Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation: The Facet Treatment Study (FACTS), a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: With facet interventions under scrutiny, the authors' objectives were to determine the effectiveness of different lumbar facet blocks and their ability to predict radiofrequency ablation outcomes. METHODS: A total of 229 participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive intraarticular facet injections with bupivacaine and steroid, medial branch blocks, or saline. Those with a positive 1-month outcome (a 2-point or more reduction in average pain score) and score higher than 3 (positive satisfaction) on a 5-point satisfaction scale were followed up to 6 months. Participants in the intraarticular and medial branch block groups with a positive diagnostic block (50% or more relief) who experienced a negative outcome proceeded to the second phase and underwent radiofrequency ablation, while all saline group individuals underwent ablation. Coprimary outcome measures were average reduction in numerical rating scale pain score 1 month after the facet or saline blocks, and average numerical rating scale pain score 3 months after ablation. RESULTS: Mean reduction in average numerical rating scale pain score at 1 month was 0.7 ± 1.6 in the intraarticular group, 0.7 ± 1.8 in the medial branch block group, and 0.7 ± 1.5 in the placebo group; P = 0.993. The proportions of positive blocks were higher in the intraarticular (54%) and medial branch (55%) groups than in the placebo group (30%; P = 0.01). Radiofrequency ablation was performed on 135 patients (45, 48, and 42 patients from the intraarticular, medial branch, and saline groups, respectively). The average numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months was 3.0 ± 2.0 in the intraarticular, 3.2 ± 2.5 in the medial branch, and 3.5 ± 1.9 in the control group (P = 0.493). At 3 months, the proportions of positive responders in the intraarticular, medial branch block, and placebo groups were 51%, 56%, and 24% for the intraarticular, medial branch, and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes that facet blocks are not therapeutic. The higher responder rates in the treatment groups suggest a hypothesis that facet blocks might provide prognostic value before radiofrequency ablation.

Randomized, double-blind, comparative-effectiveness study comparing pulsed radiofrequency to steroid injections for occipital neuralgia or migraine with occipital nerve tenderness.

Occipital neuralgia (ON) is characterized by lancinating pain and tenderness overlying the occipital nerves. Both steroid injections and pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) are used to treat ON, but few clinical trials have evaluated efficacy, and no study has compared treatments. We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, comparative-effectiveness study in 81 participants with ON or migraine with occipital nerve tenderness whose aim was to determine which treatment is superior. Forty-two participants were randomized to receive local anesthetic and saline, and three 120 second cycles of PRF per targeted nerve, and 39 were randomized to receive local anesthetic mixed with deposteroid and 3 rounds of sham PRF. Patients, treating physicians, and evaluators were blinded to interventions. The PRF group experienced a greater reduction in the primary outcome measure, average occipital pain at 6 weeks (mean change from baseline -2.743 ± 2.487 vs -1.377 ± 1.970; P < 0.001), than the steroid group, which persisted through the 6-month follow-up. Comparable benefits favoring PRF were obtained for worst occipital pain through 3 months (mean change from baseline -1.925 ± 3.204 vs -0.541 ± 2.644; P = 0.043), and average overall headache pain through 6 weeks (mean change from baseline -2.738 ± 2.753 vs -1.120 ± 2.1; P = 0.037). Adverse events were similar between groups, and few significant differences were noted for nonpain outcomes. We conclude that although PRF can provide greater pain relief for ON and migraine with occipital nerve tenderness than steroid injections, the superior analgesia may not be accompanied by comparable improvement on other outcome measures.

Medial Branch Blocks or Intra-Articular Injections as a Prognostic Tool Before Lumbar Facet Radiofrequency Denervation: A Multicenter, Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Medial branch blocks (MBBs) and intra-articular (IA) facet joint injections are both used to diagnose facet joint pain and are presumed to be equivalent. No study has sought to determine which has a better prognostic value before radiofrequency (RF) denervation. METHODS: A case-control study was performed at 4 institutions in which RF denervation outcomes in patients who obtained 50% or more pain relief from either MBB (n = 212) or IA injections (n = 212) were compared. "Control" patients (MBB) were matched to "cases" by treating physician, last name, and date of treatments. During data mining, 87 patients were identified who underwent RF ablation after receiving both IA injections and MBB and were used for secondary analyses. RESULTS: A total of 70.3% of MBB patients experienced 50% or more pain relief at the 3-month follow-up versus 60.8% in those who underwent IA injections (P = 0.041). In multivariable analysis, undergoing MBB was associated with RF treatment success (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.0-2.39; P = 0.036), whereas opioid use (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34-0.79; P = 0.002) and previous back surgery (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95; P = 0.028) were associated with treatment failure. No significant differences were noted between MBB alone and combination treatment or single versus multiple blocks. In the secondary multivariable analysis including the combination IA + MBB group, MBB alone was again independently associated with an RF ablation treatment success (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.12-2.67; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: When used as a prognostic tool before lumbar facet radiofrequency, MBB may be associated with a higher success rate than IA injections. Our results should be confirmed by large, prospective, randomized studies.

