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.

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.

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

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%).

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.

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.

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.

COVID-19 Pandemic Reduced Utilization Of Interventional Techniques 18.7% In Managing Chronic Pain In The Medicare Population In 2020: Analysis Of Utilization Data From 2000 To 2020.

BACKGROUND: Multiple publications have shown the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on US healthcare and increasing costs over the recent years in managing low back and neck pain as well as other musculoskeletal disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many modalities of treatments, including those related to chronic pain management, including both interventional techniques and opioids. While there have not been assessments of utilization of interventional techniques specific to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, previous analysis published with data from 2000 to 2018 demonstrated a decline in utilization of interventional techniques from 2009 to 2018 of 6.7%, with an annual decline of 0.8% per 100,000 fee-for-service (FFS) in the Medicare population. During that same time, the Medicare population has grown by 3% annually. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis include an evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as an updated assessment of the utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2010 to 2019, 2010 to 2020, and 2019 to 2020 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Utilization patterns and variables of interventional techniques with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in managing chronic pain were assessed from 2000 to 2020 in the FFS Medicare population of the United States. METHODS: The data for the analysis was obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020. RESULTS: The results of the present investigation revealed an 18.7% decrease in utilization of all interventional techniques per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries from 2019 to 2020, with a 19% decrease for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, a 17.5% decrease for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks, and a 25.4% decrease for disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks. The results differed from 2000 to 2010 with an annualized increase of 10.2% per 100,000 Medicare population compared to an annualized decrease of 0.4% from 2010 to 2019, and a 2.5% decrease from 2010 to 2020 for all interventional techniques. For epidural and adhesiolysis procedures decreases were more significant and annualized at 3.1% from 2010 to 2019, increasing the decline to 4.8% from 2010 to 2020. For facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks, the reversal of growth patterns was observed but maintained at an annualized rate increase of 2.1% from 2010 to 2019, which changed to a decrease of 0.01% from 2010 to 2020. Disc procedures and other types of nerve blocks showed similar patterns as epidurals with an 0.8% annualized reduction from 2010 to 2019, which was further reduced to 3.6% from 2010 to 2020 due to COVID-19. LIMITATIONS: Data for the COVID-19 pandemic impact were available only for 2019 and 2020 and only the FFS Medicare population was utilized; utilization patterns in Medicare Advantage Plans, which constitutes almost 40% of the Medicare enrollment in 2020 were not available. Moreover, this analysis shares the limitations present in all retrospective reviews of claims based datasets. CONCLUSION: The decline driven by the COVID-19 pandemic was 18.7% from 2019 to 2020. Overall decline in utilization in interventional techniques from 2010 to 2020 was 22.0% per 100,000 Medicare population, with an annual diminution of 2.5%, despite an increase in the population rate of 3.3% annualized (38.9% overall) and Medicare enrollees of 33.4% and 2.9% annually.

Impact Of COVID-19 Pandemic and Updated Utilization Patterns of Sacroiliac Joint Injections from 2000 to 2020 in The Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Among the multiple causes of low back and lower extremity pain, sacroiliac joint pain has shown to be prevalent in 10% to 25% of patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis. Over the years, multiple Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes have evolved with the inclusion of intraarticular injections, nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy, in addition to percutaneous sacroiliac joint fusions. Previous assessments of utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions only included sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections, since the data was not available prior to the introduction of new codes. A recent assessment revealed an increase of 11.3%, and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population from 2009 to 2018, showing a decline in growth patterns. During the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has also had significant effects on the utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions. STUDY DESIGN: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions (intraarticular injections, nerve blocks, radiofrequency neurotomy, arthrodesis and fusion) was evaluated from 2010 to 2019 and 2010 to 2020, with a comparative analysis from 2019 to 2020 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To update utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions with assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in the present analysis. RESULTS: The results of this evaluation demonstrated a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a 19.2% decrease of utilization of sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections from 2019 to 2020. There was a 23.3% increase in sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and a 5.3% decrease for sacroiliac joint fusions with small numbers from 2019 to 2020. However, data was not available for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks and sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy as these codes were incorporated in 2020. Overall, from 2010 to 2019, sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections showed an annual increase of 0.9% per 100,000 Medicare population. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and fusion showed an annual increase from 2010 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population of 29% for arthrodesis and 13.3% for fusion. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare Advantage patients constituting approximately 30% to 40% of the overall Medicare population. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are non-Medicare are not part of the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a significant decrease of intraarticular injections of 19.2% from 2019 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population. These decreases of intraarticular injections are accompanied by a 5.3% decrease of fusion, but a 23.3% increase of arthrodesis from 2019 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population. Overall, the results showed an annual increase of 0.9% per 100,000 Medicare population for intraarticular injections, a 35.4% annual increase for sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and an increase of 15.5% for sacroiliac joint fusion from 2010 to 2019.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Interventional Pain Management Practices is Significant and Long-Lasting: An Interventional Pain Management Physician Survey.

