This article aims to evaluate current evidence and guidelines on anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy for patients undergoing interventional procedures. It provides recommendations for managing these therapies with either continuation or withholding of these drugs in the perioperative period to minimize the risk of bleeding and thromboembolism in clinical practice. Newly published guidelines and research underscore the crucial role of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in interventional procedures, emphasizing the importance of decisions regarding whether to continue or temporarily stop these medications. Studies have categorized procedures into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups, offering specific guidance on managing anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy accordingly. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has developed consensus guidelines based on a synthesis of the best available evidence, incorporating risk stratification and practical recommendations. This review provides an in-depth analysis of medical, surgical, and interventional pain management literature. It highlights the updated ASIPP guidelines and summarizes the society’s evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

Background: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been used for over 50 years to treat chronic pain by delivering electrical pulses through small electrodes placed near targeted peripheral nerves those outside the brain and spinal cord. Early PNS systems often required invasive neurosurgical procedures. However, since 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved percutaneously implanted PNS leads and neurostimulators offering a much less invasive, non-opioid option for managing recalcitrant chronic pain. The following FDA-cleared PNS systems are commercially available in the United States for the management of chronic, intractable pain: center dot Freedom (R) Peripheral Nerve Stimulator (PNS) System (Curonix LLC, 2017) center dot StimRouter (R) Neuromodulation System (Bioness, now Bioventus, 2015) center dot SPRINT (R) PNS System (SPR (R) Therapeutics, Inc., 2016) center dot Nalu (TM) Neurostimulation System (Nalu Medical Inc., 2019) center dot ReActiv8 (R) Implantable Neurostimulation System (Mainstay Medical Limited, 2020) The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has published evidence-based consensus guidelines for the application of PNS systems in managing chronic pain. Objective: The guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the utilization of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in the management of moderate to severe chronic pain. These guidelines exclude field stimulation, or sacral nerve stimulation. Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of experts in various medical and pharmaceutical fields, convened by ASIPP, reviewed the evidence, considered patient perspectives, and formulated recommendations for implantable peripheral nerve stimulation in chronic pain management. The methodology included developing key questions with evidence-based statements and recommendations. The grading of evidence and recommendations followed a modified approach described by ASIPP, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) strength of recommendations methods. The evidence review includes existing guidelines, systematic reviews, comprehensive reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies on the effectiveness and safety of implantable peripheral nerve stimulation in managing chronic pain The quality of published studies was assessed using appropriate instruments for systematic reviews, RCTs, and observational studies.In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, we used a modified Delphi technique, which has been described to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted to approve specific guideline statements. Each panelist could suggest edits to the guideline statement wording and could suggest additional qualifying remarks or comments as to the implementation of the guideline in clinical practice to achieve consensus and for inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without primary conflict of interest.Results: A total of 31 authors participated in the development of these guidelines. Of these, 23 participated in the voting process. A total of 8 recommendations were developed. Overall, 100% acceptance was obtained for 8 of 8 items. Thus, with appropriate literature review, consensus-based statements were developed for implantable peripheral nerve stimulation in chronic pain management. In preparation of these guidelines, evidence synthesis included 7 systematic reviews, 8 RCTs, and 9 observational studies covering all PNS treatments. The evidence was developed using GRADE criteria or certainty of evidence, and qualitative synthesis based on the best available evidence. The evidence level and recommendations are as follows: center dot For implantable peripheral nerve stimulation systems following a trial or selective lumbar medial branch stimulation without a trial, the evidence is Level III or fair with moderate certainty. Evidence Level: Fair; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate center dot For temporary peripheral nerve stimulation for 60 days, the evidence is Level III or fair, with moderate certainty. Evidence Level: Fair; Strength of Recommendation: ModerateBased on the available evidence, it is our recommendation to expand the existing PNS related local coverage determination (LCD) to include craniofacial pain, phantom limb pain, and nociceptive pain in the lower back as present evidence shows Level III or fair with moderate certainty.Limitations: The primary limitation of these guidelines is the paucity of the available literature. Conclusion: These evidence-based guidelines support the use of implantable peripheral nerve stimulation leads and neurostimulators in patients with moderate to severe chronic pain refractory to two or more conservative treatments. These guidelines aim to optimize patient outcomes and promote health equity through the integration of PNS technology in clinical practice.

