Citations

Abstract Objective Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of pain and disability worldwide. Recent studies demonstrate a vertebrogenic model involving the basivertebral nerve (BVN) as a cause of chronic LBP. Vertebral endplates are highly innervated by the BVN, and literature shows type 1 and 2 Modic changes at vertebral endplates are a source of vertebrogenic low back pain (VBP). As a result, intraosseous radiofrequency ablation of the BVN is a minimally invasive outpatient procedure used to treat VBP. We conducted a retrospective review of 1,145 patients that have undergone BVN ablation to assess for safety and complication management. Methods Chart reviews were conducted to obtain demographic and pre-procedural information regarding patient gender, age at the time of BVN ablation, duration of LBP, and BMI. Post-procedure information derived from chart notes included vertebral levels ablated and post-BVN ablation complications, which were categorized as increased LBP > 7 days, increased radicular pain > 7 days, lower extremity weakness, infection, vertebral compression fracture, superficial bleeding, spinal or epidural hematoma, serious neurological injury, visit to the ER, and deep vein thrombosis/clot. Results 1,145 patient charts were reviewed showing an overall complication rate of 3.2% (37 complications). Increased radicular pain was the most common complication at 2.2% (25 complications) and resolved completely in all but one patient. The overall complication rate fell to 1.1% (13 complications) when the 24 cases of transient radicular pain were not counted as adverse events. Conclusions In this multicenter retrospective review, the overall rate of complications related to BVN ablation was low (3.2%). The most common complication was temporary radicular pain that resolved with conservative care. These findings suggest that BVN ablation is a safe treatment for VBP in real-world clinical settings.

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.

Abstract 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 on 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 2 recommendations, there were dissensions from 3 societies who thought that selecting patients for sacral lateral branch RFA and minimally invasive fusion should be based on ≥75% relief from 2 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 pathology, 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 perioid. With an aggressive lesioning strategy, sensory stimulation provides minimal therapeutic benefit, with weak, extrapolated evidence that motor stimulation can provide safety benefit. The cutoff 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.

Abstract Background Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of neuromas has emerged as a potential treatment option for refractory neuroma‐associated postamputation pain (PAP). Objective To evaluate the feasibility of using internally cooled radiofrequency ablation (C‐RFA) for treating neuroma‐associated PAP. Design Prospective single‐arm pilot study. Setting Tertiary academic medical center. Participants Eight participants with neuroma‐associated PAP (mean age 56.5 [ interquartile range, 50.5–68.5] years; mean body mass index 30.2 [ interquartile range, 26.3–34.8] kg/m 2 ). Intervention Participants were recruited and treated with C‐RFA between 2019 and 2023. Main Outcome Measures Pain and functional outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after C‐RFA using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and Medication Quantification Scale III (MQS‐III). Responder definitions for each outcome measure were ≥50% NRS reduction, ≥30% GARS improvement, ≥6 on PGIC, and ≥6.8‐point MQS‐III reduction. Results NRS responder rates at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 25.0% (95% CI, 7.0%–59.1%), 50.0% (95% CI, 21.5%–78.5%), 37.5% (95% CI, 13.7%–69.4%), and 50.0% (95% CI, 21.5%–78.5%), respectively. Responder rates for GARS were 25.0% (95% CI, 7.1%–59.1%) at 1 month and 12.5% (95% CI, 2.2%–47.1%) at 3, 6, and 12 months. The proportion of PGIC responders was 37.5% (95% CI, 13.7%–69.4%) at 1 and 3 months and 12.5% (95% CI, 2.2%–47.1%) at 6 and 12 months. MQS‐III responder rates were 25.0% (95% CI, 7.1%–59.1%) at 1 month, 12.5% (95% CI, 2.2%–47.1%) at 3 months, and 37.5% (95% CI, 13.7%–69.4%) at 6 and 12 months. There were no complications associated with the C‐RFA procedure. Conclusions These findings indicate the feasibility of neuroma C‐RFA as a treatment for refractory neuroma‐associated PAP but also suggest that further patient selection and C‐RFA technique optimization are warranted before investigating this treatment paradigm in a larger prospective study.

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 60‐day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment targeting the occipital nerves for reducing pain and improving function in individuals diagnosed with cervicogenic headache or occipital neuralgia. Background Headache conditions are prevalent and commonly disabling, and conventional therapeutic strategies are often insufficient. Development of a percutaneous 60‐day PNS treatment has created new opportunities to evaluate PNS of the occipital nerves. Methods This study was an institutional review board‐approved, multicenter, prospective, single‐arm study that enrolled participants from October 2022 to March 2024. Participants with cervicogenic headache or occipital neuralgia received a 60‐day PNS treatment targeting the occipital nerves. The primary endpoint was the proportion reporting clinically significant (≥30%) reductions in average pain and/or pain interference at end of treatment (EOT). Additional analysis included the proportion of participants with ≥50% reduction in average pain intensity and/or pain interference and additional outcomes including Patient Global Impression of Change, six‐item Headache Impact Test, and Neck Disability Index. Results At EOT, 90% of participants (18/20) met the primary endpoint. Further, 85% (17/20) and 83% (15/18) reported ≥50% reductions in pain and/or pain interference at EOT and 3 months, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements were observed in functional and headache‐related disability and quality‐of‐life measures. All study‐related adverse events were non‐serious. Conclusion Most participants reported significant reductions in pain and/or pain interference following 60‐day PNS targeting the occipital nerves. Outcomes through 3 months demonstrate how 60‐day PNS offers an effective approach for the treatment of headache.

Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the 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 reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.