Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 34
Filtrar
1.
Pain Physician ; 24(S1): S1-S26, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33492917

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The re-engineered definition of clinical guidelines in 2011 from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) states, "clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options." The revised definition distinguishes between the term "clinical practice guideline" and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess the literature and develop methodology for evidence synthesis and development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including methodology of guideline development encompassing GRADE approach for guidance on evidence synthesis with recommendations. RESULTS: Some of the many factors described in 2011 continue as of 2020 and impede the development of clinical practice guidelines. These impediments include biases due to a variety of conflicts and confluence of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with the elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Thus, ideally, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts with true lack of bias and confluence of interest must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence. This manuscript describes evidence synthesis from observational studies, various types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and, finally, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews. The manuscript also describes various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of publications with appropriate evidence synthesis methodology in reference to interventional techniques. CONCLUSION: This review described comprehensive evidence synthesis derived from systematic reviews, including methodologic quality and bias measurement. The manuscript described various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews, RCTs, diagnostic accuracy studies, and observational studies.

2.
Pain Physician ; 24(S1): S27-S208, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33492918

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and  recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations.

3.
Pain Physician ; 24(1): 1-15, 2021 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33400424

RESUMO

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.

4.
Pain Physician ; 23(6): 531-540, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33185369

RESUMO

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.

5.
Pain Physician ; 23(5): 519-530, 2020 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32967394

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Lumbar facet joints are a clinically important source of chronic low back pain. There have been extensive diagnostic accuracy studies, along with studies of influence on the diagnostic process, but most of them have utilized the acute pain model. One group of investigators have emphasized the importance of the chronic pain model and longer lasting relief with diagnostic blocks. OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks and concordant pain relief with an updated assessment of the prevalence, false-positive rates, and a description of a philosophical paradigm shift from an acute to a chronic pain model. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study to determine diagnostic accuracy, prevalence and false-positive rates. SETTING: A multidisciplinary, non-university based interventional pain management practice in the United States. METHODS: Controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks were performed initially with 1% lidocaine, followed by 0.25% bupivacaine if appropriate response was obtained, in an operating room under fluoroscopic guidance utilizing 0.5 mL of lidocaine or bupivacaine at L3, L4 medial branches and L5 dorsal ramus. All patients non-responsive to lidocaine blocks were considered to be negative for facet joint pain. All patients were assessed after the diagnostic blocks were performed with >= 80% pain relief for their ability to perform previously painful movements. RESULTS: The prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in chronic low back pain was 34.1% (95% CI, 28.8%, 39.8%), with a false-positive rate of 49.8% (95% CI, 42.7%, 56.8%). This study also showed a single block prevalence rate of 67.9% (95% CI, 62.9%, 73.2%). Average duration of pain relief >= 80% was 6 days with lidocaine block and total relief of >= 50% of 32 days. With bupivacaine, the average duration of pain relief >= 80% was 13 days with total relief of >= 50% lasting for 55 days. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the chronic pain model is more accurate and reliable with concordant pain relief. This updated assessment also showed prevalence and false-positive rates of 34.1% and 49.8%.

6.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S161-S182, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942784

