Pain in the Context of Sensory Deafferentation.

Pain that accompanies deafferentation is one of the most mysterious and misunderstood medical conditions. Prevalence rates for the assorted conditions vary considerably but the most reliable estimates are greater than 50% for strokes involving the somatosensory system, brachial plexus avulsions, spinal cord injury, and limb amputation, with controversy surrounding the mechanistic contributions of deafferentation to ensuing neuropathic pain syndromes. Deafferentation pain has also been described for loss of other body parts (e.g., eyes and breasts) and may contribute to between 10% and upwards of 30% of neuropathic symptoms in peripheral neuropathies. There is no pathognomonic test or sign to identify deafferentation pain, and part of the controversy surrounding it stems from the prodigious challenges in differentiating cause and effect. For example, it is unknown whether cortical reorganization causes pain or is a byproduct of pathoanatomical changes accompanying injury, including pain. Similarly, ascertaining whether deafferentation contributes to neuropathic pain, or whether concomitant injury to nerve fibers transmitting pain and touch sensation leads to a deafferentation-like phenotype can be clinically difficult, although a detailed neurologic examination, functional imaging, and psychophysical tests may provide clues. Due in part to the concurrent morbidities, the physical, psychologic, and by extension socioeconomic costs of disorders associated with deafferentation are higher than for other chronic pain conditions. Treatment is symptom-based, with evidence supporting first-line antineuropathic medications such as gabapentinoids and antidepressants. Studies examining noninvasive neuromodulation and virtual reality have yielded mixed results.

Multicenter, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Crossover Trial Evaluating Topical Lidocaine for Mechanical Cervical Pain.

BACKGROUND: There are few efficacious treatments for mechanical neck pain, with controlled trials suggesting efficacy for muscle relaxants and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Although studies evaluating topical lidocaine for back pain have been disappointing, the more superficial location of the cervical musculature suggests a possible role for topical local anesthetics. METHODS: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial performed at four U.S. military, Veterans Administration, academic, and private practice sites, in which 76 patients were randomized to receive either placebo followed by lidocaine patch for 4-week intervals (group 1) or a lidocaine-then-placebo patch sequence. The primary outcome measure was mean reduction in average neck pain, with a positive categorical outcome designated as a reduction of at least 2 points in average neck pain coupled with at least a 5-point score of 7 points on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale at the 4-week endpoint. RESULTS: For the primary outcome, the median reduction in average neck pain score was -1.0 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for the lidocaine phase versus -0.5 (interquartile range, -2.0, 0.0) for placebo treatment (P = 0.17). During lidocaine treatment, 27.7% of patients experienced a positive outcome versus 14.9% during the placebo phase (P = 0.073). There were no significant differences between treatments for secondary outcomes, although a carryover effect on pain pressure threshold was observed for the lidocaine phase (P = 0.015). A total of 27.5% of patients in the lidocaine group and 20.5% in the placebo group experienced minor reactions, the most common of which was pruritis (P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: The differences favoring lidocaine were small and nonsignificant, but the trend toward superiority of lidocaine suggests more aggressive phenotyping and applying formulations with greater penetrance may provide clinically meaningful benefit.

Comparative-Effectiveness study evaluating outcomes for transforaminal epidural steroid injections performed with 3% hypertonic saline or normal saline in lumbosacral radicular pain.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) are commonly employed to treat lumbosacral radiculopathy. Despite anti-inflammatory properties, the addition of 3% hypertonic saline has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of adding 0.9% NaCl (N-group) vs. 3% NaCl (H-group) in TFESI performed for lumbosacral radiculopathy. METHODS: This retrospective study compared TFESI performed with lidocaine, triamcinolone and 0.9% NaCl. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a ≥ 30% reduction in pain on a verbal rating scale (VRS; 0-100) at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients who improved by at least 30% for pain at 1- and 6-months, and who experienced ≥15% from baseline on the Oswestry disability index (ODI) at follow-up. RESULTS: The H-group experienced more successful pain outcomes than the N-group at 3 months (59.09% vs. 41.51%; P = 0.002) but not at 1 month (67.53% vs. 64.78%; P = 0.61) or 6 months (27.13% vs 21.55%: P = 0.31). For functional outcome, there was a higher proportion of responders in the H-group than N-group at 3 months (70.31% vs. 53.46%; P = 0.002). Female, age ≤ 60 years and duration of pain ≤ 6 months were associated with superior outcomes at the 3-month endpoint. Although those with a herniated disc experienced better outcomes in general with TFESI, the only difference favoring the H-group was for spondylolisthesis patients. CONCLUSIONS: 3% hypertonic saline is a viable alternative to normal saline as an adjunct for TFESI, with randomized studies needed to compare its effectiveness to steroids as a possible alternative. REGISTRATION: Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR 20231110006.

