Kissoon, Narayan R

Abstract Background The past two decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the appreciation and treatment of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) complex pain, including anatomical dissections that shed light on innervation, an appreciation for the contribution of extra-articular components to SIJ complex pain, the advent of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and a host of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Yet, there is no standardization on diagnosis and treatment paradigms. Methods In February 2023, the Boards of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) and American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (ASRA-PM) approved the development of multispecialty guidelines on SIJ complex pain. Thirty partner organizations with clinical and scientific interests in SIJ complex pain were identified, and formal letters of request-for-participation were sent to each, along with a request for nominees to serve on the committee. Twenty five organizations agreed to participate in addition to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. A steering committee developed 21 questions, which spanned criteria for diagnosis, non-interventional and interventional treatments including surgery, technical parameters on how to optimize results, and what constitutes positive outcomes. Questions were methodically assigned to specialized modules comprising 4-5 members with complementary expertise, who collaborated with the Subcommittee Lead and one of three Committee Chairs to develop preliminary drafts. Following thorough revisions, these drafts were subsequently submitted to the full committee for comprehensive review. A modified Delphi method was used in which the answers to questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was achieved. During a committee meeting before commencement, it was agreed that recommendations would be noted when there was >50% agreement among committee members, but that a formal recommendation would require ≥75% consensus. Results Twenty-one organizations formally endorsed the guidelines. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, and American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, and the North American Spine Society affirmed the benefit of the guidelines but did not officially endorse them. The American Academy of Neurology declined to affirm the benefit of the guidelines citing “lack of relevance to their membership.” Per policies, while the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs did not formally review the guidelines for endorsement, their representatives approved them. In addition to being endorsed or the benefit affirmed by all voting organizations, complete consensus from committee members was obtained on all 21 questions. On 2 recommendations, there were dissensions from 3 societies who thought that selecting patients for sacral lateral branch RFA and minimally invasive fusion should be based on ≥75% relief from 2 blocks instead of at least 50% relief from a single block before RFA, and greater than 50% pain relief with documented functional improvement after a single block before fusion. One additional society (Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia) abstained on the statement that the evidence is stronger for extra-articular than intra-articular injections. The committee found that a battery of physical exam tests has reasonable sensitivity, but lower specificity, for identifying intra-articular but not extra-articular pathology, with negative tests having greater predictive value than positive ones. Intra-articular injections have diagnostic validity for SIJ intra-articular, but not extra-articular pain. There is unclear or negative evidence for imaging. The prevalence rates of intra-articular and extra-articular pathology are comparable, with both intra- and extra-articular steroid injections providing at least 4 weeks of relief in well-selected patients. However, the evidence is slightly stronger for extra-articular corticosteroid injections to provide short-term relief. The evidence base for non-interventional therapies is indirect, extrapolated mostly from low back pain studies. There is weak evidence supporting dextrose-based prolotherapy and platelet-rich plasma to provide at least 3 months of pain relief. There is strong evidence for sacral lateral branch RFA to provide relief for at least 6 months in individuals with extra-articular pathology, with face validity and indirect evidence from randomized trials supporting sacral lateral branch blocks as a prognostic tool. There is stronger evidence for larger lesions or more aggressive lesioning strategies than for less stringent techniques. There is weak evidence to support non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent neuritis after RFA, and in most cases anticoagulation does not require cessation in the periprocedural perioid. With an aggressive lesioning strategy, sensory stimulation provides minimal therapeutic benefit, with weak, extrapolated evidence that motor stimulation can provide safety benefit. The cutoff to designate diagnostic or prognostic blocks as positive is most commonly set at 50%, with higher values not shown to improve outcomes for more definitive procedures; for therapeutic treatment outcomes, the evidence supports a lower threshold of ≥30% pain relief or meaningful benefit on non-pain outcomes (eg, opioid cessation) for designation of a positive response. For carefully selected patients with intra-articular SIJ complex pain based on controlled blocks who have failed conservative therapies, there is weak or very weak evidence that minimally invasive SIJ fusion can provide benefit for at least one year. Conclusions SIJ complex pain remains an underappreciated source of chronic low back pain, affecting between 15% and 30% of patients with axial pain predominantly below L5. Answers to many questions were limited by low-quality evidence, indicating the need for better research. SIJ complex pain is a multifarious condition (ie, pain can be from different portions of both the intra- and extra-articular components of the joint) for which an interdisciplinary, multimodal treatment plan can optimize treatment outcomes.

