Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education. METHODS:This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME-accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow-up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy. RESULTS:Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry-related and professional society-related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long-term success. Fifty-four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12-month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization.

Introduction: Pain is a global phenomenon encompassing many subtypes that include neuropathic, musculoskeletal, acute postoperative, cancer, and geriatric pain. Traditionally, opioids have been a mainstay pharmacological agent for managing many types of pain. However, opioids have been a subject of controversy with increased addiction, fatality rates, and cost burden on the US healthcare system. Cannabinoids have emerged as a potentially favorable alternative or adjunctive treatment for various types of acute and chronic pain. This narrative review seeks to describe the efficacy, risks, and benefits of cannabinoids as an adjunct or even potential replacement for opioids in the treatment of various subtypes of pain. Methods: In June of 2022, we performed a comprehensive search across multiple databases for English-language studies related to the use of cannabinoids in the treatment of various types pain: neuropathic pain, musculoskeletal pain, acute postoperative pain, cancer pain, and geriatric pain. Data from meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and randomized control trials (RCTs) were prioritized for reporting. We sought to focus our reported analysis on more recent literature as well as include older relevant studies with particularly notable findings. Results: There is conflicting evidence for the use of cannabinoids in the management of pain. While cannabinoids have shown efficacy in treating specific chronic pain subtypes such as neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia pain, and geriatric pain, they do not show as clear benefit in acute postoperative and the majority of musculoskeletal pain syndromes. Data trends towards cannabinoids having a positive effect in treating cancer pain, but results are not as conclusive. To date, there is a paucity of data comparing cannabinoids directly to opioids for pain relief. Overall, the side effects of cannabinoids appear to be relatively mild. However, there is still potential for addiction, altered brain development, psychiatric comorbidities, and drug"“drug interactions. Conclusion: Cannabinoids may be effective in specific subtypes of pain, but current evidence and guidelines do not yet support its use as the first-line treatment for any type of acute or chronic pain. Rather, it may be considered a good adjunct or alternative for patients who have failed more typical or conservative measures. Additional studies are needed with standardized forms of cannabinoids, route of delivery, and dosing for greater-powered analysis. Providers must weigh the individualized patient risks, benefits, and concurrent medication list in order to determine whether cannabinoids are appropriate for a patient"™s pain treatment plan.

With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and it has broad applicability across a wide range of other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the American Society for Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN), this best practices consensus document has been developed for the selection, implantation, and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. This document is composed of a comprehensive narrative literature review that has been performed regarding the role of the DRG in chronic pain and the clinical evidence for DRG-S as a treatment for multiple pain etiologies. Best practice recommendations encompass safety management, implantation techniques, and mitigation of the potential complications reported in the literature. Looking to the future of neuromodulation, DRG-S holds promise as a robust intervention for otherwise intractable pain.

