Citations

Abstract Objective Genicular nerve radiofrequency (gRF) treatment is a widely used intervention for chronic pain from knee osteoarthritis (KOA). This systematic review and meta-analysis focuses on RCTs utilizing image guidance to address inconsistencies in previous reviews and provide higher-quality evidence. Design, Setting, and Methods This study included RCTs that compared gRF techniques (conventional, cooled, pulsed, bipolar) to non-gRF treatments, including sham procedures, intra-articular injections, ozone therapy, and oral medications. Primary and secondary outcomes were changes in pain and total WOMAC scores at 3, 6, and 12 months post-gRF treatments. Subgroup analyses explored differences by lesion size, use of prognostic blocks, industry sponsorship, and study location. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed via I 2 statistics. Results Eleven RCTs with 868 knee osteoarthritis patients (435 gRF, 433 non-gRF) were included. At 3 months, gRF significantly reduced pain (SMD -1.65, 95% CI: -3.20 to -0.10, I 2 = 98%, P = 0.040), but not at 6 months or 12 months. Secondary analyses showed no significant differences in total WOMAC scores between the gRF and control groups at 3, 6, and 12 months. Subgroup analysis showed that industry-sponsored studies reported significant 3-month pain reduction, whereas non-sponsored studies did not. This effect was independent of study location. Conclusions GRF provides short-term pain relief (up to 3 months) but neither functional improvement nor sustained pain reduction compared to non-gRF treatments. Our findings do not support the routine use of gRF for long-term chronic pain due to KOA.

e15509 Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for oncology decision support, yet comparative evidence evaluating medical-specific versus general-purpose LLMs using expert-reviewed clinical cases is limited. We compared a medical-specific LLM (Google MedGemma 27B) with a general-purpose LLM (ChatGPT-5) using gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) oncology vignettes. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated 32 de-identified oncology vignettes (26 GI, 6 GU) created by a U.S. board-certified medical oncologist and informed by real-world cases. Vignettes included text-only information on the clinical context, description of pathology, tumor staging, biomarkers, and relevant comorbidities. Both LLMs were prompted to provide National Comprehensive Cancer Network(NCCN) guideline-based treatment recommendations, monitoring strategies, maintenance therapy considerations, and references, along with a self-reported confidence score (0–100). Board-certified U.S. medical oncologists independently reviewed outputs using a structured instrument; two disease specific expert oncologists evaluated each case. Outcomes included correctness and comprehensiveness (1–10 scales), hallucinations (factually fabricated or unsupported statements), NCCN traceability, potential patient harm, and clinician trust. Associations between accuracy and comprehensiveness were assessed using correlation coefficients. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using a two-way random-effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: ChatGPT-5 demonstrated higher mean correctness (8.65 vs 4.68) and comprehensiveness (8.68 vs 5.22) scores compared with MedGemma 27B. Accuracy and comprehensiveness were strongly correlated overall (Pearson r = 0.93, p < 0.001), with significant model-specific correlations (ChatGPT-5 r = 0.86, p < 0.001; MedGemma r = 0.77, p < 0.001). Hallucinations occurred less frequently with ChatGPT-5 (12.3% vs 65%), and NCCN-traceable recommendations were more common (75.4% vs 36.7%). Responses judged as potentially harmful occurred in 18.5% of ChatGPT-5 outputs versus 70% of MedGemma outputs. Clinician trust favored ChatGPT-5 (84.6% vs 15%). Inter-rater reliability improved with rater averaging (ICC(A,k): correctness 0.72; comprehensiveness 0.64). Conclusions: In expert-reviewed GI and GU oncology cases, ChatGPT-5 demonstrated higher clinical accuracy, comprehensiveness, and guideline alignment than a medical-specific LLM; however, a substantial rate of hallucinations and potentially harmful recommendations persisted across models. These findings underscore that, despite performance differences, current LLMs require rigorous clinician oversight and should not be used as standalone decision-support tools in oncology.

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.

