3. Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints.

INTRODUCTION: Pain originating from the lumbar facets can be defined as pain that arises from the innervated structures comprising the joint: the subchondral bone, synovium, synovial folds, and joint capsule. Reported prevalence rates range from 4.8% to over 50% among patients with mechanical low back pain, with diagnosis heavily dependent on the criteria employed. In well-designed studies, the prevalence is generally between 10% and 20%, increasing with age. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar facet joint pain was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There are no pathognomic signs or symptoms of pain originating from the lumbar facet joints. The most common reported symptom is uni- or bilateral (in more advanced cases) axial low back pain, which often radiates into the upper legs in a non-dermatomal distribution. Most patients report an aching type of pain exacerbated by activity, sometimes with morning stiffness. The diagnostic value of abnormal radiologic findings is poor owing to the low specificity. SPECT can accurately identify joint inflammation and has a predictive value for diagnostic lumbar facet injections. After "red flags" are ruled out, conservatives should be considered. In those unresponsive to conservative therapy with symptoms and physical examination suggesting lumbar facet joint pain, a diagnostic/prognostic medial branch block can be performed which remains the most reliable way to select patients for radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSIONS: Well-selected individuals with chronic low back originating from the facet joints may benefit from lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation.

6. Persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) refers to chronic axial pain and/or extremity pain. Two subtypes have been defined: PSPS-type 1 is chronic pain without previous spinal surgery and PSPS-type 2 is chronic pain, persisting after spine surgery, and is formerly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) or post-laminectomy syndrome. The etiology of PSPS-type 2 can be gleaned using elements from the patient history, physical examination, and additional medical imaging. Origins of persistent pain following spinal surgery may be categorized into an inappropriate procedure (eg a lumbar fusion at an incorrect level or for sacroiliac joint [SIJ] pain); technical failure (eg operation at non-affected levels, retained disk fragment, pseudoarthrosis), biomechanical sequelae of surgery (eg adjacent segment disease or SIJ pain after a fusion to the sacrum, muscle wasting, spinal instability); and complications (eg battered root syndrome, excessive epidural fibrosis, and arachnoiditis), or undetermined. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of PSPS-type 2 was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: There is low-quality evidence for the efficacy of conservative treatments including exercise, rehabilitation, manipulation, and behavioral therapy, and very limited evidence for the pharmacological treatment of PSPS-type 2. Interventional treatments such as pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) of the dorsal root ganglia, epidural adhesiolysis, and spinal endoscopy (epiduroscopy) might be beneficial in patients with PSPS-type 2. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an effective treatment for chronic, intractable neuropathic limb pain, and possibly well-selected candidates with axial pain. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of PSPS-type 2 is based on patient history, clinical examination, and medical imaging. Low-quality evidence exists for conservative interventions. Pulsed radiofrequency, adhesiolysis and SCS have a higher level of evidence with a high safety margin and should be considered as interventional treatment options when conservative treatment fails.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain.

INTRODUCTION: Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized. RESULTS: Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

Long-Term Outcome in Patients With Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A 20-Year Audit of a Single Center.

STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective, observational study. INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has found its application in chronic pain treatment, with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) as one of the most important indications. However, to date, little is known about the long-term effectiveness of the treatment. The aim of this study is to analyze retrospectively the long-term outcomes of SCS treatment in a single multidisciplinary pain center on predominant radicular pain, using devices of a single manufacturer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient data on overall patient satisfaction, pain intensity, and adverse events were retrospectively collected in our clinical practice between January 1998 and January 2018, for 191 patients who received a permanent SCS implant. Secondary health measures included the influence of opioid and nicotine use on pain reduction after therapy. RESULTS: The trial-to-implant ratio was 93.6%. At a mean follow-up of 10.6 years, 78.5% of the patients were satisfied with the treatment outcome, with a significant pain reduction of an average three points on a Numeric Rating Scale. Opioid and nicotine usage did not have a significant link with the pain reduction one year after the treatment. Furthermore, devices had an average battery lifespan of 8.4 years. A total of 248 revisions were recorded. A total of 24 patients (11.7%) acquired an infection; 7 of 204 patients had an infection during the trial period, 2 of 191 patients had an infection in the first postoperative year, and 15 of 191 patients had an infection after the first year. The average time to infection, if not in the first year, was 10.1 years. CONCLUSIONS: A successful long-term outcome regarding pain relief in patients with predominant radicular pain due to FBSS is established with SCS therapy.

2. Cervical radicular pain.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb, caused by irritation or compression of a cervical spine nerve, the roots of the nerve, or both. METHODS: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain was retrieved and summarized. RESULTS: The diagnosis is made by combining elements from the patient's history, physical examination, and supplementary tests. The Spurling and shoulder abduction tests are the two most common examinations used to identify cervical radicular pain. MRI without contrast, CT scanning, and in some cases plain radiography can all be appropriate imaging techniques for nontraumatic cervical radiculopathy. MRI is recommended prior to interventional treatments. Exercise with or without other treatments can be beneficial. There is scant evidence for the use of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and neuropathic pain medications such as gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants for the treatment of radicular pain. Acute and subacute cervical radicular pain may respond well to epidural corticosteroid administration, preferentially using an interlaminar approach. By contrast, for chronic cervical radicular pain, the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid administration is limited. In these patients, pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical radicular pain. There is scant evidence for the use of medication. Epidural corticosteroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. [Correction added on 12 June 2023, after first online publication: The preceding sentence was corrected.].

A retrospective study on patients with chronic knee pain treated with ultrasound-guided radiofrequency of the genicular nerves (RECORGEN trial).

INTRODUCTION: Radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the genicular nerves is a promising treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and persistent postsurgical knee pain (PPSP), refractory to conventional medical management. METHODS: The RECORGEN study is a retrospective single-center cohort study of patients treated with ultrasound-guided conventional RF of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain in Hospital Oost-Limburg, Genk from September 2017 to June 2020. Subgroup analysis based on etiology of pain (PPSP and degenerative knee pain) was performed in addition to the total study population analysis. Outcome parameters were global perceived effect (GPE), Numeric Rating Scale for pain, consumption of strong opioids, and safety of the treatment at 6 weeks and cross-sectionally at a variable time point. Treatment success was defined as GPE≥50%. RESULTS: Sixty-eight cases were screened of which 59 (46 diagnosed with PPSP and 13 with degenerative knee pain) were included in the study. Treatment success at 6 weeks was achieved in 19 of 59 interventions (32.2%) and was similar in both groups. Seventeen responders were evaluated at follow-up. 45.1% (8/17) continued to have a positive effect at the second time point. The mean duration of effect of the RF treatment was 8.3 months. Safety analysis at 6 weeks and at the second time point showed a good safety profile of the treatment. CONCLUSION: Conventional RF of the genicular nerves was clinically successful in more than 30% of the study population refractory to conventional medical management. Overall, the treatment was well tolerated. The mean duration of effect was 8.3 months.

Post-Dural Puncture Headache Evolving to a Subdural Hematoma: A Case Report.

INTRODUCTION: Cervical epidural corticosteroid injections are frequently used for the treatment of subacute cervicobrachial pain. This therapy is considered safe, with the vast majority of the complications being minor and transient. CASE REPORT: We present a case of a woman in her fifties who suffered from cervicobrachialgia and received 2 cervical epidural corticosteroid infiltrations. On day 3 after the second infiltration, a new headache appeared and on day 16 a bilateral subdural hematoma was visualized on CT scan. Complete resorption of the hematoma was seen on day 25 without surgical intervention. DISCUSSION: Up until now, only 1 case report of an intracranial subdural hematoma after a cervical epidural steroid injection has been published. But several cases of an intracranial subdural hematoma after spinal, epidural, or combined spinal and epidural anesthesia have been reported. Physicians should be aware of this potentially dramatic complication since post-dural puncture headache after any type of procedure can evolve into a subdural hematoma. Clinical differentiation between the two can be difficult; post-dural puncture headache is characterized by relief of symptoms in the supine position and photophobia/phonophobia. A subdural hematoma should be considered if the headache changes in character, does not respond to treatment, or there are neurological signs such as nausea/vomiting and blurred vision. Immediate medical imaging should then be performed.