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

BACKGROUND:The analysis of epidural procedure utilization has revealed several notable trends over recent years. Utilization increased significantly until 2004, then rose minimally until 2011, followed by gradual declines up to 2019 in the Medicare population. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a marked 19% decline in usage from 2019 to 2020. Additionally, recent studies of interventional pain management techniques showed a 28.9% reduction in use from 2019 to 2022, leading to an average annual decline of 10.9%. OBJECTIVE:The present investigation aims to provide an updated evaluation of epidural procedure usage for chronic pain management in the U.S. Medicare population. STUDY DESIGN:A retrospective cohort study examining utilization patterns and variables for epidural injections in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population in the U.S. from 2000 to 2022. METHODS:Data was obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) master database, specifically using the physician/supplier procedure summary for 2000-2022. Episodes or procedure visits were defined as one per region using primary codes only, while services included all procedure levels and any add-on codes. RESULTS:Between 2000 and 2010, epidural episodes rose by 6.7% annually but then declined by 3% each year from 2010 to 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a 19.3% reduction in procedures from 2019 to 2020, followed by a partial recovery of 5.5% in 2021, then another 10.9% drop in 2022. During 2019-2022, lumbar interlaminar and caudal procedures decreased by 26.9%, while cervical/thoracic interlaminar procedures declined by 24.2%. By 2022, transforaminal procedures surpassed interlaminar procedures, reversing the trend from 2000. LIMITATIONS:This analysis includes data only through 2022 and is limited to the FFS Medicare population; it does not account for Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees, who made up nearly half of Medicare participants by 2022. Additionally, the study is subject to limitations inherent in retrospective claims data analysis. CONCLUSION:This two-decade analysis indicates significant shifts in epidural procedure utilization, with steady increases until 2010, followed by a general decline affected by COVID-19 and other contributing factors. An approximate 24% decline in epidural procedure visits for chronic spinal pain management was noted from 2019 to 2022.

BACKGROUND:Numerous studies have highlighted the escalating costs associated with managing low back and neck pain, as well as other musculoskeletal disorders. In the past, there was a notable increase in the use of interventional techniques to address these disorders. However, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted various chronic pain treatment approaches, including interventional procedures and opioid use, following a broader trend of reduced healthcare services. Consequently, there was an 18.7% decline in the use of interventional techniques per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries between 2019 and 2020, a stark contrast to the previous growth patterns, despite some initial declines observed starting in 2017. OBJECTIVES:This analysis aims to provide an updated evaluation of the utilization of interventional techniques for chronic pain management in the U.S. Medicare population. STUDY DESIGN:A retrospective cohort study examining utilization patterns and factors affecting interventional techniques for chronic pain management in the FFS Medicare population in the United States from 2000 to 2022. METHODS:Data for this analysis was obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) master database, specifically the physician/supplier procedure summary, spanning the years 2000 to 2022. RESULTS:This retrospective cohort study found that the rate of interventional pain management services per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries showed a cumulative decline between 2019 and 2022 of 28.9%, with an annual decrease of 10.7%. This contrasts sharply with the 2010-2019 period, which saw a small annual decline of 0.4%. Particularly significant was the sharp reduction of 18.7% from 2019 to 2020, coinciding with the pandemic. From 2020 to 2021, the decline slowed to 1.1%, before accelerating again with an 11.5% drop between 2021 and 2022. LIMITATIONS:Data were available only through 2022 and were limited to the FFS Medicare population; utilization patterns for Medicare Advantage Plans, which accounted for nearly 50% of Medicare enrollment in 2022, were not included. Additionally, this analysis shares the inherent limitations of all retrospective reviews based on claims data. CONCLUSION:This retrospective analysis demonstrates a significant reduction in the use of interventional pain management techniques from 2019 to 2022. Contributing factors to this decline likely include the lasting effects of COVID-19, economic challenges, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and evolving local coverage determination policies.

