Citations

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 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 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.

Abstract Van Iterson, EH, Fitzgerald, JS, Dietz, CC, Snyder, EM, and Peterson, BJ. Reliability of triaxial accelerometry for measuring load in men's collegiate ice hockey. J Strength Cond Res 31(5): 1305–1312, 2017—Wearable microsensor technology incorporating triaxial accelerometry is used to quantify an index of mechanical stress associated with sport-specific movements termed PlayerLoad. The test-retest reliability of PlayerLoad in the environmental setting of ice hockey is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to quantify the test-retest reliability of PlayerLoad in ice hockey players during performance of tasks simulating game conditions. Division I collegiate male ice hockey players ( N = 8) wore Catapult Optimeye S5 monitors during repeat performance of 9 ice hockey tasks simulating game conditions. Ordered ice hockey tasks during repeated bouts included acceleration (forward or backward), 60% top-speed, top-speed (forward or backward), repeated shift circuit, ice coasting, slap shot, and bench sitting. Coefficient of variation (CV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and minimum difference (MD) were used to assess PlayerLoad reliability. Test-retest CVs and ICCs of PlayerLoad were as follows: 8.6% and 0.54 for forward acceleration, 13.8% and 0.78 for backward acceleration, 2.2% and 0.96 for 60% top-speed, 7.5% and 0.79 for forward top-speed, 2.8% and 0.96 for backward top-speed, 26.6% and 0.95 for repeated shift test, 3.9% and 0.68 for slap shot, 3.7% and 0.98 for coasting, and 4.1% and 0.98 for bench sitting, respectively. Raw differences between bouts were not significant for ice hockey tasks ( p > 0.05). For each task, between-bout raw differences were lower vs. MD: 0.06 vs. 0.35 (forward acceleration), 0.07 vs. 0.36 (backward acceleration), 0.00 vs. 0.06 (60% top-speed), 0.03 vs. 0.20 (forward top-speed), 0.02 vs. 0.09 (backward top-speed), 0.18 vs. 0.64 (repeated shift test), 0.02 vs. 0.10 (slap shot), 0.00 vs. 0.10 (coasting), and 0.01 vs. 0.11 (bench sitting), respectively. These data suggest that PlayerLoad demonstrates moderate-to-large test-retest reliability in the environmental setting of male Division I collegiate ice hockey. Without previously testing reliability, these data are important as PlayerLoad is routinely quantified in male collegiate ice hockey to assess on ice physical activity.

Abstract Peterson, BJ, Fitzgerald, JS, Dietz, CC, Ziegler, KS, Baker, SE, and Snyder, EM. Off-ice anaerobic power does not predict on-ice repeated shift performance in hockey. J Strength Cond Res 30(9): 2375–2381, 2016—Anaerobic power is a significant predictor of acceleration and top speed in team sport athletes. Historically, these findings have been applied to ice hockey although recent research has brought their validity for this sport into question. As ice hockey emphasizes the ability to repeatedly produce power, single bout anaerobic power tests should be examined to determine their ability to predict on-ice performance. We tested whether conventional off-ice anaerobic power tests could predict on-ice acceleration, top speed, and repeated shift performance. Forty-five hockey players, aged 18–24 years, completed anthropometric, off-ice, and on-ice tests. Anthropometric and off-ice testing included height, weight, body composition, vertical jump, and Wingate tests. On-ice testing consisted of acceleration, top speed, and repeated shift fatigue tests. Vertical jump (VJ) ( r = −0.42; r = −0.58), Wingate relative peak power (WRPP) ( r = −0.32; r = −0.43), and relative mean power (WRMP) ( r = −0.34; r = −0.48) were significantly correlated ( p ≤ 0.05) to on-ice acceleration and top speed, respectively. Conversely, none of the off-ice tests correlated with on-ice repeated shift performance, as measured by first gate, second gate, or total course fatigue; VJ ( r = 0.06; r = 0.13; r = 0.09), WRPP ( r = 0.06; r = 0.14; r = 0.10), or WRMP ( r = −0.10; r = −0.01; r = −0.01). Although conventional off-ice anaerobic power tests predict single bout on-ice acceleration and top speed, they neither predict the repeated shift ability of the player, nor are good markers for performance in ice hockey.