scholarly journals Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for cervical spine (facet) joint pain from a multispecialty international working group

2021 ◽  
pp. rapm-2021-103031
Author(s):  
Robert W Hurley ◽  
Meredith C B Adams ◽  
Meredith Barad ◽  
Arun Bhaskar ◽  
Anuj Bhatia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Pain Medicine ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Joint Injections

BackgroundThe past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial.MethodsIn August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement.ResultsTwenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation.ConclusionsCervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 424-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven P Cohen ◽  
Arun Bhaskar ◽  
Anuj Bhatia ◽  
Asokumar Buvanendran ◽  
Tim Deer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Steering Committee ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
En Bloc ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Lumbar Facet

BackgroundThe past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial.MethodsAfter approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4–5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. We used a modified Delphi method, whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached.Results17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary).ConclusionsLumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

scholarly journals A Critical Look at the Data Supporting Ultrasound Guided Cervical Medial Branch Blocks

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith Barad
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Spine Injections ◽  
American Society ◽  
Cervical Facet ◽  
Cervical Facet Joint ◽  
Joint Injections

According to guidelines published by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians in 2013 ‎1, ‎2, the current evidence for cervical facet joint injections is fair. Yet the volume of these procedures continues to rise ‎3. There is a need for a more critical appraisal of the benefit, technique and adverse effects associated with cervical spine injections. The systematic review and meta-analysis by Paredes et al ‎4 seeks to better assess the evidence for use of ultrasound (US) guidance with cervical medial branch blocks. This article is also a response to a recently published critique by Schneider et al ‎5 raising concerns about the paucity of evidence evaluating the safety, accuracy, and effectiveness of US-guided cervical spine procedures.

Predictors of response to medial branch block, radiofrequency ablation or facet joint injections: a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saba Javed ◽  
Jordan Chen ◽  
Billy Huh
Keyword(s):  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Lumbar Facet Joint ◽  
Predictors Of Response ◽  
Medial Branch Block ◽  
Lumbar Facet ◽  
Joint Injections

Aim: Low back pain is a leading cause of patient disability in the USA. Our goal was to determine association between patient characteristics and their response to lumbar medial branch block, radiofrequency ablation of medial nerves or lumbar facet joint injections. Materials & methods: Medical records for the first 100 patients who underwent lumbar medial branch block, radiofrequency ablation of lumbar medial nerves or lumbar facet joint injections between 1 September 2019 and 31 March 2020 were reviewed and demographic data were recorded. Results: At the 3-month post-procedure visit, positive responders were significantly more likely to be non obese patients (BMI <30) and those with pain <5-years. Conclusion: Obesity and chronicity of pain certainly are found to be predictors of response to the above mentioned procedures.

The Benefit of Therapeutic Medial Branch Blocks after Cervical Operations

2010 ◽  
Vol 6;13 (6;12) ◽  
pp. 527-534
Author(s):  
Stephan Klessinger
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Medial Branch Block ◽  
Cervical Facet ◽  
Cervical Facet Joint

Background: Persistent neck pain is a common problem after surgery of the cervical spine. No therapy recommendation exists for these patients. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine if a therapeutic medial branch block is a rational treatment for patients with postoperative neck pain after cervical spine operations. Study Design: Retrospective practice audit. Setting: Review of charts of all patients who underwent cervical spine operations for degenerative reasons during a time period of 3 years. Methods: Patients with persistent postsurgical pain were treated with therapeutic medial branch blocks (local anesthetic and steroid). A positive treatment response was defined if at least 80% reduction of pain could be achieved or if the patient was sufficiently satisfied with the relief. All patients with a minimum follow up time of 6 month were included. Results: Of the 312 operations performed, 128 were artificial disc operations, 125 were stand alone cages, and 59 were fusions with cage and plate. Persistent neck pain occurred in 33.3 % of the patients. There was no difference between the patients with neck pain and the whole group of patients. More than half of the patients with neck pain—52.9%—were treated successfully with therapeutic medial branch blocks. Since no further treatment was necessary, the initial treatment was considered successful. Nearly a third—32.2%—of the patients were initially treated successfully, but their pain recurred and further diagnostics and treatments were necessary. In this group of patients, significantly more with double level operations were found (P = 0.003). Patients not responding to the medial branch block were 14.9%. Limitations: This audit is retrospective and observational, and therefore does not represent a high level of evidence. However, to our knowledge, since this information has not been previously reported and no recommendation for the treatment of post-operative zygapophysial joint pain exists, it appears to be the best available research upon which to recommend treatment and to plan higher quality studies. Conclusions: For persistent postsurgical neck pain only limited therapy recommendations exist. This study suggests treating these patients in a first instance with therapeutic medial branch blocks. The success rate is 52.9 %. Key words: Chronic neck pain, cervical zygapophysial pain, cervical facet joint pain, medial branch blocks, therapeutical cervical facet joint nerve blocks, postsurgery syndrome, pain therapy Pain Physician