BACKGROUND: As with many others in the house of medicine, the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted the practice of interventional pain management. This in part relates to various  state health authority or medical board restrictions with reductions in patient volume for evaluations, follow-ups, and procedures. Of course, the pandemic continues to persist which is in turn leading to longer-lasting effects. Our previous survey was performed in March 2020. At that time, there was a national lockdown in the United States with COVID-19 disease qualifying as a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). The pandemic caused by COVID-19 disease continues to have far-reaching implications on how we deliver routine care to patients and its effect on patient care, economic aspects, and health of interventional pain management providers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current and expected future impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interventional pain management practices in a physician survey. The study was performed based on performance in 2021 compared to the 2019 pre-COVID era. METHODS: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) administered a 16-question survey to their members by contacting them via a commercially available online marketing company platform. The survey was completed on www.constantcontact.com. RESULTS: The results showed that 88% of the providers experienced a reduction in income and a similar number expect decreases over the next 12 months. A large proportion of respondents (73.3%) reported a reduction in revenue of 11%-25%. In contrast, another 21.5% reported a revenue decline of 26%-50%, and 29% reported 11%-25% increase in expenses. Overall, new patient volume decreased 11%-25% based on the response from almost 63%, whereas almost 9% reported a decline of 26%-50%. In contrast, established patient volume declined 1%-10% as reported by 64% of the respondents, compared to an 11%-25% decrease by a small proportion of 14%. All interventional procedures showed significant decreases across the board, with 69% of the respondents reporting a decline in-office procedures, 64% in ambulatory surgery center (ASC) procedures, and 57% in hospital outpatient department (HOPD) procedures, ranging from 11%-25%. LIMITATIONS: The survey included a relatively small number of member physicians which could introduce sampling error. Consequently, it may not be generalizable for other specialties or even to pain medicine. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has put interventional pain practices throughout the United States under considerable financial and psychological stress. This study seeks to quantify the extent of economic loss and other challenges resultant from the pandemic. Almost 99% reported a decrease in revenues in the last 12 months, with 86% reporting an expected reduction in the next 12 months and 49% reporting an increase in expenses. Declines have been reported in all sectors with new patients, office procedures, ASC, and HOPD procedures, except for established patient visits, which have shown minor declines compared to other domains. Understanding the issues facing interventional pain management physicians facilitates the development of strategies to actively manage provider practice/well-being, and to minimize risk to personnel to keep patients safe.

