Faculty Bibliography

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: The therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. METHODS: The available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (I

BACKGROUND: Spinal zygapophysial, or facet, joints are a source of axial spinal pain and referred pain in the extremities. Conventional clinical features and other noninvasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing zygapophysial joint pain. STUDY DESIGN: 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: A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. The level of evidence was classified as Level I to V based on the grading of evidence utilizing best evidence synthesis. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and other electronic searches published from 1966 through March 2015, Cochrane reviews, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: Studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. The criterion standard must have been at least 50% pain relief from baseline scores and the ability to perform previously painful movements. RESULTS: The available evidence is Level I for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with the inclusion of a total of 17 studies with dual diagnostic blocks, with at least 75% pain relief with an average prevalence of 16% to 41% and false-positive rates of 25% to 44%. The evidence for diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain with cervical facet joint nerve blocks is Level II based on a total of 11 controlled diagnostic accuracy studies, with significant variability among the prevalence in a heterogenous population with internal inconsistency. The prevalence rates ranged from 36% to 67% with at least 80% pain relief as the criterion standard and a false-positive rate of 27% to 63%. The level of evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is Level II with 80% or higher pain relief as the criterion standard with a prevalence ranging from 34% to 48% and false-positive rates ranging from 42% to 48%. LIMITATIONS: The shortcomings of this systematic review include a paucity of literature related to the thoracic spine, continued debate on an appropriate gold standard, appropriateness of diagnostic blocks, and utility. CONCLUSION: The evidence is Level I for the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, Level II for cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level II for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks in assessment of chronic spinal pain. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, lumbar facet or zygapophysial joint pain, cervical facet or zygapophysial joint pain, thoracic facet or zygapophysial joint pain, facet joint nerve blocks, medial branch blocks, controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks.

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.

On April 23, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a letter of warning that injection of corticosteroids into the epidural space of the spine may result in rare, but serious adverse events, including "loss of vision, stroke, paralysis, and death." The advisory also advocated that patients should discuss the benefits and risks of epidural corticosteroid injections with their health care professionals, along with the benefits and risks associated with other possible treatments. In addition, the FDA stated that the effectiveness and safety of the corticosteroids for epidural use have not been established, and the FDA has not approved corticosteroids for such use. To raise awareness of the risks of epidural corticosteroid injections in the medical community, the FDA's Safe Use Initiative convened a panel of experts including pain management experts to help define the techniques for such injections with the aim of reducing preventable harm. The panel was unable to reach an agreement on 20 proposed items related to technical aspects of performing epidural injections. Subsequently, the FDA issued the above referenced warning and a notice that a panel will be convened in November 2014. This review assesses the inaccuracies of the warning and critically analyzes the available literature. The literature has been assessed in reference to alternate techniques and an understanding of the risk factors when performing transforaminal epidural injections in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions, ultimately resulting in improved safety. The results of this review show the efficacy of epidural injections, with or without steroids, in a multitude of spinal ailments utilizing caudal, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar interlaminar approaches as well as lumbar transforaminal epidural injections . The evidence also shows the superiority of steroids in managing lumbar disc herniation utilizing caudal and lumbar interlaminar approaches without any significant difference as compared to transforaminal approaches, either with local anesthetic alone or local anesthetic and steroids combined. In conclusion, the authors request that the FDA modify the warning based on the evidence.

