive monitoring, written agreement, and education.

Background: Lumbar facet (zygapophysial) joints have been implicated as the source of chronic pain in 15% to 45% of patients with chronic low back pain. Diagnosis may be confounded by false-positive results with a single diagnostic block and administration of anxiolytics and narcotics prior to or during the diagnostic facet joint blocks., Objective: To evaluate the effect of midazolam and fentanyl on the diagnostic validity of of lumbar facet joint pain., Study Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation., Methods: The design consisted of a placebo group receiving sodium chloride solution and two experimental groups receiving either midazolam or fentanyl. The patients included in the study were diagnosed with facet joint pain with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks of medial branches or L5 dorsal rami. They had been treated with lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with good pain relief, and were presenting for repeat treatment after a period of symptom relief. The study was undertaken in an interventional pain management practice., Outcome Measures: Outcomes were assessed at baseline and after the administration of 1 of the 3 solutions (Group I, sodium chloride solution; Group II, midazolam; or Group III, fentanyl). Outcome measures included numeric pain scale, proportion of pain relief, and ability to perform prior painful movements., Results: Pain relief of > or =80% was noted in 2% of the patients in Group I, 5% of the patients in Group II, and 7% in Group III. Pain relief of > or =50% was noted in 7% of the patients in Group I, 5% of the patients in Group II, and 13% of the patients in Group III. There were no significant differences among the groups., Conclusion: The administration of sedation with midazolam or fentanyl is a confounding factor in the diagnosis of lumbar facet joint pain in patients with chronic low back pain. However, this study suggests that if strict criteria including pain relief and ability to perform prior painful movements is used as the standard for evaluating the effect of controlled local anesthetic blocks, the diagnostic validity of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks may be preserved.

Background: Over the years, there has been a shift toward the increased reliance on opioids for the treatment of chronic pain. It is well known that some patients do not provide an appropriate history or underestimate their drug intake, and may exaggerate reported pain levels. Numerous studies have documented the incidence of illicit drug use and abuse of opioids in chronic pain patients. It is not known what proportion of patients have already been exposed to controlled substances prior to presenting for interventional pain management., Objective: To evaluate and identify the prevalence of controlled substance use, demographic characteristics, and psychological characteristics of patients presenting for interventional pain management along with illicit drug use., Study Design: A prospective, observational study., Methods: A total of 100 patients presenting at an interventional pain management setting for initial evaluation were evaluated by detailed history and urine drug testing for controlled substance use and illicit drug use., Results: Duration of pain on average was 9.3 years, 57% of the patients had involvement of more than one body region, 90% were taking opioids, 47% had been seen by 5 or more providers, and more than 70% presented with psychological problems. Twenty-three patients tested positive for illicit drugs and 12 patients were positive for opioids even though they had no prescription and denied taking opioids. Twenty-seven patients either under-reported (16) or over-reported (11) opioid use., Conclusion: Ninety percent of these patients were taking opioids. Twenty-seven patients incorrectly reported opioid use, either underuse or overuse, with 23 patients using illicit drugs, 12 using non-prescription opioids, and with 35 of 100 patients at initial evaluation exhibiting one of the abuse behaviors.

Background: Multiple aberrant behaviors have been described to identify patients abusing opioids and using illicit drugs. However, patient behavior encompassing aggressive seeking or complaining about the need for higher doses of opioids has not yet been evaluated with regards to misuse or abuse patterns of prescription drugs and illicit drug usage., Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and identify the prevalence of illicit drug use and prescription drug abuse or misuse in patients seeking higher doses of opioids and compare to a group of patients not seeking higher doses of opioids., Design: A prospective, non-randomized, consecutive, observational study., Methods: A total of 200 patients from an interventional pain management setting with 100 consecutive patients in each group either not seeking additional opioids (Group I) or seeking higher doses of opioids (Group II) were evaluated with urine testing for illicit drug use, and/or misuse or abuse of opioids. Drug testing was carried out by Rapid Drug Screen., Results: Results of this study showed a significantly greater proportion of patients in Group II using illicit drugs (15% vs 32% P = 0.005). Combined use of illicit drugs and abuse of non-prescribed opioids was also present in a significantly greater proportion of patients in Group II (15% vs 39% P = 0.000). A significant number of patients in Group I (32%) and Group II (30%) failed to show the prescribed drug in their urine., Conclusion: A significant proportion of patients, whether they were seeking additional opioids or not, used illicit drugs. Further, a greater proportion of patients in Group II used illicit drugs and non-prescribed opioids.