Equivalent Outcomes of Lumbar Therapeutic Facet Joint Nerve Blocks and Radiofrequency Neurotomy: Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Utility.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain secondary to facet joint pathology is prevalent in 27% to 40% of selected populations using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. Lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy are the most common interventional procedures for lower back pain. Nonetheless, questions remain regarding the effectiveness of each modality. Moreover, there is no agreement in reference to superiority or inferiority of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks when compared with radiofrequency neurotomy. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and almost all payers prefer radiofrequency ablation. Both procedures have been extensively studied with randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and cost utility analysis. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical outcomes and cost utility of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks (lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with L5 dorsal ramus block) compared with radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, case-control, comparative evaluation of outcomes and cost utility. SETTING: The study was conducted in an interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. METHODS: The study was performed utilizing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Analysis (STROBE) criteria. Only the patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic local anesthetic blocks were included.The main outcome measure was pain relief measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. Significant improvement was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain relief. Cost utility was calculated utilizing direct payment data for the procedures with the addition of estimated indirect costs over a period of one year based on highly regarded surgical literature and previously published interventional pain management literature. RESULTS: A total of 326 patients met the inclusion criteria with 99 patients receiving lumbar facet joint nerve blocks (lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with L5 dorsal ramus block) and 227 receiving lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. Forty-eight patients in the facet joint nerve block group and 148 patients in the radiofrequency group completed one-year follow-up. Patients experienced significant improvement in both groups from baseline to 12 months with significant pain relief (≥ 50%) Significant pain relief was recorded in 100%, 99%, and 79% of the patients in the facet joint nerve block group, whereas, it was 100%, 74%, and 65% in the radiofrequency neurotomy group at the 3, 6, and 12 month follow-up, with a significant difference at 6 months. Cost utility analysis showed average costs for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $4,664 for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and $5,446 for lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. Twelve patients (12%) in the lumbar facet joint nerve block group and 79 patients (35%) in the lumbar radiofrequency group were converted to other treatments, either due to side effects or inadequate relief. CONCLUSION: This study shows similar outcomes of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks when compared with radiofrequency neurotomy as indicated by significant pain relief and cost utility.

Outcomes of Cervical Therapeutic Medial Branch Blocks and Radiofrequency Neurotomy: Clinical Outcomes and Cost Utility are Equivalent.

BACKGROUND: Cervical facet joint pain is often managed with either cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, cervical medial branch blocks, or cervical intraarticular injections. However, the effectiveness of each modality continues to be debated. Further, there is no agreement in reference to superiority or inferiority of facet joint nerve blocks compared to radiofrequency neurotomy, even though cervical facet joint radiofrequency neurotomy has been preferred by many and in fact, has been mandated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), except when radiofrequency cannot be confirmed. Each procedure has advantages and disadvantages in reference to clinical utility, outcomes, cost utility, and side effect profile. However, comparative analysis has not been performed thus far in the literature in a clinical setting. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, case-control, comparative evaluation of outcomes and cost utility. SETTING: The study was conducted in an interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost utility of therapeutic medial branch blocks with radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic neck pain of facet joint origin. METHODS: The study was performed utilizing Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Analysis (STROBE) criteria. Only the patients meeting the diagnostic criteria of facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic local anesthetic blocks were included.The main outcome measure was pain relief measured by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months. Significant improvement was defined as at least 50% improvement in pain relief. Cost utility was calculated with direct payment data for the procedures with addition of estimated indirect costs over a period of one year based on highly regarded surgical literature and previously published interventional pain management literature. RESULTS: Overall, 295 patients met inclusion criteria with 132 patients receiving cervical medial branch blocks and 163 patients with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. One hundred and seven patients in the cervical medial branch group and 105 patients in the radiofrequency group completed one year follow-up. There was significant improvement in both groups from baseline to 12 months with pain relief and proportion of patients with >= 50% pain relief. Average relief of each procedure for cervical medial branch blocks was 13 to 14 weeks, whereas for radiofrequency neurotomy, it was 20 to 25 weeks. Significant pain relief was recorded in 100%, 94%, and 81% of the patients in the medial branch blocks group, whereas it was 100%, 69%, and 64% in the radiofrequency neurotomy group at 3, 6, and 12 month follow-up, with significant difference at 6 and 12 months.Cost utility analysis showed average cost for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of $4,994 for cervical medial branch blocks compared to $5,364 for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. Six of 132 patients (5%) in the cervical medial branch group and 53 of 163 (33%) patients in the cervical radiofrequency neurotomy group were converted to other treatments, either due to side effects (6 patients or 4%) or inadequate relief (47 patients or 29%). CONCLUSION: In this study, outcomes of cervical therapeutic medial branch blocks compared to radiofrequency neurotomy demonstrated significantly better outcomes with significant pain relief with similar costs for both treatments over a period of one year.

