scholarly journals Comprehensive Review of Neurophysiologic Basis and Diagnostic Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E71-E121
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Criteria ◽  
Sacroiliac Joint ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Understanding the neurophysiological basis of chronic spinal pain and diagnostic interventional techniques is crucial in the proper diagnosis and management of chronic spinal pain.Central to the understanding of the structural basis of chronic spinal pain is the provision of physical diagnosis and validation of patient symptomatology. It has been shown that history, physical examination, imaging, and nerve conduction studies in non-radicular or discogenic pain are unable to diagnose the precise cause in 85% of the patients. In contrast, controlled diagnostic blocks have been shown to determine the cause of pain in as many as 85% of the patients. Objective: To provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic interventional techniques. Design: Best evidence synthesis. Methods: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Diagnostic Criteria: Diagnostic criteria established by systematic reviews were utilized with controlled diagnostic blocks. Diagnostic criteria included at least 80% pain relief with controlled local anesthetic blocks with the ability to perform multiple maneuvers which were painful prior to the diagnostic blocks for facet joint and sacroiliac joint blocks, whereas for provocation discography, the criteria included concordant pain upon stimulation of the target disc with 2 adjacent discs producing no pain at all. Results: The indicated level of evidence for diagnostic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II-1. The indicated evidence is Level II-2 for lumbar and cervical discography, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The evidence for diagnostic sacroiliac joint nerve blocks is Level II-2. Level of evidence for selective nerve root blocks for diagnostic purposes is Level II-3. Limitations: Limitations of this guideline preparation include a continued paucity of literature and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines. Conclusion: These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic interventional procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines also do not represent a “standard of care.” Key words: Diagnostic interventional techniques, chronic spinal pain, facet joint interventions, epidural procedures, provocation discography, sacroiliac joint blocks, post lumbar surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, provocation discography

scholarly journals Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. 699-802
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Comprehensive, evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain are described here to provide recommendations for clinicians. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Design: Systematic assessment of the literature. Methods: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Outcomes: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting at least 6 months and longterm relief was defined as longer than 6 months, except for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal infusion systems, wherein up to one year relief was considered as short-term. Results: The indicated evidence for accuracy of diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is Level I or II1 in the diagnosis of lumbar, thoracic, and cervical facet joint pain. The evidence for lumbar and cervical provocation discography and sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2, whereas it is Level II-3 for thoracic provocation discography. The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain; for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The indicated evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), mechanical disc decompression with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), and percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy (PLDD) is Level II-2. Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of the literature, lack of updates, and conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. Conclusion: The indicated evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic inverventions is variable from Level I to III. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Further, these guidelines also do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

scholarly journals Comprehensive Review of Therapeutic Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E123-E198
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Lumbar Surgery ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Available evidence documents a wide degree of variance in the definition and practice of interventional pain management. Objective: To provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the treatment of chronic spinal pain. Design: Best evidence synthesis. Methods: Strength of evidence was assessed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria utilizing 5 levels of evidence ranging from Level I to III with 3 subcategories in Level II. Outcomes: Short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months, except ≤ one year and > one year for intradiscal therapies, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, and intrathecal infusion systems. Results: The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is Level I for caudal epidural steroid injections in managing disc herniation or radiculitis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. The evidence is Level I to II-1 for percutaneous adhesiolysis in management of pain secondary to post-lumbar surgery syndrome. The evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for therapeutic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks; for caudal epidural injections in managing pain of post-lumbar surgery syndrome, and lumbar spinal stenosis, for cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical pain (Level II-1); for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections; and spinal cord stimulation for post-lumbar surgery syndrome. Limitations: The limitations of this guideline preparation included a paucity of literature, lack of updates, and lack of conflicts in preparation of systematic reviews and guidelines by various organizations. Conclusion: The indicated evidence for therapeutic interventions is variable from Level I to III. This comprehensive review includes the evaluation of evidence for therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations. However, this review and recommendations do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations or “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques, chronic spinal pain, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural procedures, epidural adhesiolysis, radiofrequency, mechanical disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

scholarly journals Systematic Review of the Role of Sedation in Diagnostic Spinal Interventional Techniques

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 195-206
Author(s):  
Howard Smith
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Methodologic Quality ◽  
Facet Joint Pain

