Showing papers in "Pain Physician in 2012"

Opioid Epidemic in the United States

Abstract: Over the past two decades, as the prevalence of chronic pain and health care costs have exploded, an opioid epidemic with adverse consequences has escalated. Efforts to increase opioid use and a campaign touting the alleged undertreatment of pain continue to be significant factors in the escalation. Many arguments in favor of opioids are based solely on traditions, expert opinion, practical experience and uncontrolled anecdotal observations. Over the past 20 years, the liberalization of laws governing the prescribing of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain by the state medical boards has led to dramatic increases in opioid use. This has evolved into the present stage, with the introduction of new pain management standards by the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) in 2000, an increased awareness of the right to pain relief, the support of various organizations supporting the use of opioids in large doses, and finally, aggressive marketing by the pharmaceutical industry. These positions are based on unsound science and blatant misinformation, and accompanied by the dangerous assumptions that opioids are highly effective and safe, and devoid of adverse events when prescribed by physicians. Results of the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) showed that an estimated 22.6 million, or 8.9% of Americans, aged 12 or older, were current or past month illicit drug users, The survey showed that just behind the 7 million people who had used marijuana, 5.1 million had used pain relievers. It has also been shown that only one in 6 or 17.3% of users of non-therapeutic opioids indicated that they received the drugs through a prescription from one doctor. The escalating use of therapeutic opioids shows hydrocodone topping all prescriptions with 136.7 million prescriptions in 2011, with all narcotic analgesics exceeding 238 million prescriptions. It has also been illustrated that opioid analgesics are now responsible for more deaths than the number of deaths from both suicide and motor vehicle crashes, or deaths from cocaine and heroin combined. A significant relationship exists between sales of opioid pain relievers and deaths. The majority of deaths (60%) occur in patients when they are given prescriptions based on prescribing guidelines by medical boards, with 20% of deaths in low dose opioid therapy of 100 mg of morphine equivalent dose or less per day and 40% in those receiving morphine of over 100 mg per day. In comparison, 40% of deaths occur in individuals abusing the drugs obtained through multiple prescriptions, doctor shopping, and drug diversion. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to describe various aspects of crisis of opioid use in the United States. The obstacles that must be surmounted are primarily inappropriate prescribing patterns, which are largely based on a lack of knowledge, perceived safety, and inaccurate belief of undertreatment of pain.

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines for Responsible Opioid Prescribing in Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: Part 2 - Guidance

Abstract: RESULTS: Part 2 of the guidelines on responsible opioid prescribing provides the following recommendations for initiating and maintaining chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer. 1. A) Comprehensive assessment and documentation is recommended before initiating opioid therapy, including documentation of comprehensive history, general medical condition, psychosocial history, psychiatric status, and substance use history. (Evidence: good) B) Despite limited evidence for reliability and accuracy, screening for opioid use is recommended, as it will identify opioid abusers and reduce opioid abuse. (Evidence: limited) C) Prescription monitoring programs must be implemented, as they provide data on patterns of prescription usage, reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. (Evidence: good to fair) D) Urine drug testing (UDT) must be implemented from initiation along with subsequent adherence monitoring to decrease prescription drug abuse or illicit drug use when patients are in chronic pain management therapy. (Evidence: good) 2. A) Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available prior to initiating opioid therapy. (Evidence: good) B) Caution must be exercised in ordering various imaging and other evaluations, interpretation and communication with the patient, to avoid increased fear, activity restriction, requests for increased opioids, and maladaptive behaviors. (Evidence: good) C) Stratify patients into one of the 3 risk categories - low, medium, or high risk. D) A pain management consultation, may assist non-pain physicians, if high-dose opioid therapy is utilized. (Evidence: fair) 3. Essential to establish medical necessity prior to initiation or maintenance of opioid therapy. (Evidence: good) 4. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: good) 5. A) Long-acting opioids in high doses are recommended only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain that is not amenable to short-acting or moderate doses of long-acting opioids, as there is no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids for their effectiveness or adverse effects. (Evidence: fair) B) The relative and absolute contraindications to opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain must be evaluated including respiratory instability, acute psychiatric instability, uncontrolled suicide risk, active or history of alcohol or substance abuse, confirmed allergy to opioid agents, coadministration of drugs capable of inducing life-limiting drug interaction, concomitant use of benzodiazepines, active diversion of controlled substances, and concomitant use of heavy doses of central nervous system depressants. (Evidence: fair to limited) 6. A robust agreement which is followed by all parties is essential in initiating and maintaining opioid therapy as such agreements reduce overuse, misuse, abuse, and diversion. (Evidence: fair) 7. A) Once medical necessity is established, opioid therapy may be initiated with low doses and short-acting drugs with appropriate monitoring to provide effective relief and avoid side effects. (Evidence: fair for short-term effectiveness, limited for long-term effectiveness) B) Up to 40 mg of morphine equivalent is considered as low dose, 41 to 90 mg of morphine equivalent as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 mg of morphine equivalence as high dose. (Evidence: fair) C) In reference to long-acting opioids, titration must be carried out with caution and overdose and misuse must be avoided. (Evidence: good) 8. A) Methadone is recommended for use in late stages after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in the risks and uses. (Evidence: limited) B) Monitoring recommendation for methadone prescription is that an electrocardiogram should be obtained prior to initiation, at 30 days and yearly thereafter. (Evidence: fair) 9. In order to reduce prescription drug abuse and doctor shopping, adherence monitoring by UDT and PMDPs provide evidence that is essential to the identification of those patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs. (Evidence: fair) 10. Constipation must be closely monitored and a bowel regimen be initiated as soon as deemed necessary. (Evidence: good) 11. Chronic opioid therapy may be continued, with continuous adherence monitoring, in well-selected populations, in conjunction with or after failure of other modalities of treatments with improvement in physical and functional status and minimal adverse effects. (Evidence: fair) DISCLAIMER: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care." Language: en

Prescription Opioid Abuse in Chronic Pain: A Review of Opioid Abuse Predictors and Strategies to Curb Opioid Abuse

