Safe Use of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections: Recommendations of the WIP Benelux Work Group

8. Herpes zoster and post herpetic neuralgia

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering from postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) report unilateral chronic pain in one or more dermatomes after an acute herpes zoster (HZ) infection. The incidence of acute HZ ranges between three and five patients per 1000 person-years. In one out of four patients, acute HZ-related pain will transition into PHN. PHN can be very disabling for patients and reduce quality of life. Additionally, the treatment of PHN is characterized by high failure rates. The aim of this review is to give an update on the previous practical guideline published in 2011 and revised in 2015 (published in 2019) and to provide an overview of current interventional treatment options for HZ infection and PHN.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of HZ and PHN was systematically reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

The most important treatment for acute HZ-related pain is antiviral therapy within 72 h of symptom onset. Additional symptomatic treatment options are analgesic drugs according to the WHO pain ladder, tricyclic antidepressants (eg, nortriptyline), and antiepileptic drugs (eg, gabapentin). If pain is not sufficiently reduced, interventional treatment such as an epidural injection with local anesthetics and corticosteroids or pulsed radiofrequency of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) are options. Treatment for PHN is preferably transdermal capsaicin, lidocaine, or oral drugs such as antidepressants or antiepileptics.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of acute HZ-related pain especially PHN is challenging. Besides the conventional treatment for PHN, interventional management is considered a new treatment option. PRF of DRG seems to be the most promising interventional management.

Lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections with particulate vs. nonparticulate steroid: an evidence-informed review on shifting gear to a personalized medicine paradigm

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an evidence-informed review weighing the pros and cons of particulate vs. nonparticulate steroids for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI).

RECENT FINDINGS

The relative use of nonparticulate vs. particulate steroids for lumbar TFESI has risen recently in light of catastrophic consequences reported for the latter during cervical TFESI. Among various causes of spinal cord infarct, an exceedingly rare event in the lower lumbar spine, embolization of particulate steroid is among the least likely. Case reports have documented cases of spinal cord infarct during lower lumbar TFESI with both particulate and nonparticulate steroids, with database reviews finding no difference in complication rates. There is some evidence for superiority of particulate over nonparticulate steroids in well-designed studies, which could lead to increase steroid exposure (i.e. more injections) and treatment failure resulting in surgical and/or opioid management when nonparticulate steroids are utilized.

SUMMARY

Similar to a paradigm shift in medicine, a personalized approach based on a shared decision model and the consequences of treatment failure, should be utilized in deciding which steroid to utilize. Alternatives to ESI include high-volume injections with nonsteroid solutions, and the use of hypertonic saline, which possesses anti-inflammatory properties and has been shown to be superior to isotonic saline in preliminary clinical studies.

11. Cervicogenic headache and occipital neuralgia

INTRODUCTION

Cervicogenic headache (CEH) and occipital neuralgia (ON) are headaches originating in the occiput and that radiate to the vertex. Because of the intimate relationship between structures based in the occiput and those in the upper cervical region, there is significant overlap between the presentation of CEH and ON. Diagnosis starts with a headache history to assess for diagnostic criteria formulated by the International Headache Society. Physical examination evaluates range of motion of the neck and the presence of tender areas or pressure points.

METHODS

The literature for the diagnosis and treatment of CEH and ON was searched from 2015 through August 2022, retrieved, and summarized.

RESULTS

Conservative treatment includes pain education and self-care, analgesic medication, physical therapy (such as reducing secondary muscle tension and improving posture), the use of TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation), or a combination of the aforementioned treatments. Injection at various anatomical locations with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroids can provide pain relief for a short period. Deep cervical plexus block can result in improved pain for less than 6 months. In both CEH and ON, an occipital nerve block can provide important diagnostic information and improve pain in some patients, with PRF providing greater long-term pain control. Radiofrequency ablation of the cervical facet joints can result in improvement for over 1 year. Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) should be considered for the treatment of refractory ON.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of CEH preferentially consists of radiofrequency treatment of the facet joints, while for ON, pulsed radiofrequency of the occipital nerves is indicated. For refractory cases, ONS may be considered.

Non-inferiority study assessing the utility of postcervical and lumbar radiofrequency ablation steroid use

INTRODUCTION

Many physicians administer steroids after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to mitigate postprocedural inflammation and decrease postprocedural pain. However, robust evidence supporting the benefits of steroids after RFA is lacking and steroids have risks.

METHODS

This study was a single-center, prospective, observational study designed to assess whether RFA alone is inferior to RFA with steroids for postprocedure pain. Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age and scheduled to undergo cervical or lumbar RFA. The primary outcome measure was the average pain score on the numeric rating scale (NRS) 7 days after the RFA. The secondary outcome measures included anxiety, depression and physical function, measured via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System short forms. All outcome measures were completed prior to the procedure and at 7 and 60 days postprocedure.

RESULTS

Out of the 365 participants who completed baseline assessments, 175 received steroids and 190 did not receive steroids. The pain intensity at 7 days postprocedure was similar between the steroid and non-steroid groups (mean difference (steroid-non-steroid): -0.23). The 95% CI of the estimate (-0.76 to 0.30) was within the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1.5 NRS points. Similar results were obtained for pain at 60 days (mean difference: 0.09; 95% CI -0.48 to 0.65). No significant differences between groups were observed for anxiety, depression or physical function at either 7 or 60 days.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the addition of steroids to the RFA procedure does not provide added benefits and is therefore not worth the additional risks that they pose.