BACKGROUND:The use of facet joint interventions for spinal pain management experienced rapid growth between 2000 and 2010, with an annual increase of 14.2%. However, this trend slowed significantly from 2010 to 2019, with a reduced growth rate of just 2.9% annually. A more recent analysis highlighted a steep decline in facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint injections, with an overall decrease of 33.2% and an annual decline rate of 12% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries between 2019 and 2022. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to update and analyze utilization patterns of facet joint interventions for chronic pain management in the U.S. Medicare population over three periods: 2000-2010, 2010-2019, and 2019-2022. STUDY DESIGN:A retrospective cohort study analyzing utilization trends and influencing factors for facet joint interventions in the FFS Medicare population in the United States from 2000 to 2022. METHODS:Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary database (2000-2022). Utilization rates were calculated based on Medicare beneficiaries for each year and expressed as procedures per 100,000 beneficiaries. Episodes or procedural visits included only primary codes, while services encompassed all procedure levels, including add-on codes. RESULTS:Utilization patterns showed substantial fluctuations. From 2000 to 2010, facet joint intervention rates grew at 14.4% annually, slowing to 2.2% from 2010 to 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic led to a 19.3% decline in episodes. From 2019 to 2022, episodes of facet joint interventions decreased by 21.2% per 100,000 beneficiaries, while the rate of services dropped by 37%, with an annual decrease of 14.3%. Specific declines included lumbar and cervical facet joint injections (38.8% and 40.2%, respectively) and lumbosacral and cervicothoracic facet joint neurolysis (33.6% and 30.8%, respectively). The reduction in facet joint injections and nerve blocks was greater than that observed for neurolytic procedures. LIMITATIONS:Data were limited to the FFS Medicare population and were available only through 2022, excluding patterns for Medicare Advantage Plans, which covered nearly half of Medicare enrollees in 2022. Additionally, this study shares the common limitations of retrospective claims-based reviews. CONCLUSION:This retrospective analysis reveals a substantial decline in facet joint intervention episodes, with an overall decrease of 21.2% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries and an annual decline rate of 7.6% for episodes from 2019 to 2022.

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

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

Introduction: Myofascial pain in the trapezius, rhomboids, levator scapulae and sternocleidomastoid is often linked to cervical and thoracic disc degeneration and facet osteoarthritis as well as postural imbalances and muscle deconditioning. Case Report: We present the case of a 37-year-old female with Duane Syndrome who presented with chronic neck and mid-back pain. We tried a multimodal approach to myofascial pain management, including physical therapy, nortriptyline 10 mg to address potential central sensitization as well as neuropathic pain, and trigger point injections. Ultimately, the patient underwent ocular surgery, after which her myofascial pain improved. Our other treatment interventions became significantly more effective after the surgery. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first case in the literature of extraocular muscle disorders being associated with myofascial pain. It is also the first case of myofascial pain successfully treated by corrective oculoplastic surgery. Extraocular disorders can lead to overuse or repetitive trauma to the trapezius, rhomboids, levator scapulae, sternocleidomastoid and other muscles of the neck and trunk as the patient uses compensatory motions to ease their visual difficulties. This overuse can then lead to myofascial pain and trigger point formation.

ObjectiveTo assess the validity of fluoroscopically guided diagnostic intra-articular injections of local anesthetic and effectiveness of intra-articular steroid injections in treating sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain.DesignSystematic review.InterventionsTen reviewers independently assessed 45 publications on diagnostic validity or effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided intra-articular SIJ injections.Outcome MeasuresFor diagnostic injections, the primary outcome was validity; for therapeutic injections, analgesia. Secondary outcomes were also described.ResultsOf 45 articles reviewed, 39 yielded diagnostic data on physical exam findings, provocation tests, and SIJ injections for diagnosing SIJ pain, and 15 addressed therapeutic effectiveness. When confirmed by comparative local anesthetic blocks with a high degree of pain relief, no single physical exam maneuver predicts response to diagnostic injections. When at least three physical exam findings are present, sensitivity, and specificity increases significantly. The prevalence of SIJ pain is likely 20-30% among patients that have suspected SIJ pain based on history and physical examination. This estimate may be higher in certain subgroups such as the elderly and fusion patients. Two randomized controlled trials and multiple observational studies supported the effectiveness of therapeutic sacroiliac joint injections.ConclusionsBased on this literature, it is unclear whether image-guided intra-articular diagnostic injections of local anesthetic predict positive responses to therapeutic agents. The overall quality of evidence is moderate for the effectiveness of therapeutic SIJ injections.

BACKGROUND:The efficacy of epidural and facet joint injections has been assessed utilizing multiple solutions including saline, local anesthetic, steroids, and others. The responses to these various solutions have been variable and have not been systematically assessed with long-term follow-ups.METHODS:Randomized trials utilizing a true active control design were included. The primary outcome measure was pain relief and the secondary outcome measure was functional improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the criteria developed by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) for assessing interventional techniques. An evidence analysis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to IV).RESULTS:A total of 31 trials met the inclusion criteria. There was Level I evidence that local anesthetic with steroids was effective in managing chronic spinal pain based on multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials. The evidence also showed that local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone were equally effective except in disc herniation, where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was demonstrated over local anesthetic alone.CONCLUSION:This systematic review showed equal efficacy for local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone in multiple spinal conditions except for disc herniation where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was seen over local anesthetic alone.