Background: Based on responses to controlled diagnostic blocks of cervical facet joints, the prevalence of cervical facet joint pain in chronic neck pain has been shown to range from 54% to 67%, with false-positive results of 27% to 63% with a single diagnostic block. Other confounding factors claimed to influence the diagnostic validity of cervical facet joint blocks include administration of anxiolytics and narcotics prior to or during the procedure., Objective: To evaluate the effect of midazolam and fentanyl on the validity of diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain., Study Design: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled evaluation., Methods: The study was undertaken in an interventional pain management practice. The design consisted of a placebo group receiving sodium chloride solution and two experimental groups receiving either midazolam or fentanyl. The patients included in the study were treated in the past and were presenting for repeat treatment after a significant period of symptom relief., Outcome Measures: Outcomes were assessed at baseline and after the administration of 1 of the 3 solutions (Group I, sodium chloride solution; Group II, midazolam; or Group III, fentanyl). Outcome measures included numeric pain scale, proportion of pain relief, and ability to perform prior painful movements., Results: Pain relief of > or = 80% was noted in 5% of the patients in Group I, 8% in Group II, and 8% in Group III. However, > or = 50% relief was noted in 8% of the patients in Group I, 13% in Group II, and 27% in Group III. Overall, 8% of the patients in Group I, 13% in Group II, and 27% in Group III were able to perform movements which were painful prior to injection., Conclusion: The administration of sedation with midazolam or fentanyl is a confounding factor in the diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain in patients with chronic neck pain. However, if > or = 80% pain relief with ability to perform prior painful movements is used as the standard for evaluating the effect of controlled local anesthetic blocks, the diagnostic validity of cervical facet joint nerve blocks may be preserved.

Background: Facet joints are a clinically important source of chronic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the prevalence of facet joint pain by spinal region in patients with chronic spine pain referred to an interventional pain management practice., Methods: Five hundred consecutive patients with chronic, non-specific spine pain were evaluated. The prevalence of facet joint pain was determined using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks (1% lidocaine or 1% lidocaine followed by 0.25% bupivacaine), in accordance with the criteria established by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). The study was performed in the United States in a non-university based ambulatory interventional pain management setting., Results: The prevalence of facet joint pain in patients with chronic cervical spine pain was 55% 5(95% CI, 49%-61%), with thoracic spine pain was 42% (95% CI, 30%-53%), and in with lumbar spine pain was 31% (95% CI, 27%-36%). The false-positive rate with single blocks with lidocaine was 63% (95% CI, 54%-72%) in the cervical spine, 55% (95% CI, 39%-78%) in the thoracic spine, and 27% (95% CI, 22%-32%) in the lumbar spine., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that in an interventional pain management setting, facet joints are clinically important spinal pain generators in a significant proportion of patients with chronic spinal pain. Because these patients typically have failed conservative management, including physical therapy, chiropractic treatment and analgesics, they may benefit from specific interventions designed to manage facet joint pain.

Background: The high prevalence of persistent neck pain due to involvement of cervical facet joints has been described in controlled studies. Therapeutic interventions utilized in managing chronic neck pain of facet joint origin include intraarticular injections, medial branch nerve blocks, and neurolysis of medial branch nerves by means of radiofrequency., Objective: The objective of this prospective evaluation was to determine the clinical effectiveness of cervical medial branch blocks for therapeutic purposes., Design: A prospective, non-randomized, outcome study., Methods: One hundred consecutive patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic blocks were included in this evaluation. All medial branch blocks were performed in a sterile operating room under fluoroscopic visualization with mild sedation with midazolam and/or fentanyl. Statistical methods incorporated intent-to-treat analysis., Outcome Measures: Numeric pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index, work status, and Pain Patient Profile (P-3(R)). Significant pain relief was defined as average relief of 50% or greater., Results: The results showed significant differences in numeric pain scores and significant pain relief (50% or greater) at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, compared to baseline measurements. Functional improvement was demonstrated at 12 months from baseline. There was significant improvement with increase in employment among the patients eligible for employment (employed and unemployed) from baseline to 12 months, and improved psychological functioning., Conclusion: Cervical medial branch blocks were an effective modality of treatment in managing chronic neck pain secondary to facet joint involvement confirmed by controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks.

Background: Transforaminal epidural steroid injection is one of the commonly employed modalities of treatment in managing nerve root pain. However, there have been no controlled prospective evaluations of epidural and nerve root contrast distribution patterns and other aspects of fluoroscopically directed lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injections., Objectives: To evaluate contrast flow patterns and intravascular needle placement of fluoroscopically guided lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections., Design: A prospective, observational study., Methods: A total of 100 consecutive patients undergoing fluoroscopically guided transforaminal epidural steroid injections were evaluated. The contrast flow patterns, ventral or dorsal epidural filling, nerve root filling, C-arm time, and intravascular needle placement were evaluated., Results: Ventral epidural filling was seen in 88% of the procedures, in contrast to dorsal filling noted in 9% of the procedures. Nerve root filling was seen in 97% of the procedures. Total intravenous placement of the needle was noted in 22% of the procedures, whereas negative flashback and aspiration was noted in 5% of the procedures., Conclusion: Lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections, performed under fluoroscopic visualization, provide excellent nerve root filling and ventral epidural filling patterns. However, unrecognized intravascular needle placement with negative flashback or aspiration was noted in 5% of the procedures.

Background: Chronic, refractory low back pain is a common problem. Percutaneous adhesiolysis with hypertonic saline neurolysis was described in the management of chronic refractory low back pain, non-responsive to conservative modalities of management., Objective: To determine the ability of percutaneous adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline administration to reduce pain and improve functional and psychological status in patients with chronic low back pain., Design: Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial., Methods: A total of 75 patients were studied, with 25 patients in each group. Three types of interventions were included, with Group I serving as control with catheterization without adhesiolysis, followed by injection of local anesthetic, normal saline, and steroid. Group II consisted of catheterization and adhesiolysis, followed by injection of local anesthetic, normal saline, and steroid. Group III consisted of adhesiolysis followed by injection of local anesthetic, hypertonic saline, and steroid. Statistical analysis incorporated intent-to-treat analysis., Outcome Measures: Visual Analogue Scale pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index, work status, opioid intake, range of motion measurement, and P-3 (R). Significant pain relief was defined as average relief of 50% or greater., Results: Significant improvement was seen in patients in Group II and III, at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, compared to baseline measurements, as well as compared to Group I without adhesiolysis. Seventy-two percent of patients in Group III (adhesiolysis and hypertonic neurolysis), 60% of patients in Group II (adhesiolysis only), compared to 0% in Group I (control) showed significant improvement at 12-month follow up. The average number of treatments for one year were 2.76 in Group II and 2.16 in Group III. Duration of significant relief with the first procedure was 2.8 +/- 1.49 months in Group II and 3.8 +/- 3.37 months in Group III., Conclusion: Percutaneous adhesiolysis, with or without hypertonic saline neurolysis, is an effective treatment for chronic low back pain.

Study Design: A retrospective, case-controlled study., Objective: To identify variables in patients with or without illicit drug use., Background Information: Studies documenting a high incidence of controlled substance abuse in chronic pain continue to increase. Over the years, multiple evaluation tools have been proposed. The need to identify predictors of aberrant drug related behavior and addiction in patients being treated with controlled substances for pain has been emphasized., Methods: A total of 150 patients were included in the study. One hundred consecutive urine tests without the presence of illicit drugs and 50 consecutive urine tests with the presence of illicit drugs of patients receiving controlled substances, were selected for evaluation of multiple variables of illicit drug use. They were divided into four groups with Group I with no controlled substance abuse and no illicit drug abuse with 70 patients; Group II with no controlled substance abuse, however, with positive illicit drug use with 33 patients; Group III with positive controlled abuse, however, with no illicit drug use with 30 patients; and Group IV with controlled substance abuse and illicit drug use with 17 patients., Results: Results of this study showed that of the eight variables described in a previous study in identifying controlled substance abuse, four variables were crucial. The four significant items identified in this evaluation were excessive opiate needs, deception or lying to obtain controlled substances, current or prior intentional doctor shopping, and current or prior use of illicit drugs and denial. These four variables were accurate in identifying controlled substance abuse. However, they failed to identify illicit drug use., Conclusion: The presently available and validated screening tool for controlled substance abuse failed to identify illicit drug use in patients receiving controlled substances.

