Citations

Background: The comparative effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive (“straight stick”) approaches across multiple solid organ malignancies remains incompletely defined, limiting evidence-based operative platform selection. Study Design: Patients undergoing minimally invasive primary tumor resection for 17 solid organ cancers were identified in the National Cancer Database (2010–2022) and stratified by robotic-assisted versus straight stick approach. The primary endpoint was conversion to open surgery. Secondary endpoints included short-term outcomes and oncologic/technical metrics. Multivariable logistic and negative binomial regression models were used to estimate adjusted associations. Results: Among 2,258,360 patients, 1,339,482 (59.3%) underwent robotic-assisted resection. Robotic surgery was associated with lower adjusted conversion rates compared with straight stick approaches (6.1% vs 13.6%, p<0.001), a finding consistent across all organ sites. Robotic approaches yielded approximately one additional lymph node on average after adjustment. Length of stay, 90-day mortality, and negative margin rates were overall similar between groups, with variation by disease site. Conclusions: In this large national cohort, robotic-assisted resection for solid organ malignancies was more frequently utilized and associated with lower conversion rates and modestly higher lymph node yield compared with straight stick approaches. These findings support consideration of robotic platforms to reduce conversion risk, although equivalence in other short-term outcomes and potential residual confounding warrant cautious interpretation.

Background Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are widely employed for chronic pain. These injections include peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections, injections of large appendicular joints, the axial facet and sacroiliac joints, and the epidural space. These injections may be performed in patients who have been recently vaccinated or plan to be vaccinated. This multisociety multispecialty position statement aims to develop evidence-based statements and recommendations (SRs) on the safe interval between CSIs and COVID-19 and influenza vaccine administration. Methods Development of the position statement was approved by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Board of Directors and several other societies that agreed to participate. The scope of the SRs was agreed on to include the efficacy of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, adverse events related to the CSIs, specifically the effect of CSIs on the hypothalamic–pituitary axis, incidence of COVID-19 in patients who had CSIs during the pandemic, incidence of influenza in patients who had CSIs during the influenza season, and recommend a reasonable interval between CSIs and COVID-19 and influenza vaccination 20 mg/day of prednisone s. Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive literature review and draft SRs, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results All SRs were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Boards of Directors of the participating societies also approved all SRs. If a vaccine has been recently administered or planned, then for non-urgent indications, the CSI should be offered at least 1 week before or after vaccine administration. For healthy patient(s), CSI, or vaccine administration may be performed without a 7-day interval after informed discussion with the patient and consent regarding the risk of blunted vaccine efficacy. For non-healthy patients, shared decision-making should include discussion of diminished vaccine effectiveness and the possibility of influenza or COVID-19 infection. Conclusions In this position statement, we provide recommendations on the optimal timing between CSIs and COVID-19 or influenza vaccine.

Background Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are widely employed in facet and sacroiliac joint pain. Similar to CSIs at other sites (peripheral nerve blocks, joints, epidural), these injections are associated with potential adverse events. These multisociety consensus recommendations aim to develop evidence-based statements and recommendations on the safe use of CSIs in facet joint and sacroiliac joint injections. Methods Development of the consensus recommendations was approved by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Board of Directors and several other societies that agreed to participate. The scope of statements and recommendations was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound, or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on effectiveness (vs local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive literature review and draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (>75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results All statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Boards of Directors of the participating societies also approved all statements and recommendations. Injection of corticosteroid into the facet joint in patients with joint inflammation may relieve pain and improves function. Intra-articular, extra-articular (periarticular), and combined administration are effective for sacroiliac joint injections. No dose-response studies exist, but CSIs containing 10 mg of methylprednisolone or triamcinolone per facet joint and 40 mg per sacroiliac joint (SIJ) (or their respective pharmacologic equivalents) are reasonable. Conclusions In this practice recommendation, we provide statements and recommendations on facet and sacroiliac joint CSIs, the optimal doses, and intervals and criteria for repeating the CSIs in patients with facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain.

Introduction Previous studies have demonstrated that C 11 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (Choline-PET/CT) can localize abnormal parathyroid glands in the reoperative setting. This study assesses a large volume of patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (1HPT) who underwent Choline-PET/CT to confirm its utility in the setting of negative or equivocal conventional imaging. Methods All patients who underwent Choline-PET/CT for evaluation of 1HPT from July 2017 to July 2024 at a single institution were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent parathyroidectomy and had lab testing to assess for cure (defined as >50% drop from baseline PTH and into normal range, or resolution of hypercalcemia at follow-up). Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), false negative rate (FNR), and accuracy were compared to conventional imaging (neck ultrasound, parathyroid scan, and parathyroid four-dimensional CT (4D-CT)). Subgroup analysis was conducted comparing sensitivity of modalities among index operations and separately in reoperations. Results 84 patients were included for analysis. 61 failed to localize on at least one conventional modality, and 15 failed to localize on all conventional studies. 67 patients (80%) achieved cure, of which 53 were reoperations. Choline-PET/CT outperformed conventional modalities across sensitivity, PPV, FNR, and accuracy. Choline-PET/CT also outperformed conventional modalities when comparing sensitivity in both subgroups. Conclusion C 11 choline-PET/CT is a valuable imaging modality in the reoperative setting and demonstrates utility for index operations. It provides localization when other modalities fail and allows for a high surgical cure rate. Further investigation into its utility as a primary imaging modality is warranted.

