American Society of Pain and Neuroscience Best Practice (ASPN) Guideline for the Treatment of Sacroiliac Disorders.

Clinical management of sacroiliac disease has proven challenging from both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Although it is widely regarded as a common source of low back pain, little consensus exists on the appropriate clinical management of sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction. Understanding the biomechanics, innervation, and function of this complex load bearing joint is critical to formulating appropriate treatment algorithms for SI joint disorders. ASPN has developed this comprehensive practice guideline to serve as a foundational reference on the appropriate management of SI joint disorders utilizing the best available evidence and serve as a foundational guide for the treatment of adult patients in the United States and globally.

Multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction following lumbar radiofrequency ablation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar medial branch nerve radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) is an interventional procedure used to treat chronic lumbar facet joint pain. Because the medial branch nerves also innervate the multifidus muscle, it has been proposed that LRFA may pose a risk of multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction. However, the quality and level of evidence to answer this clinical question have not been established. Therefore, this review aimed to systematically appraise the literature to discern whether the prevailing evidence substantiates the hypothesis in question. METHODS: A systematic review compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed to evaluate the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting functional and/or structural changes in the multifidus muscle following LRFA. RESULTS: Only five cohort studies met inclusion criteria. Two studies assessed changes in multifidus function following LRFA with confirmed denervation at electromyography and significant reduction in multifidus shear modulus with ultrasound shear wave elastography. Of the four studies that evaluated changes in multifidus structure with magnetic resonance imaging following LRFA, two demonstrated a decrease in cross-sectional area or an increase in fat infiltration, one demonstrated no change, and one revealed an apparent increase. Given the destructive nature attributed to LRFA, some degree of multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction may be plausible, albeit with a very low certainty that relies on a restricted body of literature of modest quality and with a presence of high bias. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of studies discussing the potential association between LRFA and multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction. In light of the shortage of high-quality studies and the absence of standardized protocols to assess both changes in the structure and function of the multifidus subsequent to LRFA, there is a pressing need for more prospective studies with a high methodological rigor to comprehensively address and answer this enduring debate in clinical practice.

Relationship between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries and outcomes following spinal cord stimulator implantation: A multisite, retrospective pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for treating disabling spine-related pain. In recent decades, both the number and cost of spine surgeries have increased despite technological advances and modification in surgical technique. For those patients that have continued uncontrolled back and/or lower extremity pain following lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a viable treatment option. However, the impact of lumbar spine surgical history remains largely unstudied. Specifically, the current study considers the impact of number of prior lumbar spine surgeries on pain relief outcomes following SCS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the electronic medical record of five separate pain practices for all patients who have undergone a SCS implant between January 1, 2017, and March 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of any patients with an SCS implant who underwent a prior lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome was the mean calculated percentage pain relief in patients based on number of prior lumbar spine surgeries. RESULTS: There was a total of 1974 total SCS implant cases identified across five separate pain clinics. There was no difference in mean calculated pain relief in patients with one prior spine surgery versus those with two or more prior spine surgeries (28.2% vs. 25.8%, adjusted ß-coefficient -3.1, 95% CI -8.9 to 2.7, p = 0.290). Similarly, when analyzing number of spine surgeries as a continuous variable, there was no association between number of spine surgeries and calculated pain relief (adjusted ß-coefficient -1.5, 95% CI -4.0 to 1.1, p = 0.257). Additionally, after patients were stratified based on waveform, there was no association between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries (analyzed both as a categorical and continuous variable) and calculated percentage pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentered retrospective study found that there was no significant difference in pain scores in individuals who received SCS following one or more lumbar spine surgeries. Additionally, the waveform of the SCS device had no statistically significant impact on post-operative pain scores following one or more lumbar spine surgeries.

A Systematic Guideline by the ASPN Workgroup on the Evidence, Education, and Treatment Algorithm for Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: SWEET.

