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

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.

Facet Joint Injections for the Management of Low Back Pain: A Clinical Review

Introduction: Lumbar facet joints have been implicated in chronic low back pain (LBP) in up to 45% of patients with LBP. Facet joint pain (FJP) diagnosis and management are always challenging for pain physicians. FJP is not diagnosed by specific demographic features, pain characteristics, or physical findings, despite the electrodiagnostic studies and imaging modalities being available. Although comparative local anesthetics or placebo saline injections can be used, diagnostic blocks are the only reliable diagnostic measures according to the current literature. Methodology: A randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of lumbar facet joint injections. A total of 229 participants were enrolled to receive facet injections with bupivacaine and steroid, medial branch blocks, or saline. Result: The results of this study showed that facet joint injections had little long-term therapeutic utility, but had a prognostic value compared to control injections before radiofrequency ablation. Thus, the results of this study emphasized the diagnostic value of facet joint injections. Conclusion: FJP is not diagnosed by demographic features, pain characteristics, physical findings, electrodiagnostic studies, or radiological evaluation as other types of LBP. Diagnostic blocks using comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo injections are the only reliable diagnostic measures according to the current literature. Their validity, specificity, and sensitivity are considered reliable in the diagnosis of FJP. Facet joint-related anatomical, clinical, and technical knowledge is essential for successful pain management. Pain physicians should embrace all aspects of FJP management, from diagnosis to interventional management.

Accuracy of Landmark-guided Glenohumeral Joint Injections as Assessed by Ultrasound in Anterior Shoulder Dislocations

Introduction: To determine the accuracy of landmark-guided shoulder joint injections (LGI) with point-of-care ultrasound for patients with anterior shoulder dislocations. Methods: Patients with anterior shoulder dislocations who underwent LGI were enrolled at our tertiary-care and trauma center. LGI attempts were recorded by an ultrasound fellowship-trained ED physician who determined if they were placed successfully. Pain and satisfaction scores were recorded. Results: A total of 34 patients with anterior shoulder dislocation and their treating ED physicians were enrolled. 41.1% of all LGI were determined to be misplaced (n=14). Patients with successful LGI had a greater decrease in mean pain scores post-LGI. Conclusions: LGI had a substantial failure rate in our study. Using ultrasound-guidance to assist intra-articular injections may increase its accuracy and thus reduce pain and the need for subsequent procedural sedation.

Evaluation of CT-Guided Ultra-Low-Dose Protocol for Injection Guidance in Preparation of MR-Arthrography of the Shoulder and Hip Joints in Comparison to Conventional and Low-Dose Protocols

To evaluate patients’ radiation exposure undergoing CT-guided joint injection in preparation of MR-arthrography. We developed a novel ultra-low-dose protocol utilizing tin-filtration, performed it in 60 patients and compared the radiation exposure (DLP) and success rate to conventional protocol (26 cases) and low-dose protocol (37 cases). We evaluated 123 patients’ radiation exposure undergoing CT-guided joint injection from 16 January–21 March. A total of 55 patients received CT-guided joint injections with various other examination protocols and were excluded from further investigation. In total, 56 patients received shoulder injection and 67 received hip injection with consecutive MR arthrography. The ultra-low-dose protocol was performed in 60 patients, the low-dose protocol in 37 patients and the conventional protocol in 26 patients. We compared the dose of the interventional scans for each protocol (DLP) and then evaluated success rate with MR-arthrography images as gold standard of intraarticular or extracapsular contrast injection. There were significant differences when comparing the DLP of the ultra-low-dose protocol (DLP 1.1 ± 0.39; p < 0.01) to the low dose protocol (DLP 5.3 ± 3.24; p < 0.01) as well as against the conventional protocol (DLP 22.9 ± 8.66; p < 0.01). The ultra-low-dose protocol exposed the patients to an average effective dose of 0.016 millisievert and resulted in a successful joint injection in all 60 patients. The low dose protocol as well as the conventional protocol were also successful in all patients. The presented ultra-low-dose CT-guided joint injection protocol for the preparation of MR-arthrography demonstrated to reduce patients’ radiation dose in a way that it was less than the equivalent of the natural radiation exposure in Germany over 3 days—and thereby, negligible to the patient.

Imaging techniques for sacroiliac joint injections

Injections into the sacroiliac joint for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes have become commonplace. There have been advances in the use of regenerative therapies other than prolotherapy, such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cells. Prior to the introduction of image-guided techniques, blind injections were performed. However, data have consistently shown that without image guidance, injections failed to be accurately placed within the joint. Therefore, the use of image guidance, whether by computed tomography, fluoroscopy, or ultrasound, is imperative to ensure accurate placement of the injectate. This chapter discusses these three types of imaging techniques for sacroiliac joint injections.

Types of anesthesia for different sacroiliac joint interventions

There are a variety of anesthetic techniques commonly used for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) procedures. For example, diagnostic SIJ injections do not necessitate anesthesia, while open SIJ fusions require general anesthesia. This chapter, targeted to practitioners performing SIJ procedures, covers the basic elements of these techniques. After a brief discussion of the history of anesthesia in relation to SIJ procedures, each common anesthetic technique is discussed, in order of increasing sedation. Local anesthesia is discussed for intraarticular joint injections, blocks of the nerves innervating the SIJ, and radiofrequency ablations of these same nerves. Monitored anesthesia care is discussed for procedures such as minimally invasive SIJ fusions and the Simplicity radiofrequency ablation technique. The use of neuraxial anesthesia, via either spinal or epidural blocks, is considered for lateral SIJ fusions. Finally, the use of general anesthesia for lateral and open fusions is reviewed.