Citations

Background There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic–pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit. Methods Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines 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 the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections. Conclusions In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework—participants (P), interventions (I),comparators (C), outcomes (O)—and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of health care interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework—participants (P), interventions (I), comparators (C), outcomes (O)—and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

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.

Importance 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, and management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. Objective To fill the practice guidelines void and provide comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing PDPH. Evidence Review With input from committee members and stakeholders of 6 participating professional societies, 10 review questions that were deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH were developed. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE on March 2, 2022. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews, and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for practice guideline development and shared with collaborator groups. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations that were rated according to the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence. Collaborators were asked to vote anonymously on each recommendation using 2 rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Findings After 2 rounds of electronic voting by a 21-member multidisciplinary collaborator team, 47 recommendations were generated to provide guidance on the risk factors for and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH, along with ratings for the strength and certainty of evidence. A 90% to 100% consensus was obtained for almost all recommendations. Several recommendations were rated as having moderate to low certainty. Opportunities for future research were identified. Conclusions and Relevance Results of this consensus statement suggest that current approaches to the treatment and management of PDPH are not uniform due to the paucity of evidence. The practice guidelines, however, provide a framework for individual clinicians to assess PDPH risk, confirm the diagnosis, and adopt a systematic approach to its management.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Background/importance Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated. Objective We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials. Evidence review Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success. Findings Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively. Conclusions Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Background The past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of the substance and their health implications remain controversial or unclear. Methods In November 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged the Cannabis Working Group to develop guidelines for the perioperative use of cannabis. The Perioperative Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids Guidelines Committee was charged with drafting responses to the nine key questions using a modified Delphi method with the overall goal of producing a document focused on the safe management of surgical patients using cannabinoids. A consensus recommendation required ≥75% agreement. Results Nine questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved on third-round voting. Topics addressed included perioperative screening, postponement of elective surgery, concomitant use of opioid and cannabis perioperatively, implications for parturients, adjustment in anesthetic and analgesics intraoperatively, postoperative monitoring, cannabis use disorder, and postoperative concerns. Surgical patients using cannabinoids are at potential increased risk for negative perioperative outcomes. Conclusions Specific clinical recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoids were successfully created.

Summary The COVID‐19 pandemic transformed everyday life, but the implications were most impactful for vulnerable populations, including patients with chronic pain. Moreover, persistent pain is increasingly recognised as a key manifestation of long COVID. This narrative review explores the consequences of the COVID‐19 pandemic for chronic pain. Publications were identified related to the COVID‐19 pandemic influence on the burden of chronic pain, development of new‐onset pain because of long COVID with proposed mechanisms and COVID‐19 vaccines and pain interventions. Broadly, mechanisms underlying pain due to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could be caused by ‘systemic inflammatory‐immune mechanisms’, ‘direct neuropathic mechanisms’ or ‘secondary mechanisms due to the viral infection or treatment’. Existing chronic pain populations were variably impacted and social determinants of health appeared to influence the degree of effect. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased the absolute numbers of patients with pain and headache. In the acute phase, headache as a presenting symptom predicted a milder course. New‐onset chronic pain was reportedly common and likely involves multiple mechanisms; however, its prevalence decreases over time and symptoms appear to fluctuate. Patients requiring intensive support were particularly susceptible to long COVID symptoms. Some evidence suggests steroid exposure (often used for pain interventions) may affect vaccine efficacy, but there is no evidence of clinical repercussions to date. Although existing chronic pain management could help with symptomatic relief, there is a need to advance research focusing on mechanism‐based treatments within the domain of multidisciplinary care.