Objective: To evaluate accuracy of needle placement and flow patterns of fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections., Design: A prospective observational study of patients with low back pain undergoing caudal epidural injections under fluoroscopy., Background: Epidural administration of corticosteroids is one of the commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back pain. Sacral or caudal epidural placement of the needle is one of the commonly used means to access the lumbar epidural space for administration of various drugs., Methods: A total of 100 consecutive patients underwent fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections. Needle insertion was performed blindly (without the use of fluoroscopic guidance) based on palpable landmarks, palpation of subcutaneous airflow, subjective impression that the needle was in a satisfactory position, and ease of injection of contrast. These clinical criteria were compared with the position of the needle as seen under fluoroscopy and the spread of radiopaque contrast in the epidural space. The contrast flow patterns, ventral or dorsal epidural filling, nerve root filling, and correlation of filling to the side of pain were evaluated., Results: Successful injection placement without fluoroscopic visualization was confirmed on subsequent fluoroscopic visualization in 77% of the patients. Various filling and flow patterns showed that with injection of 10 mL of contrast, filling was noted up to S1 in 70% of the patients, followed by L5 nerve root filling in 12% of the patients. Ventral epidural filling was seen in 69% of the patients, in contrast to dorsal filling in 92% of the patients. Nerve root filling correlated with leg pain in only 43% of the patients. Intravenous placement of the needle was noted in 14% of the patients with positive flashback and aspiration in 50% of the patients., Conclusion: Caudal epidural injections are ideally performed with fluoroscopic guidance as the gold standard for accurate needle placement. However, this does not assure either targeted delivery or accurate placement of the drug.

Objective: To demonstrate the effectiveness of Sarapin in prolonging the action of neural blockade with improved pain relief., Design: Prospective, continuous, double-blind trial including 500 consecutive patients undergoing either caudal epidural injections; cervical, thoracic, lumbosacral facet joint nerve blocks; and/or intercostal nerve blocks or a combination thereof., Background: Sarapin has been reported as an agent to provide pain relief without motor weakness with an excellent risk/ benefit ratio in neural blockade. Sarapin is a suspension of powdered Sarracenia purpurin (pitcher plant) in alkaline solution. Researchers theorize that the distillate contained an unidentified biological substance that potentiates the action of the ammonium ion. Modest but significant benefits were demonstrated with diagnostic blocks, with diagnostic lumbar medial branch blocks, therapeutic lumbar medial branch blocks, and caudal epidural injections. In an experimental study in the horse, no benefits were seen by injection of Sarapin. The authors proposed that there may not be any benefits in other species as well. Multiple therapeutic agents utilized in neural blockade, including local anesthetics, steroids, and neurolytic agents, have been evaluated extensively. Sarapin has not been evaluated in controlled trials., Methods: Five hundred consecutive patients undergoing either caudal epidural injections; cervical, thoracic, or lumbosacral facet joint nerve blocks; or intercostal nerve blocks or a combination thereof were included in the study. Each patient was treated with two blocks. The treatments were dou-ble-blind and prospective. Each patient acted as their own control., Results: The results showed that 500 patients received a total of 828 treatments, once with Sarapin and once without. There were no significant differences between these groups, either with pain relief measured by numeric pain scale or duration of significant relief defined as 50% or greater relief., Conclusion: This prospective, double-blind trial of 500 patients undergoing 828 treatments, one time with Sarapin and a subsequent time without, with each patient acting as their own control, showed no significant differences in the pain relief or duration of significant relief with the addition of Sarapin.

There is a need for an assessment tool to identify drug abuse behaviors in patients in pain treatment practices. Many assessment tools are complex, lengthy, lack external validation, and/or are difficult to administer. This prospective evaluation was undertaken to provide external validation for an assessment tool with 12 sections and 27 items. The test was applied in a prospective fashion to 500 consecutive patients: 100 patients in a drug abuse group and 400 patients in a non-abuse group. Drug abuse was defined as the misuse of controlled substances in a clinical setting, including obtaining controlled substances from other physicians or other identifiable sources, dose escalation with inappropriate use, and/or violation of controlled substance agreements. This study was performed in an interventional pain management setting with patients who were in stable therapy and were followed for at least one year. Results identified 8 of 12 parameters to be useful in identifying patients with drug abuse. Three factors were particularly useful, allowing correct identification of patients with abuse behavior in 90% of cases (odds ratios greater than 100 and P values of 0.001 or less). Important factors identified included excessive opiate needs, deception or lying to obtain controlled substances, and current or prior intentional doctor shopping. Together, these factors appear to identify 90% of patients with drug abuse. This tool provides a simple, reliable, and cost effective means of screening for drug abuse during the clinical evaluation of patients in interventional pain management settings.