Introduction: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a leading cause of pain and disability globally with a lack of consensus on the appropriate treatment of those suffering from this condition. Recent advancements in both pharmacotherapy and interventional approaches have broadened the treatment options for PDN. There exists a need for a comprehensive guideline for the safe and effective treatment of patients suffering from PDN. Objective: The SWEET Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with the most comprehensive guideline for the safe and appropriate treatment of patients suffering from PDN. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for PDN. A multidisciplinary group of international experts developed the SWEET guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Meeting Abstracts, and Scopus to identify and compile the evidence for diabetic neuropathy pain treatments (per section as listed in the manuscript) for the treatment of pain. Manuscripts from 2000-present were included in the search process. Results: After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN SWEET guideline was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades for most available treatments for PDN utilizing the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria. Conclusion: The ASPN SWEET Guideline represents the most comprehensive review of the available treatments for PDN and their appropriate and safe utilization.

Misinformation Persists in Complementary Health: Evaluating the Reliability and Quality of YouTube-Based Information on the Use of Acupuncture for Chronic Pain.

Introduction: Acupuncture is commonly used to treat chronic pain. Patients often access public social media platforms for healthcare information when querying acupuncture. Our study aims to appraise the utility, accuracy, and quality of information available on YouTube, a popular social media platform, on acupuncture for chronic pain treatment. Methods: Using search terms such as "acupuncture for chronic pain" and "acupuncture pain relief", the top 54 videos by view count were selected. Included videos were >1 minute duration, contained audio in English, had >7000 views, and was related to acupuncture. One primary outcome of interest was categorizing each video's usefulness as useful, misleading, or neither. Another primary outcome of interest was the quality and reliability of each video using validated instruments, including the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) tool and the Global Quality Scale (GQS). The means were calculated for the video production characteristics, production sources, and mDISCERN and GQS scores. Continuous and categorical outcomes were compared using Student's t-test and chi-square test, respectively. Results: Of the 54 videos, 57.4% were categorized as useful, 14.8% were misleading, and 27.8% were neither. Useful videos had a mean GQS and mDISCERN score of 3.77±0.67 and 3.48±0.63, respectively, while misleading videos had mean GQS and mDISCERN score of 2.50±0.53 and 2.38±0.52, respectively. 41.8% of the useful videos were produced by a healthcare institution while none of the misleading videos were produced by a healthcare institution. However, 87.5% of the misleading videos were produced by health media compared to only 25.8% of useful videos from health media. Discussion: As patients increasingly depend on platforms like YouTube for trustworthy information on complementary health practices such as acupuncture, our study emphasizes the critical need for more higher-quality videos from unbiased healthcare institutions and physicians to ensure patients are receiving reliable information regarding this topic.

Reviewing the Potential Role of Artificial Intelligence in Delivering Personalized and Interactive Pain Medicine Education for Chronic Pain Patients.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in patient pain medicine education has the potential to revolutionize pain management. By harnessing the power of AI, patient education becomes more personalized, interactive, and supportive, empowering patients to understand their pain, make informed decisions, and actively participate in their pain management journey. AI tailors the educational content to individual patients' needs, providing personalized recommendations. It introduces interactive elements through chatbots and virtual assistants, enhancing engagement and motivation. AI-powered platforms improve accessibility by providing easy access to educational resources and adapting content to diverse patient populations. Future AI applications in pain management include explaining pain mechanisms, treatment options, predicting outcomes based on individualized patient-specific factors, and supporting monitoring and adherence. Though the literature on AI in pain medicine and its applications are scarce yet growing, we propose avenues where AI may be applied and review the potential applications of AI in pain management education. Additionally, we address ethical considerations, patient empowerment, and accessibility barriers.

Scoping Review: The Role of Psychedelics in the Management of Chronic Pain.