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain patients require continuity of care even during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has drastically changed healthcare and other societal practices. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-ASIPP Risk Mitigation & Stratification (COVID-ARMS) Return to Practice Task Force in order to provide guidance for safe and strategic reopening. OBJECTIVES: The aims are to provide education and guidance for interventional pain specialists and their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic that minimizes COVID-related morbidity while allowing a return to interventional pain care. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various regions, specialities, and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification were reviewed. The principles of best evidence synthesis of available literature and grading for recommendations as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) typically utilized in ASIPP guideline preparation was not utilized in these guidelines due to limitations because of their lack of available literature on COVID-19, risk mitigation and stratification. These guidelines are considered evidence -- informed with incorporation of best available research and practice knowledge. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with incorporation of best available research and practice knowledge. RESULTS: Numerous risk factors have emerged that predispose patients to contracting COVID-19 and/or having a more severe course of the infection. COVID-19 may have mild symptoms, even be asymptomatic, or may be severe and life threatening. Older age and certain comorbidities, such as underlying pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, have been associated with worse outcomes. In pain care, COVID-19 patients are a heterogeneous group with some individuals relatively healthy and having only a short course of manageable symptoms while others become critically ill. It is necessary to assess patients on a case-by-case basis and craft individualized care recommendations. A COVID-ARMS risk stratification tool was created to quickly and objectively assess patients. Interventional pain specialists and their patients may derive important benefits from evidence-informed risk stratification, protective strategies to prevent infection, and the gradual resumption of treatments and procedures to manage pain. LIMITATIONS: COVID-19 was an ongoing pandemic at the time during which these recommendations were developed. The pandemic has created a fluid situation in terms of evidence-informed guidance. As more and better evidence is gathered, these recommendations may be modified. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain patients require continuity of care but during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, steps must be taken to stratify risks and protect patients from possible infection to safeguard them from COVID-19-related illness and transmitting the disease to others. Pain specialists should optimize telemedicine encounters with their pain patients, be cognizant of risks of COVID-19 morbidity, and take steps to evaluate risk-benefit on a case-by-case basis. Pain specialists may return to practice with lower-risk patients and appropriate safeguards.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/terapia , Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente , Infecções por Coronavirus , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Idoso , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
7.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S183-204, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942785

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of "elective" interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures.Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. METHODS: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. RESULTS: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included urgent, emergency, and elective procedures. Examples of urgent and emergency procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, emergency procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. LIMITATIONS: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/cirurgia , Infecções por Coronavirus , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Triagem/métodos , Betacoronavirus , Dor Crônica/classificação , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Eletivos/classificação , Humanos , Estados Unidos
8.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S239-S270, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942786

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome). METHODS: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. OUTCOME MEASURES: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term. RESULTS: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins. LIMITATIONS: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended. CONCLUSION: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/administração & dosagem , Lidocaína/administração & dosagem , Dor Lombar/tratamento farmacológico , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Corticosteroides/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Locais/administração & dosagem , Anti-Inflamatórios/administração & dosagem , Anti-Inflamatórios/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
9.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S271-S282, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942787

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Burnout has been a commonly discussed issue for the past ten years among physicians and other health care workers. A survey of interventional pain physicians published in 2016 reported high levels of emotional exhaustion, often considered the most taxing aspect of burnout. Job dissatisfaction appeared to be the leading agent in the development of burnout in pain medicine physicians in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected the entire health care workforce and interventional pain management, with other surgical specialties, has been affected significantly. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed several physical and emotional stressors on interventional pain management physicians and this may lead to increased physician burnout. OBJECTIVE: To assess the presence of burnout specific to COVID-19 pandemic among practicing interventional pain physicians. METHODS: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) administered a 32 question survey to their members by contacting them via commercially available online marketing company platform. The survey was completed on www.constantcontact.com. RESULTS: Of 179 surveys sent, 100 responses were obtained. The data from the survey demonstrated that 98% of physician practices were affected by COVID and 91% of physicians felt it had a significant financial impact. Sixty seven percent of the physicians responded that in-house billing was responsible for their increased level of burnout, whereas 73% responded that electronic medical records (EMRs) were one of the causes. Overall, 78% were very concerned. Almost all respondents have been affected with a reduction in interventional procedures. 60% had a negative opinion about the future of their practice, whereas 66% were negative about the entire health care industry. LIMITATIONS: The survey included only a small number of member physicians. Consequently, it may not be generalized for other specialties or even pain medicine. However, it does represent the sentiment and present status of interventional pain management. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has put interventional pain practices throughout the United States under considerable financial and psychological stress. It is essential to quantify the extent of economic loss, offer strategies to actively manage provider practice/wellbeing, and minimize risk to personnel to keep patients safe.