Background: There is ongoing controversy regarding the validity of controlled diagnostic blocks due to variability in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Consequently, identification of false-positive rates, false-negative rates, and placebo responses is crucial. The reasons described for false-positive responses to diagnostic anesthetic blocks are many; however, sedation and psychological factors have been implied as causes. Further, there is no consensus with regards to sedation prior to controlled diagnostic blocks and their influence on the accuracy and validity of a diagnosis. Study Design: A systematic review of the literature evaluating the influence of sedation on diagnostic spinal interventional techniques. Objectives: To systematically assess the quality of clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of controlled diagnostic blocks in the diagnosis of chronic spinal pain. Methods: A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to sedation in diagnostic interventional techniques was performed. The methodologic quality assessment of the studies was carried out by utilizing Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic quality criteria with scores of 50 or higher included in the assessment of the level of evidence. Level of evidence was based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for the assessment of accuracy of diagnostic studies. Limitations: All 3 of the studies were produced by one group of authors. Thus paucity of the literature on the subject of facet joint pain and the lack of literature on the subjects of discogenic pain and sacroiliac joint pain are major limitations. Results: Three studies were identified which met inclusion and methodologic assessment quality criteria. Sedation can be a confounding factor in a small population of patients specifically if fentanyl is employed and non-stringent criteria are followed. Based on the 3 randomized double-blind trials with stringent criteria utilizing 80% pain relief and the ability to perform prior painful movements without any significant pain following the diagnostic injection in evaluation of facet joint pain, the indicated evidence is Level II-1. Conclusion: This systematic review provides no significant evidence of the influence of sedation either with midazolam or fentanyl in the evaluation of cervical and lumbar facet joint pain with controlled cervical and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with an indicated evidence of Level II-1, with application of stringent criteria of at least 80% pain relief and the ability to perform previously painful movements after the diagnostic blocks. Key words: Sedation, chronic spinal pain, anxiolytics, analgesics, controlled diagnostic nerve blocks, opioids, benzodiazepines, zygapophysial or facet joint blocks, provocation discography, sacroiliac joint injections

scholarly journals Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Facet Joint Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines

2020 ◽  
Vol 3S;23 (5;3S) ◽  
pp. S1-S127
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Emission Computed Tomography ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. Objective: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations. Summary of Evidence and Recommendations: Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) . Interventional Diagnosis: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥ 80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥ 80% pain relief.Limitations: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy. Conclusions: These facet joint interventions guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations Key words: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Best Evidence Synthesis of Effectiveness of Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain

2015 ◽  
Vol 18;4 (4;18) ◽  
pp. E535-E582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Radiofrequency Neurotomy ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

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 (IPM – QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques – Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM – QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake consumption. Results: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections. Conclusion: Based on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy. Key Words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, chronic neck pain, chronic thoracic pain, intraarticular facet joint blocks, facet joint nerve blocks, conventional radiofrequency neurotomy, pulsed radiofrequency neurolysis

scholarly journals An Update of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain. Part II: Guidance and Recommendations

2013 ◽  
Vol 2s;16 (2s;4) ◽  
pp. S49-S283
Author(s):  
ASIPP ASIPP
Keyword(s):  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Radiofrequency Neurotomy ◽  
Good For ◽  
Facet Joint Interventions ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. Methodology: Systematic assessment of the literature. Evidence: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. Anticoagulation • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There islimited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. Conclusion: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques , chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

scholarly journals A Best-Evidence Systematic Appraisal of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Utility of Facet (Zygapophysial) Joint Injections in Chronic Spinal Pain

2015 ◽  
Vol 18;4 (4;18) ◽  
pp. E497-E533 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Boswell
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Joint Pain ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Zygapophysial Joint ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Cervical Facet ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

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

scholarly journals Interventional Techniques: Evidence-based Practice Guidelines in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

2007 ◽  
Vol 1;10 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 7-111
Author(s):  
ASIPP ASIPP
Keyword(s):  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Steroid Injections ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Steroid Injections ◽  
Epidural Steroid ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: The evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of chronic spinal pain with interventional techniques were developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in the United States. Objective: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain, utilizing all types of evidence and to apply an evidence-based approach, with broad representation by specialists from academic and clinical practices. Design: Study design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. Methods: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). Results: Among the diagnostic interventions, the accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks is strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it is moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence is strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence is limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies is moderate. The evidence for diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is limited. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections is moderate for short-term and long-term improvement, whereas, it is limited for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks is moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy is moderate. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence is moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it is moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited in managing pain secondary to lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence is limited. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy is moderate in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas for annuloplasty the evidence is limited. Among the various techniques utilized for percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is moderate for short-term and limited for long-term relief for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, and percutaneous laser discectomy, whereas it is limited for nucleoplasty and for DeKompressor technology. For vertebral augmentation procedures, the evidence is moderate for both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome is strong for shortterm relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. Conclusion: These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines also do not represent a “standard of care.” Key words: Interventional techniques, chronic spinal pain, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint interventions, epidural injections, epidural adhesiolysis, discography, radiofrequency, disc decompression, vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal implantable systems

scholarly journals Complications of Fluoroscopically Directed Facet Joint Nerve Blocks: A Prospective Evaluation of 7,500 Episodes with 43,000 Nerve Blocks

2012 ◽  
Vol 2;15 (2;3) ◽  
pp. E143-E150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Ambulatory Surgery ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Cervical Region ◽  
Medial Branch ◽  
Lumbar Region ◽  
Thoracic Region ◽  
Nerve Blocks ◽  
Surgery Center ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Background: Chronic spinal pain is common along with numerous modalities of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions utilized, creating a health care crisis. Facet joint injections and epidural injections are the 2 most commonly utilized interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. While the literature addressing the effectiveness of facet joint nerve blocks is variable and emerging, there is paucity of literature on adverse effects of facet joint nerve blocks. Study Design: A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. Setting: A private interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center in the United States. Objectives: Investigation of the incidence in characteristics of adverse effects and complications of facet joint nerve blocks. The study was carried out over a period of 20 months including almost 7,500 episodes of 43,000 facet joint nerve blocks with 3,370 episodes in the cervical region, 3,162 in the lumbar region, and 950 in the thoracic region. All facet joint nerve blocks were performed under fluoroscopic guidance in an ambulatory surgery center by 3 physicians. The complications encountered during the procedure and postoperatively were evaluated prospectively. Methods: This study was carried out over a period of 20 months and included over 7,500 episodes or 43,000 facet joint nerve blocks. All of the interventions were performed under fluoroscopic guidance in an ambulatory surgery center by one of 3 physicians. The complications encountered during the procedure and postoperatively were prospectively evaluated. Outcomes Assessment: Measurable outcomes employed were intravascular entry of the needle, profuse bleeding, local hematoma, dural puncture and headache, nerve root or spinal cord irritation with resultant injury, and infectious complications. Results: There were no major complications. Multiple side effects and complications observed included overall intravascular penetration in 11.4% of episodes with 20% in cervical region, 4% in lumbar region, and 6% in thoracic region; local bleeding in 76.3% of episodes with highest in thoracic region and lowest in cervical region; oozing with 19.6% encounters with highest in cervical region and lowest in lumbar region; with local hematoma seen only in 1.2% of the patients with profuse bleeding, bruising, soreness, nerve root irritation, and all other effects such as vasovagal reactions observed in 1% or less of the episodes. Limitations: Limitations of this study include lack of contrast injection, use of intermittent fluoroscopy and also an observational nature of the study. Conclusion: This study illustrate that major complications are extremely rare and minor side effects are common. Key words: Spinal pain, facet joint nerve blocks, cervical medial branch or facet joint nerve blocks, thoracic medial branch or facet joint nerve blocks, lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, L5 dorsal ramus block complications

scholarly journals An Algorithmic Approach for Clinical Management of Chronic Spinal Pain

2009 ◽  
Vol 4;12 (4;7) ◽  
pp. E225-E264
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Disc Herniation ◽  
Facet Joint ◽  
Spinal Pain ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Algorithmic Approach ◽  
Interventional Techniques ◽  
Epidural Injections ◽  
Chronic Spinal Pain

Interventional pain management, and the interventional techniques which are an integral part of that specialty, are subject to widely varying definitions and practices. How interventional techniques are applied by various specialties is highly variable, even for the most common procedures and conditions. At the same time, many payors, publications, and guidelines are showing increasing interest in the performance and costs of interventional techniques. There is a lack of consensus among interventional pain management specialists with regards to how to diagnose and manage spinal pain and the type and frequency of spinal interventional techniques which should be utilized to treat spinal pain. Therefore, an algorithmic approach is proposed, providing a stepby-step procedure for managing chronic spinal pain patients based upon evidence-based guidelines. The algorithmic approach is developed based on the best available evidence regarding the epidemiology of various identifiable sources of chronic spinal pain. Such an approach to spinal pain includes an appropriate history, examination, and medical decision making in the management of low back pain, neck pain and thoracic pain. This algorithm also provides diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to clinical management utilizing case examples of cervical, lumbar, and thoracic spinal pain. An algorithm for investigating chronic low back pain without disc herniation commences with a clinical question, examination and imaging findings. If there is evidence of radiculitis, spinal stenosis, or other demonstrable causes resulting in radiculitis, one may proceed with diagnostic or therapeutic epidural injections. In the algorithmic approach, facet joints are entertained first in the algorithm because of their commonality as a source of chronic low back pain followed by sacroiliac joint blocks if indicated and provocation discography as the last step. Based on the literature, in the United States, in patients without disc herniation, lumbar facet joints account for 30% of the cases of chronic low back pain, sacroiliac joints account for less than 10% of these cases, and discogenic pain accounts for 25% of the patients. The management algorithm for lumbar spinal pain includes interventions for somatic pain and radicular pain with either facet joint interventions, sacroiliac joint interventions, or intradiscal therapy. For radicular pain, epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, percutaneous disc decompression, or spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis may be performed. For non-responsive, recalcitrant, neuropathic pain, implantable therapy may be entertained. In managing pain of cervical origin, if there is evidence of radiculitis, spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, or other demonstrable causes resulting in radiculitis, an interventionalist may proceed with therapeutic epidural injections. An algorithmic approach for chronic neck pain without disc herniation or radiculitis commences with clinical question, physical and imaging findings, followed by diagnostic facet joint injections. Cervical provocation discography is rarely performed. Based on the literature available in the United States, cervical facet joints account for 40% to 50% of cases of chronic neck pain without disc herniation, while discogenic pain accounts for approximately 20% of the patients. The management algorithm includes either facet joint interventions or epidural injections with surgical referral for disc-related pain and rarely implantable therapy. In managing thoracic pain, a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithmic approach includes either facet joint interventions or epidural injections. Key words: Algorithmic approach, chronic pain, chronic spinal pain, diagnostic interventional techniques, therapeutic interventional techniques, comprehensive evaluation, documentation, medical decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document