Introduction: Amid a lack of effective chronic pain treatments, psychedelics have gained attention as a potential solution, although their Schedule 1 classification poses challenges. Psychedelics, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and psilocybin, have gained popularity as alternatives and adjuncts for chronic pain treatment. Studies suggest that they may modulate pain processing through agonism primarily at the serotonin receptor, 5-HT2A. One of the first of its nature, we present an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered scoping review primarily focusing on evaluating psychedelics for chronic pain conditions such as cluster headache, phantom limb pain, and fibromyalgia. Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, we used an AI-powered comprehensive search strategy utilizing the ChatGPT4.0 Bing chat to search Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar for articles addressing chronic pain. The query was performed on June 1, 2023, focusing on psychedelics for chronic, non-cancer pain including headache disorders. Inclusion criteria were English-only, peer-reviewed articles involving human participants >18 years, focusing on chronic pain conditions (eg, phantom limb pain and cluster headache), using LSD, 2.5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine (2C-B), N, N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), psilocybin, or mescaline. Exclusion criteria were reviews, editorials, and opinion articles and studies focusing on tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabis and/or ketamine. Results: A total of 186 unique database entries were retrieved, of which nine studies were included in the scoping review. These included four case reports/series, an open-label study, a cohort study, two online surveys, and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. They comprised three studies addressing phantom limb pain, four addressing cluster headaches, and two addressing fibromyalgia, spinal cord injury, complex regional pain syndrome, and lumbar radiculopathy. Conclusion: Psychedelics may have potential in alleviating pain symptoms secondary to a multitude of chronic pain conditions. However, further randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are needed to further explore and evaluate the role of psychedelics in chronic, non-cancer pain.

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.

Treatment Disparities in Hispanic Patients with Chronic Pain: An Evidence-Based Narrative Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this narrative review is to summarize healthcare disparities experienced by Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients with chronic pain, evaluate the existing literature exploring the specific therapeutic inequities affecting this patient population, and identify gaps in the literature requiring future study. RECENT FINDINGS: Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients experience disparities in chronic pain management. They are less likely to be prescribed pharmacologic therapies, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids. Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients are also less likely to receive spinal cord stimulators and may be charged higher costs for them. There are no published studies specifically assessing Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients' utilization and outcomes from other common interventional pain procedures (e.g., epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablation). Limited data suggest non-pharmacologic treatments, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and complementary/integrative health modalities, might have more benefit for this population, potentially because of greater utilization. Hispanic and Latino/Latinx patients experience disparities in chronic pain management. There is a paucity of data available pertaining specifically to pain-related outcomes and the utilization of pain treatment modalities, especially in regard to interventional procedures. Additional research is urgently needed in order to understand the full extent of these disparities and develop solutions to provide more equitable care.

Methodological and statistical characteristics of meta-analyses on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools. OBJECTIVE: To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes. EVIDENCE REVIEW: An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool. FINDINGS: Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered "high" quality, three "low" quality, and 19 "critically low" quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (ß 0.043; 95% CI -0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (ß 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (ß -0.168; 95% CI -0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320).According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023431155.

The analgesic effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for acute and chronic persistent postsurgical pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and tumour resection carries a high prevalence of chronic persistent postsurgical pain (CPSP). Perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion has been proposed as protective against CPSP; however, evidence of its benefits is conflicting. This review evaluates the effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Randomised trials comparing perioperative lidocaine infusions with parenteral analgesia in breast cancer surgery patients were sought. The two co-primary outcomes were the odds of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after operation. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0-24 and 25-48 h; quality of recovery; opioid-related side-effects; and lidocaine infusion side-effects. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) random effects modelling was used. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1039 patients; lidocaine: 518, control: 521) were included. Compared with control, perioperative lidocaine infusion did not decrease the odds of developing CPSP at 3 and 6 months. Lidocaine infusion improved postoperative pain at 1 h by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.65 cm (-0.73 to -0.57 cm) (P<0.0001); however, this difference was not clinically important (1.1 cm threshold). Similarly, lidocaine infusion reduced oral morphine consumption by 7.06 mg (-13.19 to -0.93) (P=0.029) over the first 24 h only; however, this difference was not clinically important (30 mg threshold). The groups were not different for any of the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate-quality evidence that perioperative lidocaine infusion does not reduce CPSP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Routine use of lidocaine infusions for perioperative analgesia and CPSP prevention is not supported in this population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023420888.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Part I): Guidelines for Preparing the Review Protocol.