Case 11

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bashar Katirji
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Cervical Radiculopathy ◽  
Radicular Pain ◽  
Nerve Conduction Studies ◽  
Accurate Diagnosis ◽  
Motor Weakness ◽  
Needle Electromyography ◽  
Cervical Root

Cervical radiculopathy and neck pain are among the most common neurological presentations seen in clinical practice. Cervical radiculopathy results in radicular pain, sensory manifestations, motor weakness and reflex changes, that are dependent on the specific compressed cervical root. The accurate diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy depends on a detailed neurological examination supplemented by electrodiagnostic studies and imaging of the cervical spine. This case highlights the anatomy, pathophysiology, and findings of the various cervical radiculopathies and distinguishes them from brachial plexopathies and other upper limb mononeuropathies. The benefits, pitfalls, and challenges of electrodiagnostic studies, including nerve conduction studies and needle electromyography, are also discussed.

scholarly journals Response to Cervical Medial Branch Blocks In Patients with Cervicogenic Vertigo

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. 285-293
Author(s):  
Stephan Klessinger
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Diagnostic Tool ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Electronic Medical Record System ◽  
Clinical Impression ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
Record System ◽  
Worst Case

Background: Among the various causes of vertigo, the so-called cervicogenic vertigo (CV) has been the most controversial. However, perturbations of proprioceptive signals and abnormal activity of the cervical afferents can induce vertigo. Medial branch blocks (MBBs) are a diagnostic tool designed to test whether a patient’s neck pain is mediated by one or more of the medial branches of the dorsal rami of the spinal nerve. It is unknown whether MBBs are also suitable for testing symptoms other than pain. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to test whether MBBs of the cervical spine can be used as a diagnostic tool to identify patients with CV. Study Design: A retrospective practice audit (clinical observation). Setting: An interventional pain management and spine practice. Methods: An electronic medical record system was used to identify patients in a single spine center. Included were consecutive patients with neck pain and vertigo, who had received cervical MBBs in a period from July 2001 to April 2016. The patients were tested with a MBB of about 1 mL of bupivacaine (0.25%) and 20 mg triamcinolone. Injections were performed with fluoroscopic visualization using established techniques in 2 or 3 levels on one or both sides. Vertigo was analyzed through the global clinical impression of the patient (i.e., “gone,” “better,” “the same,” or “worse”). Results: One-hundred seventy-eight patients met the inclusion criteria. One-hundred eleven patients (62.4%) experienced a significant improvement of the vertigo. In 47 patients (26.4%), no information about the vertigo was available at follow-up; these patients were assumed to have no improvement (worst-case scenario). Hence, altogether 67 patients (37.6%) had a negative result. The median relief of the vertigo was 2 months. Differences in age, gender, level of treatment, or pain duration between patients with relief of the vertigo and without relief were not found. Nine patients with a whiplash injury in their medical history were also tested. They experienced a lower success rate and had longer duration of pain before the treatment; however, these differences are not statistically significant. Limitations: It was the primary intention to treat neck pain; the assessment of vertigo was an additional aim. Therefore, the history taken and the clinical examination were not targeted specifically to vertigo. A placebo effect cannot be excluded. Further studies with the primary focus on CV are necessary to prove the significance of MBBs. Conclusions: This is the first study to demonstrate that MBBs of the cervical spine can be a useful tool for the diagnosis of CV, because they temporarily block cervical afferents. In 63.4% of patients with neck pain and suspected CV, the vertigo was significantly improved. Further placebo-controlled studies with the primary intention on CV are necessary to prove the significance of MBBs. Key words: Cervicogenic vertigo, medial branch block, facet joint, zygapophysial joint, neck pain, differential diagnosis

