Lumbar zygapophysial (facet) joint injections

Correlating SPECT-CT activity in lumbar facet joints with response to lumbar medial branch and L5 dorsal ramus blocks

Introduction

Lumbar facet arthritis is a significant source of back pain and impaired function that is amenable to treatment with medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN). Identifying appropriate patients for this treatment requires integration of information from the history, physical exam, and diagnostic imaging, but the current diagnostic standard for facet-mediated pain is positive comparative medial branch blocks (MBBs). Lumbar SPECT-CT has recently been evaluated as a potential predictor of positive MBBs with mixed results. The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to determine if the level of concordance between SPECT-CT uptake and facet joints targeted with MBB was associated with a positive block.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients undergoing lumbar MBB within 12 months after having a lumbar SPECT-CT. Each procedure was classified into one of four categories based on the level of concordance between facet joints demonstrating increased 99mTc uptake on SPECT-CT and those being blocked: 1) Complete Concordance (all joints demonstrating increased uptake were blocked and no additional joints blocked); 2) Partial Concordance (all joints demonstrating increased uptake were blocked, with at least one joint not demonstrating increased uptake blocked); 3) Partial Discordance (at least one but not all joints demonstrating increased uptake were blocked); 4) Complete Discordance (all blocks performed at joints not demonstrating increased uptake). Statistical analysis was performed to determine if the level of concordance between increased uptake on SPECT-CT and joints undergoing MBB was associated with a positive block using cutoffs of 50 % and 80 % pain relief.

Results

A total of 180 procedures were analyzed (23 % Complete Concordance, 22 % Partial Concordance, 31 % Partial Discordance, 24 % Complete Discordance) and all groups demonstrated improvement in pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores. There was no significant association between level of concordance and having a positive block using thresholds of 50 % pain relief, χ 2(3, N = 180) = 4.880, p = .181; or 80 % pain relief, χ 2(3, N = 180) = 1.272, p = .736.

Conclusion

SPECT-CT findings do not accurately predict positive lumbar MBB but may provide valuable information that can be considered with other factors when deciding which joints to treat.

Invasive Treatments for Low Back Disorders

OBJECTIVE

This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's Low Back Disorders guideline reviews the evidence and recommendations developed for invasive treatments used to manage low back disorders.

METHODS

Comprehensive systematic literature reviews were accomplished with article abstraction, critiquing, grading, evidence table compilation, and guideline finalization by a multidisciplinary expert panel and extensive peer-review to develop evidence-based guidance. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking and often relied on analogy to other disorders for which evidence exists. A total of 47 high-quality and 321 moderate-quality trials were identified for invasive management of low back disorders.

RESULTS

Guidance has been developed for the invasive management of acute, subacute, and chronic low back disorders and rehabilitation. This includes 49 specific recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Quality evidence should guide invasive treatment for all phases of managing low back disorders.

Ultrasound block of the medial branch: Learning the technique using CUSUM curves

Background:

Blocking the medial branch of the lumbar facet joints plays a fundamental diagnostic and therapeutic role in the treatment of lumbar pain. Attempts to replace the typical guided X-ray techniques with ultrasound-guided techniques have also involved treating the lumbar medial branches. By applying the cumulative sum control chart (CUSUM method), we sought to evaluate the learning curve associated with ultrasound-guided block of the lumbar medial branches in operators experienced in locoregional anesthesia but without expertise in pain therapy.

Aim:

This study aimed to use a repeatable method to identify the learning curve of the ultrasound-guided medial branch block.

Settings and Design:

This study was a prospective application of over forty consecutive procedures of ultrasound lumbar medial branch block.

Materials and Methods:

The ultrasound medial branch blocks were performed under ultrasound guidance with confirmation of correct positioning using fluoroscopy on a population of patients with low back pain with any body mass index (BMI).

Statistical Analysis:

The operator's performance was assessed using the learning curve cumulative summation test (LS-CUSUM).

Results and Conclusions:

The correct target was reached in 29 procedures out of a total of 40 (72.5%) and in 29 out of 36 procedures performed on patients with BMI <30 (80.5%). According to the CUSUM algorithm, 11 further consecutive successes would have been necessary (47 procedures in total) to achieve a proven learning of the technique in the group with only patients with a BMI <30, with a further 22 consecutive successes (62 procedures in total) in the general group. Ultrasound-guided block of the lumbar medial branch appears not to be optimal for training beginner/intermediate operators seeking to replace guided X-ray procedures with guided ultrasound.

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

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

After 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.

RESULTS

17 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).

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar 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.

Decompression alone versus fusion and Coflex in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) is a very common disease. And decompression alone, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and interspinous device (Coflex) are generally accepted surgical techniques. However, the effectiveness and safety of the above techniques are still not clear. Network meta-analysis a comprehensive technique can compare multiple treatments based on indirect dates and all interventions are evaluated and ranked simultaneously. To figure out this problem and offer a better choice for LDD, we performed this network meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed and WanFang databases were searched based on the following key words, "Coflex," "decompression," "PLIF," "Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion," "Coflex" "Lumbar interbody Fusion." Then the studies were sorted out on the basis of inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. A network meta-analysis was performed using The University of Auckland, Auckland city, New Zealand R 3.5.3 software.

RESULTS

A total of 10 eligible literatures were finally screened, including 946 patients. All studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Compared with decompression alone group, there were no significant differences of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in Coflex and lumbar interbody fusion groups after surgery. However, Coflex and PLIF were better in decreasing Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score compared with decompression alone. Furthermore, we found Coflex have a less complication incidence rate.

CONCLUSION

Compared with decompression alone, Coflex and lumbar interbody fusion had the similar effectiveness in improving lumbar function and quality of life. However, the latter 2 techniques were better in relieving pain. Furthermore, Coflex included a lower complication incidence rate. So we suggested that Coflex technique was a better choice to cue lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level I.