Background: A critical component of conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses is assessing the methodological quality and bias of included studies. Several methodological quality assessment tools have been developed; however, these tools may not be relevant to observational sports medicine research, which carries numerous unique nuances and biases. Purpose: To develop the Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT), which evaluates and scores the methodological quality of observational sports medicine research. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: SPORT was developed through a modified Delphi approach involving members from the Herodicus Society and The FORUM. All active members were invited to participate in the process aimed at building consensus on SPORT content and scoring. After finalizing SPORT, a power analysis led to the independent selection of 55 observational clinical sports medicine studies, which were scored twice by 4 reviewers of varying training levels. Interrater and intrarater reliability for SPORT was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The distribution and percentiles for total SPORT score across the 55 studies were calculated. SPORT was also compared with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a commonly utilized quality assessment tool. Results: A total of 51 members participated and achieved 100%, 100%, 98.0%, and 98.0% completion rates for rounds 1 through 4, respectively. The final SPORT included 19 subscores related to methodological quality and bias and achieved 94% consensus approval. Mean SPORT completion time was 6 minutes and 19 seconds per study, which varied significantly by reviewer training level. The subscore "peer review" demonstrated unacceptable reliability and was removed. The remaining 18 subscores exhibited ICC ranges of 0.599 to 0.955 for interrater reliability and 0.530 to 0.936 for intrarater reliability. Total SPORT score demonstrated excellent agreement, for interrater (ICC, 0.967) and intrarater reliability (ICC, 0.966). Median SPORT score across the 55 studies was 20.0 and skewed toward lower scores. There was a moderate significant correlation between SPORT and MINORS ( r [53] = 0.575; P < .001). Conclusion: An objective tool to assess the methodologic quality of observational sports medicine research (SPORT) was successfully developed through a modified Delphi approach with numerous content experts in the field. This tool may be useful in assessing the methodological quality of primary observational sports medicine studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Background The past two decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the appreciation and treatment of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) complex pain, including anatomical dissections that shed light on innervation, an appreciation for the contribution of extra-articular components to SIJ complex pain, the advent of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and a host of minimally-invasive surgical techniques. Yet, there is no standardization of diagnosis and treatment paradigms. Methods In February 2023, the Boards of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) and American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (ASRA-PM) approved the development of multispecialty guidelines on SIJ complex pain. Thirty partner organizations with clinical and scientific interests in SIJ complex pain were identified, and formal letters of request-for-participation were sent to each, along with a request for nominees to serve on the committee. Twenty five organizations agreed to participate in addition to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. A steering committee developed 21 questions, which spanned criteria for diagnosis, non-interventional and interventional treatments including surgery, technical parameters on how to optimize results, and what constitutes positive outcomes. Questions were methodically assigned to specialized modules comprising 4–5 members with complementary expertise, who collaborated with the Subcommittee Lead and one of three Committee Chairs to develop preliminary drafts. Following thorough revisions, these drafts were subsequently submitted to the full committee for comprehensive review. A modified Delphi method was used in which the answers to questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was achieved. During a committee meeting before commencement, it was agreed that recommendations would be noted when there was >50% agreement among committee members, but that a formal recommendation would require ≥75% consensus. Results Twenty-one organizations formally endorsed the guidelines. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, and American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, and the North American Spine Society affirmed the benefit of the guidelines but did not officially endorse them. The American Academy of Neurology declined to affirm the benefit of the guidelines citing ‘lack of relevance to their membership.’ Per policies, while the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs did not formally review the guidelines for endorsement, their representatives approved them. In addition to being endorsed or the benefit affirmed by all voting organizations, complete consensus from committee members was obtained on all 21 questions. On two recommendations, there were dissensions from three societies who thought that selecting patients for sacral lateral branch RFA and minimally-invasive fusion should be based on ≥75% relief from two blocks instead of at least 50% relief from a single block before RFA, and greater than 50% pain relief with documented functional improvement after a single block before fusion. One additional society (Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia) abstained on the statement that the evidence is stronger for extra-articular than intra-articular injections. The committee found that a battery of physical exam tests has reasonable sensitivity, but lower specificity, for identifying intra-articular but not extra-articular pain, with negative tests having greater predictive value than positive ones. Intra-articular injections have diagnostic validity for SIJ intra-articular, but not extra-articular, pain. There is unclear or negative evidence for imaging. The prevalence rates of intra-articular and extra-articular pathology are comparable, with both intra- and extra-articular steroid injections providing at least 4 weeks of relief in well-selected patients. However, the evidence is slightly stronger for extra-articular corticosteroid injections to provide short-term relief. The evidence base for non-interventional therapies is indirect, extrapolated mostly from low back pain studies. There is weak evidence supporting dextrose-based prolotherapy and platelet-rich plasma to provide at least 3 months of pain relief. There is strong evidence for sacral lateral branch RFA to provide relief for at least 6 months in individuals with extra-articular pathology, with face validity and indirect evidence from randomized trials supporting sacral lateral branch blocks as a prognostic tool. There is stronger evidence for larger lesions or more aggressive lesioning strategies than for less stringent techniques. There is weak evidence to support non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent neuritis after RFA, and in most cases anticoagulation does not require cessation in the periprocedural period. With an aggressive lesioning strategy, sensory stimulation provides minimal therapeutic benefit, with weak, extrapolated evidence that motor stimulation can provide safety benefit. The cut-off to designate diagnostic or prognostic blocks as positive is most commonly set at 50%, with higher values not shown to improve outcomes for more definitive procedures; for therapeutic treatment outcomes, the evidence supports a lower threshold of ≥30% pain relief or meaningful benefit on non-pain outcomes (eg, opioid cessation) for designation of a positive response. For carefully selected patients with intra-articular SIJ complex pain based on controlled blocks who have failed conservative therapies, there is weak or very weak evidence that minimally invasive SIJ fusion can provide benefit for at least one year. Conclusions SIJ complex pain remains an underappreciated source of chronic low back pain, affecting between 15% and 30% of patients with axial pain predominantly below L5. Answers to many questions were limited by low-quality evidence, indicating the need for better research. SIJ complex pain is a multifarious condition (ie, pain can be from different portions of both the intra- and extra-articular components of the joint) for which an interdisciplinary, multimodal treatment plan can optimize treatment outcomes.