scholarly journals Cervicovestibular rehabilitation in adult with mild traumatic brain injury: a randomised controlled trial protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Langevin ◽  
Philippe Fait ◽  
Pierre Frémont ◽  
Jean-Sébastien Roy
Keyword(s):  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Rehabilitation Program ◽  
Conventional Approach ◽  
Persistent Symptoms ◽  
Link Type

Abstract Background Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is an acknowledged public health problem. Up to 25% of adult with mTBI present persistent symptoms. Headache, dizziness, nausea and neck pain are the most commonly reported symptoms and are frequently associated with cervical spine and vestibular impairments. The most recent international consensus statement (2017 Berlin consensus) recommends the addition of an individualized rehabilitation approach for mTBI with persistent symptoms. The addition of an individualized rehabilitation approach including the evaluation and treatment of cervical and vestibular impairments leading to symptoms such as neck pain, headache and dizziness is, however, recommended based only on limited scientific evidence. The benefit of such intervention should therefore be further investigated. Objective To compare the addition of a 6-week individualized cervicovestibular rehabilitation program to a conventional approach of gradual sub-threshold physical activation (SPA) alone in adults with persistent headache, neck pain and/or dizziness-related following a mTBI on the severity of symptoms and on other indicators of clinical recovery. We hypothesize that such a program will improve all outcomes faster than a conventional approach (between-group differences at 6-week and 12-week). Methods In this single-blind, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, 46 adults with subacute (3 to12 weeks post-injury) persistent mTBI symptoms will be randomly assigned to: 1) a 6-week SPA program or 2) SPA combined with a cervicovestibular rehabilitation program. The cervicovestibular rehabilitation program will include education, cervical spine manual therapy and exercises, vestibular rehabilitation and home exercises. All participants will take part in 4 evaluation sessions (baseline, week 6, 12 and 26) performed by a blinded evaluator. The primary outcome will be the Post-Concussion Symptoms Scale. The secondary outcomes will be time to clearance to return to function, number of recurrent episodes, Global Rating of Change, Numerical Pain Rating Scale, Neck Disability Index, Headache Disability Inventory and Dizziness Handicap Inventory. A 2-way ANOVA and an intention-to-treat analysis will be used. Discussion Controlled trials are needed to determine the best rehabilitation approach for mTBI with persistent symptoms such as neck pain, headache and dizziness. This RCT will be crucial to guide future clinical management recommendations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier - NCT03677661, Registered on September, 15th 2018.

Immediate effects of static and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching of hamstring muscles on straight leg raise, craniovertebral angle, and cervical spine range of motion in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness: A prospective randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Eun-Dong Jeong ◽  
Chang-Yong Kim ◽  
Nack-Hwan Kim ◽  
Hyeong-Dong Kim
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
T Test ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Straight Leg Raise ◽  
Pain Patients ◽  
Group Effects

BACKGROUND: The cranio-cervical flexion exercise and sub-occipital muscle inhibition technique have been used to improve a forward head posture among neck pain patients with straight leg raise (SLR) limitation. However, little is known about the cranio-vertebral angle (CVA) and cervical spine range of motion (CROM) after applying stretching methods to the hamstring muscle. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate effects of static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching on SLR, CVA, and CROM in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness. METHODS: 64 subjects were randomly allocated to the static stretching (n1= 32) or proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (n2= 32) stretching group. The SLR test was performed to measure the hamstring muscle’s flexibility and tightness between the two groups, with CROM and CVA also being measured. The paired t-test was used to compare all the variables within each group before and after the intervention. The independent t-test was used to compare the two groups before and after the stretching exercise. RESULTS: There were no between-group effects for any outcome variables (P> 0.05). However, all SLR, CVA, and CROM outcome variables were significantly improved within-group (P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There were no between-group effects for any outcome variable; however, SLR, CVA, and CROM significantly improved within-group after the one-session intervention in neck pain patients with hamstring tightness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document