The prevalence of illicit drug use by patients in a chronic pain management practice who concomitantly abuse prescription-controlled substances is not known. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of illicit drug use by patients in an interventional pain management practice, based on whether or not there was evidence of simultaneous abuse of prescription drugs. One hundred and fifty patients in an interventional pain management practice who were prescribed controlled substances for pain treatment were selected for assessment of concomitant illicit drug use by urine drug testing. Patients were divided into two groups: Group I consisted of 100 consecutive patients without evidence of controlled substance abuse and Group II consisted of 50 consecutive patients with documented abuse of prescription controlled substances. All patients underwent urine testing with the Rapid Drug Screen test. The test is a one-step, lateral flow immunoassay for the simultaneous detection of four illicit drugs (i.e., amphetamine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine). Results showed a prevalence of illicit drug abuse in patients without a history of controlled substance abuse of 14%. In contrast, illicit drug abuse in patients with a history of controlled substance abuse was 34%. Marijuana was the drug of choice in both groups, with 22% in the prescription abuse group and 10% in the non-abuse group. The second most commonly used illicit drug in both groups was cocaine. This study demonstrated a clinically significant use of illicit drugs, particularly marijuana and cocaine in an interventional pain management setting, in patients with or without evidence of concomitant abuse of prescription controlled substances.

Epidural adhesiolysis with spinal endoscopy is an emerging interventional pain management technique in managing chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. However, there is a lack of significant data demonstrating the effectiveness of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis. This randomized, double-blind controlled trial was undertaken to determine the ability of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to reduce pain and improve functional and psychological status. The study was performed in an interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, in a private practice setting. This trial extended from January 2002 to December 2002. However, only the patients with 6-month follow-up were included. Any relief of less than 6 months was considered as short-term and 6-months or longer was considered as long-term. All the patients with chronic low back pain of at least 6 months and having failed conservative modalities of management, including fluoroscopically directed epidural steroid injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis, were included. Patient assignment was by randomized selection from all eligible subjects. Two types of interventions were included with Group I serving as the control with endoscopy to the sacral level without adhesiolysis, followed by injection of local anesthetic and steroid. Group II consisted of spinal endoscopy and appropriate adhesiolysis, followed by injection of local anesthetic and steroid. Outcome measures were focused to evaluate and demonstrate a clinically significant difference between the treated patients and those patients randomized to the control group in multiple parameters of pain, functional status, psychological, and behavioral status. Overall, 13 of 23 patients (57%) showed significant improvement without adverse events. Based on the definition that less than 6 months of relief is considered as short-term and longer than 6 months is considered as long-term, a significant number of patients obtained long-term relief. The results showed significant improvement in patients undergoing spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis at 1-month, 3-months, and 6-months, compared to baseline measurements, as well as compared to the control group without adhesiolysis. Spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis with targeted injection of local anesthetic and steroid, is an effective treatment in a significant number of patients without major adverse effects at 6-month follow-up.

Drug abuse with illicit drugs and licit drugs has been increasing steadily over the past decade. A recent National Household Survey on Drug Abuse found statistically significant increases between 2000 and 2001 in the use of multiple drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, and non-medical use of pain relievers and tranquilizers. Prescription controlled substance abuse is a major issue in chronic pain management. Various means suggested to avoid or monitor abuse in patients in treatment include urine/serum drug screening whenever requested, along with other precautions including one prescribing physician and one designated pharmacy, etc. Based on the present evidence, physicians assume that patients adhering to controlled substance agreements and without obvious dependency behavior do not abuse either illicit or licit drugs. Thus, it is accepted that there is no necessity to perform routine urine/drug testing in this specific group of the patient population. One hundred patients undergoing interventional pain management and receiving controlled substances were randomly selected for evaluation of illicit drug abuse by urine drug testing. They were selected from a total of 250 patients who were identified as non-abusers of prescription drugs. Results showed that illicit drug abuse in patients without history of controlled substance abuse was seen in 16 patients. Thirteen of the 16 patients tested positive for marijuana and 3 patients tested positive for cocaine. Only one patient tested positive for a combined use of both marijuana and cocaine. This study showed that, in an interventional pain management setting, there is significant use of illicit drugs (16%) with 13% use of marijuana and 3% use of cocaine in patients who are considered as non-abusers of prescription controlled substances and those who are adherent to controlled substance agreements. However, if cocaine is considered as a hardcore drug in contrast to marijuana, abuse of hardcore illicit drugs is only 3%.

