Kohan, Lynn

Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a current major public health concern in the United States and around the world. Social and economic stressors secondary to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have likely led to an increase in SUDs around the world. This chronic, debilitating disease is a prevalent health problem, and yet many clinicians do not have adequate training or clinical experience diagnosing and treating SUDs. Anesthesiologists and other perioperative medical staff frequently encounter patients with co-occurring SUDs. By such, through increased awareness and education, physicians and other health care providers have a unique opportunity to positively impact the lives and improve the perioperative outcomes of patients with SUDs. Understanding commonly used terms, potentially effective perioperative screening tools, diagnostic criteria, basics of treatment, and the perioperative implications of SUDs is essential to providing adequate care to patients experiencing this illness.

Significant knowledge gaps exist in the perioperative pain management of patients with a history of chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or opioid tolerance as highlighted in the US Health and Human Services Pain Management Best Practices Inter-Agency Task Force 2019 report. The report emphasized the challenges of caring for these populations and the need for multidisciplinary care and a comprehensive approach. Such care requires stakeholder alignment across multiple specialties and care settings. With the intention of codifying this alignment into a reliable and efficient processes, a consortium of 15 professional healthcare societies was convened in a year-long modified Delphi consensus process and summit. This process produced seven guiding principles for the perioperative care of patients with chronic pain, substance use disorder, and/or preoperative opioid tolerance. These principles provide a framework and direction for future improvement in the optimization and care of ‘complex’ patients as they undergo surgical procedures.

