Updated Assessment of Practice Patterns of Perioperative Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Interventional Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: The role of antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy is well known for its primary and secondary prevention of sequela from cardiovascular disease by decreasing the incidence of acute cerebral, cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and other thrombo-embolicevents. The overwhelming data show that the risk of thrombotic events is significantly higher than that of bleeding during surgery after antiplatelet drug discontinuation. It has been assumed that discontinuing antiplatelet therapy prior to performing interventional pain management techniques is a common practice, even though doing so may potentially increase the risk of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events. A survey of practice patterns was conducted in 2012, since then the risks associated with thromboembolic events and bleeding, has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an updated assessment of the perioperative antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice patterns of U.S. interventional pain management physicians and compare this with data collected in 2012 with 2021 data regarding practice patterns of continuing or discontinuing anticoagulant therapy. STUDY DESIGNn: Postal survey of interventional pain management physicians. STUDY SETTING: Interventional pain management practices in the United States. METHODS: The survey was conducted based on online responses of the members of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) in 2021. The survey was designed similar to the 2012 survey to assess updated practice patterns. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent out to 1,700 members in October 2021. Out of these, 185 members completed the survey, while 105 were returned due to invalid addresses. The results showed that 23% changed their practice patterns during the previous year. The results also showed that all physicians discontinued warfarin therapy with the majority of physicians accepting an INR of 1.5 as a safe level. Low dose aspirin (81 mg) was discontinued for 3 to 7 days for low-risk procedures by 8% of the physicians, 34% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate risk procedures, whereas they were discontinued by 76% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. High dose aspirin (325 mg) was discontinued at a higher rate. Antiplatelet agents, including dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox (aspirin, extended-release dipyridamole) were discontinued from 3 to 5 days by 18%-23% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 60% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 90% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. Platelet aggregation inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticlopidine, and ticagrelor were discontinued for 3 to 5 days by approximately 26% to 41% for low-risk procedures, almost 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 97% for high-risk procedures. Thrombin inhibitor dabigatran was discontinued by 33% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, 92% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. Anti-Xa agents, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and Edoxaban were discontinued in over 25% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its being an online survey of the membership of one organization in one country, that there was only a 11.6% response rate, and the sample size is relatively small. Underreporting in surveys is common. Further, the incidence of thromboembolic events or epidural hematomas was not assessed. CONCLUSION: The results in the 2021 survey illustrate a continued pattern of discontinuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in the perioperative period. The majority of discontinuation patterns appear to fall within guidelines.

Perioperative Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients Undergoing Interventional Techniques: 2024 Updated Guidelines from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: The frequency of performance of interventional techniques in chronic pain patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy continues to increase. Understanding the importance of continuing chronic anticoagulant therapy, the need for interventional techniques, and determining the duration and discontinuation or temporary suspension of anticoagulation is crucial to avoiding devastating complications, primarily when neuraxial procedures are performed. Anticoagulants and antiplatelets target the clotting system, increasing the bleeding risk. However, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs exposes patients to thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. These guidelines summarize the current peer reviewed literature and develop consensus-based guidelines based on the best evidence synthesis for patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy during interventional procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Review of the literature and development of guidelines based on best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVES: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding the assessment of bleeding and thrombosis risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications. METHODS: Development of consensus guidelines based on best evidence synthesis included review of the literature on bleeding risks during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. A multidisciplinary panel of experts developed methodology, risk stratification based on best evidence synthesis, and management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. It also included risk of cessation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy based on a multitude of factors. Multiple data sources on bleeding risk, practice patterns, risk of thrombosis, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy were identified. The relevant literature was identified through searches of multiple databases from 1966 through 2023. In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, we used a modified Delphi technique, which has been described to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted on approving specific guideline statements. Each panelist could suggest edits to the guideline statement wording and could suggest additional qualifying remarks or comments as to the implementation of the guideline in clinical practice to achieve consensus and for inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without primary conflict of interest. RESULTS: A total of 34 authors participated in the development of these guidelines. Of these, 29 participated in the voting process. A total of 20 recommendations were developed. Overall, 100% acceptance was obtained for 16 of 20 items. Total items were reduced to 18 with second and third round voting. The final results were 100% acceptance for 16 items (89%). There was disagreement for 2 statements (statements 6 and 7) and recommendations by 3 authors. These remaining 2 items had an acceptance of 94% and 89%. The disagreement and dissent were by Byron J. Schneider, MD, with recommendation that all transforaminals be classified into low risk, whereas Sanjeeva Gupta, MD, desired all transforaminals to be in intermediate risk. The second disagreement was related to Vivekanand A. Manocha, MD, recommending that cervical and thoracic transforaminal to be high risk procedures.Thus, with appropriate literature review, consensus-based statements were developed for the perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulants and antiplatelets These included the following: estimation of the thromboembolic risk, estimation of bleeding risk, and determination of the timing of restarting of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.Risk stratification was provided classifying the interventional techniques into three categories of low risk, moderate or intermediate risk, and high risk. Further, on multiple occasions in low risk and moderate or intermediate risk categories, recommendations were provided against cessation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. LIMITATIONS: The continued paucity of literature with discordant recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the review of available literature, published clinical guidelines, and recommendations, a multidisciplinary panel of experts presented guidelines in managing interventional techniques in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period. These guidelines provide a comprehensive assessment of classification of risk, appropriate recommendations, and recommendations based on the best available evidence.