Effectiveness of Lumbar Facet Joint Blocks and Predictive Value before Radiofrequency Denervation: The Facet Treatment Study (FACTS), a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC

WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: With facet interventions under scrutiny, the authors' objectives were to determine the effectiveness of different lumbar facet blocks and their ability to predict radiofrequency ablation outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 229 participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive intraarticular facet injections with bupivacaine and steroid, medial branch blocks, or saline. Those with a positive 1-month outcome (a 2-point or more reduction in average pain score) and score higher than 3 (positive satisfaction) on a 5-point satisfaction scale were followed up to 6 months. Participants in the intraarticular and medial branch block groups with a positive diagnostic block (50% or more relief) who experienced a negative outcome proceeded to the second phase and underwent radiofrequency ablation, while all saline group individuals underwent ablation. Coprimary outcome measures were average reduction in numerical rating scale pain score 1 month after the facet or saline blocks, and average numerical rating scale pain score 3 months after ablation.

RESULTS

Mean reduction in average numerical rating scale pain score at 1 month was 0.7 ± 1.6 in the intraarticular group, 0.7 ± 1.8 in the medial branch block group, and 0.7 ± 1.5 in the placebo group; P = 0.993. The proportions of positive blocks were higher in the intraarticular (54%) and medial branch (55%) groups than in the placebo group (30%; P = 0.01). Radiofrequency ablation was performed on 135 patients (45, 48, and 42 patients from the intraarticular, medial branch, and saline groups, respectively). The average numerical rating scale pain score at 3 months was 3.0 ± 2.0 in the intraarticular, 3.2 ± 2.5 in the medial branch, and 3.5 ± 1.9 in the control group (P = 0.493). At 3 months, the proportions of positive responders in the intraarticular, medial branch block, and placebo groups were 51%, 56%, and 24% for the intraarticular, medial branch, and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes that facet blocks are not therapeutic. The higher responder rates in the treatment groups suggest a hypothesis that facet blocks might provide prognostic value before radiofrequency ablation.

Clinical diagnosis scale for pain lumbar of facet origin: systematic review of literature and pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar pain affects between 60-90% of people. It is a frequent cause of disability in adults. Pain may be generated by different anatomical structures such as the facet joint. However, nowadays pain produced by the facet joint has no clinical diagnosis. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose a clinical diagnostic scale for lumbar facet syndrome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted by means of 6 phases as follows, Phase 1, a systematic review of the literature was performed regarding the clinical diagnosis of facet-based lumbar pain based on the PRISMA checklist; Phase 2, a list of signs and symptoms proposed for diagnosis lumbar pain of facet origin was made. Phase 3, the list of signs and symptoms found was submitted to a committee of experts to discriminate the most significant signs and symptoms, these were linked to general sociodemographic variables to develop an evaluation questionnaire; Phase 4, the evaluation questionnaire was applied, including those selected signs and symptoms to a group of patients with clinical diagnosis of facet disease lumbar pain and who underwent a selective facet block. Phase 5, under standard technique selective facet block and subsequent postoperative clinical control at 1 month. Phase 6, given pre and postsurgical results associated with signs present in the patients we propose a clinical scale of diagnosis scale. Descriptive statistics and Stata 12.0 were used as statistical software.

RESULTS

A total of 36 signs and symptoms were found for the diagnosis of lumbar facet syndrome that were submitted to the group of experts, where a total of 12 (8 symptoms and 4 signs) were included for the final survey. 31 patients underwent selective lumbar facet blockade, mostly women, with an average of 60±11.5 years, analogous visual scale of preoperative pain of 8/10, postoperative of 1.7/10, the signs and symptoms most frequently found included in a diagnostic scale were: 3 symptoms 1) axial or bilateral axial lumbar pain, 2) improvement with rest, 3) absence of root pattern, may have pseudoradicular pattern, however, the pain is greater lumbar than pain in the leg and 3 clinical signs 1) Kemp sign, 2) pain induced in joint or transverse process, 3) facet stress sign or Acevedo sign.

CONCLUSION

The clinical diagnosis of lumbar facet pain is still debated. Few diagnostic scales have been postulated, with little or no external validity, so the present study proposes a diagnostic scale consisting of 3 symptoms and 3 clinical signs.

Medial Branch Blocks or Intra-Articular Injections as a Prognostic Tool Before Lumbar Facet Radiofrequency Denervation: A Multicenter, Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Medial branch blocks (MBBs) and intra-articular (IA) facet joint injections are both used to diagnose facet joint pain and are presumed to be equivalent. No study has sought to determine which has a better prognostic value before radiofrequency (RF) denervation.

METHODS

A case-control study was performed at 4 institutions in which RF denervation outcomes in patients who obtained 50% or more pain relief from either MBB (n = 212) or IA injections (n = 212) were compared. "Control" patients (MBB) were matched to "cases" by treating physician, last name, and date of treatments. During data mining, 87 patients were identified who underwent RF ablation after receiving both IA injections and MBB and were used for secondary analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 70.3% of MBB patients experienced 50% or more pain relief at the 3-month follow-up versus 60.8% in those who underwent IA injections (P = 0.041). In multivariable analysis, undergoing MBB was associated with RF treatment success (odds ratio [OR], 1.57; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.0-2.39; P = 0.036), whereas opioid use (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.34-0.79; P = 0.002) and previous back surgery (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95; P = 0.028) were associated with treatment failure. No significant differences were noted between MBB alone and combination treatment or single versus multiple blocks. In the secondary multivariable analysis including the combination IA + MBB group, MBB alone was again independently associated with an RF ablation treatment success (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.12-2.67; P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

When used as a prognostic tool before lumbar facet radiofrequency, MBB may be associated with a higher success rate than IA injections. Our results should be confirmed by large, prospective, randomized studies.

Controlled medial branch anesthetic block in the diagnosis of chronic lumbar facet joint pain: the value of a three-month follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To verify the incidence of facetary and low back pain after a controlled medial branch anesthetic block in a three-month follow-up and to verify the correlation between the positive results and the demographic variables.