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 60‐day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment targeting the occipital nerves for reducing pain and improving function in individuals diagnosed with cervicogenic headache or occipital neuralgia. Background Headache conditions are prevalent and commonly disabling, and conventional therapeutic strategies are often insufficient. Development of a percutaneous 60‐day PNS treatment has created new opportunities to evaluate PNS of the occipital nerves. Methods This study was an institutional review board‐approved, multicenter, prospective, single‐arm study that enrolled participants from October 2022 to March 2024. Participants with cervicogenic headache or occipital neuralgia received a 60‐day PNS treatment targeting the occipital nerves. The primary endpoint was the proportion reporting clinically significant (≥30%) reductions in average pain and/or pain interference at end of treatment (EOT). Additional analysis included the proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in average pain intensity and/or pain interference and additional outcomes including Patient Global Impression of Change, six‐item Headache Impact Test, and Neck Disability Index. Results At EOT, 90% of participants (18/20) met the primary endpoint. Further, 85% (17/20) and 83% (15/18) reported ≥50% reductions in pain and/or pain interference at EOT and 3 months, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements were observed in functional and headache‐related disability and quality‐of‐life measures. All study‐related adverse events were non‐serious. Conclusion Most participants reported significant reductions in pain and/or pain interference following 60‐day PNS targeting the occipital nerves. Outcomes through 3 months demonstrate how 60‐day PNS offers an effective approach for the treatment of headache.

Abstract Objective Randomized trials have demonstrated efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Preliminary data suggested that treatment of PDN with high-frequency SCS resulted in improvements on neurological examination. The purpose of the present study was to explore whether patients with PDN treated with high-frequency SCS would have improvements in lower-extremity peripheral nerve function. Design Prospective cohort study in an outpatient clinical practice at a tertiary care center. Methods Patients with PDN were treated with high-frequency SCS and followed up for 12 months after SCS implantation with clinical outcomes assessments of pain intensity, neuropathic symptoms, and neurological function. Small-fiber sudomotor function was assessed with the quantitative sudomotor axon reflex test (QSART), and large-fiber function was assessed with nerve conduction studies (NCS). Lower-extremity perfusion was assessed with laser Doppler flowmetry. Results Nine patients completed 12-month follow-up visits and were observed to have improvements in lower-extremity pain, weakness, and positive sensory symptoms. Neuropathy impairment scores were improved, and 2 patients had recovery of sensory responses on NCS. A reduction in sweat volume on QSART was observed in the proximal leg but not at other sites. No significant differences were noted in lower-extremity perfusion or NCS as compared with baseline. Conclusions The improvement in pain relief was concordant with improvement in neuropathy symptoms. The findings from this study provide encouraging preliminary data in support of the hypothesis of a positive effect of SCS on peripheral neuropathy, but the findings are based on small numbers and require further evaluation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03769675.

Introduction Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH. Methods Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Results Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence. Conclusions These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Objective To summarize the current literature on non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug and corticosteroid use during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, recognizing that these are commonly used treatments in the field of headache medicine. Background The use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids in patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic has been a controversial topic within the medical community and international and national health organizations. Lay press and social media outlets have circulated opinions on this topic despite the fact that the evidence for or against the use of these medications is sparse. In the field of headache medicine, these medications are used commonly and both patients and clinicians may have questions or hesitations pertaining to their use during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Methods A detailed search of the scientific and popular literature was performed. Results There is limited literature pertaining to the safety of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and corticosteroids during the COVID‐19 pandemic. To date, there are no clear scientific data that preclude the use of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs in the general population who may acquire COVID‐19 or in those acutely infected with the virus. Several health organizations have concluded that treatment with corticosteroids during active infection should be avoided due to concerns of prolonged viral shedding in the respiratory tract and the lack of survival benefit based on the data from past coronaviruses and influenza virus; specific exceptions exist including treatment for underlying asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, septic shock, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Conclusion Scientific information regarding the COVID‐19 pandemic is constantly evolving, and limited or contradictory information can lead to confusion for both patients and clinicians. It is recommended that prior to prescribing non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs and steroids for the treatment of headache, clinicians have open discussions with their patients about the potential risks and benefits of using these medications during the COVID‐19 pandemic. This manuscript summarizes the currently available evidence and understanding about these risks and benefits to help clinicians navigate such discussions.

Background The association of trigeminal neuralgia with pontine lesions has been well documented in multiple sclerosis, and we tested the hypothesis that occipital neuralgia in multiple sclerosis is associated with high cervical spinal cord lesions. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the records of 29 patients diagnosed with both occipital neuralgia and demyelinating disease by a neurologist from January 2001 to December 2014. We collected data on demographics, clinical findings, presence of C2-3 demyelinating lesions, and treatment responses. Results The patients with both occipital neuralgia and multiple sclerosis were typically female (76%) and had a later onset (age > 40) of occipital neuralgia (72%). Eighteen patients (64%) had the presence of C2-3 lesions and the majority had unilateral symptoms (83%) or episodic pain (78%). All patients with documented sensory loss (3/3) had C2-3 lesions. Most patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (6/8) had C2-3 lesions. Of the eight patients with C2-3 lesions and imaging at onset of occipital neuralgia, five (62.5%) had evidence of active demyelination. None of the patients with progressive multiple sclerosis (3/3) responded to occipital nerve blocks or high dose intravenous steroids, whereas all of the other phenotypes with long term follow-up (eight patients) had good responses. Conclusions A cervical spine MRI should be considered in all patients presenting with occipital neuralgia. In patients with multiple sclerosis, clinical features in occipital neuralgia that were predictive of the presence of a C2-3 lesion were unilateral episodic symptoms, sensory loss, later onset of occipital neuralgia, and progressive multiple sclerosis phenotype. Clinical phenotype predicted response to treatment.