Intra-Articular Platelet Rich Plasma vs Corticosteroid Injections for Sacroiliac Joint Pain: A Double-Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Using stringent inclusion criteria, a double-blinded study protocol, and fluoroscopically guided injections, we compare intra-articular sacroiliac joint platelet-rich plasma injections with intra-articular steroids. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two large university-based interdisciplinary spine centers. SUBJECTS: A total of 26 patients with a positive diagnostic block (>80% relief). METHODS: Subjects who had a positive diagnostic block were randomized to undergo either a fluoroscopically guided intra-articular injection of steroid or a platelet-rich plasma injection. Follow-up was at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Outcomes included level of pain, as indicated on a 0- to 100-mm numeric pain rating scale, and functional disability score, obtained via the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTS: At 1, 3, and 6 months, both groups improved; however, subjects who received steroid injections reported lower pain scores than did subjects who received platelet-rich plasma. Using categorical data, we observed significantly more responders (defined as pain scores that improved by 50% or more from baseline) at 1 and 3 months in the group who received steroids than in the group who received platelet-rich plasma. CONCLUSION: Although both groups showed improvements in pain and function, the steroid group had significantly greater response and significantly more responders than did the platelet-rich plasma group.

The Safety of Genicular Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation.

MYTH: Genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is not associated with known clinically significant complications. FACT: Although genicular nerve RFA is generally considered a safe procedure, cases of septic arthritis, pes anserine tendon injury, third-degree skin burn, and clinically significant hematoma and/or hemarthrosis have been reported. As with any emerging procedure, other yet-to-be-reported complications are possible.

Reopening Interventional Pain Practices during the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Global Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Examine how interventional pain physicians navigated the early phase of reopening practices during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: In June/July 2020, Spine Intervention Society members were queried about practice demographics, perception of COVID-19 prevalence, financial impact, and implementation of new tools and procedures when re-opening practices. RESULTS: Of the 2,295 members approached, 195 (8%) completed the survey. A majority (71%) reported using risk stratification tools and changing scheduling patterns. Nearly 70% performed initial assessments via telehealth and 87% for follow-up encounters. More than 80% performed symptom/temperature checks upon in-person clinic/facility entrance, and 63% screened patients via phone. Most (58%) did not test patients for COVID-19 for office visits, while 38% tested only if symptomatic. For epidural injections, intra-articular injections, and radiofrequency neurotomy procedures, 43% reported not testing patients, while 36% tested patients only if symptomatic. Most (70%) required patients to wear a mask upon entering the clinic/facility. For nonprocedure encounters, respondents used surgical masks (85%), gloves (35%), face shields/goggles (24%), N95 respirators (15%), and gowns (6%). Some (66%) discussed unique COVID-19 risks/complications and 26% provided written information. Most did not make changes to steroid dosage (67%) or peri-procedural anticoagulation management (97%). The vast majority (81%) estimated that COVID-19 will have a moderate-severe financial impact on their practice. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has dramatically affected interventional pain practices with regard to telehealth, in-clinic precautions, screening/testing protocols, and patient counseling. Practice patterns will continue to evolve as we learn more about the disease and improve methods to provide safe and effective care.

Do Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Pain Influence the Efficacy of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines?

MYTH: Corticosteroid injection for the treatment of pain and inflammation is known to decrease the efficacy of the messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). FACT: There is currently no direct evidence to suggest that a corticosteroid injection before or after the administration of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine decreases the efficacy of the vaccine.However, based on the known timeline of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression following epidural and intraarticular corticosteroid injections, and the timeline of the reported peak efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, physicians should consider timing an elective corticosteroid injection such that it is administered no less than 2 weeks prior to a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose and no less than 1 week following a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose, whenever possible.

The Effectiveness of Lumbar Transforaminal Injection of Steroid for the Treatment of Radicular Pain: A Comprehensive Review of the Published Data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of steroid for the treatment of radicular pain. DESIGN: Comprehensive systematic review. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with reduction of pain by ≥50%. Additional outcomes of interest were a more-than-two-point reduction in pain score, patient satisfaction, functional improvement, decreased use of pain medication, and avoidance of spinal surgery. RESULTS: For patients with disc herniations, using the criterion of ≥50% reduction in pain, success rates across included studies (range) were 63% (58-68%) at one month, 74% (68-80%) at three months, 64% (59-69%) at six months, and 64% (57-71%) at one year. For patients with lumbar spinal stenosis, success rates across included studies (range) were 49% (43-55%) at one month, 48% (35-61%) at three months, 43% (33-53%) at six months, and 59% (45-73%) at one year, but there was a lack of corroboration from appropriately controlled studies. CONCLUSIONS: There is strong evidence that lumbar transforaminal injection of steroids is an effective treatment for radicular pain due to disc herniation. There is a lack of high-quality evidence demonstrating their effectiveness for the treatment of radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, though small studies suggest a possible benefit. Lumbar transforaminal injection of nonparticulate steroids is as effective as injections with particulate steroids.

Procedural Pain During Lumbar Medial Branch Blocks With and Without Skin Wheal Anesthesia: A Prospective Comparative Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if skin wheals reduce procedural pain associated with lumbar medial branch blocks (MBBs) performed with 25-gauge needles. DESIGN: Prospective comparative observational study. SETTING: Outpatient Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and interventional pain practice within an academic tertiary care center. SUBJECTS: Ninety-nine consecutive patients who underwent lumbar MBBs for facet pain were included. Patients who were obese or required larger-diameter needles were excluded. METHODS: One to three facet joints were targeted per side, with some patients receiving bilateral procedures. All injections were performed with 25-gauge, 3.5-inch Quincke tip needles under fluoroscopic guidance. A total of 306 needle sticks were recorded. MBBs were performed without skin wheals or any other type of local anesthesia (35 patients, 108 needle sticks), with skin wheals (30 patients, 94 needle sticks), and in mixed groups (34 patients, 47 needle sticks with skin wheals, 57 needle sticks without skin wheals or other type of local anesthesia). Patients rated the pain of each needle placement immediately after the multilevel MBB procedure. RESULTS: Considering all 306 needle sticks, needles that were placed using skin wheals caused slightly more pain than those placed without skin wheals or any other type of local anesthesia (P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Skin wheals do not reduce and may increase procedural pain associated with lumbar MBBs performed with 25-gauge needles.

Risks and Benefits of Ceasing or Continuing Anticoagulant Medication for Image-Guided Procedures for Spine Pain: A Systematic Review.

Objective: To determine the risks of continuing or ceasing anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications prior to image-guided procedures for spine pain. Design: Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Interventions: Following a search of the literature for studies pertaining to spine pain interventions in patients on anticoagulant medication, seven reviewers appraised the studies identified and assessed the quality of evidence presented. Outcome Measures: Evidence was sought regarding risks associated with either continuing or ceasing anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication in patients having image-guided interventional spine procedures. The evidence was evaluated in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Results: From a source of 120 potentially relevant articles, 14 provided applicable evidence. Procedures involving interlaminar access carry a nonzero risk of hemorrhagic complications, regardless of whether anticoagulants are ceased or continued. For other procedures, hemorrhagic complications have not been reported, and case series indicate that they are safe when performed in patients who continue anticoagulants. Three articles reported the adverse effects of ceasing anticoagulants, with serious consequences, including death. Conclusions: Other than for interlaminar procedures, the evidence does not support the view that anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication must be ceased before image-guided spine pain procedures. Meanwhile, the evidence shows that ceasing anticoagulants carries a risk of serious consequences, including death. Guidelines on the use of anticoagulants should reflect these opposing bodies of evidence.