METHODS

Patients with chronic lumbar pain underwent a sham blockade (with a saline injection) and then a controlled medial branch block. Their symptoms were evaluated before and after the sham injection and after the real controlled medial branch block; the symptoms were reevaluated after one day and one week, as well as after one, two and three months using the visual analog scale. We searched for an association between the positive results and the demographic characteristics of the patients.

RESULTS

A total of 104 controlled medial branch blocks were performed and 54 patients (52%) demonstrated >50% improvements in pain after the blockade. After three months, lumbar pain returned in only 18 individuals, with visual analogue scale scores >4. Therefore, these patients were diagnosed with chronic facet low back pain. The three-months of follow-up after the controlled medial branch block excluded 36 patients (67%) with false positive results. The results of the controlled medial branch block were not correlated to sex, age, pain duration or work disability but were correlated with patient age (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patient diagnosis with a controlled medial branch block proved to be effective but was not associated with any demographic variables. A three-month follow-up is required to avoid a high number of false positives.

Does lumbar dorsal ramus syndrome have an objective clinical basis?

BACKGROUND

Degenerative processes can cause chronic low back pain that occasionally creates impingement of the lumbar dorsal rami, resulting in a clinical syndrome previously described as lumbar dorsal ramus syndrome (LDRS).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical basis of LDRS by comparing pain, disability, and objective measures of pathophysiology in 3 groups of subjects defined by needle electromyography examination (NEE) findings.

DESIGN

Prospective group cohort study with retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Veterans Affairs medical center outpatient clinic.

PATIENTS

Subjects who had undergone lower limb NEE and lumbar magnetic resonance imaging.

METHODS

A total of 71 subjects' records that met the study criteria were retrospectively reviewed for interventional spine procedures performed and to measure the lumbosacral paraspinal cross-sectional area (PSP CSA); 28 of the 71 subjects underwent further clinical assessment. One-way analysis of variance was performed to evaluate group differences.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

In the retrospective arm: (1) PSP CSAs measured at 4 lower lumbar disk levels (average of 3 consecutive slices/level) bilaterally and overall left and right lumbar average PSP CSA and (2) the frequency and type of interventional spine procedures performed. In the prospective arm: (1) temporal changes of NEE abnormalities, (2) pain measured using the Visual Analog Scale, (3) Pain Disability Questionnaire responses, and (4) Short Form-36 scores.

RESULTS

The right L5 CSA was significantly greater in the group with mechanical low back pain compared with the group with lumbar radicular syndrome (F = 3.3; P < .05). No significant group differences were noted in the number of spine procedures performed. No significant differences in pain or disability scores were found among the groups. NEE findings improved over time predominantly in the LDRS group.

CONCLUSIONS

LDRS is a diagnosis with identifiable NEE (lumbar multifidus denervation) findings and magnetic resonance imaging findings that may include lower lumbar paraspinal atrophy. NEE (paraspinal denervation) findings in persons with LDRS may change over time, and the clinical relevance of LDRS to pain, functional disability, and treatment response is unclear.

Accuracy of CT guidance of lumbar facet joint block

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar facet joint block is generally performed under fluoroscopic guidance. The purpose of this study was to assess the technical success rate of facet joint block under CT guidance. The CT scanner was operated tableside with a step-and-shoot mode for intermittent needle visualization, and the amount of radiation used to perform the procedures was estimated.

CONCLUSION

CT-guided facet joint block is safe and rapid. Use of CT ensures reliable needle guidance with extremely high procedural accuracy at an effective radiation dose comparable to that of a procedure performed with 1 minute of fluoroscopic guidance.

Guidance on the management of pain in older people

This guidance document reviews the epidemiology and management of pain in older people via a literature review of published research. The aim of this document is to inform health professionals in any care setting who work with older adults on best practice for the management of pain and to identify where there are gaps in the evidence that require further research. The assessment of pain in older people has not been covered within this guidance and can be found in a separate document (http://www.britishpainsociety.org/pub_professional.htm#assessmentpop). Substantial differences in the population, methods and definitions used in published research makes it difficult to compare across studies and impossible to determine the definitive prevalence of pain in older people. There are inconsistencies within the literature as to whether or not pain increases or decreases in this age group, and whether this is influenced by gender. There is, however, some evidence that the prevalence of pain is higher within residential care settings. The three most common sites of pain in older people are the back; leg/knee or hip and 'other' joints. In common with the working-age population, the attitudes and beliefs of older people influence all aspects of their pain experience. Stoicism is particularly evident within this cohort of people. Evidence from the literature search suggests that paracetamol should be considered as first-line treatment for the management of both acute and persistent pain, particularly that which is of musculoskeletal origin, due to its demonstrated efficacy and good safety profile. There are few absolute contraindications and relative cautions to prescribing paracetamol. It is, however, important that the maximum daily dose (4 g/24 h) is not exceeded. Non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) should be used with caution in older people after other safer treatments have not provided sufficient pain relief. The lowest dose should be provided, for the shortest duration. For older adults, an NSAID or cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) selective inhibitor should be co-prescribed with a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), and the one with the lowest acquisition cost should be chosen. All older people taking NSAIDs should be routinely monitored for gastrointestinal, renal and cardiovascular side effects, and drug–drug and drug–disease interactions. Opioid therapy may be considered for patients with moderate or severe pain, particularly if the pain is causing functional impairment or is reducing their quality of life. However, this must be individualised and carefully monitored. Opioid side effects including nausea and vomiting should be anticipated and suitable prophylaxis considered. Appropriate laxative therapy, such as the combination of a stool softener and a stimulant laxative, should be prescribed throughout treatment for all older people who are prescribed opioid therapy. Tricyclic antidepressants and anti-epileptic drugs have demonstrated efficacy in several types of neuropathic pain. But, tolerability and adverse effects limit their use in an older population. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections in osteoarthritis of the knee are effective in relieving pain in the short term, with little risk of complications and/or joint damage. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid is effective and free of systemic adverse effects. It should be considered in patients who are intolerant to systemic therapy. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid appears to have a slower onset of action than intra-articular steroids, but the effects seem to last longer. The current evidence for the use of epidural steroid injections in the management of sciatica is conflicting and, until further larger studies become available, no firm recommendations can be made. There is, however, a limited body of evidence to support the use of epidural injections in spinal stenosis. The literature review suggests that assistive devices are widely used and that the ownership of devices increases with age. Such devices enable older people with chronic pain to live in the community. However, they do not necessarily reduce pain and can increase pain if used incorrectly. Increasing activity by way of exercise should be considered. This should involve strengthening, flexibility, endurance and balance, along with a programme of education. Patient preference should be given serious consideration. A number of complementary therapies have been found to have some efficacy among the older population, including acupuncture, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) and massage. Such approaches can affect pain and anxiety and are worth further investigation. Some psychological approaches have been found to be useful for the older population, including guided imagery, biofeedback training and relaxation. There is also some evidence supporting the use of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) among nursing home populations, but of course these approaches require training and time. There are many areas that require further research, including pharmacological management where approaches are often tested in younger populations and then translated across. Prevalence studies need consistency in terms of age, diagnosis and terminology, and further work needs to be done on evaluating non-pharmacological approaches.