Comparative-effectiveness study evaluating outcomes for transforaminal epidural steroid injections performed with 3% hypertonic saline or normal saline in lumbosacral radicular pain

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) are commonly employed to treat lumbosacral radiculopathy. Despite anti-inflammatory properties, the addition of 3% hypertonic saline has not been studied.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of adding 0.9% NaCl (N-group) vs. 3% NaCl (H-group) in TFESI performed for lumbosacral radiculopathy.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared TFESI performed with lidocaine, triamcinolone and 0.9% NaCl vs. lidocaine, triamcinolone and 3% NaCl. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a ≥ 30% reduction in pain on a verbal rating scale (VRS; 0-100) at 3 months. Secondary outcome measures included the proportion of patients who improved by at least 30% for pain at 1 and 6 months, and who experienced ≥15% from baseline on the Oswestry disability index (ODI) at follow-up.

RESULTS

The H-group experienced more successful pain outcomes than the N-group at 3 months (59.09% vs. 41.51%; P = .002) but not at 1 month (67.53% vs. 64.78%; P = .61) or 6 months (27.13% vs 21.55%: P = .31). For functional outcome, there was a higher proportion of responders in the H-group than the N-group at 3 months (70.31% vs. 53.46%; P = .002). Female, age ≤ 60 years, and duration of pain ≤ 6 months were associated with superior outcomes at the 3-month endpoint. Although those with a herniated disc experienced better outcomes in general with TFESI, the only difference favoring the H-group was for spondylolisthesis patients.

CONCLUSIONS

3% hypertonic saline is a viable alternative to normal saline as an adjunct for TFESI, with randomized studies needed to compare its effectiveness to steroids as a possible alternative.

REGISTRATION

Thai Clinical Trials Registry ID TCTR 20231110006.

Preliminary evaluation of an indwelling epidural catheter for repeat methylprednisolone administration in canine lumbosacral stenosis

Objective

To determine the complications, outcomes, and patency of a permanent epidural catheter and subcutaneous access port system (ECAPS) as part of conservative management of degenerative lumbosacral stenosis in dogs.

Animals and procedure

Medical records of 11 client-owned dogs that underwent an ECAPS insertion were evaluated retrospectively. Clinical signs, complications related to the procedure, and system patency are reported.

Results

All dogs had lumbosacral pain at their initial neurological assessment, with comfort levels adequately controlled following epidural infiltrations. None suffered from complications related to the ECAPS procedure. In 10 dogs, there were no malfunctions for the duration of the study. However, in 1 dog, there was a suspected leak at Day 814. The longest duration of patency reported in this study was 870 d (at the time of writing).

Conclusion

Placement of an ECAPS is a feasible technique and a viable option to permit repeated epidural injections of steroids in dogs with degenerative lumbosacral stenosis that is managed conservatively. Further studies are required to evaluate complication rates.

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized.

RESULTS

Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.

Outcomes of transforaminal epidural injection of amniotic membrane/umbilical cord particulate for lumbar radiculopathy: a case series

Background

Radiculopathy can be a debilitating condition. Amniotic membrane/umbilical cord (AM/UC) particulate is a relatively new injectable treatment modality. Herein we report the outcomes of epidural injection of AM/UC particulate in managing lumbar radiculopathy.

Methods

Consecutive patients with lumbar radiculopathy who received epidural injection of AM/UC particulate for lumbar radiculopathy were included. Primary outcome was change in pain as measured by the 11-point numerical rating scale. Safety was assessed by AM/UC- and procedure-related complications. Paired t-tests were used to determine statistical significance.

Results

A total of 12 patients with a mean age of 56.7 ± 21.0 years were included in the analysis. The patients were previously treated with physical therapy (91.7%), chiropractic corrective measures (16.7%), epidural steroid injection (83.3%), and radiofrequency ablation (8.3%). Two patients (16.7%) were taking opioids for chronic pain syndrome. After AM/UC injection, the average pain score decreased from 6.6 ± 1.5 to 5.2 ± 1.9 at 1-3 months, 2.0 ± 1.4 at 6 months, and 2.9 ± 1.4 at last mean follow-up of 21.3 ± 11.1 months (p < 0.001). No patients required subsequent treatment or surgery. There were also no complications.

Conclusion

This case series supports the preliminary safety and shows potential benefit of epidural AM/UC particulate injection in this cohort of patients with lumbar radiculopathy pain.

Parasagittal Interlaminar and Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections for Radicular Low Back Pain; Which is More Comfortable?

Objective

This study aimed to compare parasagittal interlaminar (PS) and transforaminal (TF) epidural steroid injections for unilateral L5 and S1 radicular lower back pain in terms of patient comfort, efficacy, safety, contrast enhancement, and radiation exposure.

Methods

This was a prospective randomized single-blind study. A total of 59 participants were included in this study. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were obtained. A comfort questionnaire was administered to all participants. The total fluoroscopy time and contrast distribution levels were recorded.

Results

Pre- and post-treatment VAS scores were similar between the groups. The ODI scores increased in favor of the PS group at week 2 (P < 0.041); however, there was no difference between the two groups at other times. The VAS and ODI scores improved significantly with treatment in both the groups (P < 0.001). Total fluoroscopy time was shorter in the PS group (P < 0.001). PS application was more comfortable (P < 0.001). While no complications were observed in the PS group, three complications occurred in the TF group. Anterior epidural contrast spread to three or more levels was observed in 57% of the participants in the PS group, whereas no spread to more than two levels was observed in the TF group.

Conclusion

The PS epidural approach is superior to the TF approach in terms of a low incidence of side effects, less radiation exposure, better patient comfort, higher epidural contrast spread, and single-level needle access.

Pro-Con Debate: Superior Versus Inferior Triangle Needle Placement in Transforaminal Epidural Injections

Although transforaminal epidural injections have long been used for radicular pain, there is no universal standard injection approach to the neural foramen. The intervertebral foramen and its surrounding structures comprise an anatomically sensitive area that includes bone and joint structures, the intervertebral disk, blood vessels (in particular, the radicular arteries), the epidural sheath, and the spinal nerve root. Given the relatively high risk of inadvertent injury or injection to these nearby structures, image guidance for transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESIs) is standard of care. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal approach to the neural foramen: from the traditional superior ("safe") triangle or from the inferior (Kambin's) triangle. In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach for TFESIs.

