Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: In 2014, New York (NY) became the 23rd state to legalize medical marijuana (MMJ). The purpose of this survey was to collect data about practicing NY physicians' comfort level, opinions, and experience in recommending or supporting patient use of MMJ. Materials and Methods: An anonymous web-based survey was distributed to medical societies and to academic departments in medical schools within NY. Results: A total of 164 responses were analyzed. Physician participants were primarily located in New York City and surrounding areas. The majority (71%) agreed that MMJ should be an option available to patients. Most respondents were not registered to certify MMJ in NY, but were willing to refer patients to registered physicians. Common reasons for not registering included specialty and federal status of cannabis. More than 75% reported having patients who used cannabis for symptom control, and 50% reported having patients who inquired about MMJ within the past year. Most respondents are willing to discuss MMJ with their patients, but had little familiarity with the state program and a modest knowledge of the endocannabinoid system. Pain was a common symptom for which cannabis was recommended by registered physicians (69%) and purportedly used by patients (83%). Most respondents would consider MMJ as an adjuvant to opioids, and 84% believed opioids have greater risks than MMJ. Conclusion: Given that the majority of surveyed physicians support MMJ as an option for patients, few are registered and have adequate knowledge of MMJ. Although our study sample is small and geographically limited, our survey results highlight key physician issues that are likely applicable to practitioners in other states. Concerted efforts are needed at the federal, state, and academic levels to provide practitioners with evidence-based guidelines for the safe use of MMJ.

Chronic knee pain is the second most common cause of chronic pain in the United States. Occasionally, patients become refractory to conventional treatments such as intraarticular cortisone injections and viscosupplementation. Patients who have exhausted these therapies or have a contraindication to the therapies may be candidates for diagnostic genicular nerve block and if successful, subsequent radiofrequency ablation (RFA). For patients who have undergone image-guided genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation with fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance without success, an endoscopic approach can be used as an alternative modality with success. With direct visualization of the genicular nerves, the likelihood of success with an endoscopic approach increases as some patients can have varying anatomy of the genicular nerves for which cannot always be detected with fluoroscopy or ultrasound. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the utilization of a direct endoscopic approach for genicular nerve RFA for patients with chronic knee pain that have failed to improve after image-guided genicular RFA with fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance. Two patients who had underwent successful diagnostic genicular nerve blocks were assessed for pre-procedure and post-procedure visual analog scale (VAS) scores following endoscopic genicular nerve RFA after failure of the conventional image guided approach at 6 and 12 months. Both patients reported greater than 80% reduction in VAS score and improvement in function at 6 and 12 months Limitations of the current study is a limited number of patients, and lack of the use of a formal functional scale to demonstrate improvement. Ultimately, the conclusion was drawn that an endoscopically-guided genicular nerve RFA can be utilized successfully due to direct visualization of the genicular nerves when conventional approaches with Fluoroscopic/ultrasound guidance has failed to achieve analgesia and functional improvement.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (>/= 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of >/= 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The 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: For decades, epidural steroid injections have been an effective tool in the management of many pain related conditions, including lumbar radiculopathy. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections in particular have been reported to potentially result in central nervous system infarctions which have not been reported with interlaminar epidural steroid injections, while providing comparable efficacy. This rare, catastrophic complication has been attributed by some authors to be due to vascular injury secondary to vasospasm, thrombus formation, dissection, as well as concerns with placing the needle at the so-called "safe triangle." Others, however, have proposed it to be secondary to embolization of the vessel by particulate steroids. This has led to the recommendation of the use of soluble steroids such as dexamethasone when performing TFESI's, despite concerns over its efficacy and potential for neurotoxicity in the literature. Furthermore, there have also been multiple studies which have revealed that IV dexamethasone is analgesic and that peri-neural dexamethasone is no more effective than IV dexamethasone. CASE HISTORY: The present case involves a 60-year-old patient with right back and radicular leg pain for 3 years. Two right L4 TFESI's had been performed with betamethasone several years prior with satisfactory results, until the patient presented to the physician with a pain recurrence of 6 weeks of duration. The patient again underwent a right L4 TFESI with dexamethasone, which provided good relief after 2 weeks. The patient underwent a repeat right L4 TFESI with dexamethasone which was followed by a prompt onset of lower extremity numbness, weakness, and incontinence that was discovered to be related to a conus infarction. While this is the first publicly reported case of a conus medullaris infarction following a lumbar transforaminal injection utilizing dexamethasone, the incidence of these reports may rise as the prevalence of dexamethasone use increases in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: The spinal cord infarction with TFESI's may occur related to various mechanisms, regardless of the type of particulate or non-particulate steroid used during these procedures.

INTRODUCTION: There is very strong evidence for the efficacy of transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) in relieving lumbar radicular pain due to a herniated disk. However, case studies have documented paralysis as a potential complication from this approach as the artery of Adamkiewicz may traverse within the subpedicular "safe triangle." Kambin's retrodiscal approach has been postulated as a safe means to the transforaminal approach to avoid the artery of Adamkiewicz. CASE PRESENTATION: A 51-year-old woman presented with right-sided lumbar radicular pain at the L3-L4 and L4-L5 level secondary to a herniated disk. As conservative therapies failed to improve her radicular back pain, the patient opted to proceed with an epidural steroid injection. She subsequently underwent a right L3-L4 and L4-L5 transforaminal epidural steroid injection via Kambin's retrodiscal approach. Although anteroposterior and lateral views revealed optimal needle placement, live and postcontrast fluoroscopy revealed an unavoidable and inadvertent intradiscal spread. CONCLUSION: Kambin's approach is at the level of the intervertebral disk and may increase the incidence of intradiscal needle entry and injection.

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.

Cancer pain is prevalent, undertreated, and feared by patients with cancer. In April 2013, a panel of pain experts convened in Singapore to address the treatment of cancer pain. They discussed the various types of cancer pain, including breakthrough pain, which is sometimes clinically confused with analgesic gaps. Reasons for undertreating cancer pain include attitudes of patients, clinicians, and factors associated with healthcare systems. The consequences of not treating cancer pain may include reduced quality of life for patients with cancer (who now live longer than ever), functional decline, and increased psychological stress. Early analgesic intervention for cancer pain may reduce the risk of central sensitization and chronification of pain. To manage pain in oncology patients, clinicians should assess pain during regular follow-up visits using validated pain measurement tools and follow prescribing guidelines, if necessary referring patients with cancer to pain specialists. Many patients with cancer require opioids for pain relief. Pain associated with cancer may also relate to cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Many patients with cancer are what might be considered "special populations," in that they may be elderly, frail, comorbid, or have end-stage organ failure. Specific pain therapy guidelines for those populations are reviewed. Patients with cancer with a history of or active substance abuse disorder deserve pain control but may require close medical supervision. While much "treatment inertia" exists in cancer pain control, cancer pain can be safely and effectively managed and should be carried out to alleviate suffering and improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. METHODS: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level II for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level II in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level II with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence. CONCLUSION: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions. KEY WORDS: Chronic pain, spinal pain, epidural injections, local anesthetic, steroids, interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections.