The Global Spine Care Initiative: public health and prevention interventions for common spine disorders in low- and middle-income communities.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop recommendations for prevention interventions for spinal disorders that could be delivered globally, but especially in underserved areas and in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We extracted risk factors, associations, and comorbidities of common spinal disorders (e.g., back and neck pain, spinal trauma, infection, developmental disorders) from a scoping review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of clinical trials, cohort studies, case control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Categories were informed by the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) classification system using the biopsychosocial model. Risk factors were clustered and mapped visually. Potential prevention interventions for individuals and communities were identified. RESULTS: Forty-one risk factors, 51 associations, and 39 comorbidities were extracted; some were associated with more than one disorder. Interventions were at primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary prevention levels. Public health-related actions included screening for osteopenia, avoiding exposure to certain substances associated with spinal disorders, insuring adequate dietary intake for vitamins and minerals, smoking cessation, weight management, injury prevention, adequate physical activity, and avoiding harmful clinical practices (e.g., over-medicalization). CONCLUSION: Prevention principles and health promotion strategies were identified that were incorporated in the GSCI care pathway. Interventions should encourage healthy behaviors of individuals and promote public health interventions that are most likely to optimize physical and psychosocial health targeting the unique characteristics of each community. Prevention interventions that are implemented in medically underserved areas should be based upon best evidence, resource availability, and selected through group decision-making processes by individuals and the community. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Immediate Adverse Events in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multi-Institutional Study.

SETTING: Interventional procedures directed toward sources of pain in the axial and appendicular musculoskeletal system are performed with increasing frequency. Despite the presence of evidence-based guidelines for such procedures, there are wide variations in practice. Case reports of serious complications such as spinal cord infarction or infection from spine injections lack appropriate context and create a misleading view of the risks of appropriately performed interventional pain procedures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adverse event rate for interventional spine procedures performed at three academic interventional spine practices. METHODS: Quality assurance databases at three academic interventional pain management practices that utilize evidence-based guidelines [1] were interrogated for immediate complications from interventional pain procedures. Review of the electronic medical record verified or refuted the occurrence of a complication. Same-day emergency department transfers or visits were also identified by a records search. RESULTS: Immediate complication data were available for 26,061 consecutive procedures. A radiology practice performed 19,170 epidural steroid (primarily transforaminal), facet, sacroiliac, and trigger point injections (2006-2013). A physiatry practice performed 6,190 spine interventions (2004-2009). A second physiatry practice performed 701 spine procedures (2009-2010). There were no major complications (permanent neurologic deficit or clinically significant bleeding [e.g., epidural hematoma]) with any procedure. Overall complication rate was 1.9% (493/26,061). Vasovagal reactions were the most frequent event (1.1%). Nineteen patients (<0.1%) were transferred to emergency departments for: allergic reactions, chest pain, symptomatic hypertension, and a vasovagal reaction. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that interventional pain procedures are safely performed with extremely low immediate adverse event rates when evidence-based guidelines are observed.

The Effects of Local Anesthesia Administration on Pain Experience During Interventional Spine Procedures: A Prospective Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: It has been postulated that local anesthetic administration may be the most painful part of interventional spine procedures. Despite this, there is a lack of evidence supporting the commonly used traditional technique of anesthetic delivery as part of these procedures. This study tested three hypotheses: 1) alternative method of local anesthesia injection is superior to the traditional method; 2) using the traditional method of injection is not superior to using no local anesthetic; and 3) treatment needle size, anesthetic injection technique, and sedation are associated with pain experienced during procedures. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter clinical trial of 127 participants who underwent elective bilateral symmetric interventional spine procedures in outpatient spine clinics. METHODS: Primary outcomes were pain scores during and after procedures to examine the influence of anesthetic injection method and treatment needle gauge on pain experience using linear mixed model regression analysis. A post-hoc comparison of estimated marginal mean pain scores was completed on both anesthetic injection method and treatment needle gauge. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative method was superior (P < 0.05) to the traditional method on post procedural pain scores. Injecting local anesthetic with the traditional or alternative method was not superior to using no local anesthetic. Treatment needle size, pain at one inch of treatment needle insertion, and baseline pain were all significantly (P < 0.05) associated with overall procedural pain. Further studies are needed optimize and justify local anesthetic injections for these procedures.