Iatrogenic cervical spinal cord injury after interlaminar cervical epidural injection

Objectives

Describe a catastrophic complication of cervical epidural injection (CEI) in a patient with prior anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF).

Setting

Interlaminar CEI at C7-T1 was performed under minimal sedation.

Discussion

Right hemiparesis, diffuse dysesthesia, and tactile allodynia were immediately described after the procedure. 24 hours after CEI, an MRI showed an increased T2 signal and decreased T1 signal in the spinal cord extending from C3-T3. Postsurgical ACDF changes, cervicovertebral ligament anomalies, repetitive microtrauma from serial CEI's, and epidural space compromise may have complicated the loss of resistance technique and increased the risk for dural puncture and intrinsic cord injury.

Conclusion

Knowledge of cervical spinal anatomy, biomechanical implications of ACDF, ligamentous inflammation, pre-operative image review, and perioperative patient feedback are valuable insights that may mitigate the risk of severe adverse events.

An update on epidural steroid injections: is there still a role for particulate corticosteroids?

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) play an important role in the multifaceted management of neck and back pain. Corticosteroid preparations used in ESIs may be considered "particulate" or "non-particulate" based on whether they form a crystalline suspension or a soluble clear solution, respectively. In the past two decades, there have been reports of rare but severe and permanent neurological complications as a result of ESI. These complications have principally occurred with particulate corticosteroid preparations when using a transforaminal injection technique at cervical or thoracic levels, and only rarely in the lumbosacral spine. As a result, some published clinical guidelines and recommendations have advised against the use of particulate corticosteroids for transforaminal ESI, and the FDA introduced a warning label for injectable corticosteroids regarding the risk of serious neurological adverse events. There is growing evidence that the efficacy of non-particulate corticosteroids for pain relief and functional improvement after ESI is non-inferior to particulate agents, and that non-particulate injections almost never result in permanent neurological injury. Despite this, particulate corticosteroids continue to be routinely used for transforaminal epidural injections. More consistent clinical guidelines and societal recommendations are required alongside increased awareness of the comparative efficacy of non-particulate agents among specialists who perform ESIs. The current role for particulate corticosteroids in ESIs should be limited to caudal and interlaminar approaches, or transforaminal injections in the lumbar spine only if initial non-particulate ESI resulted in a significant but short-lived improvement.

Epidural Injection of Harpagoside for the Recovery of Rats with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Epidural administration is the leading therapeutic option for the management of pain associated with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), which is characterized by compression of the nerve root due to narrowing of the spinal canal. Corticosteroids are effective in alleviating LSS-related pain but can lead to complications with long-term use. Recent studies have focused on identifying promising medications administered epidurally to affected spinal regions. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of harpagoside (HAS) as an epidural medication in rats with LSS. HAS at various concentrations was effective for neuroprotection against ferrous sulfate damage and consequent promotion of axonal outgrowth in primary spinal cord neurons. When two concentrations of HAS (100 and 200 μg/kg) were administered to the rat LSS model via the epidural space once a day for 4 weeks, the inflammatory responses around the silicone block used for LSS were substantially reduced. Consistently, pain-related factors were significantly suppressed by the epidural administration of HAS. The motor functions of rats with LSS significantly improved. These findings suggest that targeted delivery of HAS directly to the affected area via epidural injection holds promise as a potential treatment option for the recovery of patients with LSS.

2. Cervical radicular pain

INTRODUCTION

Cervical radicular pain is pain perceived in the upper limb, caused by irritation or compression of a cervical spine nerve, the roots of the nerve, or both.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain was retrieved and summarized.

RESULTS

The diagnosis is made by combining elements from the patient's history, physical examination, and supplementary tests. The Spurling and shoulder abduction tests are the two most common examinations used to identify cervical radicular pain. MRI without contrast, CT scanning, and in some cases plain radiography can all be appropriate imaging techniques for nontraumatic cervical radiculopathy. MRI is recommended prior to interventional treatments. Exercise with or without other treatments can be beneficial. There is scant evidence for the use of paracetamol, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and neuropathic pain medications such as gabapentin, pregabalin, tricyclic antidepressants, and anticonvulsants for the treatment of radicular pain. Acute and subacute cervical radicular pain may respond well to epidural corticosteroid administration, preferentially using an interlaminar approach. By contrast, for chronic cervical radicular pain, the efficacy of epidural corticosteroid administration is limited. In these patients, pulsed radiofrequency treatment adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no gold standard for the diagnosis of cervical radicular pain. There is scant evidence for the use of medication. Epidural corticosteroid injection and pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the dorsal root ganglion may be considered. [Correction added on 12 June 2023, after first online publication: The preceding sentence was corrected.].

Nonorganic (Behavioral) Signs and Their Association With Epidural Corticosteroid Injection Treatment Outcomes and Psychiatric Comorbidity in Cervical Radiculopathy: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between cervical nonorganic pain signs and epidural corticosteroid injection outcomes and coexisting pain and psychiatric conditions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Seventy-eight patients with cervical radiculopathy who received epidural corticosteroid injection were observed to determine the effects that nonorganic signs have on treatment outcome. A positive outcome was a decrease of 2 or more points in average arm pain, coupled with a score of 5 on a 7-point Patient Global Impression of Change scale 4 weeks after treatment. Nine tests in 5 categories (abnormal tenderness, regional disturbances deviating from normal anatomy, overreaction, discrepancies in examination findings with distraction, and pain during sham stimulation) were modified from previous studies and standardized. Other variables examined for their association with nonorganic signs and outcomes included disease burden, psychopathology, coexisting pain conditions, and somatization.

RESULTS

Of the 78 patients, 29% (n=23) had no nonorganic signs, 21% (n=16) had signs in 1 category, 10% (n=8) had signs in 2 categories, 21% (n=16) had signs in 3 categories, 10% (n=8) had signs in 4 categories, and 9% (n=7) had signs in 5 categories. The most common nonorganic sign was superficial tenderness (44%; n=34). Mean number of positive nonorganic categories was higher in individuals with negative treatment outcomes (2.5±1.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.1) compared with those with positive outcomes (1.1±1.3; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.5; P=.0002). Negative treatment outcomes were most strongly associated with regional disturbances and overreaction. Positive associations were noted between nonorganic signs and multiple pain (P=.011) and multiple psychiatric (P=.028) conditions.

CONCLUSION

Cervical nonorganic signs correlate with treatment outcome, pain, and psychiatric comorbidities. Screening for these signs and psychiatric symptoms may improve treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04320836.

Interventional Pain Procedures: A Narrative Review Focusing on Safety and Complications. Part 1 Injections for Spinal Pain

In recent years, there has been a considerable increase in the number of image-guided interventional procedures performed for the management of acute and chronic pain. Concomitantly, there has also been an increase in the complication rate related to these procedures. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the primary complications associated with commonly performed image-guided (fluoroscopic- or ultrasound-guided) interventional procedures. We conclude that although complications from interventional pain procedures can be mitigated to a certain degree, they cannot be eliminated altogether. In order to avoid adverse events, patient safety should be given considerable attention and physicians should be constantly aware of the possibility of developing complications.

Pain Management in the Post-COVID Era-An Update: A Narrative Review

An extensive computer search (from January 2020 to January 2023) was conducted including literature from the PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. According to preset criteria, a total of 58 articles were included in this review article. Generally, any patient who becomes infected with COVID-19 can develop post-COVID-19 conditions. The course of COVID-19 is divided into three main stages: acute COVID-19 (up to 4 weeks), post-acute COVID-19 (from 4 to 12 weeks), and post-COVID (from 12 weeks to 6 months). If a more protracted course of COVID (over 6 months) is demonstrated, the term "long-COVID" is used. Although the acute stage of COVID-19 infection most commonly manifests with acute respiratory symptoms, one very common symptom of the disease is pain, while the most common symptoms of post-COVID syndrome are shortness of breath, dry cough, fatigue, loss of olfactory and gustatory function, tightness and chest pain, sleep and mood disturbances, body aches, muscle and joint pain, sore throat, fever, and persistent headaches. All observations demonstrated a high incidence of chronic pain syndromes of various localization in the post- and long-COVID period. Post-COVID chronic pain might include a newly developed chronic pain as a part of post-viral syndrome; worsening of preexisting chronic pain due to the associated changes in the medical services, or a de novo chronic pain in healthy individuals who are not infected with COVID. Chronic pain during and post-COVID-19 pandemic is an important health issue due to the significant impacts of pain on the patients, health care systems, and society as well. Therefore, it is important that patients with chronic pain receive effective treatment according to their specific needs. Accordingly, the main goal of this review article is to provide a broad description about the post-COVID pain and to explore the impact of long COVID-19 on chronic pain patients, and also to give brief reports about the prevalence, risk factors, possible mechanisms, different presentations, and the management tools through a systematic approach.

Incidence and Disease Course of COVID-19 Infection Among Unvaccinated Patients Who Received Local Corticosteroid Injections

OBJECTIVE

There are concerns that local corticosteroid injections may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection because of the immunosuppressive effect of corticosteroids. This study aimed to examine the relationship between local corticosteroid injections and the risk of COVID-19 infection.

DESIGN

The date and type of procedure as well as the dose and type of corticosteroids used in patients who underwent local corticosteroid injections within 1 yr after the first COVID-19 case in the country were examined retrospectively and recorded. Patients who did not receive corticosteroids were included in the control group. Coronavirus disease 2019 infection histories of all patients were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the patients who received local corticosteroids and the control group in terms of the incidence of COVID-19 infections, and the number of patients who needed hospitalization or intensive care treatment. In addition, it was found that the administration of two injections, the type of procedure performed, and the dose and type of steroids were not associated with the incidence or severity of COVID-19 infections.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been shown that local corticosteroid injections are not associated with the incidence of COVID-19 infections and the number of patients who need hospitalization or intensive care treatment due to COVID-19.

Ultrasound-guided Versus Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy-assisted Cervical Transforaminal Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Radicular Pain in the Lower Cervical Spine: A Randomized Single-blind Controlled Noninferiority Study

OBJECT

To estimate the contrast dispersion short-term clinical efficacy and safety of ultrasound (US)-guided transforaminal steroid injection (TFSI) compared with computed tomography (CT) guidance for the treatment of cervical radicular pain.

METHOD

A total of 430 patients with cervical radicular pain from cervical herniated disk or cervical spondylosis were recruited in the randomized, single-blind, controlled, noninferiority trial. The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the US-guided or CT-guided TFSI for 1 affected cervical nerve. The dispersion pattern of contrast was monitored at the time of TFSI in both groups, using CT. Patients were assessed for pain intensity by numeric rating scale (NrS) and functional disability by Neck Disability Index (NDI) at baseline, 1 and 3 months after the intervention. Complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

The satisfactory rate of contrast distribution was respectively 92.1% in US group and 95.8% in CT group. Pain reduction and functional improvement were showed in both groups during follow-up. Statistical difference was not observed in the decrease in NRS pain scores and NDI scores between 2 groups with F =1.050, P =0.306 at 1 month and F =0.103, P =0.749 at 3 months after intervention. No permanent and severe complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that US provided a noninferior injectate spread pattern and similar improvement of radicular pain and functional status when compared with CT-guided TFSI. US may be advantageous during this procedure because it allows visualization of critical vessels and avoids radiation exposure.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine contrast shortage position statement

The medical field has been experiencing numerous drug shortages in recent years. The most recent shortage to impact the field of interventional pain medicine is that of iodinated contrast medium. Pain physicians must adapt to these changes while maintaining quality of care. This position statement offers guidance on adapting to the shortage.