Spine osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis of the spine develops as a consequence of the natural aging process and is associated with significant morbidity and health care expenditures. Effective diagnosis and treatment of the resultant pathologic conditions can be clinically challenging. Recent evidence has emerged to aid the investigating clinician in formulating an accurate diagnosis and in implementing a successful treatment algorithm. This article details the degenerative cascade that results in the osteoarthritic spine, reviews prevalence data for common painful spinal disorders, and discusses evidence-based treatment options for management of zygapophysial and sacroiliac joint arthrosis.

Radiofrequency facet joint neurotomy in treatment of facet syndrome

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analyses of 50 patients with lumbar facet syndrome treated with lumbar facet joint neurotomy.

OBJECTIVE

To establish the efficacy of lumbar facet joint neurotomy under optimum conditions in selected patients.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

With the realization of the significance of facet joints in the etiology of chronic low back pain over the last decade, many studies were conducted about various methods of treating the facet joint syndrome.

METHODS

Fifty patients with lumbar facet syndrome with at least 80% pain relief by controlled, diagnostic medial branch blocks underwent lumbar facet joint neurotomy. Before surgery, all were examined carefully both clinically and radiologically and evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) and descriptive system of health-related quality of life state (EQ5D) measures of pain, disability, and treatment satisfaction. All outcome measures were repeated postoperatively and at 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients 35 were females and 15 were males with a mean age of 51.82±16.99 years. One level was treated in 26 patients, 2 levels in 14, 3 levels in 8, and 4 levels were treated in 2 patients. Symptom duration was ranging between 2 and 24 months with a mean of 7.64±5.98 months. Mean preoperative, postoperative, and at the 12th month VAS were 75.2±11.29, 23.8±10.28, and 24.6±11.817, respectively.Forty-eight percent of patients obtained a relative reduction of at least 70% in VAS, and 86% obtained a reduction of at least 60% at the 12th month. Health-related quality of life state was improved in all patients. When the VAS scores were evaluated with respect to the ages of patients, level numbers, and preoperative symptom duration, no significant differences were found, [0.106, 0.635 and 0.526 (preoperative VAS); 0.033, 0.555, and 0.235 (postoperative VAS); 0.701, 0.978, and 0.155 (follow-up VAS), respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The most important factors determining success of this procedure is strict patient selection criteria and technique of the procedure.

Chronic pain practice by consultant anaesthetists in the Republic of Ireland

BACKGROUND

To date, there is no information on anaesthetists' practice of chronic pain management in the Republic of Ireland.

AIMS

To describe the pattern of chronic pain practice (CPP) among consultant anaesthetists in Ireland.

METHODS

A detailed questionnaire was sent to all consultant anaesthetists in the Republic of Ireland (n = 254).

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 50% (n = 127). While 28% of responding anaesthetists were involved in CPP, in the majority of cases, this accounted for less than 20% of their clinical time. 39% of those involved in CPP had previous training in chronic pain management. The types of CPP included nerve blocks (67%) and pharmacological treatment (44%) in non-cancer pain (67%) and cancer pain (61%) patients. Epidural steroid injection was the most commonly practiced intervention (89%).

CONCLUSION

One-third of consultant anaesthetists in the Republic surveyed incorporate chronic pain in their practice and their pattern of practice is widely diversified.

Epidemiology of spine care: the back pain dilemma

In this article, the epidemiology of back pain and the use of a variety of treatments for back pain in the United States are reviewed. The dilemma faced by medical providers caring for patients with low back pain is examined in the context of epidemiologic data. Back pain is becoming increasingly common and a growing number of treatment options are being used with increasing frequency in clinical practice. However, limited evidence exists to demonstrate the effectiveness of these treatments. In addition, health-related quality of life for persons with back pain is not improving despite the availability and use of an expanding array of treatments. This dilemma poses a difficult challenge for medical providers treating individual patients who suffer from back pain.

Steroids in regional analgesia

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Local injections of steroids have been widely practiced to provide regional analgesia for the treatment of a wide variety of musculoskeletal pain syndromes. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of steroid injections is not substantial. Also, there have been reports of catastrophic complications associated with their use.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The evidence currently available in the literature (Database: Ovid MEDLINE 1950 to 2010) is reviewed. The areas covered include the analgesic mechanisms of steroids, indications for steroid injections and their effectiveness, as well as the risks and precautions for steroid injections.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

This is an up-to-date review on the clinical application of steroid injections for regional analgesia, which will give the reader an insight on how to maximize the benefits of steroids while minimizing their side effects and complications.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Although steroid injections are generally considered effective and safe in the treatment of painful condition of limbs, their use in the treatment of chronic back pain is still controversial and serious complications have been reported. More studies on outcome and safety are warranted.