Smallest Clinically Meaningful Improvement in Amputation-Related Pain and Brief Pain Inventory Scores as Defined by Patient Reports of Global Improvement After Cryoneurolysis: a Retrospective Analysis of a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The smallest meaningful improvement in pain scores (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) after an analgesic intervention is essential information when both interpreting published data and designing a clinical trial. However, limited information is available for patients with chronic pain conditions, and what is published is derived from studies involving pharmacologic and psychological interventions. We here calculate these values based on data collected from 144 participants of a previously published multicenter clinical trial investigating the effects of a single treatment with percutaneous cryoneurolysis. METHODS: In the original trial, we enrolled patients with a lower-limb amputation and established phantom pain. Each received a single-injection femoral and sciatic nerve block with lidocaine and was subsequently randomized to receive either ultrasound-guided percutaneous cryoneurolysis or sham treatment at these same locations. Investigators, participants, and clinical staff were masked to treatment group assignment with the exception of the treating physician performing the cryoneurolysis, who had no subsequent participant interaction. At both baseline and 4 months (primary end point), participants rated their phantom limb pain based on a numeric rating scale (NRS) and their interference of pain on physical and emotional functioning as measured with the Brief Pain Inventory's interference subscale. They subsequently qualitatively defined the change using the 7-point ordinal Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). The smallest clinically meaningful improvements in phantom limb pain and Brief Pain Inventory scores were calculated using an anchor-based method based on the PGIC. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) phantom pain NRS (0-10) improvements at 4 months considered small, medium, and large were 1 [1-1], 3 [3-4], and 4 [3-6], respectively. The median improvements in the Brief Pain Inventory interference subscale (0-70) associated with a small, medium, and large analgesic changes were 16 [6-18], 24 [22-31], and 34 [22-46]. The proportions of patients that experienced PGIC ≥5 were 33% and 36% in the active and placebo groups, respectively. The relative risk of a patient experiencing PGIC ≥5 in the active group compared to the sham group with 95% confidence interval was 0.9 (0.6-1.4), P = .667. CONCLUSIONS: Amputees with phantom limb pain treated with percutaneous cryoneurolysis rate analgesic improvements as clinically meaningful similar to pharmacologic treatments, although their MCID for the Brief Pain Inventory was somewhat larger than previously published values. This information on patient-defined clinically meaningful improvements will facilitate interpretation of available studies and guide future trial design.

5. Sacroiliac joint pain.

INTRODUCTION: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is defined as pain localized in the anatomical region of the SI joint. The reported prevalence of SI joint pain among patients with mechanical low back pain varies between 15% and 30%. METHODS: In this narrative review, the literature on the diagnosis and treatment of SI joint pain was updated and summarized. RESULTS: Patient's history provides clues on the source of pain. The specificity and sensitivity of provocative maneuvers are relatively high when three or more tests are positive, though recent studies have questioned the predictive value of single or even batteries of provocative tests. Medical imaging is indicated only to rule out red flags for potentially serious conditions. The diagnostic value of SI joint infiltration with local anesthetic remains controversial due to the potential for false-positive and false-negative results. Treatment of SI joint pain ideally consists of a multidisciplinary approach that includes conservative measures as first-line therapies (eg, pharmacological treatment, cognitive-behavioral therapy, manual medicine, exercise therapy and rehabilitation treatment, and if necessary, psychological support). Intra- and extra-articular corticosteroid injections have been documented to produce pain relief for over 3 months in some people. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-3 (or 4) lateral branches has been shown to be efficacious in numerous studies, with extensive lesioning strategies (eg, cooled RFA) demonstrating the strongest evidence. The reported rate of complications for SI joint treatments is low. CONCLUSIONS: SI joint pain should ideally be managed in a multidisciplinary and multimodal manner. When conservative treatment fails, corticosteroid injections and radiofrequency treatment can be considered.

3. Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints.

INTRODUCTION: Pain originating from the lumbar facets can be defined as pain that arises from the innervated structures comprising the joint: the subchondral bone, synovium, synovial folds, and joint capsule. Reported prevalence rates range from 4.8% to over 50% among patients with mechanical low back pain, with diagnosis heavily dependent on the criteria employed. In well-designed studies, the prevalence is generally between 10% and 20%, increasing with age. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar facet joint pain was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There are no pathognomic signs or symptoms of pain originating from the lumbar facet joints. The most common reported symptom is uni- or bilateral (in more advanced cases) axial low back pain, which often radiates into the upper legs in a non-dermatomal distribution. Most patients report an aching type of pain exacerbated by activity, sometimes with morning stiffness. The diagnostic value of abnormal radiologic findings is poor owing to the low specificity. SPECT can accurately identify joint inflammation and has a predictive value for diagnostic lumbar facet injections. After "red flags" are ruled out, conservatives should be considered. In those unresponsive to conservative therapy with symptoms and physical examination suggesting lumbar facet joint pain, a diagnostic/prognostic medial branch block can be performed which remains the most reliable way to select patients for radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Well-selected individuals with chronic low back originating from the facet joints may benefit from lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation.

4. Painful diabetic polyneuropathy.

INTRODUCTION: Pain as a symptom of diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) significantly lowers quality of life, increases mortality and is the main reason for patients with diabetes to seek medical attention. The number of people suffering from painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) has increased significantly over the past decades. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic polyneuropathy was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: The etiology of PDPN is complex, with primary damage to peripheral nociceptors and altered spinal and supra-spinal modulation. To achieve better patient outcomes, the mode of diagnosis and treatment of PDPN evolves toward more precise pain-phenotyping and genotyping based on patient-specific characteristics, new diagnostic tools, and prior response to pharmacological treatments. According to the Toronto Diabetic Neuropathy Expert Group, a presumptive diagnosis of "probable PDPN" is sufficient to initiate treatment. Proper control of plasma glucose levels, and prevention of risk factors are essential in the treatment of PDPN. Mechanism-based pharmacological treatment should be initiated as early as possible. If symptomatic pharmacologic treatment fails, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) should be considered. In isolated cases, where symptomatic pharmacologic treatment and SCS are unsuccessful or cannot be used, sympathetic lumbar chain neurolysis and/or radiofrequency ablation (SLCN/SLCRF), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGs) or posterior tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) may be considered. However, it is recommended that these treatments be applied only in a study setting in a center of expertise. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PDPN evolves toward pheno-and genotyping and treatment should be mechanism-based.

6. Persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of PSPS-type 2 was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There is low-quality evidence for the efficacy of conservative treatments including exercise, rehabilitation, manipulation, and behavioral therapy, and very limited evidence for the pharmacological treatment of PSPS-type 2. Interventional treatments such as pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglia, epidural adhesiolysis, and spinal endoscopy (epiduroscopy) might be beneficial in patients with PSPS-type 2. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic limb pain, and possibly well-selected candidates with axial pain. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PSPS-type 2 is based on patient history, clinical examination, and medical imaging. Low-quality evidence exists for conservative interventions. Pulsed radiofrequency, adhesiolysis and SCS have a higher level of evidence with a high safety margin and should be considered as interventional treatment options when conservative treatment fails.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain.