Is the Erector Spinae Plane Block Effective for More than Perioperative Pain? A Retrospective Analysis

Introduction: The thoracic Erector Spinae Plane Block (ESPB) is an ultrasound-guided block that has gained popularity and is widely used in acute pain setups. However, data regarding its role in chronic and cancer-related pain are anecdotal. Material and Methods: The study is a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent ESPB. The cohort was divided into subgroups based on three determinants: etiology, pain type, and chronicity. Results: One hundred and ten patients were included, and genders were affected equally. The average age was 61.2 ± 16.1 years. The whole group had a statistically significant reduction in a numerical rating scale (NRS) (7.4 ± 1.4 vs. 5.0 ± 2.6, p-value > 0.001). NRS reduction for 45 patients (41%) exceeded 50% of the pre-procedural NRS. The mean follow-up was 7.9 ± 4.6 weeks. Baseline and post-procedure NRS were comparable between all subgroups. The post-procedural NRS was significantly lower than the pre-procedural score within each group. The proportion of patients with over 50% improvement in NRS was lower for those with symptom duration above 12 months (p-value = 0.02). Conclusions: Thoracic ESPB is a simple and safe technique. The results support the possible role of ESPB for chronic as well as cancer-related pain.

Cumulative glucocorticoid exposure in patients receiving epidural steroid injections: A single-centre retrospective evaluation on 581 procedures against existing clinical recommendations

Background

The purpose of the study was to review the cumulative corticosteroid doses received from epidural and non-epidural-based pain interventions in a cohort of patients undergoing epidural steroid injections (ESIs) with comparison to safe dosing recommendations.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was undertaken for all 349 patients who underwent a total of 581 ESIs at a single-centre, tertiary hospital in South Australia between 2017 and 2019. The primary outcome was the yearly dose analysis of cumulative steroid doses in methylprednisolone equivalents (MDPE) administered from epidural and non-epidural interventions in post-menopausal women, interpreted against maximum recommended doses.

Results

The annual limit of 200 ​mg for postmenopausal women was exceeded in 4.7% of the time (11/235) from ESIs alone, with a significant rise to 15.3% (46/300) when non-ESI injections were included in cumulative dose totals(p ​< ​0.001). Of the 173 participants of post-menopausal female age, 4.1% (7/173) received cumulative corticosteroid doses above the 3-year 400 ​mg MPDE limit from ESIs alone, with a statistically significant increase to 13.9% (24/173) when non-epidural steroid injections were again included in cumulative dose totals (p ​< ​0.001). The mean ​± ​standard deviation administered MPDE per epidural steroid injection across the whole study cohort was 72 ​± ​22 ​mg, nearly double the recommended dose of 40 ​mg.

Conclusions

Our study underpins the need for vigilance when considering steroid-based pain interventions, wherein both the individual and cumulative steroid exposure should be considered.

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

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

In 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.

RESULTS

Twenty 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical 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.

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

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

In 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.

RESULTS

Twenty 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical 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.

Safety of Epidural Steroid Injections for Lumbosacral Radicular Pain: Unmet Medical Need

OBJECTIVE

Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a commonly utilized treatment for lumbosacral radicular pain caused by intervertebral disc herniation or stenosis. Although effective in certain patient populations, ESIs have been associated with serious complications, including paralysis and death. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety warning on the risk of injecting corticosteroids into the epidural space. The aims of this article were to review the neurological complications associated with ESIs and to compare the formulations, safety, and effectiveness of commercially available corticosteroids given by transforaminal, interlaminar, or caudal injection.

METHODS

Serious adverse events associated with ESIs were identified by a search of the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database. A MEDLINE search of the literature was conducted to identify clinical trials comparing the safety and effectiveness of nonparticulate and particulate corticosteroid formulations.

RESULTS

Neurological complications with ESIs were rare and more often associated with the use of particulate corticosteroids administered by transforaminal injection. Among the 10 comparative-effectiveness studies reviewed, 7 found nonparticulate steroids had comparable efficacy to particulate steroids, and 3 studies suggested reduced efficacy or shorter duration of effect for nonparticulate steroids.

DISCUSSION

The risk of complications for transforaminal ESI is greater with particulate corticosteroids. Nonparticulate corticosteroids, which are often recommended as first-line therapy, may have a short duration of effect, and many commercial formulations contain neurotoxic preservatives. The safety profile of ESIs may continue to improve with the development of safer, sterile formulations that reduce the risk of complications while maintaining efficacy.

Deep Spinal Infection after Outpatient Epidural Injections for Pain: A Retrospective Sample Cohort Study Using a Claims Database in South Korea

BACKGROUND

Deep spinal infection is a devastating complication after epidural injection. This study aimed to investigate the incidence of deep spinal infection primarily after outpatient single-shot epidural injection for pain. Secondarily, this study assessed the national trends of the procedure and risk factors for said infection.

METHODS

Using South Korea's National Health Insurance Service sample cohort database, the 10-yr national trend of single-shot epidural injections for pain and the incidence rate of deep spinal infection after the procedure with its risk factors were determined. New-onset deep spinal infections were defined as those occurring within 90 days of the most recent outpatient single-shot epidural injection for pain, needing hospitalization for at least 1 night, and receiving at least a 4-week course of antibiotics.

