Back to Authors

Rauck, Richard

Mayo Clinic

Carolinas Pain Institute

Citations 3

The Use of Contrast Agents in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multispecialty and Multisociety Practice Advisory on Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis, Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain, Encephalopathy After Unintentional Intrathecal Gadolinium Injection, and
Benzon, Honorio T. , Maus, Timothy P. , McCormick, Zachary L. , Anițescu, Magdalena , Blackham, Kristine A. , Bhaskar, Arun , Brill, Silviu , Gulve, Ashish , Hurley, Robert W. , Rauck, Richard, Rodes, Meghan, Lee, Ryan K. , Zundert, Jan Van , Huntoon, Marc A. , Borges, Mario Sánchez, Greenberger, Paul A. , Diehn, Felix, van Zundert, Jan , Hurley, Robert W , Kang, Hye‐Ryun , Provenzano, David , Bhatia, Anuj , Diehn, Felix E. , Nelson, Ariana M. , Liu, Benjamin P. , Ares, Javier De Andrés , Bhaskar, Arun, Collins, Jeremy D. , Jeon, Younghoon , Moon, Jee Youn , Shah, Vinil N. , Shanthanna, Harsha , Rathmell, James P. , Cohen, Steven P.

Anesthesia & Analgesia | March 23, 2021 | Volume: 133 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 535-552

10.1213/ane.0000000000005443 Get It

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.
Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group
Cohen, Steven P. , Bhaskar, Arun , Buvanendran, Asokumar , Garg, Shuchita , Hooten, W. Michael , Hurley, Robert W. , Kennedy, David J. , McLean, Brian, Pangarkar, Sanjog , Provenzano, David A., Rauck, Richard, Sitzman, B. Todd, Smuck, Matthew , Zundert, Jan Van , Vorenkamp, Kevin E. , Wallace, Mark S. , Zhao, Zirong , Hooten, W Michael , van Zundert, Jan , Cohen, Steven P , Hurley, Robert W , Bhatia, Anuj , Deer, Timothy R. , Moon, Jee Youn , Narouze, Samer

Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine | April 3, 2020 | Volume: 45 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 424-467

10.1136/rapm-2019-101243 Get It

Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4–5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. We used a modified Delphi method, whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Results 17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary). Conclusions Lumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of a glycine antagonist in neuropathic pain
Wallace, Mark S. , Rowbotham, Michael C., Katz, N., Dworkin, Rh, Dotson, Rose, Galer, Bradley S. , Rauck, Richard, Backonja, M., Quessy, Steve, Meisner, Paul

Neurology | May 13, 2012 | Volume: 59 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1694-1700

10.1212/01.wnl.0000036273.98213.34 Get It