Epidural steroid injections compared with gabapentin for lumbosacral radicular pain: multicenter randomized double blind comparative efficacy study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an epidural steroid injection or gabapentin is a better treatment for lumbosacral radiculopathy. DESIGN: A multicenter randomized study conducted between 2011 and 2014. Computer generated randomization was stratified by site. Patients and evaluating physicians were blinded to treatment outcomes. SETTINGS: Eight military, Veterans Administration, and civilian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 145 people with lumbosacral radicular pain secondary to herniated disc or spinal stenosis for less than four years in duration and in whom leg pain is as severe or more severe than back pain. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received either epidural steroid injection plus placebo pills or sham injection plus gabapentin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Average leg pain one and three months after the injection on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. A positive outcome was defined as a ≥ 2 point decrease in leg pain coupled with a positive global perceived effect. All patients had one month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for their three month visit. RESULTS: There were no significant differences for the primary outcome measure at one month (mean pain score 3.3 (SD 2.6) and mean change from baseline -2.2 (SD 2.4) in epidural steroid injection group versus 3.7 (SD 2.6) and -1.7 (SD 2.6) in gabapentin group; adjusted difference 0.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to 1.2; P=0.25) and three months (mean pain score 3.4 (SD 2.7) and mean change from baseline -2.0 (SD 2.6) versus 3.7 (SD 2.8) and -1.6 (SD 2.7), respectively; adjusted difference 0.3, -0.5 to 1.2; P=0.43). Among secondary outcomes, one month after treatment those who received epidural steroid injection had greater reductions in worst leg pain (-3.0, SD 2.8) than those treated with gabapentin (-2.0, SD 2.9; P=0.04) and were more likely to experience a positive successful outcome (66% v 46%; number needed to treat=5.0, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 27.0; P=0.02). At three months, there were no significant differences between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Although epidural steroid injection might provide greater benefit than gabapentin for some outcome measures, the differences are modest and are transient for most people.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01495923.

Epidural steroid injections, conservative treatment, or combination treatment for cervical radicular pain: a multicenter, randomized, comparative-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Cervical radicular pain is a major cause of disability. No studies have been published comparing different types of nonsurgical therapy. METHODS: A comparative-effectiveness study was performed in 169 patients with cervical radicular pain less than 4 yr in duration. Participants received nortriptyline and/or gabapentin plus physical therapies, up to three cervical epidural steroid injections (ESI) or combination treatment over 6 months. The primary outcome measure was average arm pain on a 0 to 10 scale at 1 month. RESULTS: One-month arm pain scores were 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in the combination group, 4.2 (CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in ESI patients, and 4.3 (CI, 2.8 to 4.2) in individuals treated conservatively (P = 0.26). Combination group patients experienced a mean reduction of -3.1 (95% CI, -3.8 to -2.3) in average arm pain at 1 month versus -1.8 (CI, -2.5 to -1.2) in the conservative group and -2.0 (CI, -2.7 to -1.3) in ESI patients (P = 0.035). For neck pain, a mean reduction of -2.2 (95% CI, -3.0 to -1.5) was noted in combination patients versus -1.2 (CI, -1.9 to -0.5) in conservative group patients and -1.1 (CI, -1.8 to -0.4) in those who received ESI; P = 0.064). Three-month posttreatment, 56.9% of patients treated with combination therapy experienced a positive outcome versus 26.8% in the conservative group and 36.7% in ESI patients (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: For the primary outcome measure, no significant differences were found between treatments, although combination therapy provided better improvement than stand-alone treatment on some measures. Whereas these results suggest an interdisciplinary approach to neck pain may improve outcomes, confirmatory studies are needed.

Epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline in subacute sciatica: a multicenter, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Perineural inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor have recently generated intense interest as an alternative to epidural steroid injections for lumbosacral radiculopathy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether epidural steroids, etanercept, or saline better improves pain and function in adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy. DESIGN: A multicenter, 3-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted from 2008 to 2011. Randomization was computer-generated and stratified by site. Pharmacists prepared the syringes. Patients, treating physicians, and nurses assessing outcomes were blinded to treatment assignment. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00733096) SETTING: Military and civilian treatment centers. PATIENTS: 84 adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy of less than 6 months' duration. INTERVENTION: 2 epidural injections of steroids, etanercept, or saline, mixed with bupivacaine and separated by 2 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was leg pain 1 month after the second injection. All patients had 1-month follow-up visits; patients whose condition improved remained blinded for the 6-month study period. RESULTS: The group that received epidural steroids had greater reductions in the primary outcome measure than those who received saline (mean difference, -1.26 [95% CI, -2.79 to 0.27]; P = 0.11) or etanercept (mean difference, -1.01 [CI, -2.60 to 0.58]; P = 0.21). For back pain, smaller differences favoring steroids compared with saline (mean difference, -0.52 [CI, -1.85 to 0.81]; P = 0.44) and etanercept (mean difference, -0.92 [CI,-2.28 to 0.44]; P = 0.18) were observed. The largest differences were noted for functional capacity, in which etanercept fared worse than the other treatments: steroids vs. etanercept (mean difference, -16.16 [CI, -26.05 to -6.27]; P = 0.002), steroids vs. saline (mean difference, -5.87 [CI, -15.59 to 3.85]; P = 0.23), and etanercept vs. saline (mean difference, 10.29 [CI, 0.55 to 20.04]; P = 0.04). More patients treated with epidural steroids (75%) reported 50% or greater leg pain relief and a positive global perceived effect at 1 month than those who received saline (50%) or etanercept (42%) (P = 0.09). LIMITATION: Short-term follow-up, small sample size, and a possibly subtherapeutic dose of etanercept. CONCLUSION: Epidural steroid injections may provide modest short-term pain relief for some adults with lumbosacral radiculopathy, but larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to confirm their benefits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The John P. Murtha Neuroscience and Pain Institute, International Spinal Intervention Society, and Center for Rehabilitation Sciences Research.