RESULTS

The number of outpatient single-shot epidural injections per 1,000 persons in pain practice doubled from 40.8 in 2006 to 84.4 in 2015 in South Korea. Among the 501,509 injections performed between 2007 and 2015, 52 cases of deep spinal infections were detected within 90 days postprocedurally (0.01% per injection). In multivariable analysis, age of 65 yr or more (odds ratio, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.62 to 5.5; P = 0.001), living in a rural area (odds ratio, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.57 to 5.0; P < 0.001), complicated diabetes (odds ratio, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.30 to 6.7; P = 0.005), multiple epidural injections (three times or more) within the previous 90 days (odds ratio, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.22 to 4.2; P = 0.007), and recent use of immunosuppressants (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.00 to 6.7; P = 0.025) were significant risk factors of the infection postprocedurally.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of deep spinal infection after outpatient single-shot epidural injections for pain is very rare within 90 days of the procedure (0.01%). The data identify high-risk patients and procedure characteristics that may inform healthcare provider decision-making.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Dural puncture during lumbar epidural access in the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis: case series and risk mitigation strategies

Degenerative spondylolisthesis is a common back pathology in the general adult population. Patients with this condition may present for epidural steroid injection, epidural blood patch, or epidural analgesia. We report five patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis who experienced inadvertent dural puncture during interlaminar epidural steroid injection attempts: four with intrathecal contrast spread or cerebrospinal backflow into the epidural needle and one with subdural contrast spread. Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis may be at higher risk for dural puncture due to stretching of the dura and contraction of the epidural space at the translated spinal level. In the following report, we summarize the cases and suggest risk mitigation strategies for both chronic and acute pain physicians.

Low back pain

Low back pain covers a spectrum of different types of pain (eg, nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic, or non-specific) that frequently overlap. The elements comprising the lumbar spine (eg, soft tissue, vertebrae, zygapophyseal and sacroiliac joints, intervertebral discs, and neurovascular structures) are prone to different stressors, and each of these, alone or in combination, can contribute to low back pain. Due to numerous factors related to low back pain, and the low specificity of imaging and diagnostic injections, diagnostic methods for this condition continue to be a subject of controversy. The biopsychosocial model posits low back pain to be a dynamic interaction between social, psychological, and biological factors that can both predispose to and result from injury, and should be considered when devising interdisciplinary treatment plans. Prevention of low back pain is recognised as a pivotal challenge in high-risk populations to help tackle high health-care costs related to therapy and rehabilitation. To a large extent, therapy depends on pain classification, and usually starts with self-care and pharmacotherapy in combination with non-pharmacological methods, such as physical therapies and psychological treatments in appropriate patients. For refractory low back pain, a wide range of non-surgical (eg, epidural steroid injections and spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, and radiofrequency ablation and intra-articular steroid injections for mechanical pain) and surgical (eg, decompression for neuropathic pain, disc replacement, and fusion for mechanical causes) treatment options are available in carefully selected patients. Most treatment options address only single, solitary causes and given the complex nature of low back pain, a multimodal interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Although globally recognised as an important health and socioeconomic challenge with an expected increase in prevalence, low back pain continues to have tremendous potential for improvement in both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. Future research on low back pain should focus on improving the accuracy and objectivity of diagnostic assessments, and devising treatment algorithms that consider unique biological, psychological, and social factors. High-quality comparative-effectiveness and randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up periods that aim to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low back pain management are warranted.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Sciatica in the Netherlands: A Survey among Neurologists and Anesthesiologists

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess how Dutch neurologists and anesthesiologists diagnose and treat people with sciatica in secondary care and to evaluate their adherence to the newest guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey. Respondents were asked about their current clinical practice related to sciatica. Three authors rated the respondents' adherence to the guidelines on a three-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Eighty neurologists and 44 anesthesiologists completed the questionnaire. Neurologists diagnose their sciatica patients primarily using a magnetic resonance imaging (89%). Selective diagnostic nerve blocks are considered useful by 81% of the neurologists. Neurologists primarily treat patients with pain medication, and 40% of them think epidural steroid injections are effective in 40-60% of injected patients. Twenty-nine percent of neurologists refer patients to a neurosurgeon after 4 months. Anesthesiologists consider a selective diagnostic nerve root block to have a higher diagnostic value than mapping. The most reported side effect of epidural injections is exacerbation of pain (82%). Pulse radiofrequency is applied in 9-11% of acute cases. The results also indicate that Dutch neurologists and anesthesiologists follow an evidence-based approach that is strictly or broadly in line with the guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurologists treat sciatica patients initially with pain medication and physiotherapy, followed by epidural steroid injections and referral for surgery. Anesthesiologists treat sciatica patients with one or more steroid injections or may perform a selective nerve root block. Imaging, selective nerve root blocks, medication, physiotherapy, and pulse radiofrequency are topics of further research.

Real-time ultrasound-computed tomography image fusion for transforaminal lumbar approach: a lumbosacral spine phantoms study

PURPOSE

Ultrasound (US) is increasingly used for transforaminal approaches. We evaluated whether fusing computed tomography (CT) images with dynamic US could be based on bony and surface landmarks in two phantom models.

METHODS

Recordings were performed in a gelatin-based sonographic phantom and in a computerized imaging reference system training phantom. Three anesthesiologists performed 10 US and CT image fusions via three different techniques: (1) using locations of the fifth lumbar vertebra (L5) spinous process and the two posterior superior iliac spines in both images, (2) using the two lateral edges of the laminae rather than posterior superior iliac spines, and (3) using skin landmarks. Techniques were compared using values of precision (High quality of fusion: VP inferior to 10). Three punctures targeting the L4-L5 right foramina were made, and needle positions were checked using X-ray.

RESULTS

Sixty fusions were performed in the gelatin phantom and 90 in the training phantom. VPs values of the 150 fusions were inferior to 5. Technique 2 was superior to one [operator 1: VP: 1.12 ± 0.54 vs. 2.38 ± 1.49; operator 2: 0.6 ± 0.39 vs. 3.66 ± 1.22; operator 3: 0.89 ± 0.31 vs. 1.23 ± 0.63 (p < 0.001)] with the gelatin phantom. There were no differences with the second phantom. X-ray examinations confirmed L4-L5 needle positioning.