Abstract: Both chronic pain and prescription opioid abuse are prevalent and continue to exact a heavy toll on patients, physicians, and society. Individuals with chronic pain and co-occurring substance use disorders and/or mental health disorders, are at a higher risk for misuse of prescribed opioids. Opioid abuse and misuse occurs for a variety of reasons, including self medication, use for reward, compulsive use because of addiction, and diversion for profit. Treatment approaches that balance treating chronic pain while minimizing risks for opioid abuse, misuse, and diversion are much needed. The use of chronic opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain has increased dramatically in the past 2 decades in conjunction with a marked increase in the abuse of prescribed opioids and accidental opioid overdoses. Consequently, a validated screening instrument that provides an effective and rational method of selecting patients for opioid therapy, predicting risk, and identifying problems once they arise could be of enormous benefit. Such an instrument could potentially curb the risk of iatrogenic addiction. Although several screening instruments and strategies have been introduced in the past decade, there is no single test or instrument that can reliably and accurately predict patients who are not suitable for opioid therapy or identify those who need increased vigilance or monitoring during therapy. At present screening for opioid abuse includes assessment of premorbid and comorbid substance abuse; assessment of aberrant drug-related behaviors; risk factor stratification; and utilization of opioid screening tools. Multiple opioid assessment screening tools and instruments have been developed by various authors. In addition, urine drug testing, monitoring of prescribing practices, prescription monitoring programs, opioid treatment agreements, and utilization of universal precautions are essential. Presently, a combination of strategies is recommended to stratify risk, identify and understand aberrant drug related behaviors, and tailor treatments accordingly. This manuscript will review the current state of knowledge regarding the growing problem of opioid abuse and misuse; known risk factors; and methods of predicting, assessing, monitoring, and addressing opioid abuse and misuse in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Dysfunctional Endogenous Analgesia During Exercise in Patients with Chronic Pain: To Exercise or Not to Exercise?

Abstract: Background Exercise is an effective treatment for various chronic pain disorders, including fibromyalgia, chronic neck pain, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic low back pain. Although the clinical benefits of exercise therapy in these populations are well established (i.e. evidence based), it is currently unclear whether exercise has positive effects on the processes involved in chronic pain (e.g. central pain modulation). Objectives Reviewing the available evidence addressing the effects of exercise on central pain modulation in patients with chronic pain. Methods Narrative review. Results Exercise activates endogenous analgesia in healthy individuals. The increased pain threshold following exercise is due to the release of endogenous opioids and activation of (supra)spinal nociceptive inhibitory mechanisms orchestrated by the brain. Exercise triggers the release of beta-endorphins from the pituitary (peripherally) and the hypothalamus (centrally), which in turn enables analgesic effects by activating μ-opioid receptors peripherally and centrally, respectively. The hypothalamus, through its projections on the periaqueductal grey, has the capacity to activate descending nociceptive inhibitory mechanisms. However, several groups have shown dysfunctioning of endogenous analgesia in response to exercise in patients with chronic pain. Muscle contractions activate generalized endogenous analgesia in healthy, pain-free humans and patients with either osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, but result in increased generalised pain sensitivity in fibromyalgia patients. In patients having local muscular pain (e.g. shoulder myalgia), exercising non-painful muscles activates generalized endogenous analgesia. However, exercising painful muscles does not change pain sensitivity either in the exercising muscle or at distant locations. Limitations The reviewed studies examined acute effects of exercise rather than long-term effects of exercise therapy. Conclusions A dysfunctional response of patients with chronic pain and aberrations in central pain modulation to exercise has been shown, indicating that exercise therapy should be individually tailored with emphasis on prevention of symptom flares. The paper discusses the translation of these findings to rehabilitation practice together with future research avenues.

Prescription opioid related misuse, harms, diversion and interventions in Canada: a review.

Abstract: Background The non-medical use of and harms related to prescription opioid (PO) analgesics - key medications to treat severe and chronic pain - are an emerging public health concern globally. PO use is proportionally highest in North America, where, consequently, nonmedical PO use (NMPOU) and morbidity/mortality are high and well documented for the United States. Canada is the country with the second highest PO consumption rate in the world - with steeper recent increases in PO use than the US - mainly driven by substantial increases in the use of strong opioids (e.g., oxycodone). Indications and select data of NMPOU and PO-related morbidity and mortality have emerged in recent years, yet a systematic and comprehensive collection of relevant data to characterize the phenomenon in Canada does not exist. Objectives This paper comprehensively reviews the available data in Canada regarding NMPOU, and PO-related harms, diversion, and interventions, and discusses implications for interventions and policy. Study design Narrative literature/data review. Setting Canada. Methods Publicly available data and information - either from journal publications, "grey literature" (e.g., government/technical reports) or Web sites reporting relevant data on Canada - were searched and narratively reviewed. Results Indicators on NMPOU and PO-related harms in Canada are highly fragmented, and not nearly as systematic and comprehensive as they are in the US; virtually no national statistics/data are collected. Available -largely provincial/local - data indicate that PO misuse is increasingly common in key populations, including general adult and student populations, street-drug users, First Nations/Aboriginal Peoples, and correctional populations. Co-morbidities - e.g., pain, mental health problems, polysubstance use - among people reporting NMPOU appear to be high. Substance use treatment admissions for those with problematic PO use have risen substantially where reported. Opioid-related mortality (and oxycodone-related mortality, specifically) have increased considerably in Ontario where relevant data from the mid-1990s onward have been examined. In Canadian populations reporting NMPOU, sourcing of POs occurs through various diversion routes, including from family/friends, "double-doctoring," or street drug markets. In addition, losses and theft/robberies from pharmacies and licensed medications dealers appear to be on the rise. Finally, interventions (i.e., provincial PO guidelines, prescription monitoring programs, substance use treatment services) are fragmented and inconsistently applied throughout the country, and currently fail to effectively address the growing problem of NMPOU and PO-related harms across Canada. Limitations This review did not rely on systematic review methodologies. Conclusion Corresponding to its increasing and high overall PO consumption levels, NMPOU and PO-related harms in Canada are high based on available data, and likely now constitute the third highest level of substance use burden of disease (after alcohol and tobacco). The data and monitoring situation in Canada regarding NMPOU and PO-related harms are fragmented, un-systematic, and insufficient. While major and concerted policy initiatives - primarily from the federal level - are absent to date, these urgently require vastly improved national data indicators and monitoring in order to allow for and evaluate evidence-based interventions on this urgent and extensive public health problem.

Effectiveness of therapeutic lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar spinal pain.

