Pritzlaff, Scott

Abstract Objective Genicular nerve radiofrequency (gRF) treatment is a widely used intervention for chronic pain from knee osteoarthritis (KOA). This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses on RCTs utilizing image guidance to address inconsistencies in previous reviews and provide higher-quality evidence. Design, Setting, and Methods This study included RCTs that compared gRF techniques (conventional, cooled, pulsed, bipolar) to non-gRF treatments, including sham procedures, intra-articular injections, ozone therapy, and oral medications. Primary and secondary outcomes were changes in pain and total WOMAC scores at 3, 6, and 12 months post-gRF treatments. Subgroup analyses explored differences by lesion size, use of prognostic blocks, industry sponsorship, and study location. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed via I 2 statistics. Results Eleven RCTs with 868 knee osteoarthritis patients (435 gRF, 433 non-gRF) were included. At 3 months, gRF significantly reduced pain (SMD -1.65, 95% CI: -3.20 to -0.10, I 2 = 98%, P = 0.040), but not at 6 months or 12 months. Secondary analyses showed no significant differences in total WOMAC scores between the gRF and control groups at 3, 6, and 12 months. Subgroup analysis showed that industry-sponsored studies reported significant 3-month pain reduction, whereas non-sponsored studies did not. This effect was independent of study location. Conclusions GRF provides short-term pain relief (up to 3 months) but neither functional improvement nor sustained pain reduction compared to non-gRF treatments. Our findings do not support the routine use of gRF for long-term chronic pain due to KOA.

Abstract Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education. Methods This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME‐accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow‐up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy. Results Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry‐related and professional society‐related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long‐term success. Fifty‐four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies. Conclusion This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12‐month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization.

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.