Utilization and Expenditures of Vertebral Augmentation Continue to Decline: An Analysis in Fee-For-Service (FFS) Recipients from 2009 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) associated with refractory pain, deformity, or progressive neurological symptoms, minimally invasive vertebral augmentation procedures, including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, have been declining in their relative utilization, along with expenditures. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess utilization and expenditures for vertebral augmentation procedures, including vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess utilization and expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript:• A patient was described as receiving vertebral augmentation over the course of the year.• An episode was considered as one treatment per region per day utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered to be procedures including multiple levels.A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted for inflation to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: In 2009, there were 76,860 episodes of vertebral augmentation with a rate of 168 per 100,000 Medicare population, which declined to 58,760, or 99 per 100,000 population for a total decline of 41%, or an annual rate of decline of 5.7% per 100,000 Medicare population. Vertebroplasty interventions declined more dramatically than kyphoplasty from 2009. Total episodes of vertebroplasty were 27,380 with an annual rate of 60 per 100,000 Medicare population, decreasing to 9,240, or 16 per 100,000 Medicare population, a 66% decline in episodes and a 74% decline in overall rate with an annual decline of 11.4% and 13.9%. In contrast, kyphoplasty interventions were 49,480, for a rate per 100,000 population of 108 in 2009 compared to 49,520 in 2018 with a rate of 83, for a decrease of 23% and 2.9% annual decrease. Evaluation of expenditures showed a net decrease of $30,102,809, or 8%, from $378,758,311 in 2009 to $348,655,502 in 2018. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures decreased overall by 21% and 3% annually from $443,147,324 in 2009 to $345,655,502 in 2018. In addition, inflation-adjusted total expenditures per 100,000 Medicare population decreased from $967,549 to $584,992, for an overall decrease of 40%, or an annual decrease of 5%. Per patient expenditures decreased 2% overall with 0% decrease per year. LIMITATIONS: Vertebral augmentation procedures were assessed only in the FFS Medicare service population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a significant decline in relative utilization patterns of vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty procedures, along with reductions in overall expenditures. The inflation-adjusted total expenditures of kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty decreased 21% with an annual decline of 3%. The inflation-adjusted expenditures per 100,000 of Medicare population decreased 40% overall and 5% per year. In addition, vertebroplasty has seen substantial declines in utilization and expenditure patterns compared to kyphoplasty procedures, which showed trends of decline.

Spinal Cord Stimulation Trends of Utilization and Expenditures in Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population from 2009 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation has been utilized with increasing frequency in managing chronic intractable spinal pain and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in addition to other neuropathic pain states. The literature has shown the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain with improvement in quality of life and cost utility. There have not been any reviews performed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population in reference to utilization and expenditure patterns of spinal cord stimulators. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess the utilization and expenditures for spinal cord stimulation in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess the utilization patterns and expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars only trials and implants were included. RESULTS: Utilization patterns showed that spinal cord stimulation trials increased from 12,680 in 2009 to 36,280 in 2018, a 186% increase with an annual increase of 12.4%. The rate of trials per 100,000 population increased from 28 in 2009 to 61 in 2018 with a 120% increase, or an annual increase of 9.1%. The pulse generator implants increased from 7,640 in 2009 to 22,960 in 2018, an increase of 201%, with an annual increase of 13%. In addition, percutaneous placement with pulse generator implants increased from 4,080 in 2009 to 14,316 in 2018, a 252% increase, or 15% annual increase. In contrast, implantation of neurostimulator electrodes with paddle leads with laminectomy and placement of spinal pulse generator increased from 3,560 in 2009 to 8,600 in 2018, a 142% increase or an annual increase of 10.3%. Analysis of expenditures showed total inflation-adjusted expenditures increased from $292,153,701 in 2009 to $1,142,434,137 in 2018, a 291% increase from 2009 to 2018 and 16.4% annual increase. These expenditures were 125% higher than facet joint interventions and 138% higher than epidural interventions in 2018. In contrast, these expenditures were 55% below the expenditures of facet joint interventions and 66% lower than epidural injections in 2009.Trial to implant ratio improved from 42.5% in 2009 to 63.6% in 2018. An overwhelming majority of trials (90%) were performed by nonsurgical physicians, whereas, 56% of implants were performed by non-surgeons. LIMITATIONS: This assessment includes only FFS Medicare population, thus eliminating approximately 30% of the population with Medicare Advantage plans. In addition, this study has not taken into consideration various revisions not included in 3 specific codes. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of spinal cord stimulators in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 showed explosive increases of trials, implants and overall costs.