Abstract: Background Among the multiple interventions used in managing chronic spinal pain, lumbar epidural injections have been used extensively to treat lumbar radicular pain. Among caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal, transforaminal epidural injections have gained rapid and widespread acceptance for the treatment of lumbar and lower extremity pain. The potential advantages of transforaminal over interlaminar and caudal, include targeted delivery of a steroid to the site of pathology, presumably onto an inflamed nerve root. However, there are only a few well-designed, randomized, controlled studies on the effectiveness of steroid injections. Consequently, multiple systematic reviews with diverse opinions have been published. Study design A systematic review of therapeutic transforaminal epidural injection therapy for low back and lower extremity pain. Objective To evaluate the effect of therapeutic transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections in managing low back and lower extremity pain. Methods The available literature on lumbar transforaminal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome measures The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results For this systematic review, 70 studies were identified. Of these, 43 studies were excluded and a total of 27 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 15 randomized trials (with 2 duplicate publications) and 10 non-randomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for transforaminal epidural with local anesthetic and steroids, whereas it was fair for local anesthetics alone and the ability of transforaminal epidural injections to prevent surgery. For spinal stenosis, the available evidence is fair for local anesthetic and steroids. The evidence for axial low back pain and post lumbar surgery syndrome is poor, inadequate, limited, or unavailable. Limitations The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. Conclusion In summary, the evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids and fair with local anesthetic only; it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids; and limited for axial pain and post surgery syndrome using local anesthetic with or without steroids.

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain

Abstract: BACKGROUND Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since the 1990 s. As documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, available evidence suggests a wide variance in chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer in chronic non-cancer pain. Part 1 describes evidence assessment. OBJECTIVES The objectives of opioid guidelines as issued by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to produce consistency in the application of an opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion. The focus of these guidelines is to curtail the abuse of opioids without jeopardizing non-cancer pain management with opioids. RESULTS 1) There is good evidence that non-medical use of opioids is extensive; one-third of chronic pain patients may not use prescribed opioids as prescribed or may abuse them, and illicit drug use is significantly higher in these patients. 2) There is good evidence that opioid prescriptions are increasing rapidly, as the majority of prescriptions are from non-pain physicians, many patients are on long-acting opioids, and many patients are provided with combinations of long-acting and short-acting opioids. 3) There is good evidence that the increased supply of opioids, use of high dose opioids, doctor shoppers, and patients with multiple comorbid factors contribute to the majority of the fatalities. 4) There is fair evidence that long-acting opioids and a combination of long-acting and short-acting opioids contribute to increasing fatalities and that even low-doses of 40 mg or 50 mg of daily morphine equivalent doses may be responsible for emergency room admissions with overdoses and deaths. 5) There is good evidence that approximately 60% of fatalities originate from opioids prescribed within the guidelines, with approximately 40% of fatalities occurring in 10% of drug abusers. 6) The short-term effectiveness of opioids is fair, whereas the long-term effectiveness of opioids is limited due to a lack of long-term (> 3 months) high quality studies, with fair evidence with no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids. 7) Among the individual drugs, most opioids have fair evidence for short-term and limited evidence for long-term due to a lack of quality studies. 8) The evidence for the effectiveness and safety of chronic opioid therapy in the elderly for chronic non-cancer pain is fair for short-term and limited for long-term due to lack of high quality studies; limited in children and adolescents and patients with comorbid psychological disorders due to lack of quality studies; and the evidence is poor in pregnant women. 9) There is limited evidence for reliability and accuracy of screening tests for opioid abuse due to lack of high quality studies. 10) There is fair evidence to support the identification of patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs through urine drug testing and prescription drug monitoring programs, both of which can reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. DISCLAIMER The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a \"standard of care.\

A systematic evaluation of prevalence and diagnostic accuracy of sacroiliac joint interventions.

Abstract: Background The contributions of the sacroiliac joint to low back and lower extremity pain have been a subject of considerable debate and research. It is generally accepted that 10% to 25% of patients with persistent mechanical low back pain below L5 have pain secondary to sacroiliac joint pathology. However, no single historical, physical exam, or radiological feature can definitively establish a diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain. Based on present knowledge, a proper diagnosis can only be made using controlled diagnostic blocks. The diagnosis and treatment of sacroiliac joint pain continue to be characterized by wide variability and a paucity of the literature. Objective To evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic sacroiliac joint interventions. Study design A systematic review of diagnostic sacroiliac joint interventions. Methods Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome measures In this evaluation we utilized controlled local anesthetic blocks using at least 50% pain relief as the reference standard. Results The evidence is good for the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. The prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated to range between 10% and 62% based on the setting; however, the majority of analyzed studies suggest a point prevalence of around 25%, with a false-positive rate for uncontrolled blocks of approximately 20%. The evidence for provocative testing to diagnose sacroiliac joint pain was fair. The evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of imaging is limited. Limitations The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature, variations in technique, and variable criterion standards for the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, the evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of sacroiliac joint injections is good, the evidence for provocation maneuvers is fair, and evidence for imaging is limited.

The effectiveness of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain

Abstract: Background Intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc degeneration without disc herniation, and post lumbar surgery syndrome are the most common diagnoses of chronic persistent low back and lower extremity symptoms, resulting in significant economic, societal, and health care impact. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back pain. However the evidence is highly variable among different techniques utilized - namely interlaminar, caudal, and transforaminal - and for various conditions, namely - intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Multiple systematic reviews conducted in the evaluation of the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural injections have been marred with controversy. Consequently, the debate continues with regards to the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of interlaminar epidural injections. Study design A systematic review of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids. Objective To evaluate the effect of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back and lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods The available literature on lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome measures The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results Overall, 82 lumbar interlaminar trials were identified. All non-randomized studies without fluoroscopy and randomized trials not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Overall, 15 randomized trials and 11 non-randomized studies were included in the analysis. Analysis was derived mainly from fluoroscopically-guided randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids, with fluoroscopically-guided epidural injections. Limitations The limitations of this study include that we were unable to perform meta-analysis for disc herniation, and the paucity of evidence for discogenic pain and spinal stenosis. Further, methodological criteria have been highly variable along with sample sizes. The studies were heterogenous. Conclusion The evidence based on this systematic review is good for lumbar epidural injections under fluoroscopy for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetic and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids.

Caudal epidural injections in the management of chronic low back pain: a systematic appraisal of the literature.

Abstract: Background Epidural injections with local anesthetics and steroids are one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back pain and lower extremity pain of various causes. However, despite their extensive use, debate continues on their effectiveness due to the lack of well-designed, randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections in general, and caudal epidural injections in particular. Study design A systematic review of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Objective To evaluate the effect of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods The available literature on caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for fluoroscopic observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome measures The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were utilized. Results For this systematic review, 73 studies were identified. Of these, 51 were excluded and a total of 16 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 11 randomized trials and 5 non-randomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. In managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome, the indicated evidence is fair. Limitations The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, specifically for chronic pain without disc herniation. Conclusion There was good evidence for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. Further, this systematic review also provided indicated evidence of fair for caudal epidural injections in managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome.

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain: Part I--evidence assessment.