The role of zygapophysial (facet) joints in chronic thoracic pain has received very little attention with only a few publications discussing these joints as sources of pain. In contrast, facet joints have been implicated as responsible for chronic pain in a significant proportion of patients with chronic neck and low back pain. However, thoracic spinal pain, though less common, has been reported to be as disabling as neck and low back pain. This study was designed to evaluate all the consecutive patients presenting with thoracic pain and undergoing diagnostic medial branch blocks during 2001. All the patients failed conservative management with physical therapy, chiropractic therapy and drug therapy. All patients underwent diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks using lidocaine 1%, initially followed by bupivacaine 0.5% on separate occasions. Results showed that 46 patients underwent single blocks with lidocaine and 36 of these patients, or 78%, were positive for facet joint pain, reporting a definite response. Confirmatory blocks with bupivacaine were performed in all patients who were lidocaine-positive, with 61%, or 48% of the total sample of the lidocaine-positive group, reporting a definite response with improvement in their pain. Thus, comparative local anesthetic blocks showed the prevalence of facet joint pain to be 48%, with single blocks carrying a false-positive rate of 58%.

Among the chronic pain problems, pain emanating from cervical and lumbar regions, independently or in combination, constitutes a significant and frequently encountered problem in interventional pain management practices. This study was designed to test the assumption that patients presenting with chronic low back pain of lumbar facet joint origin may also present with chronic neck pain of facet joint origin. Considering that many studies show the prevalence of facet joint involvement in chronic low back pain as ranging from 15% to 45% compared to prevalence of involvement of cervical facets in chronic neck pain, ranging from 54% to 60%, we sought to evaluate the correlation between lumbar facet joint to cervical facet joint pain. One hundred twenty consecutive patients with chronic neck and low back pain were evaluated utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks with lidocaine and bupivacaine. The results showed prevalence of cervical facet joint pain in 67% of the patients with a false-positive rate of 63% with a single block, whereas the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain was seen in 40% of the patients with a 30% false-positive rate with a single block in patients presenting with chronic low back and neck pain. There was also significant correlation noted with 94% of the patients with confirmed lumbar facet joint pain also presenting with cervical facet joint pain.

While drug therapy is one of the most commonly used modalities of treatment in managing persistent or chronic pain, controversy continues with regards to the appropriate use of controlled substances, specifically opioid analgesics, in interventional pain medicine settings. This study included 100 randomly selected patients receiving opioids in an interventional pain medicine setting. The patient's controlled substance profile was evaluated using multiple means. The patients were divided into two groups, with 76 patients in the non-abuse group and 24 patients in the abuse group after data collection. There were no significant differences noted either in demographic characteristics or psychological characteristics, except for a higher prevalence of depression in the abuse group. In conclusion, there was significant abuse of opioids in an interventional pain medicine setting, with an incidence of 24%, with frequent abuse seen in almost half of these patients. Thus, it is important for interventional pain physicians to recognize this possibility and also to recognize that there is no definite physiologic, psychologic or demographic information to suggest abuse, even though depression was more prevalent in abuse patients.

An attempt was made to determine the relative contribution of various structures to chronic low back pain, including facet joint(s), disc(s), and sacroiliac joint(s) in a prospective evaluation. Precision diagnostic blocks, including disc injections, facet joint blocks, and sacroiliac joint injections, are frequently used. In contrast, selective nerve root blocks or transforaminal epidural injections are used occasionally to evaluate persistent or recurrent low back pain in patients without appropriate radiologic or neurophysiologic diagnosis. One hundred and twenty patients with a chief complaint of low back pain were evaluated with precision diagnostic injections, which included medial branch blocks, provocative discography and sacroiliac joint injections. In 40% (95% CL, 31%, 49%), of the patients, facet joint pain was diagnosed; and in 26% (95% CL, 18%, 34%) of the patients discogenic pain was diagnosed; and 2% of the patients were diagnosed with sacroiliac joint pain.

