Kavita N. Manchikanti

Facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain: an evaluation of prevalence and false-positive rate of diagnostic blocks.

Study Design A retrospective review. Objectives Evaluation of the prevalence of facet or zygapophysial joint pain in chronic spinal pain of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar origin by using controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks and evaluation of false-positive rates of single blocks in the diagnosis of chronic spinal pain of facet joint origin. Summary of Background Data Facet or zygapophysial joints are clinically important sources of chronic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain. The previous studies have demonstrated the value and validity of controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of facet joint pain, with a prevalence of 15% to 67% variable in lumbar, thoracic, and cervical regions. False-positive rates of single diagnostic blocks also varied from 17% to 63%. Methods Five hundred consecutive patients receiving controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks of medial branches for the diagnosis of facet or zygapophysial joint pain were included. Patients were investigated with diagnostic blocks using 0.5 mL of 1% lidocaine per nerve. Patients with lidocaine-positive results were further studied using 0.5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine per nerve on a separate occasion. Medial branch blocks were performed with intermittent fluoroscopic visualization, at 2 levels to block a single joint. A positive response was considered as one with at least 80% pain relief from a block of at least 2 hours duration when lidocaine was used, and at least 3 hours or longer than the duration of relief with lidocaine when bupivacaine was used, and also the ability to perform prior painful movements. Results A total of 438 patients met inclusion criteria. The prevalence of facet joint pain was 39% in the cervical spine [95% confidence interval (CI), 32%-45%]; 34% (95% CI, 22%-47%) in the thoracic pain; and 27% (95% CI, 22%-33%) in the lumbar spine. The false-positive rate with a single block in the cervical region was 45%, in the thoracic region was 42%, and in the lumbar region 45%. Conclusions This retrospective review once again confirmed the significant prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain.

The Prevalence of Facet Joint‐Related Chronic Neck Pain in Postsurgical and Nonpostsurgical Patients: A Comparative Evaluation

Background:  Facet (zygapophysial) joints may be clinically important sources of chronic cervical spinal pain. Previous studies have demonstrated the value and validity of controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of facet joint pain, and reported an overall prevalence of 36% to 67% facet joint involvement in cervical spinal pain. The reports of lumbar facet joint‐involvement in postsurgery syndrome have been shown to be highly variable with prevalence ranging from 8% to 32%. To date, however, the prevalence of postsurgical facet joint‐related pain in the cervical spine has not been evaluated. In light of this, the present retrospective study was conducted to assess and compare the prevalence of chronic postsurgical facet joint cervical spinal pain to nonsurgical, chronic cervical facet joint pain.

Comparison of the efficacy of saline, local anesthetics, and steroids in epidural and facet joint injections for the management of spinal pain: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Background: The efficacy of epidural and facet joint injections has been assessed utilizing multiple solutions including saline, local anesthetic, steroids, and others. The responses to these various solutions have been variable and have not been systematically assessed with long-term follow-ups. Methods: Randomized trials utilizing a true active control design were included. The primary outcome measure was pain relief and the secondary outcome measure was functional improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the criteria developed by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) for assessing interventional techniques. An evidence analysis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to IV). Results: A total of 31 trials met the inclusion criteria. There was Level I evidence that local anesthetic with steroids was effective in managing chronic spinal pain based on multiple high-quality randomized controlled trials. The evidence also showed that local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone were equally effective except in disc herniation, where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was demonstrated over local anesthetic alone. Conclusion: This systematic review showed equal efficacy for local anesthetic with steroids and local anesthetic alone in multiple spinal conditions except for disc herniation where the superiority of local anesthetic with steroids was seen over local anesthetic alone.

EFFICACY OF EPIDURAL INJECTIONS IN THE TREATMENT OF LUMBAR CENTRAL SPINAL STENOSIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Context: Lumbar central spinal stenosis is common and often results in chronic persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After the failure of conservative treatment, either surgical or nonsurgical modalities such as epidural injections are contemplated in the management of lumbar spinal stenosis. Evidence Acquisition: Recent randomized trials, systematic reviews and guidelines have reached varying conclusions about the efficacy of epidural injections in the management of central lumbar spinal stenosis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all three anatomical epidural injection approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in the treatment of lumbar central spinal stenosis. A systematic review was performed on randomized trials published from 1966 to July 2014 of all types of epidural injections used in the management of lumbar central spinal stenosis. Methodological quality assessment and grading of the evidence was performed. Results: The evidence in managing lumbar spinal stenosis is Level II for long-term improvement for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. For transforaminal epidural injections, the evidence is Level III for short-term improvement only. The interlaminar approach appears to be superior to the caudal approach and the caudal approach appears to be superior to the transforaminal one. Conclusions: The available evidence suggests that epidural injections with local anesthetic alone or with local anesthetic with steroids offer short- and long-term relief of low back and lower extremity pain for patients with lumbar central spinal stenosis. However, the evidence is Level II for the long-term efficacy of caudal and interlaminar epidural injections, whereas it is Level III for short-term improvement only with transforaminal epidural injections.

Efficacy of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis in the Treatment of Lumbar Post Surgery Syndrome

Context Lumbar post-surgery syndrome is common and often results in chronic, persistent pain and disability, which can lead to multiple interventions. After failure of conservative treatment, either surgical treatment or a nonsurgical modality of treatment such as epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis is often contemplated in managing lumbar post surgery syndrome. Recent guidelines and systematic reviews have reached different conclusions about the level of evidence for the efficacy of epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar post surgery syndrome. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the efficacy of all 3 percutaneous adhesiolysis anatomical approaches (caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal) in treating lumbar post-surgery syndrome. Evidence Acquisition Data Sources: A literature search was performed from 1966 through October 2014 utilizing multiple databases. Study Selection: A systematic review of randomized trials published from 1966 through October 2014 of all types of epidural injections and percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing lumbar post-surgery syndrome was performed including methodological quality assessment utilizing Cochrane review criteria, Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM–QRB), and grading of evidence using 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to Level V. Data Extraction: The search strategy emphasized post-surgery syndrome and related pathologies treated with percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures. Results The search criteria yielded 16 manuscripts on percutaneous adhesiolysis assessing post-surgery syndrome. Of these, only 4 randomized trials met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment, 3 of them were of high quality; and the fourth manuscript was of low quality. Based on these 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 of them with one-day procedure and one with a 3-day procedure, the level of evidence for the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis is Level II based on best evidence synthesis. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in managing patients with lumbar post-surgery syndrome after the failure of conservative management including fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.

Challenges and concerns of persistent opioid use in cancer patients

ABSTRACT Introduction: As a result of advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, two-thirds of individuals suffering with cancer survive more than 5 years after diagnosis, resulting in a large proportion of patients with chronic cancer pain alone or associated with chronic noncancer pain. There is a paucity of literature in reference to diagnosis and management of chronic cancer pain, specifically in relation to persistent opioid use, its effectiveness, and adverse consequences. Areas covered: This review covers the prevalence of chronic cancer pain and its association with multiple comorbidities, persistent opioid use and related consequences, and challenges in managing persistent chronic cancer pain patients. In addition, discussion includes therapeutic opioid use, effectiveness of opioid therapy, assessment of risk of persistent opioid use, and guidance for responsible, persistent opioid prescribing for chronic cancer pain patients. Expert commentary: Despite extensive availability of opioids and related common adverse consequences, including the potential for escalating use, abuse, and deaths, greater awareness is needed to counteract the present atmosphere and appropriately manage patients with chronic cancer pain. Chronic cancer pain is a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon with multiple comorbidities. Opioid therapy has become extremely complex with negative connotations related to escalating abuse and related deaths.