Use of corticosteroids for adult chronic pain interventions: sympathetic and peripheral nerve blocks, trigger point injections - guidelines from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, the International Pain and Spine Intervention Society, and the North American Spine Society.

BACKGROUND: There is potential for adverse events from corticosteroid injections, including increase in blood glucose, decrease in bone mineral density and suppression of the hypothalamic-pituitary axis. Published studies note that doses lower than those commonly injected provide similar benefit. METHODS: Development of the practice guideline was approved by the Board of Directors of American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine with several other societies agreeing to participate. The scope of guidelines was agreed on to include safety of the injection technique (landmark-guided, ultrasound or radiology-aided injections); effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate (local anesthetic or saline); and adverse events related to the injection. Based on preliminary discussions, it was decided to structure the topics into three separate guidelines as follows: (1) sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections; (2) joints; and (3) neuraxial, facet, sacroiliac joints and related topics (vaccine and anticoagulants). Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive review of the literature and to draft statements and recommendations, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. The United States Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. RESULTS: This guideline deals with the use and safety of corticosteroid injections for sympathetic, peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections for adult chronic pain conditions. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Board of Directors of the participating societies also approved all the statements and recommendations. The safety of some procedures, including stellate blocks, lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks and some sites of trigger point injections, is improved by imaging guidance. The addition of non-particulate corticosteroid to the local anesthetic is beneficial in cluster headaches but not in other types of headaches. Corticosteroid may provide additional benefit in transverse abdominal plane blocks and ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve blocks in postherniorrhaphy pain but there is no evidence for pudendal nerve blocks. There is minimal benefit for the use of corticosteroids in trigger point injections. CONCLUSIONS: In this practice guideline, we provided recommendations on the use of corticosteroids in sympathetic blocks, peripheral nerve blocks, and trigger point injections to assist clinicians in making informed decisions.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation of the Sacroiliac Joint.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain utilizing a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. RECENT FINDINGS: The prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated at around 25% of low back pain cases, and its diagnosis lacks a gold standard. Treatments include exercise therapy, injections, ablation, and fusion, with variable effectiveness. COVID-19 altered utilization patterns of interventions, including sacroiliac joint procedures, and the evidence for these interventions remains inconclusive. Recently, Medicare has issued its local coverage determinations (LCDs) in the United States, which provides noncoverage of sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy. Additionally, a recent systematic review of sacroiliac joint injections showed Level III or fair evidence. The sacroiliac joint, a critical axial joint linking the spine and pelvis, contributes to low back pain. Its complex innervation pattern varies among individuals. Sacroiliac joint dysfunction, causing pain and stiffness, arises from diverse factors.The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate radiofrequency neurotomy's effectiveness for sacroiliac joint pain management by applying rigorous methodology, considering both RCTs and observational studies. Despite methodological disparities, the evidence from this review, supported by changes in pain scores and functional improvement, suggests Level III evidence with fair recommendation for radiofrequency neurotomy as a treatment option. The review's strengths include its comprehensive approach and quality assessment. However, limitations persist, including variations in criteria and technical factors, underscoring the need for further high-quality studies in real-world scenarios.