The increasing proportion of elderly patients, coupled with increasing longevity, causes the problem of lumbosacral pain secondary to spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine to be an important issue. Symptoms of spinal stenosis are caused by entrapment and compression of intraspinal vascular and nervous structures; which may lead to inactivity, loss of productivity, and potential loss of independence, particularly in the elderly. Surgical decompression is considered as the natural treatment. However, the results of surgical treatments have been mixed. Results of conservative treatment are also not encouraging. While the effectiveness of caudal epidural blocks for lumbar canal stenosis was positive, the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural steroid injections showed no beneficial effects on symptomatology of spinal stenosis. Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis with hypertonic saline neurolysis has been studied in patients with refractory low back pain secondary to post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, as well as spinal stenosis. The specific role of adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline neurolysis in the management of refractory low back and lower extremity pain secondary to spinal stenosis has not been studied. This retrospective evaluation included 18 patients derived from a total sample of 239 patients undergoing adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline neurolysis over a period of 3 years. The results showed significant improvement with reduction of pain; with improvement of physical health, mental health, and functional status. Improvement in psychological status was also noted, with decrease in narcotic intake. Epidural adhesiolysis with hypertonic saline neurolysis is a safe and probably effective modality of treatment in managing symptomatic moderate to severe lumbar spinal canal stenosis.

This study was designed to determine the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in patients suffering with or without somatization disorder. The study was performed using comparative local anesthetic blocks. One hundred consecutive patients with chronic low back pain, with or without somatization, were evaluated. The results showed that, among patients suffering with chronic low back pain, 44% of the patients without somatization and 38% of the patients with somatization were positive for facet joint pain. The diagnosis of facet joint pain was not influenced by the presence or absence of somatization disorder. The evaluation also was extended to depression, generalized anxiety disorder and combinations with or without somatization thereof which showed no significant differences in the prevalence of facet joint pain. The results of this study demonstrated that the facet joint was a source of pain in chronic low back pain patients in 44% of the patients without somatization and 38% of the patients with somatization. This study also showed that there was no correlation between the presence or absence of facet joint pain and the presence or absence of somatization disorder or any other psychological condition or combination thereof.

Epidural steroid injections are the most commonly used procedures to manage chronic low back pain in interventional pain management settings. Approaches available to access the epidural space in the lumbosacral spine include the interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal. The overall effectiveness of epidural steroid injections has been highly variable. This study included 65 patients who underwent diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks utilizing comparative local anesthetic blocks and were shown to be negative for facet joint pain and other problems such as sacroiliac joint pain before enrollment into the study. They were randomly selected from 105 patients negative for facet joint pain allocated into three groups, with Group I consisting of 15 patients comprising a convenience control sample treated conservatively; Group II, consisting of 22 patients treated with caudal epidural with local anesthetic and Sarapin(R); and Group III, consisting of 33 patients treated with caudal epidural with a mixture of local anesthetic, and betamethasone. The study period lasted for 3 years. Results showed that there was significant improvement in patients receiving caudal epidural injections, with a decrease in pain associated with improved physical, functional and mental status; and decreased narcotic intake combined with return to work. The study showed that at 1 month 96% of the patients evaluated showed significant improvement, which declined to 56% at 3 months and 16% at 6 months, with administration of 1 to 3 injections. Cumulative relief with 1 to 12 injections was noted in 96% of the patients at 1 month, 95% at 3 months, 85% at 6 months, and 67% at 1 year. The study also showed cost effectiveness of this treatment, with a cost of $ 2550 for 1-year improvement of quality of life . In conclusion, caudal epidural injections with steroids or Sarapin are an effective modality of treatment in managing chronic, persistent low back pain that fails to respond to conservative modalities of treatments and is also negative for facet joint pain. The treatment is not only effective clinically but also is cost effective.

