Gill, Benjamin

AbstractBackgroundLumbar medial branch nerve radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) is an interventional procedure used to treat chronic lumbar facet joint pain. Because the medial branch nerves also innervate the multifidus muscle, it has been proposed that LRFA may pose a risk of multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction. However, the quality and level of evidence to answer this clinical question have not been established. Therefore, this review aimed to systematically appraise the literature to discern whether the prevailing evidence substantiates the hypothesis in question.MethodsA systematic review compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines was performed to evaluate the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting functional and/or structural changes in the multifidus muscle following LRFA.ResultsOnly five cohort studies met inclusion criteria. Two studies assessed changes in multifidus function following LRFA with confirmed denervation at electromyography and significant reduction in multifidus shear modulus with ultrasound shear wave elastography. Of the four studies that evaluated changes in multifidus structure with magnetic resonance imaging following LRFA, two demonstrated a decrease in cross‐sectional area or an increase in fat infiltration, one demonstrated no change, and one revealed an apparent increase. Given the destructive nature attributed to LRFA, some degree of multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction may be plausible, albeit with a very low certainty that relies on a restricted body of literature of modest quality and with a presence of high bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of studies discussing the potential association between LRFA and multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction. In light of the shortage of high‐quality studies and the absence of standardized protocols to assess both changes in the structure and function of the multifidus subsequent to LRFA, there is a pressing need for more prospective studies with a high methodological rigor to comprehensively address and answer this enduring debate in clinical practice.

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.