Abstract Disclosure: P. Hopmann: None. S. Lund: None. T. Foster: None. B. Dy: None. T. McKenzie: None. G. Johnson: None. R.A. Wermers: None. M. Lyden: None. Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that C11 choline positron emission tomography/computed tomography (Choline-PET/CT) can localize abnormal parathyroid glands in the re-operative setting. This study assesses a large volume of patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (1HPT) who underwent Choline-PET/CT to confirm its utility in the setting of negative or equivocal conventional imaging. Methods: All patients who underwent Choline-PET/CT for evaluation of 1HPT from July 2017 to July 2024 at a single institution were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent parathyroidectomy and had lab testing to assess for cure (defined as &gt;50% drop from baseline PTH and into normal range, or resolution of hypercalcemia at follow-up). Sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), false negative rate (FNR), and accuracy were compared to conventional imaging (neck ultrasound, parathyroid scan, and parathyroid four-dimensional CT (4D-CT)). Subgroup analysis was conducted comparing sensitivity of modalities among index operations, and separately in re-operations. Results: 176 patients were identified. 85 underwent parathyroidectomy, 1 patient was excluded due to lacking data to evaluate for cure. Of 91 patients who did not undergo parathyroidectomy, 45 were non-localizing on all imaging, and 46 had positive Choline-PET/CT findings but opted against surgery due to mild disease or prohibitive re-operative risk. Of the included 84 parathyroidectomy patients, 61 failed to localize on at least one conventional modality, and 15 failed to localize on all conventional studies. 67 patients (80%) achieved cure, of whom 53 were re-operations (range of 1-4 prior operations, average 1.5). Choline-PET/CT outperformed conventional modalities across sensitivity, PPV, FNR, and accuracy. Among index operations, Choline-PET/CT had significantly higher sensitivity than conventional modalities (100% vs 27% for ultrasound, 30% for parathyroid scan, 29% for 4D-CT; p values ≤0.01). This was also true in re-operations (95% for Choline-PET/CT vs 13% for ultrasound, 30% for parathyroid scan, 32% for 4D-CT; p values &lt;0.01). Conclusion: C11 choline-PET/CT is a valuable imaging modality in the re-operative setting and demonstrates utility for index operations. It provides localization when other modalities fail and allows for a high surgical cure rate. Further investigation into its utility as a primary imaging modality is warranted. Presentation: Monday, July 14, 2025

Abstract Disclosure: B. Salama: None. O. Hamidi: None. T.S. Wang: None. A. Sada: None. M.A. Habra: None. P. Dogra: None. A.P. Dackiw: None. S.C. Oltmann: None. S. Mirfakhraee: None. I. Lingvay: None. T. Mckenzie: None. T. Foster: None. M. Lyden: None. B. Dy: None. V. Balderrama Brondani: None. I. Bancos: None. Background: Patients with mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) are at risk for adrenal insufficiency (AI) after unilateral adrenalectomy. Guidelines recommend initiating glucocorticoid replacement post-adrenalectomy. However, identifying patients at risk and accurately diagnosing AI can enable individualized management. Objectives: Determine the prevalence, duration and predictors of postoperative AI after unilateral adrenalectomy for MACS and compare baseline and peak cortisol post cosyntropin stimulation test (CST) In diagnosing AI. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with MACS who underwent unilateral adrenalectomy and post-operative CST evaluation between January 1, 2013, and August 31, 2024. MACS was defined as cortisol &gt;1.8 mcg/dL following overnight administration of 1 mg dexamethasone (DST-cortisol). AI was diagnosed when post-operative day 1 early morning baseline cortisol was &lt;10 μg/dL and/or CST peak cortisol was &lt;18 μg/dL. Baseline and peak cortisol levels were considered concordant when both met cut-offs. Biochemical (BSS) and clinical (CSS) severity scores were calculated. Results: Among 281 adults with MACS (80% women, median age 57 years, interquartile range [IQR] (47-64), the median adenoma size was 3.0 cm (IQR, 2.3-3.9), and 62 (22%) had bilateral disease. The median BSS was 4 (IQR, 3-5), and the median CSS was 6 (IQR, 2-11). Postoperative AI was diagnosed in 153 (54.5%) patients. A multivariable analysis showed that a higher BSS (OR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.01-1.36) and younger age at diagnosis (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.81), but not sex, BMI, or laterality, were associated with AI. Diagnosis of AI was concordant based on the baseline and peak CST cortisol cutoffs in 78% of patients. Diagnosis of AI was discordant in 22%: in 35 patients (12%), baseline cortisol was &lt;10 μg/dL, but CST peak cortisol was ≥18 μg/dL, and in 28 cases (10%), baseline cortisol was ≥10 μg/dL, but CST peak cortisol was &lt;18 μg/dL. Patients with bilateral MACS were more likely to have discordant results (32% vs. 19%, P &lt; 0.001). During a median postoperative follow-up period of 15.4 months, 108 patients (70.6%) recovered from AI. The median time to recovery was 3.9 months (IQR, 3-5.9), with 41% recovering by 3 months, 60% by 6 months, and 73% by 12 months. The median time to recovery was associated with baseline BSS: mild: 3 months, moderate: 4.7 months, and severe: 14.5 months. Conclusion: We found that more than half of patients with MACS develop postoperative AI, with 50% recovering by 4 months post-surgery. BSS was associated with both the development and duration of AI. Baseline and CST peak cortisol results were concordant only in 78% of patients, thus performing both should be considered for an accurate diagnosis of AI. Presentation: Sunday, July 13, 2025