BACKGROUNDThe therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate.OBJECTIVETo evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain.STUDY DESIGNA systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain.METHODSThe available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake consumption.RESULTSA total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement.LIMITATIONSThe limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections.CONCLUSIONBased on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy.

Background Lumbar discogenic pain without pain mediated by a disc herniation, facet joints, or the sacroiliac joints, is common and often results in chronic, persistent pain and disability. After conservative treatment failure, injection therapy, such as an epidural injection, is frequently the next step considered in managing discogenic pain. The objective of this systematic review is to determine the efficacy of lumbar epidural injections in managing discogenic pain without radiculopathy, and compare this approach to lumbar fusion or disc arthroplasty surgery. Methods A systematic review of randomized trials published from 1966 through October 2014 of all types of epidural injections and lumbar fusion or disc arthroplasty in managing lumbar discogenic pain was performed with methodological quality assessment and grading of evidence. The level of evidence was based on the grading of evidence criteria which, was conducted using 5 levels of evidence ranging from levels I to V. Results Based on a qualitative assessment of the evidence for both approaches, there is Level II evidence for epidural injections, either caudal or lumbar interlaminar. Conclusions The available evidence suggests fluoroscopically directed epidural injections provide long-term improvement in back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar discogenic pain. There is also limited evidence showing the potential effectiveness of surgical interventions compared to nonsurgical treatments.

Background: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results.Objective: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain.Study Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain.Methods: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement.The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V).Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.Results: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches.The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections.The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach.The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis.The evidence is Level II for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach.The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level II in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections.The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level II with cervical interlaminar epidural injections.Limitations: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence.Conclusion: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions.

Background: The high prevalence of chronic persistent neck pain not only leads to disability but also has a significant economic, societal, and health impact. Among multiple modalities of treatments prescribed in the management of neck and upper extremity pain, surgical, interventional and conservative modalities have been described. Cervical epidural injections are also common modalities of treatments provided in managing neck and upper extremity pain. They are administered by either an interlaminar approach or transforaminal approach.Objectives: To determine the long-term efficacy of cervical interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections in the treatment of cervical disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain without facet joint pain, and post surgery syndrome.Methods: The literature search was performed from 1966 to October 2014 utilizing data from PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, previous systematic reviews, and cross-references.The evidence was assessed based on best evidence synthesis with Level I to Level V.Results: There were 7 manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria. Of these, 4 assessed the role of interlaminar epidural injections for managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and 3 assessed these injections for managing central spinal stenosis, discogenic pain without facet joint pain, and post surgery syndrome. There were 4 high quality manuscripts. A qualitative synthesis of evidence showed there is Level II evidence for each etiology category. The evidence is based on one relevant, high quality trial supporting the efficacy of cervical interlaminar epidural injections for each particular etiology.There were no randomized trials available assessing the efficacy of cervical transforaminal epidural injections.Limitations: Paucity of available literature, specifically conditions other than disc herniation.Conclusion: This systematic review with qualitative best evidence synthesis shows Level II evidence for the efficacy of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids, based on at least one high-quality relevant randomized control trial in each category for disc herniation, discogenic pain without facet joint pain, central spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome.

BACKGROUND The sacroiliac joint is well known as a cause of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates are 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. However, at present there are no definitive management options for treating sacroiliac joint pain. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions. STUDY DESIGN A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions. METHODS The available literature on diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist for diagnostic accuracy studies, Cochrane review criteria to assess sources of risk of bias, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) criteria for randomized therapeutic trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for observational therapeutic assessments. The level of evidence was based on a best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through March 2015 that were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and all other sources. OUTCOME MEASURES For the diagnostic accuracy assessment, and for the therapeutic modalities, the primary outcome measure of pain relief and improvement in functional status were utilized. RESULTS A total of 11 diagnostic accuracy studies and 14 therapeutic studies were included. The evidence for diagnostic accuracy is Level II for dual diagnostic blocks with at least 70% pain relief as the criterion standard and Level III evidence for single diagnostic blocks with at least 75% pain relief as the criterion standard. The evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain is Level II to III. The evidence for conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, intraarticular steroid injections, and periarticular injections with steroids or botulinum toxin is limited: Level III or IV. LIMITATIONS The limitations of this systematic review include inconsistencies in diagnostic accuracy studies with a paucity of high quality, replicative, and consistent literature. The limitations for therapeutic interventions include variations in technique, variable diagnostic standards for inclusion criteria, and variable results. CONCLUSION The evidence for the accuracy of diagnostic and therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions varied from Level II to Level IV.