Declining Utilization and Inflation-Adjusted Expenditures for Epidural Procedures in Chronic Spinal Pain in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Despite epidurals being one of the most common interventional pain procedures for managing chronic spinal pain in the United States, expenditure analysis lacks assessment in correlation with utilization patterns. OBJECTIVES: This investigation was undertaken to assess expenditures for epidural procedures in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The present study was designed to assess expenditures in all settings, for all providers in the FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was described as receiving epidural procedures throughout the year.• A visit was considered to include all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one treatment per region utilizing primary codes only.• Services or procedures were considered as all procedures including bilateral and multiple levels. A standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims data for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018 was utilized. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and adjusted to inflation to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: Total expenditures were $723,981,594 in 2009, whereas expenditures of 2018 were $829,987,636, with an overall 14.6% increase, or an annual increase of 1.5%. However, the inflation-adjusted rate was $847,058,465 in 2009, compared to $829,987,636 in 2018, a reduction overall of 2% and an annual reduction of 0.2%. Inflation-adjusted per patient annual costs decreased from $988.93 in 2009 to $819.27 in 2018 with a decrease of 17.2% or an annual decline of 2.1%. In addition, inflation-adjusted costs per procedure decreased from $399.77 to $377.94, or 5.5% overall and 0.6% annually. Per procedure, episode, visit, and patient expenses were higher for transforaminal epidural procedures than lumbar interlaminar/caudal epidural procedures. Overall, costs of transforaminal epidurals increased 27.6% or 2.7% annually, whereas lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections cost were reduced 2.7%, or 0.3% annually. Inflation-adjusted costs for transforaminal epidurals increased 9.1% or 1.0% annually and declined 16.9 or 2.0% annually for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Expenditures for epidural procedures in chronic spinal pain were assessed only in the FFS Medicare population. This excluded over 30% of the Medicare population, which is enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for inflation, there was a decrease of expenditures for epidural procedures of 2%, or 0.2% annually, from 2009 to 2018. However, prior to inflation, the increases were noted at 14.6% and 1.5%. Inflation-adjusted costs per patient, per visit, and per procedure also declined. The proportion of Medicare patients per 100,000 receiving epidural procedures decreased 9.1%, or 1.1% annually. However, assessment of individual procedures showed higher costs for transforaminal epidural procedures compared to lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural procedures.

Declining Utilization Patterns of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis Procedures in the Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is a minimally invasive therapeutic modality used in the treatment of patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain, often recalcitrant to other modalities including epidural injections and surgical interventions. While the initial utilization since its introduction and development of appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes increased up until 2008, but since 2009, there has been a significant decline in utilization of these procedures in the Medicare population. These procedures declined by 53.2% at an annual rate of 10.3% from 2009 to 2016. A recent update analysis on the reversal and decline of growth of utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 revealed an even further decline of adhesiolysis procedures. STUDY DESIGN: An analysis of the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2018, with comparative analysis from 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back pain in the Medicare population. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master of Fee-For-Service (FFS) Data from 2000 to 2018 was used.In this analysis, various variables were assessed in reference to usage patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures with analysis of growth or declining utilization patterns. We also assessed specialty-based utilization, as well as statewide utilization. RESULTS: The decline of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures began in 2009 and has continued since then. From 2009 to 2018, the overall decline was 69.2%, with an annual decline of 12.3% compared to an overall 62.6% increase from 2000 to 2009, with an annual increase of 5.6%. Compared to multiple other interventions, including epidural injections and facet joint interventions, percutaneous adhesiolysis has declined at a rapid rate. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment in the FFS Medicare population in the United States shows an irreversible decline of utilization of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures, which has been gradually deteriorating with a 69.2% decline from 2009 to 2018 with an annual decline of 12.3% during that same time period.

