Artificial Intelligence and Pain Medicine: An Introduction.

Artificial intelligence was introduced 60 years ago and has evolved immensely since that time. While artificial intelligence is found in nearly all aspects of our life, the use of artificial intelligence in the healthcare industry has only recently become apparent and more widely discussed. It is expected that artificial intelligence will allow improved disease recognition, treatment optimization, cost and time savings, product development, decision making, and marketing. For pain medicine specifically, these same benefits will be translatable and we can expect better disease recognition and treatment selection. As adoption occurs with this impressive technology, it will be imperative for the pain medicine community to be informed on proper definitions and expected use cases for artificial intelligence. Our objective was to provide pain medicine physicians an overview of artificial intelligence, including important definitions to aid understanding, and to offer potential clinical applications pertinent to the specialty.

Effectiveness of Erector Spinae Plane Block as Perioperative Analgesia in Midline Sternotomies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: With the advancements in regional anesthesia and ultrasound techniques, the use of non-neuraxial blocks like the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has been increasing in cardiac surgeries with promising outcomes. A total of 3,264 articles were identified through a literature search. Intervention was defined as ESPB. Comparators were no regional technique performed or sham blocks. Four studies with a total of 226 patients were included. Postoperative opioid consumption was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -204.08; 95% CI: -239.98 to -168.19; P < 0.00001). Intraoperative opioid consumption did not differ between the two groups (WMD: -398.14; 95% CI: -812.17 to 15.98; P = 0.06). Pain scores at 0 hours were lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.56; P = 0.0005). Pain scores did not differ between the two groups at 4-6 hours (WMD: -0.79; 95% CI: -1.70 to 0.13; P = 0.09) and 12 hours (WMD: -0.83; 95% CI: -1.82 to 0.16; P = 0.10). Duration of mechanical ventilation in minutes was lower in the group that received ESPB than the group that did not (WMD: -45.12; 95% CI: -68.82 to -21.43; P = 0.0002). Given the limited number of studies and the substantial heterogeneity of measured outcomes and interventions, further studies are required to assess the benefit of ESPB in midline sternotomies.

The Effect of Sedation on Diagnostic Lumbar Medial Branch Blocks for Facetogenic Low Back Pain: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar medial branch blocks (MBB) are some of the most commonly performed pain procedures in the United States. Diagnostic MBBs are performed to confirm if the generator of low back pain is the facet joint. However, with diagnostic injections, false positive blocks may occur. OBJECTIVES:   Our prospective observational study aims to investigate the effects of midazolam sedation on patients' perceived intensity of pain relief following lumbar MBB. STUDY DESIGN: This is a single-center multi-site prospective observational study registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04453449). SETTING: The study was approved by the Henry Ford Health System Institutional Review Board (IRB) in June 2020 (IRB# 14010) and registered on clinicaltrials.gov in July 2020 (NCT04453449). This manuscript adheres to the applicable EQUATOR STROBE guidelines for an observational cohort study. METHODS: Patients that underwent MBB without sedation were compared to sedated patients. Patients were asked to complete the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline, one day after their diagnostic blocks, as well as 4 weeks and 8 weeks after their lumbar radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The primary outcome is the difference between baseline NRS pain scores and the lowest reported score in the 8 hours following MBB. For patients who proceed to RFA, the frequency of false positive blocks was evaluated. A patient was considered to have a false positive block when they failed to achieve 50% pain relief from RFA after 2 successful sequential MBBs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the NRS pain score change between the sedated and non-sedated groups for diagnostic block one (P = 0.167) and diagnostic block 2 (P = 0.6145). There was no significant difference of false positive rates between non-sedation and sedation patients at 4-weeks post-RFA (P = 0.7178) and at 8-weeks post-RFA (P = 1.000). LIMITATIONS: Some of the limitations of this study include its nonrandomized design, patient self-reported pain scores, as well as the small variability in the injection technique of proceduralists and in the anatomical location of the injection site. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that midazolam did not change patients' perceived intensity of pain following MBB, as well as false positive rates after RFA. Larger studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.