This study reports the needs-based development, effectiveness and feasibility of a novel, comprehensive spinal cord stimulation (SCS) digital curriculum designed for pain medicine trainees. The curriculum aims to address the documented systematic variability in SCS education and empower physicians with SCS expertise, which has been linked to utilization patterns and patient outcomes. Following a needs assessment, the authors developed a three-part SCS e-learning video curriculum with baseline and postcourse knowledge tests. Best practices were used for educational video production and test-question development. The study period was from 1 February 2020 to 31 December 2020. A total of 202 US-based pain fellows across two cohorts (early-fellowship and late-fellowship) completed the baseline knowledge assessment, while 122, 96 and 88 participants completed all available post-tests for Part I (Fundamentals), Part II (Cadaver Lab) and Part III (Decision Making, The Literature and Critical Applications), respectively. Both cohorts significantly increased knowledge scores from baseline to immediate post-test in all curriculum parts (p<0.001). The early-fellowship cohort experienced a higher rate of knowledge gain for Parts I and II (p=0.045 and p=0.027, respectively). On average, participants viewed 6.4 out of 9.6 hours (67%) of video content. Self-reported prior SCS experience had low to moderate positive correlations with Part I and Part III pretest scores (r=0.25, p=0.006; r=0.37, p<0.001, respectively). Initial evidence suggests that Pain Rounds provides an innovative and effective solution to the SCS curriculum deficit. A future controlled study should examine this digital curriculum’s long-term impact on SCS practice and treatment outcomes.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Introduction Applicants to chronic pain medicine fellowship programs often express confusion regarding the importance of various selection criteria. This study sought to elucidate program directors’ considerations in applicant selection for fellowship interviews and ranking and to correlate these criteria with match statistics to provide a guide for prospective candidates. Methods An electronic survey was sent to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited chronic pain fellowship directors. The importance of various applicant characteristics were evaluated and compared with recent match data. Results Fifty-seven program directors completed the survey. The most important factors involved in applicant interview selection were perceived commitment to the specialty, letters of recommendation from pain faculty, scholarly activities, and leadership experiences. Although completion of a pain rotation was valued highly, experience with procedures was of relatively low importance. There was no preference if rotations were completed within the responders’ department. Variability was noted when considering internal applicants or the applicant’s geographic location. When citing main factors in ranking applicants, interpersonal skills, interview impression and applicant’s fit within the institution were highly ranked by most responders. Discussion Assessment of an applicant’s commitment to chronic pain is challenging. Most responders prioritize the applicant’s commitment to chronic pain as a specialty, scholarly activity, participation in chronic pain rotations, pain-related conferences and letters of recommendation from pain faculty. Chronic pain medicine fellowship candidates should establish a progressive pattern of genuine interest and involvement within the specialty during residency training to optimize their fellowship match potential.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis is a painful and sometimes debilitating disease that often affects patients for years. Current treatments include short-lasting and often repetitive nonsurgical options, followed by surgical intervention for appropriate candidates. Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of pain related to knee osteoarthritis. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of CRFA with those of a single hyaluronic acid (HA) injection. Methods: Two hundred and sixty subjects with knee osteoarthritis pain that was inadequately responsive to prior nonoperative modalities were screened for enrollment in this multicenter, randomized trial. One hundred and eighty-two subjects who met the inclusion criteria underwent diagnostic block injections and those with a minimum of 50% pain relief were randomized to receive either CRFA on 4 genicular nerves or a single HA injection. One hundred and seventy-five subjects were treated (88 with CRFA and 87 with HA). Evaluations for pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), quality of life (Global Perceived Effect [GPE] score and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Level [EQ-5D-5L] questionnaire), and safety were performed at 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. Results: Demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the 2 study groups. A total of 158 subjects (76 in the CRFA group and 82 in the HA group) completed the 6-month post-treatment follow-up. In the CRFA group, 71% of the subjects had ≥50% reduction in the NRS pain score (primary end point) compared with 38% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). At 6 months, the mean NRS score reduction was 4.1 ± 2.2 for the CRFA group compared with 2.5 ± 2.5 for the HA group (p < 0.0001). The mean WOMAC score improvement at 6 months from baseline was 48.2% in the CRFA group and 22.6% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). At 6 months, 72% of the subjects in the CRFA group reported improvement in the GPE score compared with 40% in the HA group (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: CRFA-treated subjects demonstrated a significant improvement in pain relief and overall function compared with subjects treated with a single injection of HA. No serious adverse events related to either procedure were noted, and the overall adverse-event profiles were similar. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Abstract Background Pain fellowship programs are facing unique challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions by state governments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resulted in a rapidly changing and evolving learning environment for today’s fellows. Innovative solutions must be sought to maintain proper education and ensure the well-being of our trainees. Methods We assembled a panel of pain program directors who serve as officers/board members of the Association of Pain Program Directors, offering guidance and recommendations to pain fellowship directors nationwide. Panel members evaluate the best available evidence and expert opinion on use of remote and virtual platforms in clinical care, adaptability to alterations in clinic and referral management, and provide guidance on postgraduate impact. Conclusions The country is in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic. The impact on pain management fellowships has been significant and will likely last for months, resulting in extraordinary challenges to the administration of pain fellowship programs and the education of our fellows. Several strategies will help address these challenges, including employing telehealth capabilities to continue clinical experiences and providing trainees with opportunities to continue their professional growth beyond fellowship completion. Together, we can implement innovative solutions to overcome these challenges.

Abstract Background Pain fellowship programs are facing unique challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions from state governments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have resulted in a rapidly changing and evolving learning environment for todays’ fellows. Innovative solutions must be sought to guarantee that proper education is maintained and to ensure the well-being of our trainees. Methods We assembled a panel of pain program directors who serve as officers/board members of the Association of Pain Program Directors to provide guidance and formulate recommendations to pain fellowship directors nationally. This guidance is based on reviewing current changes to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and American Board of Anesthesiology policies and best available evidence and expert opinion on the use of remote educational activities, research endeavors, and trainee wellness. Conclusions The country is in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic. The impact on pain management fellowships has been severe and will likely last for months, resulting in extraordinary challenges to the administration of pain fellowship programs and the education of our fellows. Understanding revisions to ACGME policies, using technology to promote remote learning opportunities, and providing trainees with opportunities to alleviate their anxiety and encourage mental health are beneficial strategies to implement. Together, we can implement innovative solutions to help overcome these challenges.