Smuck, Matthew

AbstractRecently, basivertebral nerve (BVN) radiofrequency ablation has been developed for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP) thought to arise from the vertebral body endplates (VEPs). This review describes the relevant neuroanatomy and pathobiology of VEP degeneration and injury, imaging correlates of presumed VEP pain, randomized controlled trials performed, appropriate patient selection, and safety. Anatomic, histological, and clinical evidence supports the concept of the VEP as a source of CLBP and the nociceptive role of the BVN. BVN radiofrequency ablation appears to be an effective treatment for a subset of patients with CLBP and evidence of Modic change types 1 and 2 in the L3 to S1 VEPs who have failed to respond to conservative treatment. However, all studies performed to date have been industry sponsored, and future non–industry-funded trials will be needed to confirm these results.

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.

Abstract Background. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) have demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness in treatment of radicular pain. Despite little evidence of efficacy/effectiveness, interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ILESI) are advocated by some as primary therapy for radicular pain due to purported greater safety. Objective. To assess immediate and delayed adverse event rates of TFESI and ILESI injections at three academic medical centers utilizing International Spine Intervention Society practice guidelines. Methods. Quality assurance databases from a Radiology and two physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) practices were interrogated. Medical records were reviewed, verifying immediate and delayed adverse events. Results. There were no immediate major adverse events of neurologic injury or hemorrhage in 16,638 consecutive procedures in all spine segments (14,956 TFESI; 1,682 ILESI). Vasovagal reactions occurred in 1.2% of procedures, more frequently ( P = 0.004) in TFESI (1.3%) than ILESI (0.5%). Dural punctures occurred in 0.06% of procedures, more commonly after ILESI (0.2% vs 0.04%, P = 0.006). Delayed follow up on PM&R patients (92.5% and 78.5, next business day) and radiology patients (63.1%, 2 weeks) identified no major adverse events of neurologic injury, hemorrhage, or infection. There were no significant differences in delayed minor adverse event rates. Central steroid response (sleeplessness, flushing, nonpositional headache) was seen in 2.6% of both TFESI and ILESI patients. 2.1% of TFESI and 1.8% of ILESI patients reported increased pain. No long-term sequelae were seen from any immediate or delayed minor adverse event. Conclusions. Both transforaminal and ILESI are safely performed with low immediate and delayed adverse event rates when informed by evidence-based procedural guidelines. By demonstrating comparable safety, this study suggests that the choice between ILESI and TFESIs can be based on documented efficacy and effectiveness and not driven by safety concerns.