Background Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injection and peri-articular corticosteroid injection are commonly used to treat musculoskeletal conditions. Results vary by musculoskeletal region, but most studies report short-term benefit with mixed results on long-term relief. Publications showed adverse events from single corticosteroid injections. Recommended effective doses were lower than those currently used by clinicians. Methods Development of the practice guideline for joint injections was approved by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the participating societies. A Corticosteroid Safety Work Group coordinated the development of three guidelines: peripheral nerve blocks and trigger points; joints; and neuraxial, facet, and sacroiliac joint injections. The topics included safety of the technique in relation to landmark-guided, ultrasound-guided, or radiology-aided injections; effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate; and adverse events related to the injection. Experts on the topics were assigned to extensively review the literature and initially develop consensus statements and recommendations. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. A modified Delphi process was adhered to in arriving at a consensus. Results This guideline focuses on the safety and efficacy of corticosteroid joint injections for managing joint chronic pain in adults. The joints that were addressed included the shoulder, elbow, hand, wrist, hip, knee, and small joints of the hands and feet. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants and the Board of Directors of the participating societies after four rounds of discussion. There is little evidence to guide the selection of one corticosteroid over another. Ultrasound guidance increases the accuracy of injections and reduces procedural pain. A dose of 20 mg triamcinolone is as effective as 40 mg for both shoulder IACS and subacromial subdeltoid bursa corticosteroid injections. The commonly used dose for hip IACS is 40 mg triamcinolone or methylprednisolone. Triamcinolone 40 mg is as effective as 80 mg for knee IACS. Overall, IACS injections result in short-term pain relief from a few weeks to a few months. The adverse events include an increase in blood glucose, adrenal suppression, detrimental effect on cartilage lining the joint, reduction of bone mineral density, and postoperative joint infection. Conclusions In this practice guideline, we provided specific recommendations on the role of corticosteroids in joint, bursa, and peritendon injections for musculoskeletal pain.

Background To provide recommendations on risk mitigation, diagnosis and treatment of infectious complications associated with the practice of regional anesthesia, acute and chronic pain management. Methods Following board approval, in 2020 the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA Pain Medicine) commissioned evidence-based guidelines for best practices for infection control. More than 80 research questions were developed and literature searches undertaken by assigned working groups comprising four to five members. Modified US Preventive Services Task Force criteria were used to determine levels of evidence and certainty. Using a modified Delphi method, >50% agreement was needed to accept a recommendation for author review, and >75% agreement for a recommendation to be accepted. The ASRA Pain Medicine Board of Directors reviewed and approved the final guidelines. Results After documenting the incidence and infectious complications associated with regional anesthesia and interventional pain procedures including implanted devices, we made recommendations regarding the role of the anesthesiologist and pain physician in infection control, preoperative patient risk factors and management, sterile technique, equipment use and maintenance, healthcare setting (office, hospital, operating room), surgical technique, postoperative risk reduction, and infection symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Consensus recommendations were based on risks associated with different settings and procedures, and keeping in mind each patient’s unique characteristics. Conclusions The recommendations are intended to be multidisciplinary guidelines for clinical care and clinical decision-making in the regional anesthesia and chronic interventional pain practice. The issues addressed are constantly evolving, therefore, consistent updating will be required.