The appropriate management of persisting pain after spine surgery: a European panel study with recommendations based on the RAND/UCLA method.

PURPOSE: Management of patients with persisting pain after spine surgery (PPSS) shows significant variability, and there is limited evidence from clinical studies to support treatment choice in daily practice. This study aimed to develop patient-specific recommendations on the management of PPSS. METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RUAM), an international panel of 6 neurosurgeons, 6 pain specialists, and 6 orthopaedic surgeons assessed the appropriateness of 4 treatment options (conservative, minimally invasive, neurostimulation, and re-operation) for 210 clinical scenarios. These scenarios were unique combinations of patient characteristics considered relevant to treatment choice. Appropriateness had to be expressed on a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate, 9 = extremely appropriate). A treatment was considered appropriate if the median score was ≥ 7 in the absence of disagreement (≥ 1/3 of ratings in each of the opposite sections 1-3 and 7-9). RESULTS: Appropriateness outcomes showed clear and specific patterns. In 48% of the scenarios, exclusively one of the 4 treatments was appropriate. Conservative treatment was usually considered appropriate for patients without clear anatomic abnormalities and for those with new pain differing from the original symptoms. Neurostimulation was considered appropriate in the case of (predominant) neuropathic leg pain in the absence of conditions that may require surgical intervention. Re-operation could be considered for patients with recurrent disc, spinal/foraminal stenosis, or spinal instability. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RUAM, an international multidisciplinary panel established criteria for appropriate treatment choice in patients with PPSS. These may be helpful to educate physicians and to improve consistency and quality of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

"Evidence-Based Interventional Pain Medicine According to Clinical Diagnoses": Update 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Between 2009 and 2011 a series of 26 articles on evidence-based medicine for interventional pain medicine according to clinical diagnoses were published. The high number of publications since the last literature search justified an update. METHODS: For the update an independent 3rd party, specialized in systematic reviews was asked in 2015 to perform the literature search and summarize relevant evidence using Cochrane and GRADE methodology to compile guidelines on interventional pain management. The guideline committee reviewed the information and made a last update on March 1st 2018. The information from new studies published after the research performed by the 3th party and additional observational studies was used to incorporate other factors such as side effects and complications, invasiveness, costs and ethical factors, which influence the ultimate recommendations. RESULTS: For the different indications a total of 113 interventions were evaluated. Twenty-seven (24%) interventions were new compared to the previous guidelines and the recommendation changed for only 3 (2.6%) of the interventions. DISCUSSION: This article summarizes the evolution of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations for the interventional pain treatment options for 28 clinical pain diagnoses.

Safe Use of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections: Recommendations of the WIP Benelux Work Group.

BACKGROUND: Epidural corticosteroid injections are used frequently worldwide in the treatment of radicular pain. Concerns have arisen involving rare major neurologic injuries after this treatment. Recommendations to prevent these complications have been published, but local implementation is not always feasible due to local circumstances, necessitating local recommendations based on literature review. METHODS: A work group of 4 stakeholder pain societies in Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxembourg (Benelux) has reviewed the literature involving neurological complications after epidural corticosteroid injections and possible safety measures to prevent these major neurologic injuries. RESULTS: Twenty-six considerations and recommendations were selected by the work group. These involve the use of imaging, injection equipment particulate and nonparticulate corticosteroids, epidural approach, and maximal volume to be injected. CONCLUSION: Raising awareness about possible neurological complications and adoption of safety measures recommended by the work group aim at reducing the risks for these devastating events.

