Pope, Jason E.

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.

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.

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 spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for SCS.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year’s duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, 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.ResultsSCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT).ConclusionsHigh-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

Abstract Background Lumbar spinal stenosis ( LSS ) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. Methods The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer‐reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment ( MIST ) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [ RCT s]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. Results The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image‐guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. Conclusions MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS , based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer‐reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence‐based decision algorithm.