Importance Accurate classification and reliability in assessment for lesions of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) by investigators is critical to the determination of responder status and to overall data quality in clinical trials. Objective To establish consensus-based morphological definitions of HS lesions and guidance statements that standardize investigator lesion assessments for implementation in clinical trials. Evidence Review Health professionals (primarily dermatologists) with expertise in the measurement of HS disease activity as well as novice raters completed a preliminary questionnaire in which participants were asked to assess images of HS lesions and provide qualitative feedback on their decision making. Based on this feedback, detailed morphologic definitions for lesions and guidance statements that standardize lesion assessments were formulated and presented for consensus voting in 2 electronic Delphi surveys. A virtual group discussion after round 1 supported participants in round 2 voting. Findings Response rates were 84.7% (50 of 59), 86.0% (43 of 50), and 90.9% (40 of 44) in the preliminary, electronic Delphi round 1, and electronic Delphi round 2 surveys, respectively. Morphological definitions for 11 lesion types achieved the prespecified 70% consensus threshold, with 9 definitions reaching at least 90% agreement. After 2 electronic Delphi rounds, 16 of 18 guidance statements achieved the prespecified consensus threshold, with 13 statements receiving endorsement from more than 80% of participants. Two guidance statements related to assessment of tunneled plaques with multiple openings and assessment of scalp lesions failed to reach consensus. Conclusions and Relevance Common morphologic definitions and guidance that standardize assessment of HS lesions can be implemented in clinical trial protocols and investigator trainings with the goals of improving accuracy and reliability of investigator ratings.

Background: Arthrofibrosis is seen in 1.7% to 38% of patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and has been associated with worse postoperative patient-reported outcomes. There are limited data regarding the optimal time to intervene in cases of arthrofibrosis after ACLR. Purpose: To assess if timing of arthrofibrosis treatment after ACLR affects final knee range of motion (ROM) and to help establish guidelines with regard to timing of intervention for arthrofibrosis after ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Databases were retrospectively screened at 2 high-volume practices for patients who underwent lysis of adhesions (LOA; Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] 29884 and 29875) with or without manipulation under anesthesia (CPT 27570) after ACLR (CPT 29888). Clinical ROM assessments were collected at multiple time points. Patients were grouped into cohorts based on timing of LOA. Comparative analysis was performed to assess for relationships between ROM and timing of intervention. Results: Seventy-nine patients underwent LOA after ACLR: 25 patients who had a time from ACLR to LOA <3 months, 23 patients between 3 and 6 months, and 31 patients >6 months. Earlier LOA was associated with greater total loss of motion before LOA. The final total arc of motion was 132.7°, 133.7°, and 131.8° for patients who had a time from ACLR to LOA <3 months, between 3 and 6 months, and >6 months, respectively. There were no significant differences among groups in final flexion ( P = .8), extension ( P = .746), or total arc of motion ( P = .781). Linear regression modeling did not identify time from ACLR to LOA as a predictive variable ( P = .982) in final ROM. Conclusion: This study failed to demonstrate a linear relationship between the timing of LOA and final ROM. Regardless of the time to intervention, ROM improved significantly; however, patients with more severe arthrofibrosis underwent LOA at earlier time points.