Deer, Timothy R.

AbstractIntroductionThe situation generated in the health system by the COVID‐19 pandemic has provoked a crisis involving the necessity to cancel non‐urgent and oncologic activity in the operating room and in day‐to‐day practice. As the situation continues, the need to reinstate attention for patients with chronic pain grows. The restoration of this activity has to begin with on‐site appointments and possible surgical procedures. On‐site clinical activity has to guarantee the safety of patients and health workers.ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to evaluate how to manage activity in pain units, considering the scenario generated by the pandemic and the implications of chronic pain on the immune system and proposed pharmacological and interventional therapies.MethodsBesides the established general recommendations (physical distance, surgical masks, gloves, etc.), we established specific recommendations that will allow patient treatment and relieve the disruption of the immune response. It is important to highlight the use of opioids with the least influence in the immune system. Further, individualized corticoid use, risk assessment, reduced immune suppression, and dose adjustment should take patient needs into account. In this scenario, we highlight the use of radiofrequency and neuromodulation therapies, techniques that do not interfere with the immune response.ConclusionsWe describe procedures to implement these recommendations for individual clinical situations, the therapeutic possibilities and safety guidelines for each center, and government recommendations during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

AbstractBackgroundLow back pain is the leading cause of years lost to disability worldwide. Approximately 15% to 45% of chronic low back pain is due to facet joint arthropathy. Currently, no large‐scale retrospective studies have investigated long‐term clinical predictors of success in individuals receiving radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the medial branches for facet joint arthropathy.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical factors associated with success and failure of RFA of lumbar facet joints at 1‐year follow‐up.MethodsClinical data were gathered from 500 consecutive patients with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)‐10 diagnosis of lumbar spondylosis. VAS pain scores for patients undergoing lumbar medial branch RFA procedures were recorded at multiple time points, up to the 1‐year follow‐up visit. A responder was defined as having ≥30% improvement in VAS score from the pre‐procedural VAS score. For our primary analysis, regression analysis was conducted to identify associations between responder status and patient characteristics, including age, gender, body mass index (BMI), hormone use, opiate dose, and smoking history at multiple time points, up to the 1‐year follow‐up visit.ResultsA total of 500 patients were included in the study. At the 1‐year post‐RFA follow‐up visit, responder status was associated with a lower rate of prior opioid use (43.22% vs. 55.76%, odds ratio 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.92], P = 0.018), lower pre‐procedural opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (10.16 ± 16.02 vs. 14.67 ± 20.65, β −4.50 [95% CI −8.57 to −0.44], P = 0.030), and a higher pre‐VAS pain score (6.36 ± 2.17 vs. 5.85 ± 2.17, β 0.50 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.95], P = 0.028). There were no significant associations between responder status and age, gender, BMI, hormone use, and smoking history at the 1‐year follow‐up visit.ConclusionsOur results suggest that patients prescribed opioids, particularly at higher dosages, may find less pain relief 1 year following RFA for facetogenic pain. Additionally, patients with higher pre‐procedural VAS pain scores may be more likely to have a positive response at 1 year.

BACKGROUND: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a significant disruption in the care of pain from chronic and subacute conditions. The impact of this cessation of pain treatment may have unintended consequences of increased pain, reduced function, increased reliance on opioid medications, and potential increased morbidity, due to the systemic impact of untreated disease burden. This may include decreased mobility, reduction in overall health status, and increase of opioid use with the associated risks. METHODS: The article is the study of the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) COVID-19 task force to evaluate the policies set forth by federal, state, and local agencies to reduce or eliminate elective procedures for those patients with pain from spine, nerve, and joint disease. The impact of these decisions, which were needed to reduce the spread of the pandemic, led to a delay in care for many patients. We hence review an emergence plan to reinitiate this pain-related care. The goal is to outline a path to work with federal, state, and local authorities to combat the spread of the pandemic and minimize the deleterious impact of pain and suffering on our chronic pain patients. RESULTS: The article sets forth a strategy for the interventional pain centers to reemerge from the current pandemic and to set a course for future events. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an overwhelming challenge to interventional pain physicians and their patients. In addition to urgent actions needed for disease mitigation, the ASPN recommends a staged return to pain management professionals’ workflow.

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.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for DRG stimulation.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsDRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies.ConclusionsModerate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for PNS.MethodsAn international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsPeripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain.ConclusionPeripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.