Effectiveness of Facet Joint Nerve Blocks in Managing Chronic Axial Spinal Pain of Facet Joint Origin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of disability. Literature shows that spending on low back and neck pain and musculoskeletal disorders continues to escalate, not only with disability, but also with increasing costs, accounting for the highest amount of various disease categories. Based on the current literature utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks, facet joints, nerve root dura, and sacroiliac joints have been shown as potential sources of spinal pain. Therapeutic facet joint interventional modalities of axial spinal pain include radiofrequency neurotomy, therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks, and therapeutic intraarticular injections. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of facet joint nerve blocks as a therapeutic modality in managing chronic axial spinal pain of facet joint origin. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. METHODS: The available literature on facet joint nerve blocks in axial spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias, the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials, and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for nonrandomized studies. The evidence was graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment criteria. The level of evidence was based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from 1966 to July 2023, including manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles was performed. Quality assessment of the included studies and best evidence synthesis were incorporated into qualitative and quantitative evidence synthesis. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with significant relief and functional improvement of greater than 50% of at least 3 months. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (greater than 6 months). RESULTS: This assessment identified 8 high-quality and one moderate quality RCTs and 8 high quality and 4 moderate quality non-randomized studies with application of spinal facet joint nerve blocks as therapeutic modalities. However, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment, only 3 of the 21 studies showed high levels of evidence and clinical applicability, with 11 studies showing moderate levels of GRADE evidence and clinical applicability. LIMITATIONS: Despite the availability of multiple studies, the paucity of literature is considered as the major drawback. Based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment, only 3 of the 21 studies showed high levels of evidence and clinical applicability. CONCLUSION: Based on the present systematic review and meta-analysis with 9 RCTs and 12 non-randomized studies, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing spinal facet joint pain.

Comprehensive, evidence-based, consensus guidelines for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.

Compliance and Documentation for Evaluation and Management Services in Interventional Pain Management Practice.

Evaluation of new and established patients is an integral part of interventional pain management. Over the last 3 decades, there has been significant confusion over the proper documentation for evaluation and management (E/M) services in general and for interventional pain management in particular. Interventional pain physicians have learned how to evaluate patients presenting with pain on the basis of their specialty training. Although modern training programs are introducing residents and fellows to the intricacies of E/M services and federal regulations, this has not always been the case. Multiple textbooks about pain management, physiatry, and neurology, and numerous journal articles have described the evaluation of pain patients, but they have not been specific to chronic pain patients and may not meet the regulatory perspective.A multitude of these issues led to the development of guidelines in 1995 and 1997, which were highly complicated and difficult to follow. These also led to significant criticism from clinicians. Consequently, further guidance was developed to be effective January 2021.The crucial concept in the present system of coding for E/M services is medical decision making, which includes 3 elements since 2021: 1.The number and complexity of problems addressed. 2. Amount or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed. 3. Risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management. In order to select a level of E/M service, 2 of the 3 elements of medical decision making (MDM) must be met or exceeded. This is in contrast to prior guidelines wherein for new patients, all 3 elements with history, physical examination and MDM , and for established patients have been met. For ease of appreciation, an algorithmic approach created by the American Medical Association (AMA), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved a new MDM table outlining all of the appropriate criteria.This review systematically describes the changes and provides an algorithmic approach for application in interventional pain management practices.

Assessment of Radiation Exposure with Mandatory Two Fluoroscopic Views for Epidural Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Various regulations and practice patterns develop on the basis of Local Coverage Determination (LCD), which are variably perceived as guidelines and/or mandated polices/ regulations. LCDs developed in 2021 and effective since December 2021 mandated a minimum of 2 views for final needle placement with contrast injection which includes both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral or oblique view. Radiation safety has been a major concern for pain physicians and multiple tools have been developed to reduce radiation dose, along with improvement in technologies to limit radiation exposure while performing fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, with implementation of principles of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The mandated 2 views of epidural injections have caused concern among some physicians, because of the potential of increased exposure to ionizing radiation, despite application of various principles to minimize radiation exposure. Others, including policymakers are of the opinion that it reduces potential abuse and improves safety. OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in the performance of epidural procedures prior to the implementation of the new LCD compared with after the implementation of the new LCD by comparing time and dosage for all types of epidural procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, case controlled, comparative evaluation of radiation exposure during epidural procedures in interventional pain management. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice and a specialty referral center in a private practice setting in the United States. METHODS: The study was performed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria. The main outcome measure was radiation exposure time measured in seconds and dose measured in mGy-kG2 (milligray to kilogray squared per procedure). RESULTS: Changes in exposure and dose varied by procedural type and location. Exposure time in seconds increased overall by 21%, whereas radiation dose mGy-kG increased 133%. Fluoroscopy time increased most for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of 43%, followed by 29% for cervical interlaminar epidural injections, 20% for caudal epidural injections, and 14% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. In contrast, highest increases were observed in the radiation dose mGy of 191% for caudal epidural injections, followed by 173% for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, 113% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and the lowest being cervical interlaminar epidural injections of 94%. This study also shows lesser increases for cervical interlaminar epidural injections because an oblique view is utilized rather than a lateral view resulting in a radiation dosage increase of 94% compared to overall increase of 133%, whereas the duration of time of 29% was higher than the overall combined duration of all procedures which only increased by 21%. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective evaluation utilizing the experience of a single physician. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed significant increases in radiation exposure time and dosage; however, increase of dosage was overall 21% median Interquartile Range (IQR) compared to 133% of radiation dose median IQR. In addition, the results also showed variations for procedure, overall showing highest increases for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections for time (43%) and caudal epidural injections for dosage (191%).