Assessment of Prevalence of Cervical Facet Joint Pain with Diagnostic Cervical Medial Branch Blocks: Analysis Based on Chronic Pain Model.

BACKGROUND: Research into cervical spinal pain syndromes has indicated that the cervical facet joints can be a potent source of neck pain, headache, and referred pain into the upper extremities. There have been multiple diagnostic accuracy studies, most commonly utilizing diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks and an acute pain model, as Bogduk has proposed. Subsequently, Manchikanti has focused on the importance of the chronic pain model and longer lasting relief with diagnostic blocks. OBJECTIVE: To assess diagnostic accuracy of cervical facet joint nerve blocks with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with updated assessment of prevalence, false-positive rate, and a description of philosophical paradigm shift from acute to chronic pain model, with concordant pain relief. STUDY DESIGN: This diagnostic accuracy study was performed with retrospective assessment of data to assess prevalence and false-positive rates. SETTING: The study was performed in a non-university-based, multidisciplinary, interventional pain management, private practice in the United States. METHODS: Cervical medial branch blocks were performed utilizing lidocaine 1% followed by bupivacaine 0.25% when appropriate response was obtained in an operating room under fluoroscopic guidance with 0.5 mL of lidocaine or bupivacaine from C3-C6 medial branches (levels blocked on joints involved). If a patient failed to respond to lidocaine with appropriate >= 80% pain relief, that patient was considered as negative for facet joint pain. If the response was positive with lidocaine block, a bupivacaine block was performed. RESULTS: The chronic cervical facet joint pain was diagnosed with cervical facet joint nerve blocks at a prevalence of 49.3% (95% CI, 43.6%, 55.0%) and with a false-positive rate of 25.6% (95% CI, 19.5%, 32.8%). This study also showed a single block prevalence rate of 66.3% (95% CI, 71.7%, 60.9%). Assessment of the duration of relief with each block showed greater than 80% for 6 days with lidocaine block and total relief of >= 50% of 31 days. In contrast, with bupivacaine, average duration of pain relief of >= 80% was 12 days with a total relief of >= 50% lasting for 55 days. CONCLUSION: Based on this investigation, utilizing a chronic pain model, there was significant difference in the relief patterns. This assessment showed prevalence and false-positive rates of 49.3% and 25.6% in chronic neck pain. Duration of relief >= 80% pain relief was 6 days with lidocaine and 12 days with bupivacaine, with total relief of >= 50% of 31 days with 55 days respectively.

Utilization Patterns of Sacroiliac Joint Injections from 2000 to 2018 in Fee-for-Service Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates of sacroiliac joint pain range from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. Over the years, utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections have been increasing in comparison to other interventional techniques. Further, the development of new current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and coverage policies for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy, and evolving evidence for sacroiliac joint fusion will further increase the utilization patterns. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018 with comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis. RESULTS: The results of the evaluation from 2009 to 2018 showed an increase of 11.3% and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population. However, from 2000 to 2009, an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 16.6% per 100,000 Medicare population. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study included a lack of data on the new sacroiliac joint nerve block and radiofrequency neurotomy codes. Further, this data did not include utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint fusions. In addition, Medicare Advantage patients were not included, which constitute approximately 30% of overall Medicare population. Further, there is also a possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows increases in utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections; however, at a significantly lower rate with an annual increase of 16.6% prior to 2009 and only 1.2% from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries.