Rosado, Robert D. Pagan

Objectives Ultrasound‐guided percutaneous needle fenestration (UPNF) and percutaneous needle tenotomy (UPNT) are minimally invasive procedures commonly used to treat chronic tendinopathies. However, these techniques can be painful, potentially limiting patient tolerance, satisfaction, and procedural feasibility. Although local anesthetics (LAs) provide analgesia, their potential inhibitory effects on tenocyte activity and the efficacy of orthobiologics raise concerns regarding their impact on tendon healing. The objectives of this study is to propose a practical, anatomy‐based approach for the use of ultrasound‐guided peripheral nerve blocks (USG‐PNBs) as a strategy to reduce pain and improve patient comfort during UPNF and UPNT, with or without orthobiologic adjuncts. Methods We reviewed commonly affected anatomical sites in chronic tendinopathies and identified corresponding peripheral nerve targets that can be reliably and safely blocked under ultrasound guidance. For each condition, we outline appropriate nerve block techniques, anatomical landmarks, and recommended patient positioning to optimize procedural analgesia. Results A set of targeted USG‐PNBs was defined for commonly treated tendinopathies, including supraspinatus tendinopathy, lateral and medial epicondylitis, gluteus medius and/or minimus tendinopathy, patellar tendinopathy, Achilles tendinopathy, and plantar fasciopathy. Conclusion Ultrasound‐guided peripheral nerve blocks represent a practical and effective approach to manage pain during percutaneous procedures for chronic tendinopathies. By reducing procedural discomfort and avoiding the potential drawbacks of peritendinous LAs, these techniques may enhance patient tolerance, procedural success, and overall clinical outcomes.

AbstractPersistent chest pain (PCP) following acute COVID‐19 infection is a commonly reported symptom with an unclear etiology, making its management challenging. This scoping review aims to address the knowledge gap surrounding the characteristics of PCP following COVID‐19, its causes, and potential treatments. This is a scoping review of 64 studies, including observational (prospective, retrospective, cross‐sectional, case series, and case–control) and one quasi‐experimental study, from databases including Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Studies on patients with PCP following mild, moderate, and severe COVID‐19 infection were included. Studies with patients of any age, with chest pain that persisted following acute COVID‐19 disease, irrespective of etiology or duration were included. A total of 35 studies reported PCP symptoms following COVID‐19 (0.24%–76.6%) at an average follow‐up of 3 months or longer, 12 studies at 1–3 months and 17 studies at less than 1‐month follow‐up or not specified. PCP was common following mild—severe COVID‐19 infection, and etiology was mostly not reported. Fourteen studies proposed potential etiologies including endothelial dysfunction, cardiac ischemia, vasospasm, myocarditis, cardiac arrhythmia, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, postural tachycardia syndrome, or noted cardiac MRI (cMRI) changes. Evaluation methods included common cardiopulmonary tests, as well as less common tests such as flow‐mediated dilatation, cMRI, single‐photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Only one study reported a specific treatment (sulodexide). PCP is a prevalent symptom following COVID‐19 infection, with various proposed etiologies. Further research is needed to establish a better understanding of the causes and to develop targeted treatments for PCP following COVID‐19.