BACKGROUND:Spinal zygapophysial, or facet, joints are a source of axial spinal pain and referred pain in the extremities. Conventional clinical features and other noninvasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing zygapophysial joint pain.STUDY DESIGN:A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks.OBJECTIVE:To determine the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks in chronic spinal pain.METHODS:A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. The level of evidence was classified as Level I to V based on the grading of evidence utilizing best evidence synthesis. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and other electronic searches published from 1966 through March 2015, Cochrane reviews, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.OUTCOME MEASURES:Studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. The criterion standard must have been at least 50% pain relief from baseline scores and the ability to perform previously painful movements.RESULTS:The available evidence is Level I for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with the inclusion of a total of 17 studies with dual diagnostic blocks, with at least 75% pain relief with an average prevalence of 16% to 41% and false-positive rates of 25% to 44%. The evidence for diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain with cervical facet joint nerve blocks is Level II based on a total of 11 controlled diagnostic accuracy studies, with significant variability among the prevalence in a heterogenous population with internal inconsistency. The prevalence rates ranged from 36% to 67% with at least 80% pain relief as the criterion standard and a false-positive rate of 27% to 63%. The level of evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is Level II with 80% or higher pain relief as the criterion standard with a prevalence ranging from 34% to 48% and false-positive rates ranging from 42% to 48%.LIMITATIONS:The shortcomings of this systematic review include a paucity of literature related to the thoracic spine, continued debate on an appropriate gold standard, appropriateness of diagnostic blocks, and utility.CONCLUSION:The evidence is Level I for the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, Level II for cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level II for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks in assessment of chronic spinal pain.

ObjectivesThis study's objective was to determine if the literature supports use of the Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (mild (R)) procedure (Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) to reduce pain and improve function in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.Design/SettingsThe study was designed as an evidence-based review of available data. Studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group system. Results were compiled assessing short- (4-6 weeks), medium- (3-6 months), and long-term (>1 year) outcomes. The primary outcomes evaluated were pain, measured by the visual analog scale (VAS), and function, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included pain and patient satisfaction, measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, adverse effects/complications, and changes in utilization of co-interventions.ResultsThe literature search revealed one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 12 other studies (seven prospective cohort, four retrospective, and one case series) that provided information on the use of mild (R) in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores at all time frames compared with preprocedure levels; the RCT showed improvement over controls. Categorical data were not provided; thus, the proportion of patients who experienced minimal clinically meaningful outcomes is unknown.ConclusionThe current body of evidence addressing mild (R) is of low quality. High-quality studies that are independent of industry funding and provide categorical data are needed to clarify the proportions of patients who benefit from mild (R) and the degree to which these patients benefit. Additional data at up to 2 years are needed to determine the overall utility of the procedure.

Dear Editor, We applaud MacVicar et al. on their excellent evidence-based review of lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (ESI), published in the most recent issue of Pain Medicine ⇓. Surprisingly, the conclusions of MacVicar et al.'s review contrast with those of the recent systematic review by Pinto et al. published in the Annals of Internal Medicine ⇓. Both authors encountered the same body of literature. However, Pinto et al. reviewed both fluoro-guided and non-fluoro-guided lumbar ESI in the management of sciatica, and also included studies on the transforaminal, interlaminar, and caudal approaches to ESI. Although Pinto et al.'s analysis includes all epidural injections, thereby including studies not reviewed by MacVicar et al., we question the clinical relevance of the authors' findings and challenge with their ultimate conclusions. Based on their comparison of active to control injections, Pinto et al. found that ESI, as a whole, had short-term statistically significant but not clinically significant benefits. The methodology is flawed for two reasons. At this point in time, most practitioners who perform interventional procedures recognize the clinical benefits of ESI. Therefore, the high-quality research performed often compares different procedural …