Spine Intervention Society Research Articles

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

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

We Want Spine Intervention Society Members to Continue to Receive Pain Medicine.

We Want Spine Intervention Society Members to Continue to Receive Pain Medicine.

Changes in Interventional Pain Physician Decision-Making, Practice Patterns, and Mental Health During the Early Phase of the SARS-CoV-2 Global Pandemic.

Background and ObjectivesThe novel coronavirus outbreak (SARS-CoV-2) began in late 2019 and dramatically impacted health care systems. This study aimed to describe the impact of the early phase of the pandemic on physician decision-making, practice patterns, and mental health.MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to physician members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) on March 24 and April 7, 2020. Respondents provided information regarding changes in clinical volume, treatment, and mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-4]) before April 10, 2020.ResultsOf the 1,430 individuals who opened the survey, 260 completed it (18.2%). Overall clinical and procedural volume decreased to 69.6% and 13.0% of prepandemic volume, respectively. Mean in-person clinic visits were reduced to 17.7% of total prepandemic clinic volume. Ongoing clinical visits were predominantly completed via telemedicine (video) or telephone (74.5%), rather than in-person (25.5%). Telemedicine and telephone visits represented 24.6% and 27.3% of prepandemic clinical volume, respectively. Respondents decreased in-person visits of select groups of high-risk patients by 85.8–94.6%. Significantly more providers reported increasing rather than decreasing prescriptions of the following medications: opioids (28.8% vs 6.2% of providers, P < 0.001), muscle relaxants (22.3% vs 5.4%, P < 0.001), neuropathic pain medications (29.6% vs 3.8%, P < 0.001), and acetaminophen (26.2% vs 4.2%, P < 0.001). Respondents’ mean PHQ-4 score was 3.1, with 19% reporting moderate or severe psychological distress. Several demographic factors were significantly associated with practice changes.ConclusionsThe novel coronavirus pandemic dramatically altered the practice and prescribing patterns of interventional pain physicians.

Management of Cardiac Implantable Electrical Devices in Patients Undergoing Radiofrequency Ablation for Spine Pain: Physician Survey and Review of Guidelines

More patients with cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) are presenting to spine and pain practices for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) procedures for chronic pain. Although the potential for electromagnetic interference (EMI) affecting CIED function is known with RFA procedures, available guidelines do not specifically address CIED management for percutaneous RFA for zygapophyseal (z-joint) joint pain, and thus physician practice may vary. To better understand current practices of physicians who perform RFA for chronic z-joint pain with respect to management of CIEDs. Perioperative CIED management guidelines are also reviewed to specifically address risk mitigation strategies for potential EMI created by ambulatory percutaneous spine RFA procedures. Web-based provider survey and narrative review. Multispecialty pain clinic, academic medical center. A web-based survey was created using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). A survey link was provided via e-mail to active members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS), American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, as well as distributed freely to community Pain Physicians and any receptive academic departments of PM&R or Anesthesiology. The narrative review summarizes pertinent case series, review articles, a SIS recommendation statement, and multi-specialty peri-operative guidelines as they relate specifically to spine RFA procedures. A total of 197 clinicians participated in the survey from diverse clinical backgrounds, including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, radiology, neurosurgery, and neurology, with 81% reporting fellowship training. Survey responses indicate wide variability in provider management of CIEDs before, during, and after RFA for z-joint pain. Respondents indicated they would like more specific guidelines to aid in management and decision-making around CIEDs and spine RFA procedures. Literature review yielded several practice guidelines related to perioperative management of CIEDs, but no specific guideline for percutaneous spine RFA procedures. However, combining the risk mitigation strategies provided in these guidelines, with interventional pain physician clinical experience allows for reasonable management recommendations to aid in decision-making. Although this manuscript can serve as a review of CIEDs and aid in management decisions in patients with CIEDs, it is not a clinical practice guideline. Practice patterns vary regarding CIED management in ambulatory spine RFA procedures. CIED presence is not a contraindication for spine RFA but does increase the complexity of a spine RFA procedure and necessitates some added precautions. Radiofrequency ablation, neurotomy, cardiac implantable electrical device, zygapophyseal joint, spondylosis, neck pain, low back pain, chronic pain.

