Lubenow, Timothy R.

Abstract Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education. Methods This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME‐accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow‐up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy. Results Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry‐related and professional society‐related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long‐term success. Fifty‐four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies. Conclusion This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12‐month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization.

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.