Pulsed radiofrequency in chronic pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The increasing number of publications on pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of chronic pain reflects the interest for this technique. We summarize the literature for PRF in five indications: radicular pain, trigeminal neuralgia (TN), occipital neuralgia, shoulder and knee pain. RECENT FINDINGS: The efficacy and safety of PRF adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion was documented on cervical and on lumbar level.PRF has been used for the treatment of TN. The observed duration of effect is shorter than that of conventional radiofrequency, but no neurological complications are reported with PRF.PRF of the nervi occipitales is superior to steroid injections in occipital neuralgia.Several studies showed that PRF of the nervus suprascapularis may relief shoulder pain and can improve mobility of the shoulder joint.For the treatment of knee pain, different nerves have been targeted for PRF treatment. SUMMARY: PRF treatment has progressively gained a place in the management of chronic pain syndromes. The concept is appealing because long-lasting effects are reported without complications. Future research is needed with high quality randomized controlled trials and identification of the optimal parameters of PRF in clinical practice.

Predictive Factors for Successful Outcome of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment in Patients with Intractable Lumbosacral Radicular Pain.

BACKGROUND: In a previous prospective study on pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the lumbar dorsal root ganglion (DRG) for patients with chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, we reported success in 55.4% of the patients at 6 months. Identification of predictors for success after PRF may improve outcome. We assessed the predictors of PRF in patients with chronic intractable lumbosacral radicular pain. METHODS: Patients with monosegmental chronic lumbosacral radicular pain of L5 or S1 first received a selective nerve root block at the corresponding level. Independent of the result of this block a PRF treatment at the same level was performed. At 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after the procedure the outcome was evaluated. RESULTS: A positive diagnostic nerve root block and age ≥ 55 were predictive factors for successful outcome at 6 months, while disability was a negative predictor.The use of failed back surgery syndrome, gender, duration of pain, Numerical Rating Scale, level and side of treatment, DN4, and RAND-36 as predictors for success was not supported. CONCLUSIONS: Successful outcome after PRF adjacent to the DRG, in patients with intractable chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, is more likely in patients ≥ 55 years, with limited disability and after a positive diagnostic nerve root block. A combination of all these factors creates a fair predictive value (AUC: 0.73).

Pulsed radiofrequency for chronic intractable lumbosacral radicular pain: a six-month cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is little evidence concerning the medical management of lumbosacral radicular pain. The prognosis for patients suffering pain for more than 3 months is poor. Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) has been suggested as a minimally invasive treatment. We studied the effect on pain and quality of life of PRF treatment of the DRG in patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain. METHODS: Patients with lumbosacral radicular pain were screened to select a homogeneous population. PRF treatment of the DRG was performed at L5 or S1. Evaluation was carried out at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Pain reduction and "fully recovered" or "much improvement," in terms of the global perceived effect, were the primary outcomes. Quality of life (RAND-36), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and the neuropathic pain scales leeds assessment of neuropathic symptoms and signs (LANSS) and DN4 were registered at each time point. Medication use was scored with the Medication Quantification Scale. RESULTS: Out of 461 screened patients, 65 were included. According to the intention to treat analysis, clinical success was achieved in 56.9%, 52.3%, and 55.4% of the patients at respectively 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. DN4, Oswestry Disability Index and physical component for the RAND-36 quality of life improved significantly while the mental component remained unchanged. The number of patients on opioids was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: PRF treatment of the DRG may be considered for patients with chronic, severe lumbosacral radicular pain refractory to conventional medical management.

Cooled versus conventional radiofrequency treatment of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain: 12-month and cost-effectiveness results from the multicenter COCOGEN trial.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the genicular nerves reduces chronic knee pain in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) or persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this study is to compare long-term outcomes of cooled and conventional RF and perform an economic evaluation. METHODS: The COCOGEN trial is a double-blinded, non-inferiority, pilot, randomized controlled trial that compared the effects up to 12 months of cooled and conventional RF in patients with chronic knee pain suffering from OA or PPSP after TKA following a 1:1 randomization rate. Outcomes were knee pain, functionality, quality of life, emotional health, medication use, and adverse events. A trial-based economic evaluation was performed with a 12-month societal perspective. Here, the primary outcome was the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: 41 of the 49 included patients completed the 12-month follow-up. One patient in the PPSP cooled RF group had substantial missing data at 12-month follow-up. The proportion of patients with ≥50% pain reduction at 12 months was 22.2% (4/18) in patients treated with conventional RF versus 22.7% (5/22) in patients treated with cooled RF (p>0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the mean absolute numerical rating scale at 12 months after cooled RF and conventional RF in patients with PPSP (p=0.02). Differences between other outcomes were not statistically significant. The health economic analysis indicated that cooled RF resulted in lower costs and improved QALYs compared with conventional RF in PPSP but not in OA. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Both RF treatments demonstrated in approximately 22% of patients a ≥50% pain reduction at 12 months. In patients with PPSP, contrary to OA, cooled RF seems to be more effective than conventional RF. Additionally, cooled RF has in patients with PPSP, as opposed to OA, greater effectiveness at lower costs compared with conventional RF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03865849.