Medial Branch Blocks and the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Neurotomy in Managing Chronic Thoracic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Extensive research into potential sources of thoracic pain with or without referred pain into the chest wall has demonstrated that thoracic facet joints can be a potential source of pain confirmed by precise, diagnostic blocks.The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic thoracic facet joint intervention. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of medial branch blocks and the radiofrequency neurotomy in managing thoracic pain utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was performed. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases of RCTs and observational studies of medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic thoracic pain were identified from 1996 to December 2022 with inclusion of manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles and multiple databases. Methodologic quality and risk of bias assessment was also conducted. Evidence was synthesized utilizing principles of quality assessment and best evidence synthesis, with conventional and single meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure of success was 3 months of pain reduction for medial branch blocks and 6 months for radiofrequency thermoneurolysis for a single treatment. Short-term success was defined as up to 6 months and long-term was more than 6 months. RESULTS: This literature search yielded 11 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 3 were RCTs and 8 were observational studies. Of the 3 RCTs, 2 of them assessed medial branch blocks and one trial assessed radiofrequency for thoracic pain. The evidence for managing thoracic pain with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 2 RCTs and 3 observational studies for medial branch blocks was Level II. For radiofrequency neurotomy, with the inclusion of one RCT of 20 patients in the treatment group and 5 observational studies, the evidence was Level III in managing thoracic pain. LIMITATIONS: There was a paucity of literature with RCTs and real-world pragmatic controlled trials. Even observational studies had small sample sizes providing inadequate clinically applicable results. In addition, there was heterogeneity of the available studies in terms of their inclusion and exclusion criteria, defining their endpoints and the effectiveness of the procedures. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis show Level II evidence of medial branch blocks and Level III evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic thoracic pain. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, thoracic facet or zygapophysial joint pain, facet joint nerve blocks, medial branch blocks, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, diagnostic accuracy, radiofrequency neurotomy.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness of Therapeutic Sacroiliac Joint Injections.

BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain, ranging from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis. Despite the difficulty of diagnosis, multiple therapeutic modalities including surgical and nonsurgical interventions have been utilized. Among the interventional modalities, intraarticular injections are commonly utilized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of intraarticular injections in the sacroiliac joint. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of the therapeutic effectiveness of intraarticular injections of the sacroiliac joint utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. METHODS: The available literature on therapeutic sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias, the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials, and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for nonrandomized studies. The level of evidence was based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. Data collection was performed including literature published from 1966 through December 2022, as well as manual searches of the bibliographies of known articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures include pain relief and improvement in functional status at 3 months for a single intervention. Only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance, with at least 3 months of follow-up were included. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (< 6 months) and long-term (> 6 months). RESULTS: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analyses with a single-arm meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, and the inclusion of 11 RCTs (5 positive, 6 negative) and 3 observational studies (2 positive, one negative), the evidence was Level III or fair in managing low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin with sacroiliac joint injections. LIMITATIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis are limited by lack of eligible studies, inconsistencies among the available studies, variations in techniques, variable diagnostic standards for inclusion criteria, and finally, the inability to correlate the results and perform an optimal systematic review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis show an inability to perform conventional dual-arm analysis, whereas a single-arm meta-analysis demonstrated a difference of approximately 3 points on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and 8 points on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). However, there were no studies that considered >= 50% relief as the criterion standard. Overall, the qualitative and quantitative evidence combined shows Level III or fair evidence for therapeutic sacroiliac joint injections for managing low back pain of sacroiliac joint origin. KEY WORDS: Chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, sacroiliitis, sacroiliac joint injection, sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, radiofrequency ablation, conventional radiofrequency, pulsed radiofrequency.