qSOFA Has Poor Sensitivity for Prehospital Identification of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is a common and deadly disease process for which early recognition and intervention can significantly improve clinical outcomes. Despite this, sepsis remains underrecognized and therefore undertreated in the prehospital setting. Recent recommendations by the Society of Critical Care and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine advocate use of the qSOFA (quick Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment) score in non-ICU settings to screen for septic patients at greater risk for poor outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of a prehospital qSOFA score ≥ 2 for prehospital identification of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Emergency Department (ED) patients with confirmed or suspected infection were classified as having infection without sepsis (n = 71), sepsis (n = 38), or severe sepsis/septic shock (n = 43), where designation of severe sepsis/septic shock required evidence of end-organ dysfunction, hypoperfusion (lactate > 2), or vasopressor requirement. RESULTS: We found that a prehospital qSOFA score ≥ 2 was 16.3% sensitive (95% CI 6.8-30.7%) and 97.3% specific (95% CI 92.1-99.4%) for patients ultimately confirmed to have severe sepsis/septic shock in the ED. Adding an additional point to the prehospital qSOFA score for a pulse > 100, nursing home residence, age > 50, or reported fever increased the sensitivity to 58.1% (95% CI 42.1-73.0%) and decreased the specificity to 78.0% (95% CI 69.0-85.4%). During their ED stay, approximately two-thirds of patients meeting severe sepsis/septic shock criteria eventually met qSOFA criteria with a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% CI 51.5-80.9) and specificity of 86.2% (95% CI 78.3-92). Failure to meet qSOFA criteria prehospital was predominantly due to a systolic blood pressure and respiratory rate that did not yet meet predetermined thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the dynamic nature of sepsis can make sensitive detection difficult in the prehospital setting, although combining qSOFA with other clinical information (age, nursing home status, fever, and tachycardia) can identify more patients with sepsis who may benefit from time critical interventions.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Non-Image-Guided Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Review with Comprehensive Analysis of the Published Data.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and risks of non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. DESIGN: Systematic review. INTERVENTIONS: Three reviewers with formal training and certification in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team of seven reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome assessed was pain relief. Other outcomes such as functional improvement, reduction in surgery rate, decreased use of opioids, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence. RESULTS: The searches yielded 92 primary publications addressing non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. The evidence supporting the effectiveness of these injections for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with lumbar radicular pain due to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis is limited. This procedure may provide short-term benefit in the first 3-6 weeks. The small number of case reports on significant risks suggests these injections are relatively safe. In accordance with GRADE, the quality of evidence is very low. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with lumbar radicular pain secondary to disc herniation or neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis, non-image-guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections appear to have clinical effectiveness limited to short-term pain relief. Therefore, in a contemporary medical practice, these procedures should be restricted to the rare settings where fluoroscopy is not available.

Is There a Relationship Between Body Mass Index and Fluoroscopy Time During Sacroiliac Joint Injection? A Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between BMI and fluoroscopy time during intra-articular sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections performed for a pain indication. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three academic, outpatient pain treatment centers. SUBJECTS: Patients who underwent fluoroscopy guided SIJ injection with encounter data regarding fluoroscopy time during the procedure and body mass index (BMI). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Median and 25-75% Interquartile Range (IQR) fluoroscopy time. RESULTS: 459 SIJ injections (350 patients) were included in this study. Patients had a median age of 57 (IQR 44, 70) years, and 72% were female. The median BMI in the normal weight, overweight, and obese groups were 23 (IQR 21, 24), 27 (IQR 26, 29), and 35 (IQR 32, 40), respectively. There was no significant difference in the median fluoroscopy time recorded between these BMI classes (p = 0.45). First-time SIJ injection (p = 0.53), bilateral injection (p = 0.30), trainee involvement (p = 0.47), and new trainee involvement (trainee participation during the first 2 months of the academic year) (p = 0.85) were not associated with increased fluoroscopy time for any of the three BMI categories. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy time during sacroiliac joint injection is not increased in patients who are overweight or obese, regardless of whether a first-time sacroiliac joint injection was performed, bilateral injections were performed, a trainee was involved, or a new trainee was involved.