Considerations on the Obstacles That Lead to Slow Recruitment in a Pain Management Clinical Trial: Experiences from the Belgian PELICAN (PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain) Pragmatic Study.

Background: A qualitative evaluation study of the prematurely terminated PrEgabalin Lidocaine Capsaicin Neuropathic Pain (PELICAN) study was performed. The PELICAN study aimed to examine pain management for localized neuropathic pain (LNP), as epidemiological figures have shown a high percentage of LNP patients in Belgium. The study compared systemic and topical medications according to pain relief, adverse effects, and several measures of quality of life. Objective: Achieving better study patient recruitment through qualitative research. To investigate and determine the causes of the observed recruitment problems in the PELICAN study, pain centers involved in the study as well as nonrecruiting pain centers were included. Furthermore, it aimed to highlight the positive and negative lessons learned from the conducted study and the number of obstacles the team had to overcome. Methods: A qualitative study, using a mixed methods approach, was performed. Multiple pain centers in Belgium completed an online survey, after which a structured interview was conducted to elaborate the responses in more detail. The broad topics of these meetings were feedback about the study, reviewing survey answers, and actions undertaken to enhance recruitment. Results: Different factors contributed to the low recruitment rate in the PELICAN study, such as limited and late referral from the general practitioners to the Belgian pain centers, insufficient internal referrals from nonpain specialists, lack of specific expertise on LNP in some centers, scarcity of staff, limited reimbursement to administer complex analgesic schemes, overestimation of the patient population, and the reluctance of patients to participate in pain research. Additionally, shortcomings in the implemented study design and the need for more logistical investments were identified. Conclusion: The findings of the qualitative study demonstrate the need for further, more varied LNP research in Belgium, not limited to pharmacological studies. It also sheds important light on the recruitment obstacles that may be faced during these studies. Future studies could support this research by offering better proposals for feasibility and recruitment, for instance, by designing and conducting a compelling pilot study or applying social media during the recruitment phase. Clinical Trials. This trial is registered with NCT03348735. EUDRACT number 2018-003617-17.

Comparison of cooled versus conventional radiofrequency treatment of the genicular nerves for chronic knee pain: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized pilot trial (COCOGEN trial).

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) treatment of the genicular nerves has the potential to reduce chronic knee pain due to osteoarthritis or persistent postsurgical pain, however, a direct comparison between the two main modalities used, conventional and cooled, is lacking. METHODS: This double blind, non-inferiority, pilot, randomized controlled trial compared the effects of cooled and conventional RF in chronic knee pain patients suffering from osteoarthritis or persistent postsurgical pain after total knee arthroplasty. Patients were randomized following a 1:1 rate. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with ≥50% pain reduction at 3 months postintervention. Other outcomes were knee pain, functionality, quality of life, emotional health, and adverse events up to 6 months postintervention. Conventional RF treatment was tested for non-inferiority to cooled in reducing knee pain at 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-nine of 70 patients were included, of which 47 completed a 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome was achieved in 4 of 23 patients treated with conventional RF (17%) vs in 8 of 24 with cooled (33%) (p=0,21). Results from the non-inferiority comparison were inconclusive in relation to the non-inferiority margin. There was no statistically significant difference between secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional and cooled RF treatment reduced pain in the osteoarthritis and persistent postsurgical pain population. This pilot study did not demonstrate statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients experiencing ≥50% pain reduction between techniques. The non-inferiority analysis was inconclusive. These results warrant further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03865849.