INTRODUCTION: Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Cryoneurolysis to Treat Chronic Postamputation Phantom Limb Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postamputation phantom pain is notoriously persistent with few validated treatments. Cryoneurolysis involves the application of low temperatures to reversibly ablate peripheral nerves. The authors tested the hypothesis that a single cryoneurolysis treatment would decrease phantom pain 4 months later. METHODS: The authors enrolled patients with a lower-limb amputation and established phantom pain. Each received a single-injection femoral and sciatic nerve block with lidocaine and was subsequently randomized to receive either ultrasound-guided percutaneous cryoneurolysis or sham treatment at these same locations. The primary outcome was the change in average phantom pain intensity between baseline and 4 months as measured with a numeric rating scale (0 to 10), after which an optional crossover treatment was offered. Investigators, participants, and clinical staff were masked to treatment group assignment with the exception of the treating physician performing the cryoneurolysis, who had no subsequent participant interaction. RESULTS: Pretreatment phantom pain scores were similar in both groups, with a median [quartiles] of 5.0 [4.0, 6.0] for active treatment and 5.0 [4.0, 7.0] for sham. After 4 months, pain intensity decreased by 0.5 [-0.5, 3.0] in patients given cryoneurolysis (n = 71) versus 0 [0, 3] in patients given sham (n = 73), with an estimated difference (95% CI) of -0.1 (-1.0 to 0.7), P = 0.759. Following their statistical gatekeeping protocol, the authors did not make inferences or draw conclusions on secondary endpoints. One serious adverse event occurred after a protocol deviation in which a femoral nerve cryolesion was induced just below the inguinal ligament-instead of the sensory-only saphenous nerve-which resulted in quadriceps weakness, and possibly a fall and clavicle fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous cryoneurolysis did not decrease chronic lower extremity phantom limb pain 4 months after treatment. However, these results were based upon the authors' specific study protocol, and since the optimal cryoneurolysis treatment parameters such as freeze duration and anatomic treatment location remain unknown, further research is warranted.

Safety of Scrambler Therapy: A Systematic Review of Complications and Adverse Effects.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to qualitatively synthesize all reported cases of complications, adverse effects, side effects, or harms arising from the use of scrambler therapy (ST). METHODS AND DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, United States National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from database inception to December 10, 2021. Case reports/series, abstracts, retrospective studies, and prospective studies (e.g., open-label trials, randomized controlled trials) pertaining to ST and any description of a complication, adverse effect, side effect, or harm were screened. The search protocol was developed a priori and registered via the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021291838). RESULTS: A total of six RCTs, 19 prospective open-label trials, and 11 case series / case reports met the inclusion criteria, comprising 1,152 total patients. Two patients experienced contact dermatitis, and one patient reported minor ecchymosis that resolved without intervention. This yielded a composite complication rate of 0.26% (3/1,152). There were zero reported serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: When used in accordance with the treatment protocols described by the United States Food and Drug Administration and device manual, ST is associated with a reported composite complication rate that is orders of magnitude lower than those of invasive neuromodulation devices. ST neuromodulation is a safe alternative for patients who cannot undergo invasive neuromodulation device implantation because of either risk or preference.

Fear Avoidance Beliefs in Upper-Extremity Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions: Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Clinical Study on Digital Care Programs.

BACKGROUND: Fear-avoidance beliefs (FAB) have been associated with poorer prognosis and decreased adherence to exercise-based treatments in musculoskeletal (MSK) pain. However, the impact of high FAB on adherence and outcomes in upper extremity MSK (UEMSK) pain is poorly explored, particularly through exercise-based digital care programs (DCP). OBJECTIVE: Assess the adherence levels, clinical outcomes and satisfaction in patients with UEMSK pain and elevated FAB after a fully remote multimodal DCP. Associations between FABQ-PA and clinical outcomes were conducted. METHODS: Secondary analysis of an ongoing clinical trial. Participants with UEMSK pain (shoulder, elbow, and wrist/hand) and elevated FAB-physical activity (FABQ-PA ≥ 15) were included. Adherence (completion rate, sessions/week, total exercise time) and mean change in clinical outcomes-disability (QuickDASH), numerical pain score, FABQ-PA, anxiety (GAD-7), and depression (PHQ-9)-between baseline and end-of-program were assessed. Associations between FABQ-PA and clinical outcomes were conducted. RESULTS: 520 participants were included, with mean baseline FABQ-PA of 18.02 (SD 2.77). Patients performed on average 29.3 exercise sessions (2.8 sessions/week), totalizing 338.2 exercise minutes. Mean satisfaction was 8.5/10 (SD 1.7). Significant improvements were observed in all clinical outcomes. Higher baseline FAB were associated with higher baseline disability (P < .001), and smaller improvements in disability (P < .001) and pain (P = .001). Higher engagement was associated with greater improvements in FABQ-PA (P = .043) and pain (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the potential benefits of a structured and multimodal home-based DCP in the management of UEMSK pain conditions in patients with elevated FAB in a real-world context.