Assuntos
Esgotamento Profissional/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus , Manejo da Dor/psicologia , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Satisfação no Emprego , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Médicos/psicologia , Estresse Psicológico/epidemiologia , Estresse Psicológico/etiologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados Unidos
10.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S319-S350, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942792

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Since the late 1940s, corticosteroids have been a mainstay class of agents in multiple interventional techniques and intra-articular injections. Exogenous glucocorticoids are structurally and pharmacologically similar to the endogenous hormones. As such, multiple actions of corticosteroids are exhibited, including those of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. Epidural injections, with or without steroids, have been extensively used throughout the world. There are reports of epidural injections starting in 1901, with steroids being added to the local anesthetic since 1952, when steroids were administered into the sacral foramen. PURPOSE: Due to the extensive side effects of steroids in various injections, some have proposed limiting their use in epidurals and intraarticular injections. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the multiple side effects of the steroids have elevated the level of concern and recommendations have been made to utilize local anesthetic alone or the lowest dose of steroids. Fashioned from common expressions of the day, the term "steroid distancing" began to be used and proposed for intraarticular injections of the knee. Consequently, we sought to evaluate the evidence and feasibility of steroid distancing in interventional pain management. METHODS: This focused review of local anesthetics and steroids utilized in interventional pain management for epidural injections, peripheral nerve blocks, and intraarticular injections by multiple database searches. This is a focused narrative review and not a systematic review. Consequently, evidence synthesis was not performed traditionally, but was based on an overview of the available evidence. RESULTS: No significant difference was identified based on whether steroids are added to local anesthetic or not for epidural as well as facet joint injections. However, there was not enough evidence to compare these two groups for peripheral intraarticular injections. LIMITATIONS: The present review is limited by the paucity of literature with bupivacaine alone or bupivacaine with steroids local anesthetic alone or with steroids of intraarticular injections of knee, hip, shoulder and other joints, and intraarticular facet joint injections. CONCLUSION: This review shows an overall lack of significant difference between lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in epidural injections. However, available evidence is limited for bupivacaine alone or with steroids. Evidence is also not available comparing local anesthetic alone with steroids for facet joint or peripheral joint intraarticular injections. Thus, it is concluded that local anesthetic with lidocaine may be utilized for epidural injections, with appropriate patient selection and steroids reserved for non-responsive patients with local anesthetic and with significant radiculitis.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Infecções por Coronavirus , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Anti-Inflamatórios/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais/métodos , Injeções Intra-Articulares/métodos
11.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S367-S380, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942794

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The unexpected COVID-19 crisis has disrupted medical education and patient care in unprecedented ways. Despite the challenges, the health-care system and patients have been both creative and resilient in finding robust "temporary" solutions to these challenges. It is not clear if some of these COVID-era transitional steps will be preserved in the future of medical education and telemedicine. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this commentary is to address the sometimes substantial changes in medical education, continuing medical education (CME) activities, residency and fellowship programs, specialty society meetings, and telemedicine, and to consider the value of some of these profound shifts to "business as usual" in the health-care sector. METHODS: This is a commentary is based on the limited available literature, online information, and the front-line experiences of the authors. RESULTS: COVID-19 has clearly changed residency and fellowship programs by limiting the amount of hands-on time physicians could spend with patients. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medicine Education has endorsed certain policy changes to promote greater flexibility in programs but still rigorously upholds specific standards. Technological interventions such as telemedicine visits with patients, virtual meetings with colleagues, and online interviews have been introduced, and many trainees are "techno-omnivores" who are comfortable using a variety of technology platforms and techniques. Webinars and e-learning are gaining traction now, and their use, practicality, and cost-effectiveness may make them important in the post-COVID era. CME activities have migrated increasingly to virtual events and online programs, a trend that may also continue due to its practicality and cost-effectiveness. While many medical meetings of specialty societies have been postponed or cancelled altogether, technology allows for virtual meetings that may offer versatility and time-saving opportunities for busy clinicians. It may be that future medical meetings embrace a hybrid approach of blending digital with face-to-face experience. Telemedicine was already in place prior to the COVID-19 crisis but barriers are rapidly coming down to its widespread use and patients seem to embrace this, even as health-care systems navigate the complicated issues of cybersecurity and patient privacy. Regulatory guidance may be needed to develop safe, secure, and patient-friendly telehealth applications. Telemedicine has affected the prescribing of controlled substances in which online counseling, informed consent, and follow-up must be done in a virtual setting. For example, pill counts can be done in a video call and patients can still get questions answered about their pain therapy, although it is likely that after the crisis, prescribing controlled substances may revert to face-to-face visits. LIMITATIONS: The health-care system finds itself in a very fluid situation at the time this was written and changes are still occurring and being assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the technological changes imposed so abruptly on the health-care system by the COVID-19 pandemic may be positive and it may be beneficial that some of these transitions be preserved or modified as we move forward. Clinicians must be objective in assessing these changes and retaining those changes that clearly improve health-care education and patient care as we enter the COVID era.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Assistência à Saúde/tendências , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina/tendências , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Telemedicina/tendências , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Assistência à Saúde/métodos , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina/métodos , Bolsas de Estudo/métodos , Bolsas de Estudo/tendências , Humanos , Internato e Residência/métodos , Internato e Residência/tendências , Masculino , Telemedicina/métodos
12.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): S439-S448, 2020 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32942799