CONCLUSION

Bony and surface landmarks allowed for accurate fusion of CT and US images of the lumbar spine. These techniques, performed on phantoms, allowed for precise localization and puncturing of lumbar neural foramina.

Quantifying the impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain services in the Republic of Ireland

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, most medical services were shut down and resources were redistributed. Closures included pain management departments where many staff were redeployed. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 on chronic pain services in the Republic of Ireland.

METHODS

An online survey was sent to pain consultants working in public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland between the 22nd and 28th September 2020.

RESULTS

We received responses from 18 consultants from all 15 public hospitals in the Republic of Ireland with chronic pain services. Procedural volume during lockdown fell to 26% of pre-COVID levels. This had recovered somewhat by the time of the survey to 71%. Similarly, in-person outpatient clinic volume fell to 10% of per-COVID numbers and recovered to 50%. On average, 39% of public hospital activity was made up for by the availability of private hospitals. This varied significantly across the country. The use of telemedicine increased significantly during the pandemic. Before COVID, on average, 13% of outpatient clinic volume was composed of telephone or video consultations. This increased to 46% at the time of the survey.

CONCLUSION

This survey of consultant pain physicians in the Republic of Ireland has revealed how chronic pain services have been affected during the pandemic and how they have evolved.

Safety of epidural steroids: a review

Spine disease is one of the most common musculoskeletal diseases, especially in an aging society. An epidural steroid injection (ESI) is a highly effective treatment that can be used to bridge the gap between physical therapy and surgery. Recently, it has been increasingly used clinically. The purpose of this article is to review the complications of corticosteroids administered epidurally. Common complications include: hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression, adrenal insufficiency, iatrogenic Cushing's syndrome, hyperglycemia, osteoporosis, and immunological or infectious diseases. Other less common complications include psychiatric problems and ocular ailments. However, the incidence of complications related to epidural steroids is not high, and most of them are not serious. The use of nonparticulate steroids is recommended to minimize the complications associated with epidural steroids. The appropriate interval and dosage of ESI are disputed. We recommend that the selection of appropriate ESI protocol should be based on the suppression of HPA axis, which reflects the systemic absorption of the corticosteroid.

Pain During COVID-19: A Comprehensive Review and Guide for the Interventionalist

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain, the leading cause of disability in the world, imposes limitations on activities of daily living and diminishes quality of life leading to unnecessary patient suffering. The personal and socioeconomic costs of chronic pain cannot be overstated. Physicians are at the crux of the pandemic and must attempt to limit the spread of the virus while maintaining their professional responsibility to their patients and staff members.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to analyze the existing literature to develop consensus recommendations for treating pain during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Relevant literature was located via computer-generated citations between the months of March and May of 2020. Online computer searches of multiple databases including Google Scholar, CINAHL, PubMed, and Cochrane Review were conducted in conjunction with a thorough review of local, state, national, and international governmental and organizational websites to locate research on the area of interest.

RESULTS

The guidelines in this review are meant to offer a framework to pain practitioners and organizations for providing highly effective, ethical, and safe care to patients while maintaining their commitment to mitigating the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specific areas addressed include general and interventional-specific treatment and mitigation recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the recommendations in this review, if used in conjunction with evolving recommendations of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), World Health Organization (WHO), and federal, state, and local governing bodies, provides a path to not only mitigate the spread of the pandemic but also limit the adverse impact of pain and suffering in chronic pain patients.

Risk of serious spinal adverse events associated with epidural corticosteroid injections in the Medicare population

BACKGROUND

Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESIs) are widely performed and have an unquantified risk of serious spinal adverse events (SSAEs). We sought to determine the rate of SSAEs following ESI and to compare the rates by spinal level, injection approach and corticosteroid formulation.

METHODS

We included patients enrolled in Medicare parts A and B who had an ESI between 1 January 2009 and 30 September 2015. We identified potential cases as patients with spine-related diagnoses within 3 days after the first eligible ESI. Event categorization as probable, possible or non-case was based on review of medical records. The rates of probable and possible cases were expressed per 1 000 000 patients overall, and by spinal level, injection approach and corticosteroid formulation. A score test was used to compare these rates.

RESULTS

We identified 1 355 957 eligible ESIs during the study period. Of the 110 potential cases, 43 were selected for medical record review and 11 were categorized as probable, yielding a rate of 8.1 per 1 000 000 patients (95% CI 4.5 to 14.5). Risk of SSAEs was statistically higher with cervical/thoracic injections (29.4, 95% CI 12.5 to 68.8) compared with lumbar/sacral injections (5.1, 95% CI 2.3 to 11.0) (p value 0.001). Event rates for lumbar/sacral non-transforaminal injections was 8.8 (95% CI 4.0 to 19.1). Event rates for particulate (7.5, 95% CI 3.9 to 14.2) and non-particulate formulations (13.1, 95% CI 3.6 to 47.9) appeared similar (p value 0.47).

CONCLUSION

Between 2009 and 2015, rates of SSAEs following ESI in the Medicare population were low. Patients receiving cervical/thoracic ESIs were at higher risk of SSAE than those receiving lumbar/sacral ESIs. Event rates were similar for each corticosteroid formulation.

Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

How to Restart the Interventional Activity in the COVID-19 Era: The Experience of a Private Pain Unit in Spain

INTRODUCTION

The situation generated in the health system by the COVID-19 pandemic has provoked a crisis involving the necessity to cancel non-urgent and oncologic activity in the operating room and in day-to-day practice. As the situation continues, the need to reinstate attention for patients with chronic pain grows. The restoration of this activity has to begin with on-site appointments and possible surgical procedures. On-site clinical activity has to guarantee the safety of patients and health workers.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to evaluate how to manage activity in pain units, considering the scenario generated by the pandemic and the implications of chronic pain on the immune system and proposed pharmacological and interventional therapies.