Epidural fibrosis is seen as a common phenomenon among postlumbar laminectomy syndrome patients, contributing to approximately 60% of symptom recurrence. Percutaneous epidural lysis of adhesions has been described as a modality to effectively manage chronic low back pain secondary to epidural fibrosis. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned, with fifteen patients in the control group, or Group I, who were treated with conservative modalities of treatments, including medication, physical therapy, and an exercise program; and, thirty patients in Group II, who were treated with percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis and hypertonic saline neurolysis. The patients were evaluated over a period of 1 1/2 years to 3 years. Results showed that cumulative relief, defined as relief greater than 50% with one to three injections, in the treatment group was 97% at 3 months, 93% at 6 months, and 47% at 1 year. The study also showed that overall health status improved significantly in the treatment group in all parameters with average pain, physical health, mental health, functional status, psychological status and narcotic intake. Analysis also showed that this is a cost-effective treatment, with cost for 1-year improvement of quality of life at $2693. In conclusion, epidural adhesiolysis with hypertonic saline neurolysis performed on a 1-day basis is an effective modality of treatment in managing chronic low back pain in patients who failed to respond to fluoroscopically directed epidural steroid injections and also were demonstrated not to have facet joint mediated pain.

Chronic low back pain patients are seen in multiple practice settings and managed with a multitude of therapeutic interventions. Studies conducted by various groups have made some generalizations in the literature describing low back pain patients. However, there are no studies evaluating the demographic features of patients presenting to therapeutic interventional pain medicine programs. This prospective study was undertaken to evaluate and explore various demographic features of patients with chronic low back pain presenting to a therapeutic interventional pain medicine program. Two hundred patients were studied, with evaluation of demographic features of age, mode of onset of pain, work status, history of surgery, and pain characteristics. The results showed that, among patients presenting to an interventional pain medicine program, 17% are over 65 years of age: they are predominantly women; two thirds are either overweight or obese; the mean duration of pain is 7 years, predominantly involving multiple regions, with an average pain intensity of 7.6, significant associated psychological conditions; they have undergone multiple interventions, and were seen by, on average, six physicians; and the majority of patients were not employed, with 31% unemployed and 52% disabled or retired.

Postlumbar laminectomy syndrome, or pain following operative procedures of the lumbar spine, is increasingly a common entity in modern medicine. Multiple causes proposed for recurrence of pain after lumbar laminectomy are: epidural fibrosis, recurrent disc herniation, instability, and facet joints. Even though the prevalence of persistent low back pain secondary to the involvement of lumbosacral facet joints has been described in controlled studies from 15% to 45%, the prevalence of facet joint mediated pain in postlumbar laminectomy syndrome has not been studied. This prospective, randomized, controlled comparative evaluation was performed to determine the prevalence of facet joint mediated pain in persistent low back pain in postlumbar laminectomy patients with a comparative non-surgical group. One hundred patients with fifty patients in each group were randomly assigned with group I consisting of fifty patients without history of previous surgery and group II consisting of fifty patients with history of previous surgery. Results showed that the prevalence of facet joint mediated pain in non-surgical patients was 44% compared to 32% in post surgical patients determined by comparative controlled local anesthetic blocks utilizing lidocaine and bupivacaine. This study also showed a false positive rate of 36% in non-surgical group and 24% in post-surgical group. In conclusion, this study shows that facet joint mediated symptomatology in chronic low back pain is prevalent, both in non-surgical as well as post-surgical patients even though prevalence was somewhat higher in the non-surgical group compared to post-surgical group.

This randomized clinical trial was designed to determine the effectiveness of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks. Two hundred patients were evaluated with controlled diagnostic blocks for the presence of facet joint mediated pain. Eighty four patients, or 42% were determined to have lumbar facet joint mediated pain. These patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group I receiving therapeutic injections with local anesthetic and Sarapin, and Group II receiving therapeutic injections with a mixture of local anesthetic, Sarapin, and methyl prednisolone. A total of 73 patients were treated with medial branch blocks under fluoroscopy. Results showed that patients underwent multiple procedures over a period of 2(1/2) years. The mean number of procedures or interventions was 2.5 +/- 0.09 from 1 to 3 months, whereas it was 4 +/- 0.13 for 4 to 6 months, 6.1 +/- 0.21 for 7 to 12 months, and 8.4 +/- 0.31 for 13 to 32 months. Cumulative significant relief with one to three injections was 100% up to 1 to 3 months, 82% for 4 to 6 months, 21% for 7 to 12 months, and 10% after 12 months, with a mean relief of 6.5 +/- 0.76 months. There was significant improvement noted in overall health status with improvement not only in pain relief, but also with physical, functional, and psychological status, as well as return-to-work status. In conclusion, the results of this study demonstrate that medial branch blocks with local anesthetic and Sarapin, with or without steroids, are a cost effective modality of treatment, resulting in improvement in pain status, physical status, psychological status, functional status and return to work.