Search

BackgroundThere is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit.MethodsDevelopment of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed.ResultsThis guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections.ConclusionsIn this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.

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

ObjectiveInvestigate associations between endplate and motion segment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics and treatment outcomes following basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation (BVN RFA) in patients with clinically suspected vertebral endplate pain (VEP).DesignAggregated cohort study of 296 participants treated with BVN RFA from three prospective clinical trials.MethodsBaseline MRI characteristics were analyzed using stepwise logistic regression to identify factors associated with treatment success. Predictive models used three definitions of treatment success: (1) ≥50% low back pain (LBP) visual analog scale (VAS), (2) ≥15-point Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and (3) ≥50% VAS or ≥15-point ODI improvements at 3-months post-BVN RFA.ResultsThe presence of lumbar facet joint fluid (odds ratio [OR] 0.586) reduced the odds of BVN RFA treatment success in individuals with clinically suspected VEP. In patients with a less advanced degenerative disc disease (DDD) profile, a > 50% area of the endplate with bone marrow intensity changes (BMIC) was predictive of treatment success (OR 4.689). Both regressions areas under the curve (AUCs) were under 70%, indicating low predictive value. All other vertebral endplate, intervertebral disc, nerve roots facet joint, spinal segmental alignment, neuroforamina, lateral recesses, and central canal MRI characteristics were not associated with BVN RFA success.ConclusionsIn patients with vertebrogenic low back pain with Modic changes, the presence of degenerative findings of the anterior and posterior column was not associated with a clinically important impact on BVN RFA treatment success. None of the models demonstrated strong predictive value, indicating that the use of objective imaging biomarkers (Type 1 and/or 2 Modic changes) and a correlating presentation of pain remain the most useful patient selection factors for BVN RFA.

ObjectiveDevelop pain location "maps" and investigate the relationship between low back pain (LBP)-exacerbating activities and treatment response to basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation (BVN RFA) in patients with clinically suspected vertebral endplate pain (VEP).DesignAggregated cohort study of 296 patients treated with BVN RFA at 33 centers in three prospective trials.MethodsParticipant demographics, pain diagrams, and LBP-exacerbating activities were analyzed for predictors using stepwise logistic regression. Treatment success definitions were: (1) ≥50% LBP visual analog scale (VAS), (2) ≥15-point Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and (3) ≥50% VAS or ≥15-point ODI improvements at 3 months post-BVN RFA.ResultsMidline LBP correlated with BVN RFA treatment success in individuals with clinically-suspected VEP. Duration of pain ≥5 years (OR 2.366), lack of epidural steroid injection within 6 months before BVN RFA (OR 1.800), lack of baseline opioid use (OR 1.965), LBP exacerbation with activity (OR 2.099), and a lack of LBP with spinal extension (OR 1.845) were factors associated with increased odds of treatment success. Regressions areas under the curve (AUCs) were under 70%, indicative of low predictive value.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that midline LBP correlates with BVN RFA treatment success in individuals with VEP. While none of the regression models demonstrated strong predictive value, the pain location and exacerbating factors identified in this analysis may aid clinicians in identifying patients where VEP should be more strongly suspected. The use of objective imaging biomarkers (Type 1 and/or 2 Modic changes) and a correlating presentation of anterior spinal element pain remain the most useful patient selection factors for BVN RFA.

IntroductionVertebral endplates, innervated by the basivertebral nerve (BVN), are a source of chronic low back pain correlated with Modic changes. A randomized trial comparing BVN ablation to standard care (SC) recently reported results of an interim analysis. Here, we report the results of the full randomized trial, including the 3-month and 6-month between-arm comparisons, 12-month treatment arm results, and 6-month outcomes of BVN ablation in the former SC arm.MethodsProspective, open label, 1:1 randomized controlled trial of BVN ablation versus SC in 23 US sites with follow-up at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. SC patients were re-baselined and followed up for 6 months post BVN ablation. The primary endpoint was the between-arm comparison of mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) change from baseline. Secondary endpoints were Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Short Form (SF-36), EuroQual Group 5 Dimension 5-Level Quality of Life (EQ-5D-5L), responder rates, and rates of continued opioid use.Results140 were randomized. Results from BVN ablation (n=66) were superior to SC (n=74) at 3 months for the primary endpoint (mean ODI reduction, difference between arms of -20.3 (CI -25.9 to -14.7 points; p

Objective: The aim of this study is to explain the technique used for removing and replacing a novel percutaneous interspinous device (PID). Procedure: Three male patients, with a mean age of 66 years (range 62–72), were included in the study due to displacement (N = 2) or misplacement (N = 1) of the novel PID. This occurred after a mean of 23.3 ± 10.5 days from the initial placement (range 13–34) at the L4–L5 level (N = 1) and L3–L4 level (N = 2). Following the removal of the PID, four new devices were implanted. Conclusion: The novel PID can be safely removed either immediately after its placement during the procedure or after a certain period of days or months from its implantation. The removal procedure can be performed percutaneously under imaging guidance, by closing the four retractable wings, using the same instrumentation as utilized during the initial implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]