METHODS

Besides the established general recommendations (physical distance, surgical masks, gloves, etc.), we established specific recommendations that will allow patient treatment and relieve the disruption of the immune response. It is important to highlight the use of opioids with the least influence in the immune system. Further, individualized corticoid use, risk assessment, reduced immune suppression, and dose adjustment should take patient needs into account. In this scenario, we highlight the use of radiofrequency and neuromodulation therapies, techniques that do not interfere with the immune response.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe procedures to implement these recommendations for individual clinical situations, the therapeutic possibilities and safety guidelines for each center, and government recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pain Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Chronic pain management during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a challenging process, especially with growing evidence that COVID-19 infection is associated with myalgias, referred pain, and widespread hyperalgesia. In light of the limited data available for COVID-19-related impact on chronic pain patients, this review explores the changes in the healthcare delivery system due to social distancing and safety precautions to provide the appropriate management of chronic pain patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding both the general problems facing chronic pain patients as well as specific problems in the COVID-19 era including deconditioning, increased mental health concerns, financial burdens, and potential for medication-induced immune-suppression is vital in the appropriate management of patients. Telemedicine, the practice of caring for patients remotely when the provider and patient are not physically present with each other, is becoming increasingly used and recognized as a valuable tool to both health care providers and patients. This paper concentrates on the proper utilization of the available resources to help patients with the most severe conditions as well as the most vulnerable group. COVID-19 may be associated with a profound effect on both the health care system and patients with chronic pain. As a result, delaying, or stopping, treatment for chronic pain patients will have negative consequences, and strong pain evaluations must be administered to triage patients appropriately. Recent recommendations for the safe use of non-opioid analgesics, opioid analgesics, and interventional pain management procedures are vital to know and understand specifically during the pandemic era. Further researches are needed to identify the advance planning and rapid responses to reduce the impact of the pandemic.

Pain Management Best Practices from Multispecialty Organizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Public Health Crises

BACKGROUND

It is nearly impossible to overestimate the burden of chronic pain, which is associated with enormous personal and socioeconomic costs. Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the world, is associated with multiple psychiatric comorbidities, and has been causally linked to the opioid crisis. Access to pain treatment has been called a fundamental human right by numerous organizations. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained medical resources, creating a dilemma for physicians charged with the responsibility to limit spread of the contagion and to treat the patients they are entrusted to care for.

METHODS

To address these issues, an expert panel was convened that included pain management experts from the military, Veterans Health Administration, and academia. Endorsement from stakeholder societies was sought upon completion of the document within a one-week period.

RESULTS

In these guidelines, we provide a framework for pain practitioners and institutions to balance the often-conflicting goals of risk mitigation for health care providers, risk mitigation for patients, conservation of resources, and access to pain management services. Specific issues discussed include general and intervention-specific risk mitigation, patient flow issues and staffing plans, telemedicine options, triaging recommendations, strategies to reduce psychological sequelae in health care providers, and resource utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 public health crisis has strained health care systems, creating a conundrum for patients, pain medicine practitioners, hospital leaders, and regulatory officials. Although this document provides a framework for pain management services, systems-wide and individual decisions must take into account clinical considerations, regional health conditions, government and hospital directives, resource availability, and the welfare of health care providers.

Caring for patients with pain during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations from an international expert panel

Chronic pain causes significant suffering, limitation of daily activities and reduced quality of life. Infection from COVID-19 is responsible for an ongoing pandemic that causes severe acute respiratory syndrome, leading to systemic complications and death. Led by the World Health Organization, healthcare systems across the world are engaged in limiting the spread of infection. As a result, all elective surgical procedures, outpatient procedures and patient visits, including pain management services, have been postponed or cancelled. This has affected the care of chronic pain patients. Most are elderly with multiple comorbidities, which puts them at risk of COVID-19 infection. Important considerations that need to be recognised during this pandemic for chronic pain patients include: ensuring continuity of care and pain medications, especially opioids; use of telemedicine; maintaining biopsychosocial management; use of anti-inflammatory drugs; use of steroids; and prioritising necessary procedural visits. There are no guidelines to inform physicians and healthcare providers engaged in caring for patients with pain during this period of crisis. We assembled an expert panel of pain physicians, psychologists and researchers from North America and Europe to formulate recommendations to guide practice. As the COVID-19 situation continues to evolve rapidly, these recommendations are based on the best available evidence and expert opinion at this present time and may need adapting to local workplace policies.

Accidental injection of succinylcholine into epidural space as a test dose

Inadvertent injection of nonepidural drugs into the epidural space is a rare situation, which is under-reported, and can lead to serious complications, such as cardiovascular and respiratory complications, paraplegia, or quadriplegia, and can worsen the patients' outcome from surgery. Succinylcholine administered epidurally leads to the appearance of fasciculation and shortness of breath and can prolong neuromuscular blockade. We report a case of accidental administration of 100 mg of succinylcholine via an epidural catheter as a test dose instead of 2 ml 0.5% bupivacaine in a patient planned for major abdominal surgery. After 2 min, the patient complained of shortness of breath; dysarthria; and fasciculation in the trunk, upper limbs, and face. This was managed with induction to general anesthesia (GA). In the postoperative period, no neurological or cardiovascular complications were observed. There is no adequate drug as an antidote of accidentally given nonepidural drugs via an epidural catheter. Succinylcholine given via epidural catheter has been shown to prolong neuromuscular blockade. Proper labeling and storage of syringes are of utmost importance for avoiding these unpleasant situations.