Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Millions of interventional pain procedures are performed each year to address chronic pain. The increase in these procedures also raises the concern of health risks associated with ionizing radiation for interventional pain management physicians who perform fluoroscopy-guided operations. Some health concerns include cancers, cataracts, and even pregnancy abnormalities. Little is known regarding the long-term and cumulative effects of small radiation doses. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this systematic review was to identify common body parts that are exposed to ionizing radiation during interventional pain procedures and examine methods to help physicians reduce their radiation exposure. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) checklist was used to comprehensively identify articles from 2 medical databases. The radiation dose to interventional pain management physicians obtained from relevant peer-reviewed articles were aggregated and used for analysis. METHODS:PubMed was first used to collect the articles for two broad keyword searches of "radiation exposure pain management" and "radiation exposure interventionalist" with years ranging from 1956 - February 2023. EMBASE was also used to collect the articles for the two keyword searches of "radiation exposure pain management" and "radiation exposure interventionalist" with years ranging from 1969 - February 2023. This systematic approach yielded a total of 2,736 articles; 24 were included in our paper. The risk of bias for these articles was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the National Institutes of Health tool. RESULTS:Through our systematic literature search, more than 3,577 patients were treated by 30 interventional pain management physicians. Some areas of exposure to radiation include the physician's neck, chest, groin, hands, and eyes. One common body region that is exposed to radiation is the chest; our review found that wearing lead aprons can lower the radiation dose by more than 95%. Wearing protective equipment and managing the distance between the operator and fluoroscope can both independently lower the radiation dose by more than 90% as well. Our literature review also found that other body parts that are often overlooked in regard to radiation exposure are the eyes and hands. In our study, the radiation dose to the outside (unprotected) chest ranged from 0.008 ± 27 mrem to 1,345 mrem, the outside neck ranged from 572 mrem to 2,032 mrem, the outside groin ranged from 176 mrem to 1,292 mrem, the hands ranged from 0.006 ± 27.4 mrem to 0.114 ± 269 mrem, and the eyes ranged from 40 mrem to 369 mrem. When protective equipment was worn, the radiation exposure to the inside chest ranged from 0 mrem to 108 mrem, the inside neck ranged from 0 mrem to 68 mrem, and the inside groin ranged from 0 mrem to 15 mrem. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Limitations of this study include its small sample size; only the radiation exposure of 30 interventional pain management physicians were examined. Furthermore, this review mainly consisted of observational studies rather than randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:  Implementing safety precautions, such as wearing protective gear, providing educational programs, and keeping a safe distance, demonstrated a significant decrease in radiation exposure. The experience of interventional pain management physicians also factored into their radiation exposure during procedures. Radiation is a known carcinogen, and more research is needed to better understand its risk to interventional pain management physicians.

BACKGROUND:Many patients suffer from abdominal and thoracic pain syndromes secondary to numerous underlying etiologies. Chronic abdominal and thoracic pain can be difficult to treat and often refractory to conservative management. In this systematic literature review, we evaluate the current literature to assess radiofrequency ablation's (RFA) efficacy for treating these debilitating chronic pain conditions in the thoracic and abdominal regions. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to determine the pain relief efficacy of RFA on chronic thoracic and chronic abdominal disease states. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:This study is a systematic literature review that uses the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) method to gather academic literature articles through a methodical approach. The numbers obtained from each academic manuscript were then used to calculate the percent efficacy of radiofrequency ablation on thoracic and abdominal pain relief. METHODS:Articles from 1992 through 2022 were gathered using PRISMA guidelines. The search terms "Radiofrequency Ablation Thoracic Pain" and "Radiofrequency Ablation Abdominal Pain" were used to identify articles to include in our study. Our search yielded a total of 575 studies, 32 of which were included in our study. The articles were then categorized into pain causes. The efficacy of RFA for each qualitative study was then quantified. Risk of bias was also assessed for articles using the Cochran Risk of Bias tool, as well as a tool made by the National Institutes of Health. RESULTS:The PRISMA search yielded a total of 32 articles used for our study, including 16 observational studies, one cohort study, 6 case reports, 6 case series, and 3 clinical trials. Twenty-five articles were labeled good quality and one article was labeled fair quality according to the risk of bias assessment tools. The studies examined RFA efficacy on chronic abdominal and chronic pain syndromes such as spinal lesions, postsurgical thoracic pain, abdominal cancers, and pancreatitis. Among these etiologies, RFA demonstrated notable efficacy in alleviating pain among patients with spinal osteoid osteomas or osteoblastomas, lung cancer, and pancreatic cancer. The modes of RFA used varied among the studies; they included monopolar RFA, bipolar RFA, pulsed RFA, and RFA at different temperatures. The average efficacy rate was 84% ranging from 55.8% - 100%. A total of 329 males and 291 females were included with ages ranging 4 to 90 years old. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Limitations of this review include the RFA not being performed at the same nerve level to address the same pathology and the RFA not being performed for the same duration of time. Furthermore, the efficacy of RFA was evaluated via large case series and single cohort observational studies rather than control group observational studies and clinical trial studies. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A systematic review of the literature supports RFA as a viable option for managing abdominal and thoracic pain. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate the efficacy of the various RFA modalities to ensure RFA is the source of pain relief as a large body of the current literature focuses only on observational studies.