Psychopathology predicts the outcome of medial branch blocks with corticosteroid for chronic axial low back or cervical pain: a prospective cohort study

Background

Comorbid psychopathology is an important predictor of poor outcome for many types of treatments for back or neck pain. But it is unknown if this applies to the results of medial branch blocks (MBBs) for chronic low back or neck pain, which involves injecting the medial branch of the dorsal ramus nerves that innervate the facet joints. The objective of this study was to determine whether high levels of psychopathology are predictive of pain relief after MBB injections in the lumbar or cervical spine.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients in a pain medicine practice undergoing MBBs of the lumbar or cervical facets with corticosteroids were recruited to participate. Subjects were selected for a MBB based on operationalized selection criteria and the procedure was performed in a standardized manner. Subjects completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) just prior to the procedure and at one-month follow up. Scores on the HADS classified the subjects into three groups based on psychiatric symptoms, which formed the primary predictor variable: Low, Moderate, or High levels of psychopathology. The primary outcome measure was the percent improvement in average daily pain rating one-month following an injection. Analysis of variance and chi-square were used to analyze the analgesia and functional rating differences between groups, and to perform a responder analysis.

Results

Eighty six (86) subjects completed the study. The Low psychopathology group (n = 37) reported a mean of 23% improvement in pain at one-month while the High psychopathology group (n = 29) reported a mean worsening of -5.8% in pain (p < .001). Forty five percent (45%) of the Low group had at least 30% improvement in pain versus 10% in the High group (p < .001). Using an analysis of covariance, no baseline demographic, social, or medical variables were significant predictors of pain improvement, nor did they mitigate the effect of psychopathology on the outcome.

Conclusion

Psychiatric comorbidity is associated with diminished pain relief after a MBB injection performed with steroid at one-month follow-up. These findings illustrate the importance of assessing comorbid psychopathology as part of a spine care evaluation.

Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with epidural steroid injections

The management of chronic low back pain (CLBP) has proven very challenging in North America, as evidenced by its mounting socioeconomic burden. Choosing amongst available nonsurgical therapies can be overwhelming for many stakeholders, including patients, health providers, policy makers, and third-party payers. Although all parties share a common goal and wish to use limited health-care resources to support interventions most likely to result in clinically meaningful improvements, there is often uncertainty about the most appropriate intervention for a particular patient. To help understand and evaluate the various commonly used nonsurgical approaches to chronic low back pain, the North American Spine Society has sponsored this special focus issue of The Spine Journal, titled Evidence-Informed Management of Chronic Low Back Pain Without Surgery. Articles in this special focus issue were contributed by leading spine practitioners and researchers, who were invited to summarize the best available evidence for a particular intervention and encouraged to make this information accessible to nonexperts. Each of the articles contains five sections (description, theory, evidence of efficacy, harms, and summary) with common subheadings to facilitate comparison across the 24 different interventions profiled in this special focus issue, blending narrative and systematic review methodology as deemed appropriate by the authors. It is hoped that articles in this special focus issue will be informative and aid in decision making for the many stakeholders evaluating nonsurgical interventions for CLBP.

Analysis of post-operative pain patterns following total lumbar disc replacement: results from fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations

Although a variety of biomechanical laboratory investigations and radiological studies have highlighted the potential problems associated with total lumbar disc replacement (TDR), no previous study has performed a systematic clinical failure analysis. The aim of this study was to identify the post-operative pain sources, establish the incidence of post-operative pain patterns and investigate the effect on post-operative outcome with the help of fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations in patients from an ongoing prospective study with ProDisc II. Patients who reported unsatisfactory results at any of the FU-examinations received fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations as part of a semi-invasive diagnostic and conservative treatment program. Pain sources were identified in patients with reproducible (> or =2x) significant (50-75%) or highly significant (75-100%) pain relief. Results were correlated with outcome parameters visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and the subjective patient satisfaction rate. From a total of 175 operated patients with a mean follow-up (FU) of 29.3 months (range 12.2-74.9 months), n = 342 infiltrations were performed in n = 58 patients (33.1%) overall. Facet joint pain, predominantly at the index level (86.4%), was identified in n = 22 patients (12.6%). The sacroiliac joint was a similarly frequent cause of post-operative pain (n = 21, 12.0%). Pain from both structures influenced all outcome parameters negatively (P < 0.05). Patients with an early onset of pain (< or =6 months) were 2-5x higher at risk of developing persisting complaints and unsatisfactory outcome at later FU-stages in comparison to the entire study cohort (P < 0.05). The level of TDR significantly influenced post-operative outcome. Best results were achieved for the TDRs above the lumbosacral junction at L4/5 (incidence of posterior joint pain 14.8%). Inferior outcome and a significantly higher incidence of posterior joint pain were observed for TDR at L5/S1 (21.6%) and bisegmental TDR at L4/5/S1 (33.3%), respectively. Lumbar facet and/or ISJ-pain are a frequent and currently underestimated source of post-operative pain and the most common reasons for unsatisfactory results following TDR. Further failure-analysis studies are required and adequate salvage treatment options need to be established with respect to the underlying pathology of post-operative pain. The question as to whether or not TDR will reduce the incidence of posterior joint pain, which has been previously attributed to lumbar fusion procedures, remains unanswered. Additional studies will have to investigate whether TDR compromises the index-segment in an attempt to avoid adjacent segment degeneration.

Increases in lumbosacral injections in the Medicare population: 1994 to 2001

STUDY DESIGN

Anecdotal reports and limited data suggest that the use of spinal injections is increasing, despite equivocal evidence about efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate trends in lumbosacral injection use for low back pain, including the specialties providing the injections and the costs of care.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The current literature reports success rates of 18% to 90% for lumbosacral steroid injections, depending on methodology, outcome measures, patient selection, and technique. Preliminary data suggest that spinal injection rates are rising, despite ambiguity in the literature regarding their clinical effectiveness.

METHODS

We used Medicare Physician Part B claims for 1994 through 2001 to examine the use of epidural steroid injections (ESI), facet joint injections, sacroiliac joint injections, and related fluoroscopy. Fee-for-service Medicare enrollees 65 years of age and older were included in this study. We used Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes to identify the number of procedures performed each year, as well as trends in expenditures, physician specialties involved, and diagnoses assigned.

RESULTS

Between 1994 and 2001, there was a 271% increase in lumbar ESIs, from 553 of 100,000 to 2055 of 100,000 patients, and a 231% increase in facet injections from 80 of 100,000 to 264 of 100,000 patients. The total inflation-adjusted reimbursed costs (professional fees only) for lumbosacral injections increased from $24 million to over $175 million. Also, costs per injection doubled, from $115 to $227 per injection. Forty percent of all ESIs were associated with diagnosis codes for sciatica, radiculopathy, or herniated disc, whereas axial low back pain diagnoses accounted for 36%, and spinal stenosis for 23%.

CONCLUSION

Lumbosacral injections increased dramatically in the Medicare population from 1994 to 2001. Less than half were performed for sciatica or radiculopathy, where the greatest evidence of benefit is available. These findings suggest a lack of consensus regarding the indications for ESIs and are cause for concern given the large expenditures for these procedures.

Systematic review of tests to identify the disc, SIJ or facet joint as the source of low back pain

Clinical practice guidelines state that the tissue source of low back pain cannot be specified in the majority of patients. However, there has been no systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests used to identify the source of low back pain. The aim of this systematic review was therefore to determine the diagnostic accuracy of tests available to clinicians to identify the disc, facet joint or sacroiliac joint (SIJ) as the source of low back pain. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched up to February 2006 with citation tracking of eligible studies. Eligible studies compared index tests with an appropriate reference test (discography, facet joint or SIJ blocks or medial branch blocks) in patients with low back pain. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) > 2 or negative likelihood ratios (-LR) < 0.5 were considered informative. Forty-one studies of moderate quality were included; 28 investigated the disc, 8 the facet joint and 7 the SIJ. Various features observed on MRI (high intensity zone, endplate changes and disc degeneration) produced informative +LR (> 2) in the majority of studies increasing the probability of the disc being the low back pain source. However, heterogeneity of the data prevented pooling. +LR ranged from 1.5 to 5.9, 1.6 to 4.0, and 0.6 to 5.9 for high intensity zone, disc degeneration and endplate changes, respectively. Centralisation was the only clinical feature found to increase the likelihood of the disc as the source of pain: +LR = 2.8 (95%CI 1.4-5.3). Absence of degeneration on MRI was the only test found to reduce the likelihood of the disc as the source of pain: -LR = 0.21 (95%CI 0.12-0.35). While single manual tests of the SIJ were uninformative, their use in combination was informative with +LR of 3.2 (95%CI 2.3-4.4) and -LR of 0.29 (95%CI 0.12-0.35). None of the tests for facet joint pain were found to be informative. The results of this review demonstrate that tests do exist that change the probability of the disc or SIJ (but not the facet joint) as the source of low back pain. However, the changes in probability are usually small and at best moderate. The usefulness of these tests in clinical practice, particularly for guiding treatment selection, remains unclear.

Total lumbar disc replacement: different results for different levels

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective study analyzing midterm clinical results of total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) with ProDisc II performed at different lumbar motion segments.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of the disc level and number of discs replaced following TDR on postoperative outcome.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Multisegmental disc replacement procedures belong to the so-called "off-label" indications for disc replacement, which still lack evidence of noninferiority when compared with fusion procedures. Results from uncontrolled clinical trials regarding monosegmental versus multisegmental disc replacements are contradictory.

METHODS

The influence of the level and the number of lumbar discs replaced on postoperative outcome was analyzed prospectively according to Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and numerous clinical parameters. Post-TDR pain patterns were analyzed with fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations.

RESULTS

A total of 99 patients from 3 treatment groups with a mean follow-up of 25.8 months (range, 12.1-57.5 months) achieved significant improvement of preoperative VAS and ODI levels (P < 0.05). Best results and highest patient satisfaction rates (90.9%) were achieved in patients with monosegmental TDR at L4-L5 (n = 22). Results deteriorated when monosegmental TDR was performed at the lumbosacral junction (n = 57) with a tendency toward statistical significance at 24-month follow-up (P = 0.07). Postoperative outcome was significantly inferior following bisegmental disc replacements at L4-L5 + L5-S1 (n = 20) with a considerably higher complication rate when compared with monosegmental TDR procedures. Fluoroscopically guided spine infiltrations confirmed that the incidence of postoperative pain from posterior joint structures was 9.1% (n = 2) for L4-L5 TDR, 28.1% (n = 16) following L5-S1, and 60.0% (n = 12) for bisegmental-TDR at L4-L5 + L5-S1, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The level and the number of lumbar disc replacements influence postoperative outcome significantly. Satisfactory outcome was achieved for monosegmental L4-L5 and L5-S1 disc replacement procedures with best results achieved following TDR at L4-L5. For bisegmental TDR, complication rates are significantly higher and inferior postoperative results are to be expected. The incidence of postoperative pain originating from facet and/or iliosacral joints is currently underestimated and will require further investigation.

Clinical predictors of screening lumbar zygapophyseal joint blocks: development of clinical prediction rules

BACKGROUND

Only controlled intra-articular zygapophyseal joint (ZJ) injections or medial branch blocks can diagnose ZJ-mediated low back pain. The low prevalence of ZJ pain implies that identification of clinical predictors of a positive response to a screening block is needed.

PURPOSE

To estimate the predictive power of clinical findings in relation to pain reduction after screening ZJ blocks.