Abstract: Background Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since the 1990 s. As documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, available evidence suggests a wide variance in chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer in chronic non-cancer pain. Part 1 describes evidence assessment. Objectives The objectives of opioid guidelines as issued by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to produce consistency in the application of an opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion. The focus of these guidelines is to curtail the abuse of opioids without jeopardizing non-cancer pain management with opioids. Results 1) There is good evidence that non-medical use of opioids is extensive; one-third of chronic pain patients may not use prescribed opioids as prescribed or may abuse them, and illicit drug use is significantly higher in these patients. 2) There is good evidence that opioid prescriptions are increasing rapidly, as the majority of prescriptions are from non-pain physicians, many patients are on long-acting opioids, and many patients are provided with combinations of long-acting and short-acting opioids. 3) There is good evidence that the increased supply of opioids, use of high dose opioids, doctor shoppers, and patients with multiple comorbid factors contribute to the majority of the fatalities. 4) There is fair evidence that long-acting opioids and a combination of long-acting and short-acting opioids contribute to increasing fatalities and that even low-doses of 40 mg or 50 mg of daily morphine equivalent doses may be responsible for emergency room admissions with overdoses and deaths. 5) There is good evidence that approximately 60% of fatalities originate from opioids prescribed within the guidelines, with approximately 40% of fatalities occurring in 10% of drug abusers. 6) The short-term effectiveness of opioids is fair, whereas the long-term effectiveness of opioids is limited due to a lack of long-term (> 3 months) high quality studies, with fair evidence with no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids. 7) Among the individual drugs, most opioids have fair evidence for short-term and limited evidence for long-term due to a lack of quality studies. 8) The evidence for the effectiveness and safety of chronic opioid therapy in the elderly for chronic non-cancer pain is fair for short-term and limited for long-term due to lack of high quality studies; limited in children and adolescents and patients with comorbid psychological disorders due to lack of quality studies; and the evidence is poor in pregnant women. 9) There is limited evidence for reliability and accuracy of screening tests for opioid abuse due to lack of high quality studies. 10) There is fair evidence to support the identification of patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs through urine drug testing and prescription drug monitoring programs, both of which can reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. Disclaimer The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

A Prospective Evaluation of Complications of 10,000 Fluoroscopically Directed Epidural Injections

Abstract: Background Among the multiple modalities of treatments available in managing chronic spinal pain, including surgery and multiple interventional techniques, epidural injections by various routes, such as interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, and percutaneous adhesiolysis are common. Even though the complications of fluoroscopically directed epidural injections are fewer than blind epidural injections, and have better effectiveness, multiple complications have been reported in scattered case reports, with only minor complications in randomized or non-randomized studies and systematic reviews. Thus, prospective studies with large patient series are essential to determine the types and incidences of complications. Study design A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. Setting A private interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives To assess the complication rate of fluoroscopically directed epidural injections. Methods This study was carried out over a period of 20 months and included over 10,000 procedures: 39% caudal epidurals, 23% cervical interlaminar epidurals, 14% lumbar interlaminar epidurals, 13% lumbar transforaminal epidurals, 8% percutaneous adhesiolysis, and 3% thoracic interlaminar epidural procedures. All of the interventions were performed under fluoroscopic guidance in an ambulatory surgery center by one of 3 physicians. The complications encountered during the procedure and postoperatively were prospectively evaluated. Outcomes assessment Measurable outcomes employed were intravascular entry of the needle, profuse bleeding, local hematoma, bruising, dural puncture and headache, nerve root or spinal cord irritation with resultant injury, infectious complications, vasovagal reactions, and facial flushing. Results Intravascular entry was higher for adhesiolysis (11.6%) and lumbar transforaminal (7.9%) procedures compared to other epidurals which ranged from 0.5% for lumbar, 3.1% for caudal, 4% for thoracic, and 4.1% for cervical epidurals. Dural puncture was observed in a total of 0.5% of the procedures with 1% in the cervical region, 1.3% in the thoracic region, 0.8% with lumbar interlaminar epidurals, and 1.8% with adhesiolysis. Limitations Limitations of this study include a single-center study even though it included a large number of patients. Conclusion This study illustrates that major complications are rare and minor side effects are common.

Ozone Therapy as a Treatment for Low Back Pain Secondary to Herniated Disc: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract: Background Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common and important health problems affecting the population worldwide and remains mostly unsolved. Ozone therapy has emerged as an additional treatment method. Questions persist concerning its clinical efficacy. Objective The purpose of our study was to evaluate the therapeutic results of percutaneous injection of ozone for low back pain secondary to disc herniation. Study design A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted using all electronic databases from 1966 through September 2011. The quality of individual articles was assessed based on the modified Cochrane review criteria for randomized trials and criteria from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Outcome parameters The outcome measure was short-term pain relief of at least 6 months or long-term pain relief of more than 6 months. Results Eight observational studies were included in the systematic review and 4 randomized trials in the meta-analysis. The indicated level of evidence for long-term pain relief was II-3 for ozone therapy applied intradiscally and II-1 for ozone therapy applied paravertebrally. The grading of recommendation was 1C for intradiscal ozone therapy and 1B for paravertebral ozone therapy. Limitations The main limitations of this review are the lack of precise diagnosis and the frequent use of mixed therapeutic agents. The meta-analysis included mainly active-control trials. No placebo-controlled trial was found. Conclusions Ozone therapy appears to yield positive results and low morbidity rates when applied percutaneously for the treatment of chronic low back pain.

Sensor-driven position-adaptive spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Variation in the intensity of neurostimulation due to body position is a practical problem for many patients implanted with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems because positional changes may result in overstimulation or understimulation that leads to frequent need for compensatory manual programming adjustments. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of a novel type of SCS therapy designed to automatically adapt stimulation amplitude in response to changes in a patient's position or activity.The primary objective of the study was to demonstrate that automatic position adaptive SCS benefited patients in terms of pain relief and/or convenience compared with neurostimulation adjusted with conventional manual programming. Secondary objectives included assessment of worsened pain relief with automatic adjustment; change in pain score; and the number of manual programming adjustments with position-adaptive neurostimulation compared with manual programming. STUDY DESIGN Prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized crossover study. SETTING Ten interventional pain management centers in the US. METHODS Patients were enrolled a minimum of one week after a successful SCS screening trial. They were then implanted with the RestoreSensor neurostimulation device (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) that could be programmed to either automatic position-adaptive stimulation (AdaptiveStim) or manual adjustment of stimulation parameters. After implant, all devices were programmed to conventional manual adjustment for a 4-week postoperative period. The patients were then randomized to either conventional manual programming adjustment or position-adaptive stimulation with crossover to the opposite treatment arm occurring at 6 weeks after randomization. The patients were followed for another 6 weeks after crossover. This study was conducted under an FDA-approved Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and approval of the responsible Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of the study centers. RESULTS Seventy-nine patients were enrolled in the study. In an intent-to-treat analysis, 86.5% of patients achieved the primary objective of improved pain relief with no loss of convenience or improved convenience with no loss of pain relief using automatic position-adaptive stimulation compared with using conventional manual programming adjustment alone. This was statistically significantly greater than the predefined minimum success rate of 25%, p < 0.001 (exact one-sided 97.5% lower confidence limit was 76.5%). Only 2.8% of patients reported worsened pain relief during position-adaptive stimulation compared with manual programming. There was a statistically significant reduction in the mean numeric pain rating scale score compared with baseline scores in both treatment arms. Additionally, position-adaptive stimulation demonstrated a statistically significant 41% reduction in the daily average number of programming button presses for amplitude adjustment compared with manual programming (18.2 per day versus 30.7 per day, P = 0.002). Functional improvements reported with position-adaptive stimulation included: improved comfort during position changes (80.3%); improved activity (69%); and improved sleep (47.9%). Adverse events associated with uncomfortable sensations from stimulation did not differ significantly between treatment arms. The incidence of device-related serious adverse events was 3.9%. LIMITATIONS Patients and physicians were not blinded to whether devices were programmed to automatic position-adaptive stimulation or manual adjustment. Responses to assessment questionnaires were based on patient recall. CONCLUSIONS The study demonstrated that automatic position-adaptive stimulation is safe and effective in providing benefits in terms of patient-reported improved pain relief and convenience compared with using manual programming adjustment alone. CLINICAL TRIAL NCT01106404.

Results of 2-year follow-up of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of fluoroscopic caudal epidural injections in central spinal stenosis.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common causes of low back pain among older adults and can cause significant disability. Despite its prevalence, there is a paucity of literature concerning the treatment of spinal stenosis symptoms. Multiple interventions, including surgery and interventional techniques such as epidural injections and adhesiolysis, are commonly utilized in managing pain related to central spinal stenosis. However, there is a paucity of literature from randomized, controlled trials about the effectiveness of epidural injections for lumbar central spinal stenosis. OBJECTIVE This study sought to assess the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief for the management of chronic low back pain related to lumbar central stenosis. STUDY DESIGN A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. METHODS One hundred patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, with Group I patients receiving caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid, 6 mg (non-particulate betamethasone). OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT Multiple outcome measures, including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake were utilized. Assessments were carried out at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months posttreatment. The primary outcome was defined as pain relief and improvement in disability scores of 50% or more. Successful treatment was considered as at least 3 weeks of relief following the first 2 injections, categorizing these patients into a successful group, and others into a failed group. RESULTS Significant pain relief and functional status improvement were seen in 51% in Group I and 57% in Group II at the end of 2 years in the successful group when the participants were separated into successful and failed groups. However, overall, significant pain relief and functional status improvement (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 38% in Group I and 44% in Group II at the end of 2 years. The overall number of procedures for 2 years were 4 in both groups, with 5 procedures on average in the successful groups, and approximately 60 weeks of relief in Group I and 54 weeks of relief in Group II at 2 years in the successful group. CONCLUSION Caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids provide relief in a modest proportion of patients undergoing the treatment and may be considered as an effective treatment for a select group of patients who have chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain secondary to central spinal stenosis.

Guidelines warfare over interventional techniques: is there a lack of discourse or straw man?

Abstract: Guideline development seems to have lost some of its grounding as a medical science. At their best, guidelines should be a constructive response to assist practicing physicians in applying the exponentially expanding body of medical knowledge. In fact, guideline development seems to be evolving into a cottage industry with multiple, frequently discordant guidance on the same subject. Evidence Based Medicine does not always provide for conclusive opinions. With competing interests of payers, practitioners, health policy makers, and third parties benefiting from development of the guidelines as cost saving measures, guideline preparation has been described as based on pre-possession, vagary, rationalization, or congeniality of conclusion. Beyond legitimate differences in opinions regarding the evidence that could yield different guidelines there are potentials for conflicts of interest and various other issues play a major role in guideline development. As is always the case, conflicts of interest in guideline preparation must be evaluated and considered. Following the development of American Pain Society (APS) guidelines there has been an uproar in interventional pain management communities on various issues related to not only the evidence synthesis, but conflicts of interest. A recent manuscript published by Chou et al, in addition to previous publications, appears to have limited clinician involvement in the development of APS guidelines, and demonstrates some of these challenges clearly. This manuscript illustrates the deficiencies of Chou et al's criticisms, and demonstrates their significant conflicts of interest, and use a lack of appropriate evaluations in interventional pain management as a straw man to support their argument. Further, this review will attempt to demonstrate that excessive focus on this straw man has inhibited critique of what we believe to be flaws in the approach.

Opioid-induced androgen deficiency (OPIAD).

Abstract: Opioid therapy is one of the most effective forms of analgesia currently in use. In the past few decades, the use of opioids as a long-term treatment for chronic pain has increased dramatically. Accompanying this upsurge in the use of long-term opioid therapy has been an increase in the occurrence of opioid associated endocrinopathy, most commonly manifested as an androgen deficiency and therefore referred to as opioid associated androgen deficiency (OPIAD). This syndrome is characterized by the presence of inappropriately low levels of gonadotropins (follicle stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone) leading to inadequate production of sex hormones, particularly testosterone. Symptoms that may manifest in patients with OPIAD include reduced libido, erectile dysfunction, fatigue, hot flashes, and depression. Physical findings may include reduced facial and body hair, anemia, decreased muscle mass, weight gain, and osteopenia or osteoporosis. Additionally, both men and women with OPIAD may suffer from infertility. While the literature regarding OPIAD remains limited, it is apparent that OPIAD is becoming increasingly prevalent among chronic opioid consumers but often goes unrecognized. OPIAD can have a significant negative impact on the the quality of life of opioid users, and clinicians should anticipate the potential for its occurrence whenever long-term opioid prescribing is undertaken. Once diagnosed, treatment for OPIAD may be offered utilizing a number of androgen replacement therapy options including a variety of testosterone preparations and, for female patients with OPIAD, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation. Follow-up evaluation of patients receiving androgen replacement therapy should include a review of any unresolved symptoms of hypogonadism, laboratory evaluation, and surveillance for potential adverse effects of androgen replacement therapy including prostate disease in males.:

Effect of fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural steroid or local anesthetic injections in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation and radiculitis: a randomized, controlled, double blind trial with a two-year follow-up.

Abstract: Background Lumbar disc herniation and radiculitis are common elements of low back and lower extremity pain. Among minimally invasive treatments, epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions. However, the literature is mixed about their effectiveness in managing low back and lower extremity pain. In general, individual studies and systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections have been hampered by their study design, baseline differences between treatment groups, inadequate sample sizes, highly controlled settings, lack of validated outcome measures, and the inability to confirm the injectate location because fluoroscopy was not used. Study design A randomized, controlled, double blind, active control trial. Setting A private, interventional pain management practice, specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of fluoroscopically directed caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis. Methods One hundred twenty patients were randomized to two groups: Group I received 10 mL caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic, lidocaine 0.5%; Group II patients received caudal epidural injections of 0.5% lidocaine, 9 mL, mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Outcome assessment Multiple outcome measures were utilized. The primary outcome measures were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were employment status and opioid intake. Significant pain relief improvement was defined as 50% or more improvement in NRS and ODI scores. Results In the successful category, 77% of Group I had significant pain relief of >/= 50% and functional status improvement of >/= 50% reduction in ODI scores; in Group II it was 76%, whereas overall it was 60% and 65% in Groups I and II. Over the two years, Group I had an average number of procedures of 5.5 ± 2.8; Group II was 5.3 ± 2.4. Even though there was no significant difference in overall relief between the two groups, the average relief for each procedure was superior for steroids. Limitations Presumed limitations of this evaluation include lack of a placebo group. Conclusion Caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids might be an effective therapy for patients with disc herniation or radiculitis. The present evidence illustrates the potential superiority of steroids compared with local anesthetic at two year follow up based on average relief per procedure. Trial registration NCT00370799.

Effectiveness of cervical epidural injections in the management of chronic neck and upper extremity pain

Abstract: Background Chronic persistent neck pain with or without upper extremity pain is common in the general adult population with prevalence of 48% for women and 38% for men, with persistent complaints in 22% of women and 16% of men. Multiple modalities of treatments are exploding in managing chronic neck pain along with increasing prevalence. However, there is a paucity of evidence for all modalities of treatments in managing chronic neck pain. Cervical epidural injections for managing chronic neck pain are one of the commonly performed interventions in the United States. However, the literature supporting cervical epidural steroids in managing chronic pain problems has been scant. Study design A systematic review of cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation, cervical axial discogenic pain, cervical central stenosis, and cervical postsurgery syndrome. Objective To evaluate the effect of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing various types of chronic neck and upper extremity pain emanating as a result of cervical spine pathology. Methods The available literature on cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain were reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome measures The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results For this systematic review, 34 studies were identified. Of these, 24 studies were excluded and a total of 9 randomized trials, with 2 duplicate studies, met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment. For cervical disc herniation, the evidence is good for cervical epidural with local anesthetic and steroids; whereas, it was fair with local anesthetic only. For axial or discogenic pain, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids. For spinal stenosis, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids. For postsurgery syndrome, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids. Limitations The limitations of this systematic review continue to be the paucity of literature. Conclusion The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas, it is fair for local anesthetics with or without steroids, for axial or discogenic pain, pain of central spinal stenosis, and pain of post surgery syndrome.

Urine drug testing: current recommendations and best practices.

Abstract: Background: The precise role of urine drug testing (UDT) in the practice of pain medicine is currently being defined. Confusion exists as to best practices, and even to what constitutes standard of care. A member survey by our state pain society revealed variability in practice and a lack of consensus. Objective: The authors sought to further clarify the importance of routine UDT as an important part of an overall treatment plan that includes chronic opioid prescribing. Further, we wish to clarify best practices based on consensus and data where available. Methods: A 20-item membership survey was sent to Texas Pain Society members. A group of chronic pain experts from the Texas Pain Society undertook an effort to review the best practices in the literature. The rationale for current UDT practices is clarified, with risk management strategies outlined, and recommendations for UDT outlined in detail. A detailed insight into the limitations of point-of-care (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, test cups, test strips) versus the more sensitive and specific laboratory methods is provided.

A systematic evaluation of the therapeutic effectiveness of sacroiliac joint interventions.

Abstract: Background The contribution of the sacroiliac joint to low back and lower extremity pain has been a subject of debate with extensive research. It is generally accepted that approximately 10% to 25% of patients with persistent low back pain may have pain arising from the sacroiliac joints. In spite of this, there are currently no definite conservative, interventional, or surgical management options for managing sacroiliac joint pain. In addition, there continue to be significant variations in the application of various techniques as well as a paucity of literature. Study design A systematic review of therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions. Objective To evaluate the accuracy of therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions. Methods The available literature on therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for randomized trials of interventional techniques and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through December 2011 that was identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome measures The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results For this systematic review, 56 studies were considered for inclusion. Of these, 45 studies were excluded and a total of 11 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 6 randomized trials and 5 non-randomized studies. The evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy in managing sacroiliac joint pain is fair.The evidence for effectiveness of intraarticular steroid injections is poor.The evidence for periarticular injections of local anesthetic and steroid or botulinum toxin is poor. The evidence for effectiveness of conventional radiofrequency neurotomy is poor.The evidence for pulsed radiofrequency is poor. Limitations The limitations of this systematic review include a paucity of literature on therapeutic interventions, variations in technique, and variable diagnostic standards for sacroiliac joint pain. Conclusions The evidence was fair in favor of cooled radiofrequency neurotomy and poor for short-term and long-term relief from intraarticular steroid injections, periarticular injections with steroids or botulin toxin, pulsed radiofrequency, and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy.

Lumbar interlaminar epidural injections in central spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Chronic, persistent low back and lower extremity pain is often caused by spinal stenosis. Surgery and other interventions, including epidural injections, have been used to relieve this pain. However, there is little in the medical literature to support interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections under fluoroscopy for managing lumbar pain of central spinal stenosis, while the caudal epidural approach has been studied. STUDY DESIGN A randomized, double-blind, active, control trial. SETTING A private, interventional pain management practice, specialty referral center in the United States. OBJECTIVE This study sought to determine if low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar central stenosis can be managed and long-lasting pain relief can be achieved with interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic, with or without steroids. METHODS The study comprised 2 groups: one that received local anesthetic only and another received local anesthetic combined with nonparticulate betamethasone. A total of 120 patients were randomized by a computer-generated random allocations sequence to one of the 2 groups. The results of 30 patients in each group were assessed. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT Sixty patients were included in this analysis. Outcomes measurements were taken at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Measurements taken were Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status and opioid intake. A decrease in both the NRS and ODI of >/= 50% was considered significant. RESULTS Significant pain relief and improvement in ODI scores were seen in both groups at 12 months. Group I's significant pain relief was 70%; Group II's was 63%. The significant ODI improvement in Group I was 70%; in Group II it was 60%. Group I patients on average received 3.8 procedures a year; Group II patients received 4.0 procedures a year in successful group. Over 52 weeks in the successful group, total relief for Group I was 40.8 ± 11.7 weeks; for Group II it was 37.1 ± 12.6 weeks. Combined pain relief and functional status improvement were seen in 80% of patients in Group I and 72% in Group II in successful group. LIMITATIONS The lack of a placebo group and preliminary results are limitations. CONCLUSION Patients might benefit from receiving lumbar interlaminar injections with or without steroids for lumbar central spinal stenosis. CLINICAL TRIAL NCT00681447.

Utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population: analysis of growth patterns from 2000 to 2011.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Reports from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) continue to express significant concern with the overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and the exponential increase in costs for chronic pain management. STUDY DESIGN The study is an analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques in chronic pain management. METHODS The study was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Data from 2000 to 2011. RESULTS Interventional techniques for chronic pain have increased dramatically from 2000 to 2011. Overall, the increase of interventional pain management (IPM) procedures from 2000 to 2011 went up 228%, with 177% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with a total increase of 386% and 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, followed by 168% and 127% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, 150% and 111% for other types of nerve blocks and finally, 28% and 8% increases for percutaneous disc procedures. The geometric average of annual increases was 9.7% overall with 13.7% for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks and 7.7% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures. LIMITATIONS The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, as well as potential documentation, coding, and billing errors. CONCLUSION Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Overall, there was an increase of 177% in the utilization of IPM services per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, with an annual geometric average increase of 9.7%. The study also showed an exponential increase in facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks.

Complications of fluoroscopically directed facet joint nerve blocks: a prospective evaluation of 7,500 episodes with 43,000 nerve blocks.

Abstract: Background Chronic spinal pain is common along with numerous modalities of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions utilized, creating a health care crisis. Facet joint injections and epidural injections are the 2 most commonly utilized interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. While the literature addressing the effectiveness of facet joint nerve blocks is variable and emerging, there is paucity of literature on adverse effects of facet joint nerve blocks. Study design A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. Setting A private interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives Investigation of the incidence in characteristics of adverse effects and complications of facet joint nerve blocks. The study was carried out over a period of 20 months including almost 7,500 episodes of 43,000 facet joint nerve blocks with 3,370 episodes in the cervical region, 3,162 in the lumbar region, and 950 in the thoracic region. All facet joint nerve blocks were performed under fluoroscopic guidance in an ambulatory surgery center by 3 physicians. The complications encountered during the procedure and postoperatively were evaluated prospectively. Methods This study was carried out over a period of 20 months and included over 7,500 episodes or 43,000 facet joint nerve blocks. All of the interventions were performed under fluoroscopic guidance in an ambulatory surgery center by one of 3 physicians. The complications encountered during the procedure and postoperatively were prospectively evaluated. Outcomes assessment Measurable outcomes employed were intravascular entry of the needle, profuse bleeding, local hematoma, dural puncture and headache, nerve root or spinal cord irritation with resultant injury, and infectious complications. Results There were no major complications. Multiple side effects and complications observed included overall intravascular penetration in 11.4% of episodes with 20% in cervical region, 4% in lumbar region, and 6% in thoracic region; local bleeding in 76.3% of episodes with highest in thoracic region and lowest in cervical region; oozing with 19.6% encounters with highest in cervical region and lowest in lumbar region; with local hematoma seen only in 1.2% of the patients with profuse bleeding, bruising, soreness, nerve root irritation, and all other effects such as vasovagal reactions observed in 1% or less of the episodes. Limitations Limitations of this study include lack of contrast injection, use of intermittent fluoroscopy and also an observational nature of the study. Conclusion This study illustrate that major complications are extremely rare and minor side effects are common.

An update of the effectiveness of therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions are implemented to provide long-term pain relief after the facet joint has been identified as the basis for low back pain. The therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of low back pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate and update the effect of therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain. STUDY DESIGN A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic low back pain. METHODS The available literature on lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was pain relief with short-term relief defined as up to 6 months and long-term relief as 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. RESULTS For this systematic review, 122 studies were identified. Of these, 11 randomized trials and 14 observational studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy is good and fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks for short- and long-term improvement; whereas the evidence for intraarticular injections and pulsed radiofrequency neurotomy is limited. LIMITATIONS The limitations of this systematic review include the continued paucity of evidence, specifically for intraarticular injection therapy. CONCLUSION In summary, there is good evidence for the use of conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, and fair to good evidence for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks for the treatment of chronic lumbar facet joint pain resulting in short-term and long-term pain relief and functional improvement. There is limited evidence for intraarticular facet joint injections and pulsed radiofrequency thermoneurolysis.

Fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic pain of cervical postsurgery syndrome: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial.

Abstract: Background Cervical postsurgery syndrome is common with increasing cervical surgical interventions. Cervical spine surgery may fail in a certain proportion of patients with continued pain secondary to pseudoarthrosis, adjacent segment degeneration, inadequate decompression, iatrogenic instability, facet joint arthritis, deformity, and spinal stenosis. Among the various treatments available for managing cervical postsurgery syndrome, epidural steroid injections are one of the most common nonsurgical interventions. However there have not been any systematic evaluations regarding the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections in cervical postsurgery syndrome. Study design A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. Setting A specialty referral, private interventional pain management practice in the United States. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting relief in the management of chronic neck pain and upper extremity pain in patients with cervical postsurgery syndrome, and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL); Group II patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL of nonparticulate betamethasone. The study was designed to include 120 patients with 60 patients in each group. This analysis includes 56 patients. Randomization was performed by computer-generated, random allocation sequence by simple randomization. Outcomes assessment Outcome measures included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, and opioid intake. Assessments at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more; significant improvement in NDI was defined as a reduction of 50% or more. Results Significant pain relief (>/= 50%) was demonstrated in 71% of patients in Group I and 68% of patients in Group II. Functional status improvement was demonstrated by a reduction (> 50%) in the NDI scores in 71% of Group I and 64% of Group II at 12 months. The overall average procedures per year were 4.0 ± 0.7 in Group I and 4.1 ± 1.0 in Group II; the average total relief per year was 39.6 ± 11.8 weeks in Group I and 41.2 ± 15.8 weeks in Group II over the 52 week study period in the patients defined as successful. In the successful group, the combined pain relief and neck disability improvement was seen in 87% in Group I and 72% of the patients in Group II. Limitations The study results are limited by the lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 56 patients, 28 in each group. Conclusion Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids were effective in 67% of patients overall and 87% in Group I and 72% in Group II, in successful group patients with chronic function-limiting neck pain and upper extremity pain secondary to cervical postsurgery syndrome. Clinical trial NCT01071369.

Percutaneous adhesiolysis in the management of chronic low back pain in post lumbar surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis: a systematic review.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Low back pain after either post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis in the absence of surgery is a vexing problem. Post lumbar surgery syndrome can occur in any age group, while low back and radicular pain from spinal stenosis is a disease of aging. As the population ages, the incidence of symptomatic spinal stenosis will increase. There are currently limited treatment options for either group. Further surgery is not uniformly effective in relieving pain after previous surgery. While therapies are being developed to treat pain due to spinal stenosis, no therapy other than adhesiolysis will treat pain due to scarring. Adhesiolysis was developed as a means of removing epidural scarring leading directly or indirectly to compression, inflammation, swelling, or a decreased nutritional supply of nerve roots. Adhesiolysis utilizes a number of modalities in the effort to break up epidural scarring, including the use of a wire-bound catheter for mechanical adhesiolysis, placement of the catheter in the ventro-lateral aspect of the epidural space at the site of the exiting nerve root, and the use of high volumes of injectate, including local anesthetics and saline, either hypertonic or isotonic, along with steroids. STUDY DESIGN A systematic review of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. The severity of risks and adverse advents associated with percutaneous adhesiolysis were also evaluated. METHODS The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis for the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was pain relief of at least 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, change in psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid use or interventions. RESULTS For this systematic review, 15 studies were identified and selected for review. Of these, 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Applying the USPSTF criteria, these studies indicate that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain caused by post lumbar surgery syndrome and that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain caused by spinal stenosis.The incidence of complications from percutaneous adhesiolysis is low and the complications are generally minimal and self-limited. The procedure should be considered to be low risk for serious adverse events when performed by well-trained physicians. LIMITATIONS The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. CONCLUSION In summary, there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis.

Fluoroscopic epidural injections in cervical spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Cervical spinal stenosis is a common disease that results in considerable morbidity and disability. There are multiple modalities of treatments, including surgical interventions and multiple interventional techniques including epidural injections. The literature on the effectiveness of cervical epidural steroids is sporadic. Emerging evidence for cervical interlaminar epidurals for various conditions in the cervical spine is positive; however, the effect of fluoroscopic epidural injections in cervical spinal stenosis has not been studied. STUDY DESIGN A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. SETTING A private interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center in the United States. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids in the management of chronic neck pain with upper extremity pain in patients with cervical central spinal stenosis. METHODS Patients with cervical central spinal stenosis were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: injection of local anesthetic only or local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Sixty patients were included in this analysis. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT Multiple outcome measures were utilized including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief or functional status was defined as a 50% or more reduction of NRS or NDI scores. RESULTS Significant pain relief was seen in 73% in Group I and 70% in Group II, in Group II showing both significat pain releif and functional status improvements. Group I's average relief per procedures was 11.3 ± 5.8 weeks; for Group II it was 8.6 ± 3.6 weeks, whereas after initial 2 procedures, average relief was 13.7 ± 8.7 weeks in Group I, and 13.6 ± 4.7 weeks in Group II. In the successful group, the average total relief in a one-year period was 42.2 ± 14.7 weeks in Group I and 34.3 ± 13.4 weeks in Group II, with 76% in Group I and 77% in Group II. LIMITATIONS Study limitations include the lack of a placebo group and that this is a preliminary report of only 60 patients, 30 in each group. CONCLUSION Patients who have chronic function-limiting pain that is secondary to cervical central stenosis might receive relief with cervical interlaminar epidurals of local anesthetic, whether with or without steroids. CLINICAL TRIAL NCT01071369.

Effectiveness of thermal annular procedures in treating discogenic low back pain.

Abstract: Background: Persistent low back pain refractory to conservative treatment is a common problem that leads to widespread impairment, resulting in significant costs to society. The intervertebral disc is a major source of persistent low back pain. Technologies developed to treat this problem, including various surgical instrumentation and fusion techniques, have not reliably provided satisfactory results in terms of either pain relief or increased function. Thermal annular procedures (TAPs) were first developed in the late 1990s in an attempt to treat discogenic pain. The hope was that they would provide greater value than fusion in terms of efficacy, morbidity, and cost. Three technologies have been developed to apply heat to the annulus: intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), discTRODE, and biacuplasty. Since nerve ingrowth and tissue regeneration in the annulus is felt to be the source of pain in discogenic low back pain, when describing the 3 above techniques we use the term “thermal annular procedures” rather than “thermal intradiscal procedures.” We have specifically excluded studies treating the nucleus. TAPs have been the subject of significant controversy. Multiple reviews have been conducted resulting in varying conclusions. Study Design: A systematic review of TAPs for the treatment of discogenic low back pain. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of TAPs in treating discogenic low back pain and to assess complications associated with those procedures. Methods: The available literature on TAPs in treating discogenic low back pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for interventional techniques for randomized trials, and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief of at least 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvements in functional status. Results: For this systematic review, 43 studies were identified. Of these, 3 randomized controlled trials and one observational study met the inclusion criteria.

A systematic review of randomized trials on the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain.

Abstract: Background In all recommended guidelines put forth for the treatment of cancer pain, opioids continue to be an important part of a physician's armamentarium. Though opioids are used regularly for cancer pain, there is a paucity of literature proving efficacy for long-term use. Cancer is no longer considered a "terminal disease"; 50% to 65% of patients survive for at least 2 years, and there are about 12 million cancer survivors in the United States. There is a concern about side effects, tolerance, abuse and addiction with long-term opioid use and a need to evaluate the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain. Objective The objective of this systematic review was to look at the effectiveness of opioids for cancer pain. Study design A systematic review of randomized trials of opioids for cancer pain. Methods A comprehensive review of the current literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids for cancer pain was done. The literature search was done using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trials, national clearing house, Web of Science, previous narrative systematic reviews, and cross references. The studies were assessed using the modified Cochrane and Jadad criteria. Analysis of evidence was done utilizing the modified quality of evidence developed by United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Outcome measures Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures are quality of life (QoL) and side effects including tolerance and addiction. Results The level of evidence for pain relief based on the USPSTF criteria was fair for transdermal fentanyl and poor for morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone, and codeine. Limitations Randomized trials in a cancer setting are difficult to perform and justify. There is a paucity of long-term trials and this review included a follow-up period of only 4 weeks. Conclusion This systematic review of RCTs of opioids for cancer pain showed fair evidence for the efficacy of transdermal fentanyl and poor evidence for morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone, and codeine.