Use of a cardiac algorithm in a preoperative evaluation clinic - a pilot study.

The preoperative evaluation is vital in providing information to reduce the risks associated with the anesthesia and surgery and improve the quality of care. In the VA Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System, we introduced a computer-based cardiac algorithm as part of the preoperative evaluation software. Following the pre-op examination and use of the algorithm, the provider completed a survey regarding their perceived usefulness of the algorithm software. The survey results showed that effective preoperative evaluation can be performed using a preoperative evaluation clinic, users are receptive to the computer-based format and, in most cases, prefer to have the algorithm software available for use in preoperative assessment.

Headaches during war: analysis of presentation, treatment, and factors associated with outcome.

BACKGROUND: Headache is often associated with physical trauma and psychological stress. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of headache on personnel deployed in war zones and to identify factors associated with return to duty (RTD). METHODS: Outcome data were prospectively collected on 985 personnel medically evacuated out of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom for a primary diagnosis of headache between 2004 and 2009. Electronic medical records were reviewed to examine clinical and treatment patterns and the effect that myriad factors had on RTD. RESULTS: 33.6% of evacuees returned to duty. The most common headaches were post-concussion (34.1%) and migraine (30.0%). Headaches typically associated with trauma such as post-concussion (18.7%), occipital neuralgia (23.1%), and cervicogenic headache (29.7%) had the lowest RTD rates, whereas tension headache (49.6%) was associated with the best outcome. Other variables associated with negative outcome included presence of aura (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.88; p = 0.02), traumatic brain injury (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87; p = 0.01), opioid (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26-0.63; p < 0.001), and beta-blocker (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12-0.61; p = 0.002) use, and co-existing psychopathology (p < 0.001 in univariable analysis). CONCLUSION: Headaches represent a significant cause of unit attrition in personnel deployed in military operations, with physical trauma and co-existing psychopathology associated with poorer outcomes.

Pain following battlefield injury and evacuation: a survey of 110 casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

OBJECTIVE: Advances in regional anesthesia, specifically continuous peripheral nerve blocks (CPNBs), have greatly improved pain outcomes for wounded soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. pain management practice variations, however, do exist, depending on the availability of pain-trained military professionals deployed to combat support hospitals. an exploratory study was undertaken to examine pain and other outcomes during evacuation and at landstuhl regional medical center (lrmc), germany. DESIGN: a mixed-methods, semistructured interview survey design was conducted on a convenience sample of wounded u.s. soldiers evacuated from iraq and afghanistan to lrmc. setting and patients. a total of 110 wounded soldiers evacuated from IRAQ and Afghanistan from July 2007 to February 2008 completed a pain survey at LRMC. Data were collected on demographics, injury mechanism, last 24-hour average, least, and worst, and pain now by using a 0-10 scale, and percent pain relief (from 0% [No relief] to 100% [Complete relief]). Similar items and measures of anxiety, distress, and worry during flight transport were measured (from 0 [None] to 10 [Extreme]). Responses were analyzed by using descriptive and correlational statistics, multiple linear regression, Mann-Whitney U-tests, and t-tests. The Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Human Use Committee approved this investigation. RESULTS: Participants were typically male (99.1%), Caucasian (80%), and injured from improvised explosive devices (60%) and gunshots (21.8%). Average and worst pain scores were inversely correlated with pain relief during transport (r = -0.58 and r = -0.46, respectively; P < 0.001), and low to moderately positively correlated with increased anxiety, distress, and worry during transport (P < 0.05). Average percent pain relief achieved was 45.2% +/- 26.6% during transport and 64.5% +/- 23.5% while at LRMC (P < 0.001). Participants with CPNB catheters placed at LRMC reported significantly less pain right now (P = 0.031) and better pain relief (P = 0.029) than soldiers without CPNBs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the value of early aggressive pain management after major combat injuries. Increased pain was associated with increased anxiety, distress, and worry during transport, suggesting the need for psychological management along with analgesia. Regional anesthesia techniques while at LRMC contributed to better pain outcomes.