STUDY DESIGN

As part of a wider prospective blinded study investigating diagnostic accuracy of clinical variables, a secondary analysis was carried out to seek evidence of variables potentially valuable as predictors of screening ZJ block outcomes.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Chronic low back pain patients received screening ZJ blocks (n=151) with 120 patients included in the analysis after exclusions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain intensity was measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale, and responses were categorized according to 75% through 95% or more pain reduction in 5% increments.

METHODS

Patients completed pain drawings, questionnaires, and a clinical examination before screening lumbar ZJ blocks. History, demographic and clinical variables were evaluated in cross tabulation and regression analyses with diagnostic accuracy values calculated for variables and variable clusters in relation to different pain reduction standards.

RESULTS

At the 75% pain reduction standard, 24.5% responded to screening ZJ blocks and 10.8% responded at the 95% standard. The centralization phenomenon is not associated with pain reduction using any standard. No variables were useful predictors of post-ZJ block pain reduction of less than 90%. Seven clinical findings were associated with 95% pain reduction after blocks. Five useful clinical prediction rules (CPRs) were found for ruling out a 95% pain reduction (100% sensitivity), and one CPR had a likelihood ratio of 9.7, producing a fivefold improvement in posttest probability.

CONCLUSIONS

A negative extension rotation test, the centralization phenomenon, and four CPRs effectively rule out pain ablation after screening ZJ block. One CPR generates a fivefold improvement in posttest probability of a negative or positive response to ZJ block.

Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain With Successive Injections of Botulinum Toxin A Over 6 Months

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of two successive neurotoxin treatments for chronic low back pain using multiple pain rating scales in an open-label, prospective study.

METHODS

Adult patients with chronic low back pain received multiple paraspinal muscle injections with a maximum dosing of 500 units of botulinum A toxin per session. Those with a beneficial clinical response received a second treatment at 4 months. Pain was assessed by visual analog scale (VAS), modified low back pain questionnaire (OLBPQ), and a clinical low back pain questionnaire (CLBPQ) at baseline, 3 weeks, 2 months, 4 months, and 6 months after the first treatment.

RESULTS

Eighteen women and 42 men, ages 21 to 79 years (mean 46.6 years), with low back pain of a mean duration of 9.1 years were included. Significant improvement in back and radicular pain occurred at 3 weeks in 60% and at 2 months in 58% of the cohort. Beneficial clinical response to the first injection predicted response to reinjection in 94%. A significant minority of patients had a sustained beneficial effect from the first injection at 4 (16.6%) and 6 months (8.3%). Two patients had a transient flu-like reaction after the initial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Botulinum toxin A improves refractory chronic low back pain with a low incidence of side effects. The beneficial clinical response is sustained with a second treatment.

Diagnosis of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: Validity of individual provocation tests and composites of tests

Previous research indicates that physical examination cannot diagnose sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pathology. Earlier studies have not reported sensitivities and specificities of composites of provocation tests known to have acceptable inter-examiner reliability. This study examined the diagnostic power of pain provocation SIJ tests singly and in various combinations, in relation to an accepted criterion standard. In a blinded criterion-related validity design, 48 patients were examined by physiotherapists using pain provocation SIJ tests and received an injection of local anaesthetic into the SIJ. The tests were evaluated singly and in various combinations (composites) for diagnostic power. All patients with a positive response to diagnostic injection reported pain with at least one SIJ test. Sensitivity and specificity for three or more of six positive SIJ tests were 94% and 78%, respectively. Receiver operator characteristic curves and areas under the curve were constructed for various composites. The greatest area under the curve for any two of the best four tests was 0.842. In conclusion, composites of provocation SIJ tests are of value in clinical diagnosis of symptomatic SIJ. Three or more out of six tests or any two of four selected tests have the best predictive power in relation to results of intra-articular anaesthetic block injections. When all six provocation tests do not provoke familiar pain, the SIJ can be ruled out as a source of current LBP.

Survey of chronic pain practice by anesthesiologists in Canada

PURPOSE

To describe the pattern of chronic pain practice (CPP) among anesthesiologists in Canada.

METHODS

Following hospital Ethics Committee approval, a detailed postal questionnaire was sent to all active members of the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society. A second mailing was conducted two months later.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 53%. While 38% of responding anesthesiologists were involved in CPP, in the majority of cases, this accounted for less than 20% of their clinical time. Thirty percent of those involved in CPP had previous training in pain management. The types of CPP included nerve blocks (84%) and pharmacological treatment (60%) in non-cancer pain (85%) and cancer pain (50%) patients. Ten percent and 28% of anesthesiologists were involved in research and teaching respectively while 26% were affiliated with a multidisciplinary clinic. The healthcare professions that anesthesiologists had access to or were directly working with in their practice were as follows: acupuncture (18%), nursing (36%), psychology (28%), psychiatry (35%) and physiotherapy (58%). Epidural steroid injection was the most commonly practiced intervention (82%). This was followed by trigger point injection (70%), stellate ganglion block (61%), occipital nerve block (60%) and lumbar sympathetic block (50%). Practice of interventional procedures was highly diverse. Seventy percent of anesthesiologists prescribed opioids as part of their CPP. However, half of them never incorporated an opioid agreement with patients. Opioids were most commonly used in the sustained release form.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one-third of anesthesiologists surveyed incorporate chronic pain in their practice and their pattern of practice is widely diversified.

Agreement between diagnoses reached by clinical examination and available reference standards: a prospective study of 216 patients with lumbopelvic pain

BACKGROUND

The tissue origin of low back pain (LBP) or referred lower extremity symptoms (LES) may be identified in about 70% of cases using advanced imaging, discography and facet or sacroiliac joint blocks. These techniques are invasive and availability varies. A clinical examination is non-invasive and widely available but its validity is questioned. Diagnostic studies usually examine single tests in relation to single reference standards, yet in clinical practice, clinicians use multiple tests and select from a range of possible diagnoses. There is a need for studies that evaluate the diagnostic performance of clinical diagnoses against available reference standards.