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically altered daily living and medical care for Ohio residents and the practice of medicine for the interventional pain management physician. As a state, Ohio tends to be demographically representative of the broader US population. OBJECTIVE: Reviewing the efforts deployed by Ohio to flatten the COVID-19 infection curve and reduce the spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is an important component of determining optimal procedures for mitigating the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Over the course of several announcements and orders during the months of March and April, new policies were put into place to prevent COVID-19 transmission, which included efforts to facilitate social distancing and ensure the health care system could manage the number of COVID-19 cases at peak infection rate. Efforts directed toward medical providers included delay of elective procedures, expansion of telehealth options, and new temporary guidance for prescribing controlled substances. RESULTS: The Ohio COVID-19 containment approach resulted in a substantial reduction in COVID-19 cases compared with early models of disease spread, and the state has begun a phased reopening. Continued vigilance in applying social distancing and infection control measures will be a critical component of preventing or reducing the impact of a second wave of COVID-19 in Ohio. LIMITATIONS: A narrative review with paucity of literature.


Assuntos
Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Manejo da Dor , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Humanos , Ohio , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão
13.
Pain Physician ; 23(3S): S129-S147, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32503360

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The trends of the expenditures of facet joint interventions have not been specifically assessed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population since 2009. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation is to assess trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The study was designed to analyze trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009-2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was considered as undergoing facet joint interventions throughout the year. • A visit included all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered all procedures (multiple levels). Data for the analysis was obtained from the standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and also were inflation adjusted to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: This analysis showed expenditures increased by 79% from 2009 to 2018 in the form of total cost for facet joint interventions, at an annual rate of 6.7%. Cervical and lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy procedures increased 185% and 169%. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures with 2018 US dollars showed an overall increase of 53% with an annual increase of 4.9%. In addition, using inflation-adjusted expenditures per procedures increased, the overall 6% with an annual increase of 0.7%. Overall, per patient costs, with inflation adjustment, decreased from $1,925 to $1,785 with a decline of 7% and an annual decline of 0.8%. Allowed charges per visit also declined after inflation adjustment from $951.76 to $849.86 with an overall decline of 11% and an annual decline of 1.3%. Staged episodes of radiofrequency neurotomy were performed in 23.9% of patients and more than 2 episodes for radiofrequency neurotomy in 6.9%, in lumbar spine and 19.6% staged and 5.1% more than 2 episodes in cervical spine of patients in 2018. LIMITATIONS: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjusting for inflation, there was a significant increase for the expenditures of facet joint interventions with an overall 53% increase. Costs per patient and cost per visit declined. Inflation-adjusted cost per year declined 7% overall and 0.8% annually from $1,925 to $1,785, and inflation-adjusted cost per visit also declined 11% annually and 1.3% per year from $952 in 2009 to $850 in 2018. KEY WORDS: Facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis, facet joint injections, Medicare expenditures.


Assuntos
Gastos em Saúde , Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos/economia , Manejo da Dor/economia , Articulação Zigapofisária , Idoso , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. , Dor Crônica/economia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Medicare/economia , Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos/tendências , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Manejo da Dor/tendências , Estados Unidos
14.
Pain Physician ; 23(3S): S1-S127, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32503359

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.Summary of Evidence and Recommendations:Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) .Interventional Diagnosis:Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥80% pain relief.Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, 9 of the 10 studies with either controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo controls with concordant pain relief with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence and false-positive rates ranged from 29% to 60% and of 27% to 63%, with high variability. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Three relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with concordant pain relief, with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence varied from 34% to 48%, whereas false-positive rates varied from 42% to 58%.Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for lumbar radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of 11 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 negative studies and 4 studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is IV with weak strength of recommendation for lumbar facet joint intraarticular injections with inclusion of 9 relevant randomized controlled trials, with majority of them showing lack of effectiveness without the use of local anesthetic. Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for cervical radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with positive results and 2 observational studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic cervical facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for cervical intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with 2 observational studies, the majority showing lack of effectiveness, whereas one study with 6-month follow-up, showed lack of long-term improvement. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation with emerging evidence for thoracic radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 2 randomized controlled trials and one observational study with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with 6 month follow-up, with emerging evidence. Antithrombotic Therapy: • Facet joint interventions are considered as moderate to low risk procedures; consequently, antithrombotic therapy may be continued based on overall general status. Sedation: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation to avoid opioid analgesics during the diagnosis with interventional techniques. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation that moderate sedation may be utilized for patient comfort and to control anxiety for therapeutic facet joint interventions. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These facet joint intervention guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis.


Assuntos
Dor nas Costas/terapia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Articulação Zigapofisária , Humanos , Estados Unidos
15.
Pain physician ; 23(3S): S1-S127, May 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | BIGG - guias GRADE | ID: biblio-1129928

RESUMO

Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Bloqueio Nervoso Autônomo , Dor nas Costas/terapia , Denervação/métodos , Dor Crônica/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Terapia por Radiofrequência , Avaliação de Resultado de Intervenções Terapêuticas , Injeções Intra-Articulares
16.
Pain Physician ; 23(2): 111-126, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32214288

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: With increasing costs of health care in the United States, attention is focused on expensive conditions. Musculoskeletal disorders with low back and neck pain account for the third highest amount of various disease categories. Minimally invasive interventional techniques for managing spinal pain, including epidural injections, have been considered to be growing rapidly. However, recent analyses of utilization of interventional techniques from 2000 to 2018 has shown a decline of 2.6% and a decline of 21% from 2009 to 2018 for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis of epidural procedures from 2000 to 2018 are to provide an update on utilization of epidural injections in managing chronic pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population, with a comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: Utilization patterns and variables of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain from 2000 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population in the United States. METHODS: This analysis was performed by utilizing master data from CMS, physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2018. The analysis was performed by the assessment of utilization patterns using guidance from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). RESULTS: Overall, epidural procedures declined at a rate of 20.7% per 100,000 Medicare enrollees in FFS Medicare in the United States from 2009 to 2018, with an annual decline of 2.5%. However, from 2000 to 2009, there was an increase of 89.2%, with an annual increase of 7.3%. This analysis showed a decline in all categories, with an annual decrease of 4.7% for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections, 4.7% decline for cervical/thoracic transforaminal epidural injections, 1.1% decline for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidural injections, and finally 0.4% decline for cervical/thoracic interlaminar epidural injections. Overall declines from 2009 to 2018 were highest for cervical and thoracic transforaminal injections with 35.1%, followed by lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections of 34.9%, followed by 9.4% for lumbar/sacral transforaminal epidurals, and 3.5% for cervical and thoracic interlaminar epidurals. LIMITATIONS: This analysis was limited by noninclusion of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. In addition, utilization data for individual states continues to be sparse and may not be accurate or representative of the population. CONCLUSIONS: The declining utilization of epidural injections in all categories with an annual of 2.5% and overall decrease of 20.7% from 2009 to 2018 compared with annual increases of 7.3% and overall increase of 89.2% from 2000 to 2009 shows a slow decline of utilization of all epidural injections. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, utilization patterns.


Assuntos
Anestesia Epidural/tendências , Raquianestesia/tendências , Dor Crônica/terapia , Medicare/tendências , Manejo da Dor/tendências , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anestesia Epidural/métodos , Raquianestesia/métodos , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais/métodos , Injeções Epidurais/tendências , Região Lombossacral , Masculino , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
17.
Pain Physician ; 23(2): E85-E131, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32214287

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The use of bone marrow concentrate (BMC) for treatment of musculoskeletal disorders has become increasingly popular over the last several years, as technology has improved along with the need for better solutions for these pathologies. The use of cellular tissue raises a number of issues regarding the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulation in classifying these treatments as a drug versus just autologous tissue transplantation. In the case of BMC in musculoskeletal and spine care, this determination will likely hinge on whether BMC is homologous to the musculoskeletal system and spine. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to describe the current regulatory guidelines set in place by the FDA, specifically the terminology around "minimal manipulation" and "homologous use" within Regulation 21 CFR Part 1271, and specifically how this applies to the use of BMC in interventional musculoskeletal medicine. METHODS: The methodology utilized here is similar to the methodology utilized in preparation of multiple guidelines employing the experience of a panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties from differing regions of the world. The collaborators who developed these position statements have submitted their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these position statements. The literature pertaining to BMC, its effectiveness, adverse consequences, FDA regulations, criteria for meeting the standards of minimal manipulation, and homologous use were comprehensively reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available and relevant literature. RESULTS/Summary of Evidence: In conjunction with evidence-based medicine principles, the following position statements were developed: Statement 1: Based on a review of the literature in discussing the preparation of BMC using accepted methodologies, there is strong evidence of minimal manipulation in its preparation, and moderate evidence for homologous utility for various musculoskeletal and spinal conditions qualifies for the same surgical exemption. Statement 2: Assessment of clinical effectiveness based on extensive literature shows emerging evidence for multiple musculoskeletal and spinal conditions. • The evidence is highest for knee osteoarthritis with level II evidence based on relevant systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies. There is level III evidence for knee cartilage conditions. • Based on the relevant systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized studies, the evidence for disc injections is level III. • Based on the available literature without appropriate systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials, the evidence for all other conditions is level IV or limited for BMC injections. Statement 3: Based on an extensive review of the literature, there is strong evidence for the safety of BMC when performed by trained physicians with the appropriate precautions under image guidance utilizing a sterile technique. Statement 4: Musculoskeletal disorders and spinal disorders with related disability for economic and human toll, despite advancements with a wide array of treatment modalities. Statement 5: The 21st Century Cures Act was enacted in December 2016 with provisions to accelerate the development and translation of promising new therapies into clinical evaluation and use. Statement 6: Development of cell-based therapies is rapidly proliferating in a number of disease areas, including musculoskeletal disorders and spine. With mixed results, these therapies are greatly outpacing the evidence. The reckless publicity with unsubstantiated claims of beneficial outcomes having putative potential, and has led the FDA Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue multiple warnings. Thus the US FDA is considering the appropriateness of using various therapies, including BMC, for homologous use. Statement 7: Since the 1980's and the description of mesenchymal stem cells by Caplan et al, (now called medicinal signaling cells), the use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders has been increasing in the management of pain and promoting tissue healing. Statement 8: The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) of the FDA requires minimal manipulation under same surgical procedure exemption. Homologous use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders is provided by preclinical and clinical evidence. Statement 9: If the FDA does not accept BMC as homologous, then it will require an Investigational New Drug (IND) classification with FDA (351) cellular drug approval for use. Statement 10: This literature review and these position statements establish compliance with the FDA's intent and corroborates its present description of BMC as homologous with same surgical exemption, and exempt from IND, for use of BMC for treatment of musculoskeletal tissues, such as cartilage, bones, ligaments, muscles, tendons, and spinal discs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the review of all available and pertinent literature, multiple position statements have been developed showing that BMC in musculoskeletal disorders meets the criteria of minimal manipulation and homologous use. KEY WORDS: Cell-based therapies, bone marrow concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, medicinal signaling cells, Food and Drug Administration, human cells, tissues, and cellular tissue-based products, Public Health Service Act (PHSA), minimal manipulation, homologous use, same surgical procedure exemption.