Introduction: The evolution of treatment options for painful spinal disorders in diverse settings has produced a variety of approaches to patient care among clinicians from multiple professional backgrounds. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practice group identified a need for a multidisciplinary guideline regarding appropriate and effective informed consent processes for spine procedures. Objective: The ASPN Informed Consent Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with a comprehensive evaluation of patient consent practices during the treatment of spine pathology. Methods: After a needs assessment, ASPN determined that best practice regarding proper informed consent for spinal procedures was needed and a process of selecting faculty was developed based on expertise, diversity, and knowledge of the subject matter. A comprehensive literature search was conducted and when appropriate, evidence grading was performed. Recommendations were based on evidence when available, and when limited, based on consensus opinion. Results: Following a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Informed Consent Guideline group rated the literature to assist with specification of best practice regarding patient consent during the management of spine disorders. Conclusion: Careful attention to informed consent is critical in achieving an optimal outcome and properly educating patients. This process involves a discussion of risks, advantages, and alternatives to treatment. As the field of interventional pain and spine continues to grow, it is imperative that clinicians effectively educate patients and obtain comprehensive informed consent for invasive procedures. This consent should be tailored to the patient"™s specific needs to ensure an essential recognition of patient autonomy and reasonable expectations of treatment.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a symptom that derives from a complex group of heterogeneous pathologies of the pelvic organs. The aim of this study was to review the available evidence on efficacy of neuromodulatory modalities including sacral neuromodulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, dorsal column neuromodulation, and pudendal nerve stimulation. METHODS:This narrative review focuses on updated information on neuromodulation for management of chronic pelvic pain. In 2022, we searched English-language studies on neuromodulation, pelvic pain, and chronic pain in a comprehensive search. We searched the following databases: PubMed, Medline, SciHub, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar. We used the following combinations of keywords: neuromodulation, pelvic pain, chronic pain, chronic pelvic pain, pelvic pain treatment. We tried to include as many recent manuscripts as possible (within the last 3 years) but also included papers older than 3 years if they were particularly relevant to our topic. We also attempted to search for, use, and cite primary manuscripts whenever possible. RESULTS:CPP is a challenging entity to treat because of diagnostic inconsistencies and limited evidence for therapeutic modalities. Our review found evidence suggestive of benefit for all modalities reviewed but the data was of overall low quality with numerous limitations. The literature highlights a lack of randomized controlled trials for neuromodulatory therapies but suggests a growing role for such techniques in treating refractory chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS). CONCLUSIONS:This review explores the available evidence on efficacy of neuromodulatory modalities for CPPS and contextualizes the results with information about the type of neuromodulation, lead location and waveform, pain outcomes and assessment timepoints, and reported adverse effects.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can provide long-term pain relief for various chronic pain conditions, but some patients have no relief with trial stimulation or lose efficacy over time. To "salvage" relief in patients who do not respond or have lost efficacy, alternative stimulation paradigms or anatomical targets can be considered. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has a different mechanism of action and anatomical target than SCS. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We assessed DRG-S salvage therapy outcomes in patients who did not respond to SCS or had lost SCS efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We retrospectively included consecutive patients from 2016 to 2020 who were salvaged with DRG-S after failed SCS trials (<50% pain reduction) or who had lost efficacy after permanent SCS. We compared numerical rating scale (NRS) pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), health-related quality of life (EuroQol five-dimensions five-level), and oral morphine equivalent (OME) opioid requirements before DRG-S salvage and at patients' last follow-up. RESULTS:A total of 60 patients who had failed SCS were salvaged with DRG-S. The mean age was 56 ± 12 years, and the most common diagnoses were complex regional pain syndrome (n = 24) and failed back surgery syndrome (n = 24). The most common failed modalities included tonic (n = 32), Burst (n = 18), and high-frequency (n = 10) SCS. The median follow-up duration of salvage DRG-S was 34 months. With DRG-S, NRS decreased (8.7 ± 1.2 to 3.8 ± 2.1), and OME declined (median 23 mg to median 15 mg), whereas EuroQol 5D scores increased (0.40 ± 0.15 to 0.71 ± 0.15), and ODI improved (64 ± 14% to 31 ± 18%) (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:DRG-S can be used in patients with chronic pain who have previously failed to receive persistent benefit from SCS.

OBJECTIVE:A heightened and organized understanding of sacral anatomy could potentially lead to a more effective and safe method of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) lead placement. The aim of this technical note is to describe a standardized access method for S1 DRG-S lead placement. DESIGN/METHODS:Technical note. METHODS:The described approach utilizes alignment of the lumbosacral prominence and is measurement- based, allowing for standardized sacral access, even when visualization is suboptimal. The medial-to-lateral needle trajectory is designed to limit interaction with the sensitive neural structures and allows for a more parallel orientation of the lead to the DRG and nerve root. CONCLUSIONS:The described technique potentially improves the safety of S1 DRG-S lead placement. The parallel lead orientation to the DRG may also increase efficacy while lowering energy requirements.