Prevalence and Discordance of the "Startle Response" with True Discogenic Pain According to Spine Intervention Society Guidelines for Provocation Discography: A Cohort Study.

The literature on cervical provocation discography (C-PD) is sparse. A "Startle Response" during C-PD is a known phenomenon that might be mistaken as an indicator of discogenic pain at the provoked disc level, but this has not been quantitatively described. To determine the incidence of the Startle Response and its concordance/discordance with true-positive C-PD in patients referred for surgical planning or evaluation after ruling out other axial pain generators. Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who received C-PD at an outpatient spine center. The primary outcome was the rate of discordance of the Startle Response with true-positive C-PD according to the operational criteria of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) guidelines. One hundred five discs were provoked in 36 individuals (19 female, mean age [SD] = 45.7 [10.9] years). C-PD was performed at a median of three levels (range = 1-5) with C4/5 (N = 30), C5/6 (N = 30), and C6/7 (N = 31) the most commonly evaluated. Twenty-six of 36 patients reported responses consistent with true-positive C-PD. A Startle Response was observed in 14 patients (39%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 23-57%), and 22 of 105 (21%, 95% CI = 14-30%) provoked discs. Of the 14 patients who exhibited a Startle Response, four had negative C-PD results (29%, 95% CI = 8-58%). As assessed per disc, C-PD results were positive in 12 of the 22 (55%, 95% CI = 32-76%) provoked discs that generated a Startle Response. The present data demonstrate high discordance, 45% (95% CI = 24-68%), between the Startle Response and true-positive C-PD. Clinicians should be aware of this phenomenon and take care to distinguish it from a true-positive response during C-PD, as defined by the SIS guidelines. Misinterpretation of the Startle Response as a positive C-PD result may lead to inappropriate future care decisions in a substantial proportion of patients.

The Effectiveness of Cervical Medial Branch Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Facet Joint Syndrome in Patients Selected by a Practical Medial Branch Block Paradigm.

Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation (CMBRFA) is an effective treatment for facetogenic pain in patients selected by Spine Intervention Society (SIS) guidelines of 100% symptom improvement with dual medial branch blocks (MBBs) ± placebo block. Patient selection for CMBRFA using ≥80% symptom improvement after dual concordant MBBs is common; however, this has not been studied. To evaluate the effectiveness of CMBRFA and compare outcomes in individuals selected by 80-99% vs 100% symptom improvement with dual concordant MBBs. Cross-sectional cohort study. Medical records of 87 consecutive patients were reviewed; 50 met inclusion criteria. A standardized telephone survey was performed at six or more months post-CMBRFA to query numerical rating scale (NRS) pain and patient global impression of change (PGIC) scores. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients reporting ≥50% reduction of index pain. At a mean follow-up time of 16.9 ± 12.7 months, 54% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 35-73%) and 54% (95% CI = 32-74%) of the 80-99% and 100% MBBs groups, respectively, reported ≥50% pain reduction. Between-group comparison showed a relative risk of 0.99 (95% CI = 0.59-1.66) for meeting the primary outcome. Seventy percent (95% CI = 56-81%) of patients reported a PGIC score consistent with "improved or very much improved" at follow-up. CMBRFA is an effective treatment in patients who report ≥80% symptom relief with dual concordant MBBs. The present study demonstrated an overall ≥50% pain reduction rate of 54% and no significant difference between those selected by 80-99% vs 100% symptom relief with dual concordant MBBs.

Responses after spinal interventions in a clinical pain practice - a pragmatic observational study.

Introduction There is limited evidence for effect of interventional treatment, and pragmatic studies are needed to assess these interventions within a clinical setting. The aim of this study was to describe patients referred to an interventional pain clinic and investigate responses after spinal intervention in general and for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and transforaminal epidural corticosteroid administration (TECA), specifically. Methods This is a prospective, non-controlled study of patients with chronic spinal pain. The procedures were performed in accordance with the Spine Intervention Society recommendations. Outcome data after a median of 4.5 months are presented, and for those treated with RFA also after 6 and 12 months. Results Among 815 patients, 190 patients underwent diagnostic blocks only and 625 interventional treatment, of these 94 RFA and 246 TECA. Of the whole sample 70% reported pain reduction, for 49% ≥ 50%, while 9% were pain free (p < 0.001). Highest pain intensity decreased from 7.1 to 5.4 [95% Confidence Interval of the Difference (95%-CI): 1.4-1.9] (p < 0.001), while Euroqual - visual analogue scale for general health (EQ-VAS) improved from 48 to 58 (95%-CI: 7.6-11.9) (p < 0.001), and Euroqual-5 Dimensions-5 Levels Index for health related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Index) from 0.489 to 0.628 (95%-CI: 0.123-0.157) (p < 0.001). The proportions, not taking analgesics, increased from 16% to 30%, and proportion taking strong opioids decreased from 14% to 9% (p < 0.001). We found no significant change in proportion receiving physiotherapy/other treatment nor occupational status. No complications were reported. Among patients treated with RFA, 77% reported pain reduction, for 56% ≥ 50%, while 9% were pain free (p < 0.001). Highest pain intensity decreased from 6.9 to 4.6 (95%-CI: 1.6-3.0) (p < 0.001), while EQ-VAS improved from 47 to 57 (95%-CI: 4.8-13.6 (p < 0.001), and EQ-5D-5L Index from 0.489 to 0.643 (95%-CI: 0.117-0.191) (p < 0.001). The proportion not taking analgesics, increased from 7% to 23% and proportion taking strong opioids decreased from 16% to 10%. Among patients who responded at 6- and 12-month follow up, the proportions reporting pain reduction, EQ-VAS, and EQ-5D-5L Index remained significantly improved from baseline, and the change in proportions taking analgesic and opioids achieved statistical significance. We found no significant change in proportion receiving physiotherapy/other treatment nor occupational status. Among patients treated with TECA, 58% reported pain reduction, for 36% ≥ 50%, while 5% were pain free (p < 0.001). Highest pain intensity decreased from 7.2 to 6.2 (95%-CI 0.5-1.4) (p < 0.001), while EQ-VAS improved from 46 to 52 (95%-CI: 2.0-3.6) (p < 0.001), and EQ-5D-5L Index from 0.456 to 0.571 (95%-CI: 0.077-0.138) (p < 0.001). The proportions, not taking analgesics, increased from 17% to 27% and proportion taking strong opioids decreased from 15% to 10%, but the changes did not reach statistical significance. We found no significant changes in the proportion who recieved physiotherapy/other treatment nor occupational status. Conclusion The study demonstrates substantial short-term responses after spinal intervention and long-lasting improvement for a subsample of the RFA treated patients. We observed larger proportions reporting pain reduction among those treated with cervical RFA. Implementation Quality assessment should be implemented in interventional pain clinics to improve treatment quality.

Current Trends in Steroid Dose Choice and Frequency of Administration of Epidural Steroid Injections: A Survey Study

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are commonly used to treat refractory radicular spinal pain. Although evidence suggests that an increasing cumulative dose of exogenous corticosteroid may be harmful, knowledge of current practice patterns is limited regarding the choice of dose and frequency of epidural steroid injections (ESIs). Describe current practice trends in the dose selection and frequency of administration of transforaminal ESIs (TFESIs) and interlaminar ESIs (ILESIs). Cross-sectional survey study. Not applicable. Three hundred fourteen physician members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS). From May to June 2018, an online survey was distributed to 5907 physician members of the SIS. Not applicable. Corticosteroid dose used by practitioners and the number of annual ESIs administered per patient. Three hundred fourteen physicians responded to the survey. For single cervical or lumbar injections of dexamethasone, most physicians (56.0%) reported using 10 mg; 17% of physicians reported use of doses greater than 10 mg, with 6% using a dose of 20 mg per injection level. The most common particulate corticosteroid dose used during both cervical and lumbar ILESIs was 80 mg (cervical = 55.4%, lumbar = 54.7%). During cervical and lumbar ILESIs, 17% and 12.7% of physicians reported using doses greater than 80 mg, respectively. Almost 10% of physicians reported performing cervical TFESIs with particulate steroids. Forty percent of physicians reported allowing four ESIs at a given spinal segmental level per year (cervical/thoracic/lumbosacral). A small percentage of physicians reported allowing more than six ESIs annually (6%) and >10 injections annually (1%). There is considerable variability among this large cohort of interventionists with regard to corticosteroid dose selection and epidural steroid injection frequency. A small proportion of respondents reported Mulitsociety Pain Workgroup guideline-discordant use of particulate steroids during cervical TFESIs. These findings demonstrate a need for additional research regarding both the reasons for such variation in care and the reasons for guideline-discordant practice in a subset of physicians. IV.

Trends in steroid agent and diluent choices for epidural steroid injections: a survey of Spine Intervention Society physicians

BackgroundEpidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a frequently used treatment for refractory radicular spinal pain. ESIs, particularly transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI), may provide pain relief and delay the need for...

Spine Intervention Society Position Statement on Best Practices for Epidural Steroid Injections in the Setting of a Preservative-Free Dexamethasone Shortage.

Spine Intervention Society Position Statement on Best Practices for Epidural Steroid Injections in the Setting of a Preservative-Free Dexamethasone Shortage.

A Retrospective Review of Spinal Radiofrequency Neurotomy Procedures in Patients with Metallic Posterior Spinal Instrumentation – Is it Safe?

Background: Recent studies have shown that medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN) procedures done at the level of a pedicle screw can increase pedicle screw temperature, and it has been speculated that pedicle screw heating may cause thermal injury. There has been a limited amount of investigation into the real-world safety profile of RFN procedures in patients with pedicle screws. Objectives: We aim to demonstrate that the occurrence of serious adverse events is rare for a medial branch RFN procedure completed at a level with metallic spinal hardware when performed according to the Spine Intervention Society practice standards. Study Design: This study involved retrospective chart reviews of every patient who received an RFN procedure for spinal facet joint pain during the 5-year time period from 2012-2016. Setting: The research took place within a single university-based interventional pain management center. Methods: The study sample included 507 patient charts. Data collection included patient demographics, RF denervation sites at a level with metallic hardware, and all serious RF-related complications that could be attributable to heated metallic hardware. The research team developed medical-chart abstraction criteria for each of the following categorized complications: a) superficial burns, b) deep burns, c) denervation of dorsal ramus, d) denervation of ventral ramus, and e) coagulation of a spinal vascular structure. Results: Of the 36 patients who met the inclusion criteria for this study, 43.6% were men and 56.4% were women. The mean age was 59.5 years old, with an age range of 25 to 87 years. There were a total of 56 ablations performed at a level with metallic spinal hardware, of which 11 were cervical, 44 were lumbar, and 1 was thoracic . There were zero documented complications found among our patient population in any of the 5 categories of serious complications. Limitations: As a retrospective chart review, this study was dependent on the availability and accuracy of medical records. Chart abstraction criteria for each outcome measure were developed by the research team without scientific testing. Conclusions: There have been no reported complications attributable to hardware temperature increases when performing medial branch RFNs at the level of a pedicle screw. For safety, it is important to use multiplanar fluoroscopic imaging techniques to ensure that the RFN cannula is not in contact with the pedicle screw. Key Words: Radiofrequency neurotomy, medial branch nerve ablation, safety, thermal injuries, metallic spinal hardware, pedicle screws, lateral mass screws, cervical facet joints, severe complications, adverse events

Friday, September 28, 2018 1:00 PM–2:30 PM abstracts: a new look at imaging: 209. Low pressure lumbar provocation discography according to international association for the study of pain or spine intervention society standards does not cause accelerated progression of disc degeneration in symptomatic low back pain patients: a 7-year matched cohort study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Study of subjects without clinically-significant low back pain (LBP) suggests that high-pressure lumbar provocation discography (PD) may cause accelerated disc degeneration. PURPOSE Determine if low-pressure PD, according to IASP/SIS standards,results in accelerated disc degeneration and disruption at long-term follow-up in patients with symptomatic LBP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING This was a longitudinal matched cohort study conducted in a tertiary, academic spine center. PATIENT SAMPLE Patients with sympatomatic LBP. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the proportion of discs that advanced in Pfirrmann score category (I–II, III–IV, and V). MRI T2-signal-intensity-to-CSF ratio, disc height, new disc herniation, new high intensity zones (HIZs), and new Type-1 Modic changes were also assessed. METHODS Consecutive patients with symptomatic LBP who underwent MRI, PD, and repeat MRI>7 years later, but no spinal fusion, were identified by EMR query. Punctured discs were matched at a 1:2-1:4 ratio to corresponding discs in a control cohort by age, BMI, Pfirrmann score (+/−1) and presence of disc herniation; control cohort inclusion required MRIs for symptomatic LBP, separated by >7 years. RESULTS Baseline and follow-up MRIs were available for 66 discs exposed to PD, and 243 discs in the matched cohort. There was no difference in the proportion of punctured discs that advanced in Pfirrmann score category in the PD cohort (17%, 95%CI 9%–28%) compared to the matched cohort (23%, 95%CI 18%–29%), p=0.13, or in punctured (36%, 95%CI 21%–53%) versus nonpunctured (36%, 95%CI 21%–53%) discs within the PD cohort, p=0.97. There were no differences in T2-signal-intensity-to-CSF ratio, disc height, new disc herniations, new HIZs, or new Type-1 Modic changes following puncture in the PD versus matched cohorts or the punctured versus nonpunctured discs within the PD cohort (p's>.05) CONCLUSIONS In patients with symptomatic LBP who underwent provocation discography according to IASP/SIS standards but no subsequent spinal fusion, accelerated progression of disc degeneration or disruption was not observed in comparison to un-punctured discs in a matched cohort or in un-punctured discs within the PD cohort. These results are notable given that PD was in symptomatic patients who were appropriate candidates for this procedure, rather than in patients without clinically-significant LBP who would not undergo PD in realistic clinical practice.

Appropriate Use Criteria for Fluoroscopically Guided Diagnostic and Therapeutic Sacroiliac Interventions: Results from the Spine Intervention Society Convened Multispecialty Collaborative.

To provide an overview of a multisociety effort to formulate appropriate use criteria for image-guided injections and radiofrequency procedures in the diagnosis and treatment of sacroiliac joint and posterior sacroiliac complex pain. The Spine Intervention Society convened a multisociety effort to guide physicians and define for payers the appropriate use of image-guided injections and radiofrequency procedures. An evidence panel was established to write systematic reviews, define key terms and assumptions, and develop clinical scenarios to be addressed. The rating panel considered the evidence presented in the systematic reviews, carefully reviewed the definitions and assumptions, and rated the clinical scenarios. Final median ratings, in combination with the level of agreement, determined the final ratings for the appropriate use of sacroiliac injections and radiofrequency neurotomy. More than 10,000 scenarios were addressed in the appropriate use criteria and are housed within five modules in the portal, available on the Spine Intervention Society website: Module 1: Clinical Indications and Imaging; Module 2: Anticoagulants; Module 3: Timing of Injections; Module 4: Number of Injections; and Module 5: Lateral Branch Radiofrequency Neurotomy. Within several of these modules, several issues of interest are identified and discussed. Physicians and payers can access the appropriate use criteria portal on the Spine Intervention Society's website and select specific clinical indications for a particular patient in order to learn more about the appropriateness of the intervention(s) under consideration.

Guidelines for Composing and Assessing a Paper on Treatment of Pain.

Authors, readers, and editors share a common focus. Authors want to publish their work. Readers want to see high-quality, new information. Referees and editors serve to ensure that authors provide valid conclusions based on the quality of information that readers want.Common to each of these roles are instructions to authors. However, these are typically written in an uninspiring, legalistic style, as if they are a set of rules that authors must obey if they expect to get published. This renders the instructions boring and oppressive, if not forbidding. Yet they need not be so, if they are set in context.Instructions to authors can be cast in a way as to reflect common purpose. They can remind authors what perceptive readers want to see in a paper and, thereby, prompt authors to include all necessary information. If cast in this way, instructions to authors are not a set of rules by which to satisfy publishers; they become guidelines for the etiquette of communication between authors and their readers.Against this background, the present article has been composed to serve several purposes. Foremost, it amplifies instructions to authors beyond the conventional technicalities such as headings, layout, font size, and line spacing. It prescribes the type of information that should be communicated and explains the reasons for those recommendations. Doing so not only informs authors about what to write, but also informs readers and referees about what to look for in a good paper. Secondarily, the article publicizes examples of errors and deficiencies of manuscripts submitted to the Journal in the past that have delayed their acceptance and publication, which could have been avoided had the forthcoming recommendations been followed. The recommendations also reprise the elements taught in courses conducted by the Spine Intervention Society in their extended program on evidence-based medicine. Doing so underscores that instructions for authors are not a procedural technicality but a way to ensure that what authors write, what readers read, and what the Journal publishes comply with contemporary precepts of good evidence.Some 20 years ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a comprehensive series of articles with a common title: "Users' Guides to the Medical Literature" [1,2]. These articles focused on the science of statistical tests and critical appraisal, and their importance for properly understanding the literature. The present article differs in that it does not presume to teach technicalities. Instead, it describes and explains, step by step, the critical components of an article, what authors should include, and what readers should look for, so that the Journal can ensure that consistent, high-quality information is shared between its authors and readers.The present article focuses on articles concerning treatment of pain, largely because this type of article is more commonly submitted than articles on reliability or validity of diagnostic procedures. Although the present article principally focuses on papers for the Spine Section of the Journal, the same principles, appropriately adapted, serve for other sections.

Radiofrequency Denervation Improves Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Thoracic Zygapophyseal Joint Pain.

To describe a practical approach for the diagnosis and treatment of thoracic zygapophyseal joint pain and to present preliminary clinical data on the effects of this treatment approach on health-related quality of life. An observational study. Specialist outpatient pain clinic in northern Sweden. Patients with long-term thoracic pain. We describe a method of radiofrequency denervation of thoracic zygapophyseal joints. We compared health-related quality of life between patients who underwent radiofrequency denervation of thoracic zygapophyseal joints and patients who underwent radiofrequency denervation for lumbar and cervical zygapophyseal joint pain. Treatment according to the Spine Intervention Society Guidelines was performed on the lumbar region in 178 patients and in the cervical region in 55 patients. Another 82 patients were treated in the thoracic region with our proposed technique. A survival plot of improvements in health-related quality of life revealed that all three treatments were effective in 65% or more of patients. The improvement in health-related quality of life was maintained for 12 or more months after treatment in 47% to 51% of patients. Our results suggest that radiofrequency denervation of thoracic zygapophyseal joint pain is as effective as radiofrequency denervation, the standard treatment, for lumbar and cervical zygapophyseal joint pain. If these results can be confirmed by other centers, radiofrequency denervation is likely to become more widely available for the treatment of thoracic zygapophyseal joint pain.

Anticoagulant and Antiplatelet Management for Spinal Procedures: A Prospective, Descriptive Study and Interpretation of Guidelines.

Epidural hematoma rarely complicates interventional spine procedures. While anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs increase bleeding risk, cessation may precipitate serious thromboembolic events. The Spine Intervention Society (SIS) and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) put forth guidelines that dissent with regard to management of hemostatically active agents during commonly performed spinal injections. To validate an antiplatelet/anticoagulant management table based on modifications of the SIS 2013 and ASRA 2015 guidelines. Prospective descriptive study. Patients undergoing interventional spine injections from a interventional physiatrist's practice. A Modified SIS 2013-ASRA 2015 Antiplatelet & Anticoagulant (MSAAA) guideline table was devised and adopted. Patients undergoing interventional spine procedures were monitored for bleeding events. Of 4,253 injection sites, 197 (4.6%) were performed in 74 patients on antiplatelet/anticoagulants. No clinically evident bleeding events were observed in patients on antiplatelet/anticoagulant medications for lumbar transforaminal epidural (N = 90), posterior-approach facet joint (N = 62), lumbar intradiscal (N = 11), lumbar sympathetic (N = 3), and sacroiliac (N = 5) injections or in 26 radiofrequency neurotomy procedures. One in 2,026 (0.05%, 95% confidence interval = 0.00-0.31%) interlaminar epidural injections (cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and caudal) suffered epidural hematoma. This patient was not on an antiplatelet/anticoagulant drug. No patient in 191 cervicothoracic and 723 lumbar transforaminal injections experienced bleeding complications. Continuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications for intermediate- to low-risk interventional spine procedures may be advisable. The MSAAA table may be a reasonable guideline reference for managing antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Fluoroscopically-Guided Cervical Medial Branch Thermal Radiofrequency Neurotomy: A Systematic Review with Comprehensive Analysis of the Published Data

To determine the effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically-guided cervical medial branch thermal radiofrequency neurotomy (CMBTRFN) for treating chronic neck pain of zygapophysial joint origin. Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Four reviewers formally trained in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on CMBTRFN. Each assessed the methodologies of studies found and appraised the quality of evidence presented. The primary outcomes assessed were 100% relief of pain 6 and 12 months after treatment. Other outcomes were noted if reported. The evidence was evaluated in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The searches yielded eight primary publications on the effectiveness of the procedure. The evidence shows a majority of patients were pain free at 6 months and over a third were pain free at 1 year. The number needed to treat for complete pain relief at 6 months is 2. The evidence of effectiveness is of high quality according to the GRADE system. Twelve papers were found reporting unwanted effects, most of which are minor and temporary. No serious complications have ever been reported from procedures performed according to the published guidelines. The evidence of risks is of low quality according to the GRADE system. If performed as described in the International Spine Intervention Society Guidelines, fluoroscopically-guided CMBTRFN is effective for abolishing zygapophysial joint pain and carries only minor risks.

Pain Medicineand Oxford University Press: Building a Scholarly Pain Community Together

Pain Medicine has grown rapidly over its first 16 years thanks to authors from around the world who have contributed their scholarly work for review and publication as well as to the dedication of its editorial board, editorial staff, reviewers, and publisher. This January 2016 issue of Pain Medicine is the first with our new publishing partner, Oxford University Press (OUP), with whom we have forged a very strong 5 year publishing agreement. Oxford, fully aware of the growth of our field and the important roles of our three sponsoring societies (American Academy of Pain Medicine [AAPM], the Spine Intervention Society [SIS], and the Faculty of Pain Medicine at the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists [FPM ANZCA]) in national and international pain medicine, believe, as we do, that Pain Medicine has a bright future. I am most grateful to leaders from these societies as well as from members of our own editorial board (particularly Drs. Bogduk, Harden, Lamer, Maus, and Webster), who assisted in this process. Oxford’s Pain Medicine team, led by Rachel Warren, has worked diligently with our managing editor, Colleen Healy, and editorial and AAPM staff to guarantee a smooth transition from Wiley. Managing publisher Alison Labbate, a strong partner in growing Pain Medicine at Blackwell and then Wiley after their merger, has helped smooth the transition, and we are most grateful for her, and her team’s, service over the years. Oxford joins our Pain Medicine enterprise at an important time in the history of pain medicine research, practice, and policy. The costs of the public health problem of pain and its consequence—opioid over-use—have made health services research increasingly important. We must now consider a population-based approach to managing costs and to improving safety and quality-of-life outcomes, with a focus on primary prevention (engaging people …

Adverse Event Rates Associated with Transforaminal and Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Multi-Institutional Study.

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) have demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness in treatment of radicular pain. Despite little evidence of efficacy/effectiveness, interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ILESI) are advocated by some as primary therapy for radicular pain due to purported greater safety. To assess immediate and delayed adverse event rates of TFESI and ILESI injections at three academic medical centers utilizing International Spine Intervention Society practice guidelines. Quality assurance databases from a Radiology and two physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) practices were interrogated. Medical records were reviewed, verifying immediate and delayed adverse events. There were no immediate major adverse events of neurologic injury or hemorrhage in 16,638 consecutive procedures in all spine segments (14,956 TFESI; 1,682 ILESI). Vasovagal reactions occurred in 1.2% of procedures, more frequently (P = 0.004) in TFESI (1.3%) than ILESI (0.5%). Dural punctures occurred in 0.06% of procedures, more commonly after ILESI (0.2% vs 0.04%, P = 0.006). Delayed follow up on PM&R patients (92.5% and 78.5, next business day) and radiology patients (63.1%, 2 weeks) identified no major adverse events of neurologic injury, hemorrhage, or infection. There were no significant differences in delayed minor adverse event rates. Central steroid response (sleeplessness, flushing, nonpositional headache) was seen in 2.6% of both TFESI and ILESI patients. 2.1% of TFESI and 1.8% of ILESI patients reported increased pain. No long-term sequelae were seen from any immediate or delayed minor adverse event. Both transforaminal and ILESI are safely performed with low immediate and delayed adverse event rates when informed by evidence-based procedural guidelines. By demonstrating comparable safety, this study suggests that the choice between ILESI and TFESIs can be based on documented efficacy and effectiveness and not driven by safety concerns.

The Potential Contributing Effect of Ketorolac and Fluoxetine to a Spinal Epidural Hematoma following a Cervical Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection: A Case Report and Narrative Review

Cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly performed as one part of a multi-modal analgesic regimen in the management of upper extremity radicular pain. Spinal epidural hematoma (SEH) is a rare complication with a reported incidence ranging from 1.38 in 10,000 to 1 in 190,000 epidurals. Current American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA), American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), and the International Spine Intervention Society (ISIS) recommendations are that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) do not need to be withheld prior to epidural anesthesia. We report a case wherein intramuscular ketorolac and oral fluoxetine contributed to a SEH and tetraplegia following a cervical interlaminar (ESI). A 66 year-old woman with chronic renal insufficiency and neck pain radiating into her right upper extremity presented for evaluation and was deemed an appropriate CESI candidate. Cervical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed multi-level neuroforaminal stenosis and degenerative intervertebral discs. Utilizing a loss of resistance to saline technique, an 18-gauge Tuohy-type needle entered the epidural space at C6-7. After negative aspiration, 4 mL of saline with 80 mg of methyl-prednisolone was injected. Immediately thereafter, the patient reported significant spasmodic-type localized neck pain with no neurologic status changes. A decision was made to administer 30 mg intramuscular ketorolac as treatment for the spasmodictype pain. En route home, she developed a sudden onset of acute tetraplegia. She was brought to the emergency department for evaluation including platelet and coagulation studies which were normal. MRI demonstrated an epidural hematoma extending from C5 to T7. She underwent a bilateral C5-T6 laminectomy with epidural hematoma evacuation and was discharged to an acute inpatient rehabilitation hospital. Chronic renal insufficiency, spinal stenosis, female gender, and increasing age have been identified as risk factors for SEH following epidural anesthesia. In the present case, it is postulated that after the spinal vascular system was penetrated, hemostasis was compromised by the combined antiplatelet effects of ketorolac, fluoxetine, fish oil, and vitamin E. Although generally well tolerated, the role of ketorolac, a potent anti-platelet medication used for pain relief in the peri-neuraxial intervention period, should be seriously scrutinized when other analgesic options are readily available. Although the increased risk of bleeding for the alternative medications are minimal, they are nevertheless well documented. Additionally, their additive impairment on hemostasis has not been well characterized. Withholding NSAIDs, fluoxetine, fish oil, and vitamin E in the peri-procedural period is relatively low risk and should be considered for all patients with multiple risk factors for SEH. Key words: Spontaneous epidural hematoma, ketorolac, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injection, fluoxetine, anti-platelet, neuraxial injection, perioperative pain