Efficacy of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in Managing Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain recalcitrant to conservative management and epidural injections secondary to postsurgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, and disc herniation are sometimes managed with percutaneous adhesiolysis. Consequently, this systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing low back and lower extremity pain. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was performed. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from 1966 to July 2022, including manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles was performed. Quality assessment of the included trials, meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis was performed. The primary outcome measure was a significant reduction in pain (short term up to 6 months and long term more than 6 months). RESULTS: The search identified 26 publications, with 9 trials meeting the inclusion criteria. The results of dual-arm and single-arm analyses showed significant improvement in pain and function at 12 months. Opioid consumption was also significantly reduced at 6 months with dual-arm analysis, whereas single-arm analysis showed a significant decrease from baseline to treatment at the 3-, 6-, and 12-month analyses. At 1 year follow-up, seven of seven trials were positive for improvements in pain relief, function, and diminution of opioid use. DISCUSSION: Based on the present systematic review of nine RCTs, the evidence level is I to II, with moderate to strong recommendation for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing low back and lower extremity pain. The limitations of the evidence include paucity of literature, lack of placebo-controlled trials, and the majority of the trials studying post lumbar surgery syndrome. CONCLUSION: The evidence is level I to II or strong to moderate based on five high-quality and two moderate-quality RCTs, with 1 year follow-up that percutaneous adhesiolysis is efficacious in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Utilization Patterns of Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Spinal Pain in a Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruptions in all aspects of human life including a decline of medical services utilized during 2020. An analysis of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic showed an 18.7% reduction in utilization patterns of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2019 to 2020. However, specific changes in utilization patterns of facet joint interventions have not been studied. Thus, we sought to assess the utilization patterns including an update of facet joint interventions from 2018 to 2020, with analysis of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in managing chronic spinal pain utilizing facet joint interventions in the fee-for-service Medicare population of the United States. METHODS: The present investigation was designed to assess utilization patterns and variables of facet joint interventions, in managing chronic spinal pain from 2010 to 2020 in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population in the United States (US), and how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted these utilization patterns. Data for the analysis were obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020. RESULTS: Results of this analysis showed significant impact of COVID-19 with overall decrease of 18.5% of all facet joint interventions per 100,000 Medicare population compared to 20.2 and 20.5% decrease for lumbar and cervical facet joint injections, 15 and 13.1% decrease per 100,000 Medicare population of lumbosacral and cervicothoracic facet joint neurolysis procedures. The results are significant in that comparative analysis from 2000 to 2010 and 2010 to 2019 showing an annual increase of 14.4 vs. 2.2%, illustrating a decelerating pattern. There were also significant growth patterns noted with decreases in facet joint injections and nerve blocks compared to facet joint neurolytic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows a significant effect of COVID-19 producing an overall decrease in utilization of facet joint interventions relative to pre-COVID data. Further, the analysis demonstrates continued deceleration of utilization patterns of facet joint interventions compared to the periods of 2000-2010 and 2010-2019.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Utilization of Epidural Procedures in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain in the Medicare Population.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population. OBJECTIVES: To update the utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the FFS Medicare population, from 2000 to 2020, and assess the impact of COVID-19. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The analysis of the utilization of interventional techniques also showed an annual decrease of 2.5% per 100,000 FFS Medicare enrollees from 2009 to 2018, contrasting to an annual increase of 7.3% from 2000 to 2009. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has not been assessed. METHODS: This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. RESULTS: Epidural procedures declined at a rate of 19% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in the FFS Medicare population in the United States from 2019 to 2020, with an annual decline of 3% from 2010 to 2019. From 2000 to 2010, there was an annual increase of 8.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories of epidural procedures from 2019 to 2020. The major impact of COVID-19, with closures taking effect from April 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020, will be steeper and rather dramatic compared with April 1 to December 31, 2019. However, monthly data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is not available as of now. Overall declines from 2010 to 2019 showed a decrease for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with an annual decrease of 5.6%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 4.9%, followed by 1.8% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 0.9% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals. CONCLUSION: Declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories was exacerbated to a decrease of 19% from 2019 to 2020, related, in part, to the COVID-19 pandemic. This followed declining patterns of epidural procedures of 3% overall annually from 2010 to 2019.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Neurotomy in Managing Chronic Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain. METHODS: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined. RESULTS: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions. LIMITATIONS: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Neurotomy in Managing Chronic Neck Pain.

Background: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis. Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain. Methods: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined. Results: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions. Limitations: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-022-00455-0.