Sympathetic Blocks as a Predictor for Response to Ketamine Infusion in Patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine infusions are frequently employed for refractory complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), but there are limited data on factors associated with treatment response. Sympathetic blocks are also commonly employed in CRPS for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes and generally precede ketamine infusions. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether demographic and clinical factors, and technical and psychophysical characteristics of sympathetic blocks are associated with response to ketamine infusion. METHODS: In this multi-center retrospective study, 71 patients who underwent sympathetic blocks followed by ketamine infusions at 4 hospitals were evaluated. Sympathetically maintained pain (SMP) was defined as ≥ 50% immediate pain relief after sympathetic block and a positive response to ketamine was defined as ≥ 30% pain relief lasting over 3 weeks. RESULTS: Factors associated with a positive response to ketamine in univariable analysis were the presence of SMP (61.0% success rate vs 26.7% in those with sympathetically independent pain; P = .009) and post-block temperature increase (5.66 ± 4.20 in ketamine responders vs 3.68 ± 3.85 in non-responders; P = .043). No psychiatric factor was associated with ketamine response. In multivariable analysis, SMP (OR 6.54 [95% CI 1.83, 23.44]) and obesity (OR 8.75 [95% 1.45, 52.73]) were associated with a positive ketamine infusion outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The response to sympathetic blocks may predict response to ketamine infusion in CRPS patients, with alleviation of the affective component of pain and predilection to a positive placebo effect being possible explanations.

Comparing Digital to Conventional Physical Therapy for Chronic Shoulder Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic shoulder pain (CSP) is a common condition with various etiologies, including rotator cuff disorders, adhesive capsulitis, shoulder instability, and shoulder arthritis. It is associated with substantial disability and psychological distress, resulting in poor productivity and quality of life. Physical therapy constitutes the mainstay treatment for CSP, but several barriers exist in accessing care. In recent years, telerehabilitation has gained momentum as a potential solution to overcome such barriers. It has shown numerous benefits, including improving access and convenience, promoting patient adherence, and reducing costs. However, to date, no previous randomized controlled trial has compared fully remote digital physical therapy to in-person rehabilitation for nonoperative CSP. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare clinical outcomes between digital physical therapy and conventional in-person physical therapy in patients with CSP. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial involving 82 patients with CSP referred for outpatient physical therapy. Participants were randomized into digital or conventional physical therapy (8-week interventions). The digital intervention consisted of home exercise, education, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), using a device with movement digitalization for biofeedback and asynchronous physical therapist monitoring through a cloud-based portal. The conventional group received in-person physical therapy, including exercises, manual therapy, education, and CBT. The primary outcome was the change (baseline to 8 weeks) in function and symptoms using the short-form of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures included self-reported pain, surgery intent, analgesic intake, mental health, engagement, and satisfaction. All questionnaires were delivered electronically. RESULTS: A total of 90 participants were randomized into digital or conventional physical therapy, with 82 receiving the allocated intervention. Both groups experienced significant improvements in function measured by the short-form of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, with no differences between groups (-1.8, 95% CI -13.5 to 9.8; P=.75). For secondary outcomes, no differences were observed in surgery intent, analgesic intake, and mental health or worst pain. Higher reductions were observed in average and least pain in the conventional group, which, given the small effect sizes (least pain 0.15 and average pain 0.16), are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. High adherence and satisfaction were observed in both groups, with no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that fully remote digital programs can be viable care delivery models for CSP given their scalability and effectiveness, assessed through comparison with high-dosage in-person rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04636528); https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04636528.