METHODS

We compared blinded clinical diagnoses with diagnoses based on available reference standards for known causes of LBP or LES such as discography, facet, sacroiliac or hip joint blocks, epidurals injections, advanced imaging studies or any combination of these tests. A prospective, blinded validity design was employed. Physiotherapists examined consecutive patients with chronic lumbopelvic pain and/or referred LES scheduled to receive the reference standard examinations. When diagnoses were in complete agreement regardless of complexity, "exact" agreement was recorded. When the clinical diagnosis was included within the reference standard diagnoses, "clinical agreement" was recorded. The proportional chance criterion (PCC) statistic was used to estimate agreement on multiple diagnostic possibilities because it accounts for the prevalence of individual categories in the sample. The kappa statistic was used to estimate agreement on six pathoanatomic diagnoses.

RESULTS

In a sample of chronic LBP patients (n = 216) with high levels of disability and distress, 67% received a patho-anatomic diagnosis based on available reference standards, and 10% had more than one tissue origin of pain identified. For 27 diagnostic categories and combinations, chance clinical agreement (PCC) was estimated at 13%. "Exact" agreement between clinical and reference standard diagnoses was 32% and "clinical agreement" 51%. For six pathoanatomic categories (disc, facet joint, sacroiliac joint, hip joint, nerve root and spinal stenosis), PCC was 33% with actual agreement 56%. There was no overlap of 95% confidence intervals on any comparison. Diagnostic agreement on the six most common patho-anatomic categories produced a kappa of 0.31.

CONCLUSION

Clinical diagnoses agree with reference standards diagnoses more often than chance. Using available reference standards, most patients can have a tissue source of pain identified.

Degenerative spondylolisthesis: review of current trends and controversies

STUDY DESIGN

A literature-based review.

OBJECTIVES

To review management and controversies and to present authors recommendations.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is considerable controversy regarding indication for surgery, role for decompression alone, and decompression with fusion with or without instrumentation.

METHODS

Review of English language medical literature.

RESULTS

The condition may stabilize itself with the collapse of the disc spaces and osteophytes but may continue to progress in nearly a third of the cases. It may cause predominantly back pain due to segmental instability, or radicular pain/neurogenic claudication secondary to root entrapment or spinal stenosis. When conservative treatment fails, the mainstay of surgical treatment is decompressive laminectomy and fusion, with or without instrumentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Decompression primarily relieves radicular symptoms and neurogenic claudication whereas fusion primarily relieves back pain by elimination of instability. The goals for instrumentation are to promote fusion and to correct deformity. Fusion has a better long-term outcome than decompression alone. There is evidence that instrumentation improves fusion rate but does not improve clinical outcome in a relatively short-term follow-up. However, outcome of pseudarthrosis cases deteriorates over time and solid fusion produces better long-term outcome. The benefit of instrumentation comes with a price of higher postoperative morbidity and complication rate. Bone morphogenetic proteins are being tried to increase the rate of fusion, without increasing the complication rate, but the cost is prohibitive. More recently, dynamic stabilization with instrumentation but without fusion has been introduced as an alternative treatment. The current trends of surgical treatment and controversies are discussed.

Zygapophysial joint blocks in chronic low back pain: a test of Revel's model as a screening test

BACKGROUND

Only controlled blocks are capable of confirming the zygapophysial joints (ZJ) as the pain generator in LBP patients. However, previous workers have found that a cluster of clinical signs ("Revel's criteria"), may be valuable in predicting the results of an initial screening ZJ block. It was suggested that these clinical findings are unsuitable for diagnosis, but may be of value in selecting patients for diagnostic blocks of the lumbar ZJ's. To constitute evidence in favour of a clinical management strategy, these results need confirmation. This study evaluates the utility of 'Revel's criteria' as a screening tool for selection of chronic low back pain patients for controlled ZJ diagnostic blocks.

METHODS

This study utilized a prospective blinded concurrent reference standard related validity design. Consecutive chronic LBP patients completed pain drawings, psychosocial distress and disability questionnaires, received a clinical examination and lumbar zygapophysial blocks. Two reference standards were evaluated simultaneously: 1. 75% reduction of pain on a visual analogue scale (replication of previous work), and 2. abolition of the dominant or primary pain. Using "Revel's criteria" as predictors, logistic regression analyses were used to test the model. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios for selected variables were calculated for the two proposed clinical strategies.

RESULTS

Earlier results were not replicated. Sensitivity of "Revel's criteria" was low sensitivity (<17%), and specificity high (approximately 90%). Absence of pain with cough or sneeze just reached significance (p = 0.05) within one model.

CONCLUSIONS

"Revel's criteria" are unsuitable as a clinical screening test to select chronic LBP patients for initial ZJ blocks. However, the criteria may have use in identifying a small subset (11%) of patients likely to respond to the initial block (specificity 93%).

Prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions

BACKGROUND

Facet joints are a clinically important source of chronic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the prevalence of facet joint pain by spinal region in patients with chronic spine pain referred to an interventional pain management practice.

METHODS

Five hundred consecutive patients with chronic, non-specific spine pain were evaluated. The prevalence of facet joint pain was determined using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks (1% lidocaine or 1% lidocaine followed by 0.25% bupivacaine), in accordance with the criteria established by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). The study was performed in the United States in a non-university based ambulatory interventional pain management setting.

RESULTS

The prevalence of facet joint pain in patients with chronic cervical spine pain was 55% 5(95% CI, 49%-61%), with thoracic spine pain was 42% (95% CI, 30%-53%), and in with lumbar spine pain was 31% (95% CI, 27%-36%). The false-positive rate with single blocks with lidocaine was 63% (95% CI, 54%-72%) in the cervical spine, 55% (95% CI, 39%-78%) in the thoracic spine, and 27% (95% CI, 22%-32%) in the lumbar spine.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that in an interventional pain management setting, facet joints are clinically important spinal pain generators in a significant proportion of patients with chronic spinal pain. Because these patients typically have failed conservative management, including physical therapy, chiropractic treatment and analgesics, they may benefit from specific interventions designed to manage facet joint pain.