Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Chronic axial spinal pain is a major contributor to disability and healthcare expenditures, with facet joints recognized as one of the established sources of pain. OBJECTIVE:To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. METHODS:A multidisciplinary panel of experts from various medical and pharmaceutical disciplines, convened by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), reviewed the available evidence, considered patient perspectives, and formulated recommendations for facet joint interventions in the management of chronic pain.The methodology included the development of key questions with evidence-based statements and recommendations. Grading of the evidence and recommendations followed a modified approach described by ASIPP, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methods for grading strength of recommendations. The evidence review included existing guidelines, systematic reviews, comprehensive reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of facet joint interventions in chronic pain management.In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, a modified Delphi technique was utilized to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted on approval of specific guideline statements. Each panelist was permitted to suggest revisions to guideline wording and provide additional qualifying remarks or comments regarding implementation of the guidelines in clinical practice. To achieve consensus and inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without a primary conflict of interest. RESULTS:A total of 48 authors participated in the development of these guidelines, of whom 39 participated in the voting process. A total of 37 recommendations were developed, with 100% acceptance for all items. The Summary of Recommendations is presented separately. These recommendations addressed diagnostic, therapeutic, and special considerations related to facet joint interventions. For diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, the level of evidence ranged from II to III, with moderate to strong recommendations. For special considerations and safety assessments, the level of evidence ranged from II to V. The evidence provided recommendations regarding diagnosis, treatment, sedation, concurrent antithrombotic therapy, and precautions required in special clinical circumstances. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in some aspects of diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:These guidelines for facet joint interventions were developed through a comprehensive review of the literature, including methodologic quality assessment and determination of the level of evidence and strength of recommendations. DISCLAIMER/CONCLUSIONS:These 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."

BACKGROUND:Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the leading causes of disability. The literature demonstrates that expenditures for low back and neck pain continue to rise, not only in parallel with increasing disability, but also with escalating healthcare costs, accounting for the highest spending among multiple disease categories. Based on current evidence utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks, facet joints, nerve root dura, and sacroiliac joints have been identified as potential sources of spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks. OBJECTIVE:To determine the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks in chronic spinal pain. METHODS:Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) instrument. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the predefined inclusion criteria were included in the analysis.The strength of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Levels of evidence were classified using a modified best evidence synthesis, ranging from Level I to Level V.Data sources included relevant literature identified through PubMed and other electronic searches published from 1966 through September 2025, Cochrane reviews, and manual searches of the bibliographies of primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Eligible studies were required to use placebo-controlled or comparative local anesthetic blocks. A positive diagnostic standard was defined as at least 50% pain relief from baseline scores along with the ability to perform previously painful movements. RESULTS:The available evidence demonstrated Level I for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, based on 18 studies employing dual diagnostic blocks, demonstrating 75% to 80% pain relief, with an average prevalence of 16% to 45% and estimated or presumed false-positive rates of 25% to 50%.Evidence for the diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain using cervical facet joint nerve blocks is Level II, derived from 12 controlled diagnostic accuracy studies, showing substantial heterogeneity and internal inconsistency. Reported prevalence ranged from 36% to 67% with ≥ 80% pain relief and estimated or presumed false-positive rates of 26% to 63%.The level of evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is Level II, based on 3 studies using dual diagnostic blocks, demonstrating 80% or greater pain relief, with prevalence ranging from 34% to 48% and estimated or presumed false-positive rates ranging from 42% to 58%. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Limitations of this systematic review include the limited number of studies involving the thoracic spine, ongoing debate regarding the appropriate reference standard, challenges in determining false-positive rates, concerns regarding the appropriateness of diagnostic blocks, the scarcity of recent publications, and issues related to clinical utility. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is Level I evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and Level II evidence for cervical and thoracic facet joint nerve blocks in the evaluation of chronic spinal pain.

BACKGROUND:Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a prevalent cause of pain and disability in elderly individuals, characterized primarily by neurogenic claudication resulting from narrowed spinal canals. Traditional treatment for LSS spans from conservative approaches to decompressive surgery, the latter of which poses significant complication risks. Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression® (MILD®, Vertos Medical) offers a less invasive alternative, with its efficacy supported by preliminary studies such as the MiDAS ENCORE. OBJECTIVE:This retrospective study evaluates the real-world outcomes of the MILD® procedure in managing LSS accompanied by hypertrophied ligamentum flavum (HLF) in 300 patients who have failed conservative management. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A single-center observational study. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review of 300 patients treated with MILD® at a single center in Northern New Jersey. Patients had documented cases of central LSS with HLF and persistent symptoms despite being treated with conventional therapies. The procedure involved percutaneous lumbar decompression using fluoroscopic guidance. Outcomes measured included scores on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and patient-reported improvement percentages at intervals of up to one year. RESULTS:MILD® significantly reduced NPRS scores at all follow-up points, with the most substantial improvements noted within 3 months after the operation and sustained benefits up to a year. The average patient-reported improvement in pain and function was robust, beginning as early as 2 weeks after the procedure. No serious adverse events were reported, affirming the procedure's safety. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:The absence of a control group and the study's single-center nature might have limited the generalizability of results. These factors highlight the necessity for multicenter controlled trials to validate findings across diverse populations. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The MILD® procedure is a safe and effective treatment for LSS, providing significant and sustained improvements in pain and function, making the technique particularly suitable for patients ineligible for surgery or at higher risk of experiencing complications from it.

On July 14, 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2026 Physician Proposed Payment Rule aimed at reducing wasteful spending, enhancing quality measures, improving chronic disease management, and protecting independent practices from systemic financial pressures that have favored large healthcare systems and plagued independent practices. The goals are admirable, but the proposed measures with uniform reductions of 2.5% in physician payments based on efficiency adjustments apply across the board to all physicians. Further, practice expense (PE) reductions of 4% to 6%, meant to apply for hospital-based physicians will inadvertently apply to independent physicians constituting 43% of the physician workforce providing services in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), as well as hospitals. Thus, reductions of work relative value unit (wRVU) based on efficiency adjustment of 2.5% and PE reductions of 4% to 6%, with total reductions of 7% to 9%, compromise and limit patient care by putting additional pressure on independent physicians. Further, CMS' proposal to start Ambulatory Specialty Model (ASM) for low back pain with specialties of interventional pain management (IPM) and pain management involved. These specialties have no control over costs incurred as an overwhelming majority of patients are chronic pain patients and managed by family physicians, chiropractors, physical therapists, neurosurgeons, and others, resulting in 9% reductions, or increase in reimbursement over a period of 3 years with recurring changes of 3% each year.The proposal includes a 3.8% conversion factor (CF) payment update and increased reimbursement for office-based services, including evaluation, management, and procedures. The changes will increase reimbursement by 8% to 10% for office-based services, but they also decrease reimbursement for all procedures performed outside offices by 7% to 9%. These proposals arrive at a time when non-physician health care providers are striking for wage increase tied to inflation, and ironically, physicians have experienced repeated cuts in reimbursement with occasional stagnation, leading to 33% reduction from 2001 to 2025 in general, and 41% reductions in reimbursement for interventional pain physicians. In addition, there is an additional 2% sequester cut each year from 2011 to last until 2031, and there is a potential for 4% PAYGO cuts starting next year. Further, supply costs have increased 56% to 80% during these years. Further, despite technological advancements such as EMRs and AI, administrative burdens have intensified rather than improved. Independent physicians contend with complex prior authorizations, evolving Medicare coverage policies, growing audit risk with increased documentation and compliance demands from all payers' sources, 30% of interventional pain physicians under audit at any time. Our data on interventional pain physicians and published data on other physicians shows that efficiency has decreased and PEs have been skyrocketing.Ironically, CMS has proposed on January 10, 2025, a 4.3% payment increase to Medicare Advantage Plans, amounting to $21 billion in 2026. To add fuel to the fire, CMS on April 7, 2025, issued a final rule of increasing on average by 5.06% from 2025 to 2026. These proposals come amid growing concerns about Medicare Advantage over payments, including $44 billion due to favorable selection, $40 billion from risk adjustment discrepancies, and $15 billion for duplicative coverage of veterans who already receive benefits through the Veterans Administration (VA). In addition, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), traditional Medicare beneficiaries also face higher costs, contributing an additional $198 annually, totaling roughly $13 billion per year. All of these added together, CMS is spending on Medicare Advantage over $110 billion a year.Thus, as independent practice continues to come under assault, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) and other societies urge CMS to create a separate identifier for independent pain physicians to distinguish them from hospital-based physicians and prevent these cuts from harming independent practices. This separate but equal treatment of independent physician practices ultimately interferes with patient care.

BACKGROUND:A recent surge of publications on interventional techniques has questioned their effectiveness, based on a rapid review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. This was followed by releasing a clinical practice guideline recommending a global ban on these techniques. Understandably, such recommendations have raised significant concern worldwide. Interventional techniques are widely used in chronic pain management, yet their effectiveness has been debated, with longstanding concerns about overuse, misuse, fraud, and abuse. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To provide a comprehensive review and critical analysis of the BMJ rapid reviews and associated guidelines, with particular attention to the application-or absence-of basic appropriateness criteria published in the same journal, and the improper incorporation of such evidence into guideline recommendations. METHODS:A review of the available literature was conducted to assess the appropriate criteria for rapid reviews and guideline development. RESULTS:The absence of established appropriateness criteria led to an inadequately conducted rapid review and poorly developed guidelines. These, in turn, resulted in sweeping, globally applicable recommendations that lack a sound evidentiary basis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A thorough examination of BMJ publications and related literature demonstrates that the BMJ's rapid reviews and subsequent guidelines on interventional techniques fail to meet recognized appropriateness criteria for conducting rapid reviews and developing consequential clinical guidelines based on such reviews.

BACKGROUND:Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is a challenging and often disabling condition marked by persistent pain, most commonly in a limb following injury or surgery. It presents with a wide array of symptoms, including intense pain, swelling, alterations in skin color and temperature, motor dysfunction, and trophic changes such as skin and tissue atrophy. While the precise cause of CRPS is not fully understood, it is thought to stem from abnormal nervous system activity, leading to heightened pain sensitivity and inflammatory responses. A thorough understanding of CRPS is essential for accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and enhancing patients' quality of life.Although attempts have been made to distinguish between acute and chronic CRPS, there are currently no established diagnostic criteria specific to chronic CRPS in medical literature. OBJECTIVE:This ASIPP guidance document offers updated, evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of Chronic Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), with a primary focus on introducing novel, time-based diagnostic criteria specific to the chronic phase. These proposed criteria address significant gaps in the current literature, where existing standards, such as the Budapest Criteria, do not sufficiently differentiate between the acute and chronic stages of the condition. METHODS:An expert panel convened by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) conducted a comprehensive literature review and employed a structured consensus process to develop recommendations. Acknowledging that the clinical and pathological characteristics of CRPS change significantly beyond 12 months, the panel proposed chronic-specific diagnostic criteria based on disease duration, clinical history, physical examination findings, and optional diagnostic tests. These draft criteria were refined through multidisciplinary input and expert consensus. RESULTS:The diagnostic framework for chronic CRPS consists of four key components:General Criteria - Require fulfillment of the Budapest Criteria for at least 12 months, continued recognition of CRPS as a diagnosis of exclusion, and differentiation from generalized nociplastic pain syndromes.History-Based Criteria - Mandate the presence of at least three out of five specific historical features.Physical Examination Criteria - Include asymmetric limb findings, sensory disturbances, and musculoskeletal changes.Optional Diagnostic Testing - May involve assessments such as intraepidermal nerve fiber density (IENFD) and imaging evidence of regional bone demineralization.This framework builds upon the Budapest Criteria by incorporating time-dependent features of chronic CRPS, including musculoskeletal dystrophy, neurogenic inflammation, and sympathetic dysfunction. Emerging objective tools-such as quantitative sensory testing (QST), skin biopsy for IENFD, functional MRI, and serum biomarkers of neuroinflammation-may further support diagnosis in complex or uncertain cases.Treatment recommendations highlight a multimodal strategy that integrates physical rehabilitation, pharmacologic management of neuropathic pain, sympathetic nerve blocks, and advanced neuromodulation. Emphasis is placed on individualized care pathways tailored to disease stage and patient-specific characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:This article presents the first structured, time-sensitive diagnostic criteria for chronic CRPS, aimed at improving diagnostic accuracy and informing treatment strategies. Adoption of these criteria may enhance clinical outcomes and promote further research into the natural history and pathophysiology of CRPS progression.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:This study aims to investigate the interregional functional connectivity in chronic back pain patients with widespread hyperalgesia, patients with localized back pain, and pain-free controls using stimulus-evoked high-density EEG recordings. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted high-density EEG recordings to compare the functional connectivity and betweenness centrality between these groups. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Compared with controls, chronic pain patients showed altered functional connectivity between regions that process cognitive information and regions that process sensory or affective information. Widespread hyperalgesia, however, is further differentiated from localized pain by decreased inter-hemispheric connectivity of sensory and affective areas and increased intra-hemispheric connectivity between sensory and cognitive cortices. Graph-theoretic analysis showed that whereas chronic pain is associated with decreased centrality of prefrontal, orbitofrontal, and cingulate areas, widespread hyperalgesia is distinguished by increased centrality of prefrontal and insular areas. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Together, our results show that although widespread hyperalgesia shares certain features with localized pain, it is further characterized by distinct cortical mechanisms.