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of health care interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework-participants (P), interventions (I), comparators (C), outcomes (O)-and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Part II): Guidelines for Performing the Systematic Review.

In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia .

Incidence of subsequent surgical decompression following minimally invasive approaches to treat lumbar spinal stenosis: A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression. PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image-guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery. METHODS: Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver-Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors. RESULTS: A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Medical Cannabis: A Review from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

Cannabinoids have recently gained a renewed interest due to their potential applicability to various medical conditions, specifically the management of chronic pain conditions. Unlike many other medications, medical cannabis is not associated with serious adverse events, and no overdose deaths have been reported. However, both safety and efficacy data for medical cannabis treatment of chronic, nonmalignant pain conditions are lacking. Therefore, representatives from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience summarize the evidence, according to level and grade, for medical cannabis treatment of several different pain conditions. Treatment of cancer-related pain has prospective evidentiary support for the use of medical cannabis. Although 3 large and well-designed randomized controlled trials investigated cannabis treatment of cancer-related pain, the evidence yielded only a grade D recommendation. Neuropathic pain has been investigated in prospective studies, but a lack of high-quality evidence renders cannabis treatment for this indication a grade C recommendation. Both safety and efficacy data are lacking for use of medical cannabis to treat chronic nonmalignant pain conditions.

Is Response to a Pre-implant Diagnostic Peripheral Nerve Block Associated With Efficacy After Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Implantation? A Ten-Year Enterprise-Wide Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess whether patient response to targeted diagnostic peripheral nerve block before peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) device implantation is associated with efficacy after PNS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic medical records from the Mayo Clinic Enterprise (three quarternary care medical centers and additional satellite medical centers) were reviewed to identify patients who underwent PNS implantation between January 2014 and January 2023. A primary outcome of interest was to assess whether administration of a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block predicted pain relief at three months and six months after temporary and permanent PNS implantation. Another primary outcome was to investigate whether there was an association between the pain relief from a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block and pain relief after three and six months after temporary or permanent PNS therapy. Linear regression analysis was conducted for outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 193 eligible patients who underwent PNS therapy, a total of 173 patients were included in the final analysis and were stratified into either the temporary PNS cohort (n = 112) or the permanent PNS cohort (n = 61). Overall, 77.5% of all patients (134/173) underwent a preimplant diagnostic peripheral nerve block and reported a mean percentage relief of 70.1 ± 27.0 from the diagnostic block. Of patients in the temporary PNS cohort, there was no difference in postimplant percentage pain relief between patients who received a diagnostic block (n = 93) and control patients (n = 19) at three months (35.4 ± 36.0 vs 49.8 ± 36.1, respectively; ß -14.45, 95% CI -32.98 to 4.07, p = 0.125) or at six months (23.3 ± 30.8 vs 45.7 ± 40.0, respectively; ß -22.39, 95% CI -46.86 to 2.08, p = 0.072). Of patients in the permanent PNS cohort, there was no difference in postimplant percentage pain relief between patients who received a diagnostic block (n = 41) and control patients (n = 20) at three months (42.4 ± 34.3 vs 43.2 ± 42.4, respectively; ß -0.79, 95% CI -23.56 to 21.99, p = 0.945) or at six months (44.3 ± 35.0 vs 38.8 ± 40.9, respectively; ß 5.42, 95% CI -20.04 to 30.88, p = 0.669). Pain relief from preimplant diagnostic blocks was associated with postimplant pain relief from temporary PNS at three months (ß 0.33, 95% CI 0.04-0.61, p = 0.025). However, pain relief from preimplant diagnostic blocks did not predict postimplant pain relief from temporary PNS at six months, or permanent PNS at three months and six months. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of a diagnostic block is not associated with superior pain relief at three or six months after PNS implantation to that of an approach without diagnostic block. Pain relief from a diagnostic block may potentially predict short-term pain relief after temporary PNS therapy, although future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the prognostic utility of diagnostic blocks.