Assuntos
Transplante de Medula Óssea/normas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/terapia , Manejo da Dor/normas , Médicos/normas , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Medula Óssea/fisiologia , Transplante de Medula Óssea/métodos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Humanos , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/diagnóstico , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/epidemiologia , Dor/diagnóstico , Dor/epidemiologia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration/normas
18.
Pain Physician ; 23(2): E133-E149, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32214289

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Interventional techniques for managing spinal pain, from conservative modalities to surgical interventions, are thought to have been growing rapidly. Interventional techniques take center stage in managing chronic spinal pain. Specifically, facet joint interventions experienced explosive growth rates from 2000 to 2009, with a reversal of these growth patterns and in some settings, a trend of decline after 2009. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this assessment of utilization patterns include providing an update of facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population of the United States from 2000 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The study was designed to assess utilization patterns and variables of facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain from 2000 to 2018 in the FFS Medicare population in the United States. METHODS: 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 2018. RESULTS: Facet joint interventions increased 1.9% annually and 18.8% total from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 FFS Medicare population compared with an annual increase of 17% and overall increase of 309.9% from 2000 to 2009. Lumbosacral facet joint nerve block sessions or visits decreased at an annual rate of 0.2% from 2009 to 2018, with an increase of 15.2% from 2000 to 2009. In contrast, lumbosacral facet joint neurolysis sessions increased at an annual rate of 7.4% from 2009 to 2018, and the utilization rate also increased at an annual rate of 23.0% from 2000 to 2009. The proportion of lumbar facet joint blocks sessions to lumbosacral facet joint neurolysis sessions changed from 6.7 in 2000 to 1.9 in 2018. Cervical and thoracic facet joint injections increased at an annual rate of 0.5% compared with cervicothoracic facet neurolysis sessions of 8.7% from 2009 to 2018. Cervical facet joint injections increased to 4.9% from 2009 to 2018 compared with neurolysis procedures of 112%. The proportion of cervical facet joint injection sessions to neurolysis sessions changed from 8.9 in 2000 to 2.4 in 2018. LIMITATIONS: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. The utilization data for individual states also continues to be sparse and may not be accurate. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization patterns of facet joint interventions increased 1.9% per 100,000 Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. This results from an annual decline of - 0.2% lumbar facet joint injection sessions but with an increase of facet joint radiofrequency sessions of 7.4%. KEY WORDS: Interventional techniques, facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis.


Assuntos
Denervação/tendências , Medicare/tendências , Bloqueio Nervoso/tendências , Manejo da Dor/tendências , Doenças da Coluna Vertebral/terapia , Articulação Zigapofisária , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Anestesia por Condução/métodos , Anestesia por Condução/tendências , Raquianestesia/métodos , Raquianestesia/tendências , Dor Crônica/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Denervação/métodos , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções Intra-Articulares , Masculino , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos/tendências , Dor/epidemiologia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Doenças da Coluna Vertebral/epidemiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Articulação Zigapofisária/cirurgia
19.
Pain Physician ; 23(4S): [21], 20200800.
Artigo em Inglês | BIGG - guias GRADE | ID: biblio-1128234