Randomized controlled trials are considered the hallmark of evidence-based medicine. This conveys the idea that up-to-date evidence applied consistently in clinical practice, in combination with clinicians' individual expertise and patients own preference/expectations are enjoined to achieve the best possible outcome. Since its inception in 1990s, evidence-based medicine has evolved in conjunction with numerous changes in the healthcare environment. However, the benefits of evidence-based medicine have not materialized for spinal pain including surgical interventions. Consequently, the debate continues on the efficacy and medical necessity of multiple interventions provided in managing spinal pain. Friedly et al published a randomized controlled trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis in the July 2014 edition of the highly prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. This was accompanied by an editorial from Andersson. This manuscript provided significant sensationalism for the media and confusion for the spine community. This randomized trial of epidural glucocorticoid injections for spinal stenosis and accompanying editorial concluded that epidural injections of glucocorticoids plus lidocaine offered minimal or no short-term benefit as compared with epidural injections of lidocaine alone, with the editorial emphasizing proceeding directly to surgical intervention. In addition media statements by the authors also emphasized the idea that exercise or surgery might be better options for patients suffereing from narrowing of the spinal canal. The interventional pain management community believes that there are severe limitations to this study, manuscript, and accompanying editorial. The design, inclusion criteria, outcomes assessment, analysis of data and interpretation, and conclusions of this trial point to the fact that this highly sophisticated and much publicized randomized trial may not be appropriate and lead to misinformation. The design of the trial was inappropriate with failure to include existing randomized trials, with inclusion criteria that did not incorporate conservative management,or caudal epidural injections. Simultaneously, acute pain patients were included, multilevel stenosis and various other factors were not identified. The interventions included lumbar interlaminar and transforaminal epidural injections with highly variable volumes of medication being injected per patient. Outcomes assessment was not optimal with assessment of the patients at 3 and 6 weeks for a procedure which provides on average 3 weeks of relief and utilizing an instrument which is more appropriately utilized in acute and subacute low back pain. Analysis of the data was hampered by inadequate subgroup analysis leading to inappropriate interpretation. Based on the available data epidural local anesthetic with steroids was clearly superior at 3 weeks and potentially at 6 weeks. Further, both treatments were effective considering the baseline to 3 week and 6 week assessment, appropriate subgroup analysis seems to have yielded significant superiority for interlaminar epidural injections compared to transforaminal epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids specifically with proportion of patients achieving greater than 50% improvement at 3 and 6 week levels. This critical assessment shows that this study suffers from a challenging design, was premised on the exclusion of available high-quality literature, and had inadequate duration of follow-up for an interventional technique with poor assessment criteria and reporting. Finally the analysis and interpretation of data has led to inaccurate and inappropriate conclusions which we do not believe is based on scientific evidence.

BACKGROUND: Interlaminar epidural steroid injection is a well-established intervention for the treatment of radicular pain. Pain is commonly reported during the injection into the epidural space; this provocation is typically either concordant or discordant with the patient's baseline pain. It is not well known how this provocation pain relates to treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between concordant versus discordant provocation during interlaminar epidural steroid injection and its effects on pain reduction at follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a single center, prospective randomized double-blind study. METHODS: Interlaminar epidural steroid injections under fluoroscopic guidance were performed on 48 patients with radicular lumbosacral pain. After injection with 80 mg methylprednisolone and 2 mL of normal saline at a single level, patients were asked to report if pain was provoked, and whether the pain was concordant or discordant with their baseline pain. The primary outcome measure was self-rated percentage of pain reduction from baseline at 2-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included improvement in activity level and decreased analgesic consumption. RESULTS: Provocation was observed in 37 out of 48 patients (77%). This was further classified as concordant (22/37, 60%) or discordant (15/37, 40%) pain. The concordant group achieved a significant decrease in self-reported pain as compared to the discordant group at 2-week follow-up (61%, t = 2.45, P < 0.01). There were also significantly more patients in the concordant group who reported 75% pain reduction as compared to the discordant group (X = 6.44, df(1), P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between concordant and discordant groups in regard to improvements in activity level (X = 2.56) and decreased analgesic use (X = 3.28). LIMITATIONS: The secondary analysis did not examine long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The concordant group demonstrated significantly higher pain reduction as compared to the discordant group. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of improved function or reduced analgesic requirements. Concordant provocation during interlaminar epidural injection may be a predictor of outcome.

OBJECTIVE: The concept of neuromodulation via the use of spinal cord stimulators (SCS) was first established over forty years ago. Since then, its popularity has grown as numerous studies have demonstrated its utility to reduce chronic pain, improve patient function, and reduce long-term health care costs. The aim of this study was to update the pain medicine community on the evolution of SCS practice trends in academic centers. DESIGN: Ninety-three pain medicine fellowship programs in the United States were identified from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Website and were contacted to participate in an internet survey. A 37-item questionnaire was inspired by a previous study performed by Fanciullo et al. Questions focused on three main themes regarding SCS clinical application, namely demographics, education, and technical matters. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 50 institutions, all of which reported performing SCS interventions. Annual implants ranged from 0 to 150. Fellowship training was cited as the most valuable modality for learning implantation. Nearly all programs reported manufacturer representative participation during SCS procedures, with a minority of program directors discouraging their involvement in fellow education. SCS trials were performed exclusively on an outpatient basis. The average length for trials was 4-7 days. The most common indication for SCS implantation was failed back surgery syndrome, which also had the highest 2-year success rate. Post procedure, patients generally were followed up every 2-4 weeks for device reprogramming, which was performed by company representatives 92% of the time. CONCLUSION: Standardized SCS training is imperative as the implementation of neuromodulation therapy continues to increase.