Percutaneous Neuromodulation of the Brachial Plexus and Sciatic Nerve for the Treatment of Acute Pain Following Surgery: Secondary Outcomes From a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: We recently reported that percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS or "neuromodulation") decreased pain and opioid consumption within the first two weeks following ambulatory surgery. However, the anatomic lead locations were combined for the analysis, and benefits for each location remain unknown. We therefore now report the effects of percutaneous PNS for brachial plexus and sciatic nerve leads separately. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Before surgery, leads were implanted percutaneously to target the brachial plexus (N = 21) for rotator cuff repair or sciatic nerve (N = 40) for foot/ankle surgery, followed by a single injection of local anesthetic. Postoperatively, subjects were randomized in a double masked fashion to 14 days of electrical stimulation (N = 30) or sham/placebo (N = 31) using an external pulse generator. The primary outcome of interest was opioid consumption and pain scores evaluated jointly. Thus, stimulation was deemed effective if superior on either outcome and at least noninferior on the other. RESULTS: For brachial plexus leads, during the first seven postoperative days pain measured with the numeric rating scale in participants given active stimulation was a median [interquartile range] of 0.8 [0.5, 1.6] versus 3.2 [2.7, 3.5] in patients given sham (p < 0.001). For this same group, opioid consumption in participants given active stimulation was 10 mg [5, 20] versus 71 mg [35, 125] in patients given sham (p = 0.043). For sciatic nerve leads, pain scores for the active treatment group were 0.7 [0, 1.4] versus 2.8 [1.6, 4.6] in patients given sham (p < 0.001). During this same period, participants given active stimulation consumed 5 mg [0, 30] of opioids versus 40 mg [20, 105] in patients given sham (p = 0.004). Treatment effects did not differ statistically between the two locations. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory percutaneous PNS of both the brachial plexus and sciatic nerve is an effective treatment for acute pain free of systemic side effects following painful orthopedic surgery.

The use of ketamine infusion to dramatically reduce opioid requirements in a patient whose high-dose intrathecal opioid pump was inadvertently cut during surgery.

BACKGROUND: Chronic opioid therapy may lead to high level tolerance development, hyperalgesia, and central sensitization, which further complicates long-term therapeutic management of chronic pain patients. In this case, we encounter a patient who was receiving over 15,000 morphine milligram equivalents through their intrathecal pain pump. Unfortunately, the intrathecal pump was inadvertently cut during a spinal surgery. It was deemed unsafe to delivery IV equivalent opioid therapy in this case; instead, the patient was admitted to the ICU and given a four-day ketamine infusion. METHOD: The patient was started on a ketamine infusion at a rate of 0.5mg/kg/h, which was continued for three days. On the fourth day, the infusion rate was tapered over 12 h before being completely stopped. No coinciding opioid therapy was given during this time, which was only restarted in the outpatient setting. RESULTS: Despite chronic high levels of opioid therapy immediately prior to the ketamine infusion, the patient did not experience florid withdrawals during the infusion period. Additionally, the patient experienced remarkable improvement in their subjective pain rating, which decreased from 9 to 3-4 on an 11-point Number Rating Scale, while simultaneously being managed on an MME <100. These results were sustained through a 6-month follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Ketamine may play an important role in attenuating not only tolerance but also acute withdrawal in a setting where rapid or instant weaning from high dose chronic opioid therapy is needed.

2. Cervical radicular pain.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb, caused by irritation or compression of a cervical spine nerve, the roots of the nerve, or both. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: The diagnosis is made by combining elements from the patient's history, physical examination, and supplementary tests. The Spurling and shoulder abduction tests are the two most common examinations used to identify cervical radicular pain. MRI without contrast, CT scanning, and in some cases plain radiography can all be appropriate imaging techniques for nontraumatic cervical radiculopathy. MRI is recommended prior to interventional treatments. Exercise with or without other treatments can be beneficial. There is scant evidence for the use of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and neuropathic pain medications such as gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants for the treatment of radicular pain. Acute and subacute cervical radicular pain may respond well to epidural corticosteroid administration, preferentially using an interlaminar approach. By contrast, for chronic cervical radicular pain, the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid administration is limited. In these patients, pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical radicular pain. There is scant evidence for the use of medication. Epidural corticosteroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. [Correction added on 12 June 2023, after first online publication: The preceding sentence was corrected.].

Chronic pain: an update on burden, best practices, and new advances.

Chronic pain exerts an enormous personal and economic burden, affecting more than 30% of people worldwide according to some studies. Unlike acute pain, which carries survival value, chronic pain might be best considered to be a disease, with treatment (eg, to be active despite the pain) and psychological (eg, pain acceptance and optimism as goals) implications. Pain can be categorised as nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from nerve injury), or nociplastic (from a sensitised nervous system), all of which affect work-up and treatment decisions at every level; however, in practice there is considerable overlap in the different types of pain mechanisms within and between patients, so many experts consider pain classification as a continuum. The biopsychosocial model of pain presents physical symptoms as the denouement of a dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Although it is widely known that pain can cause psychological distress and sleep problems, many medical practitioners do not realise that these associations are bidirectional. While predisposing factors and consequences of chronic pain are well known, the flipside is that factors promoting resilience, such as emotional support systems and good health, can promote healing and reduce pain chronification. Quality of life indicators and neuroplastic changes might also be reversible with adequate pain management. Clinical trials and guidelines typically recommend a personalised multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment approach, which might include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, integrative treatments, and invasive procedures.

Low back pain.

Low back pain covers a spectrum of different types of pain (eg, nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic, or non-specific) that frequently overlap. The elements comprising the lumbar spine (eg, soft tissue, vertebrae, zygapophyseal and sacroiliac joints, intervertebral discs, and neurovascular structures) are prone to different stressors, and each of these, alone or in combination, can contribute to low back pain. Due to numerous factors related to low back pain, and the low specificity of imaging and diagnostic injections, diagnostic methods for this condition continue to be a subject of controversy. The biopsychosocial model posits low back pain to be a dynamic interaction between social, psychological, and biological factors that can both predispose to and result from injury, and should be considered when devising interdisciplinary treatment plans. Prevention of low back pain is recognised as a pivotal challenge in high-risk populations to help tackle high health-care costs related to therapy and rehabilitation. To a large extent, therapy depends on pain classification, and usually starts with self-care and pharmacotherapy in combination with non-pharmacological methods, such as physical therapies and psychological treatments in appropriate patients. For refractory low back pain, a wide range of non-surgical (eg, epidural steroid injections and spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, and radiofrequency ablation and intra-articular steroid injections for mechanical pain) and surgical (eg, decompression for neuropathic pain, disc replacement, and fusion for mechanical causes) treatment options are available in carefully selected patients. Most treatment options address only single, solitary causes and given the complex nature of low back pain, a multimodal interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Although globally recognised as an important health and socioeconomic challenge with an expected increase in prevalence, low back pain continues to have tremendous potential for improvement in both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. Future research on low back pain should focus on improving the accuracy and objectivity of diagnostic assessments, and devising treatment algorithms that consider unique biological, psychological, and social factors. High-quality comparative-effectiveness and randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up periods that aim to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low back pain management are warranted.

Nociplastic pain: towards an understanding of prevalent pain conditions.

Nociplastic pain is the semantic term suggested by the international community of pain researchers to describe a third category of pain that is mechanistically distinct from nociceptive pain, which is caused by ongoing inflammation and damage of tissues, and neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage. The mechanisms that underlie this type of pain are not entirely understood, but it is thought that augmented CNS pain and sensory processing and altered pain modulation play prominent roles. The symptoms observed in nociplastic pain include multifocal pain that is more widespread or intense, or both, than would be expected given the amount of identifiable tissue or nerve damage, as well as other CNS-derived symptoms, such as fatigue, sleep, memory, and mood problems. This type of pain can occur in isolation, as often occurs in conditions such as fibromyalgia or tension-type headache, or as part of a mixed-pain state in combination with ongoing nociceptive or neuropathic pain, as might occur in chronic low back pain. It is important to recognise this type of pain, since it will respond to different therapies than nociceptive pain, with a decreased responsiveness to peripherally directed therapies such as anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids, surgery, or injections.