RESUMO

Chronic pain patients require continuity of care even during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has drastically changed healthcare and other societal practices. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-ASIPP Risk Mitigation and Stratification (COVID-ARMS) Return to Practice Task Force in order to provide guidance for safe and strategic reopening. The aims are to provide education and guidance for interventional pain specialists and their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic that minimizes COVID-related morbidity while allowing a return to interventional pain care. The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various regions, specialities, and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification were reviewed. The principles of best-evidence synthesis of available literature and grading for recommendations as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), typically utilized in ASIPP guideline preparation, was not utilized in these guidelines due to the limitation based on lack of available literature on COVID-19, risk mitigation and stratification. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best-available research and practice knowledge. Numerous risk factors have emerged that predispose patients to contracting COVID-19 and/or having a more severe course of the infection. COVID-19 may have mild symptoms, be asymptomatic, or may be severe and life-threatening. Older age and certain comorbidities, such as underlying pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, have been associated with worse outcomes. In pain care, COVID-19 patients are a heterogeneous group with some individuals relatively healthy and having only a short course of manageable symptoms, while others become critically ill. It is necessary to assess patients on a case-by-case basis and craft individualized care recommendations. A COVID-19 ARMS risk stratification tool was created to quickly and objectively assess patients. Interventional pain specialists and their patients may derive important benefits from evidence informed risk stratification, protective strategies to prevent infection, and the gradual resumption of treatments and procedures to manage pain. Limitations: COVID-19 was an ongoing pandemic at the time these recommendations were developed. The pandemic has created a fluid situation in terms of evidence-informed guidance. As more and better evidence is gathered, these recommendations may be modified. Chronic pain patients require continuity of care, but during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, steps must be taken to stratify risks and protect patients from possible infection to safeguard them from COVID-19-related illness and transmitting the disease to others. Pain specialists should optimize telemedicine encounters with pain patients, be cognizant of risks of COVID-19 morbidity, and take steps to evaluate risk-benefit on a case-by-case basis. Pain specialists may return to practice with lower-risk patients and appropriate safeguards.


Assuntos
Humanos , Pneumonia Viral/complicações , Doença Crônica , Fatores de Risco , Infecções por Coronavirus/complicações , Manejo da Dor , Betacoronavirus , Esteroides , Doenças Cardiovasculares/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus , Hipertensão , Obesidade
20.
Curr Pain Headache Rep ; 23(10): 73, 2019 Aug 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31388874

RESUMO

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To assess patterns of utilization and variables of facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain in a fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population from 2009 to 2016, with a comparative analysis from 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2016. RECENT FINDINGS: From 2009 to 2016, facet joint interventions increased at an annual rate of 2% per 100,000 Medicare population compared to 10.2% annual rate of increase from 2000 to 2009. Lumbosacral facet joint nerve block episodes decreased at an annual rate of 0.1% from 2009 to 2016, with an increase of 16.2% from 2000 to 2009. In contrast, lumbosacral facet joint neurolysis episodes increased at an annual rate of 7.6% from 2009 to 2016 and the utilization rate also increased at an annual rate of 26% from 2000 to 2009. The ratio of lumbar facet joint block episodes to lumbosacral facet joint neurolysis episodes changed from 6.7 in 2000 to 2.2 in 2016. From 2009 to 2016, cervical and thoracic facet joint injections increased at an annual rate of 0.6% compared to cervicothoracic facet neurolysis episodes of 9.2%. During 2000 to 2009, annual increase of cervical facet joint injections was 18% compared to neurolysis procedures of 26%. The ratio of cervical facet joint injections episodes to neurolysis episodes changed from 8.85 in 2000 to 2.8 in 2016. In summary, based on available data, utilization patterns of facet joint interventions demonstrated an increase of 2% per 100,000 Medicare population from 2009 to 2016, with an annual decline of lumbar facet joint injection episodes.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/cirurgia , Medicare/economia , Procedimentos Neurocirúrgicos , Articulação Zigapofisária/cirurgia , Dor nas Costas/cirurgia , Dor Crônica/epidemiologia , Humanos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA