1
|
Sayed D, Grider J, Strand N, Hagedorn JM, Falowski S, Lam CM, Tieppo Francio V, Beall DP, Tomycz ND, Davanzo JR, Aiyer R, Lee DW, Kalia H, Sheen S, Malinowski MN, Verdolin M, Vodapally S, Carayannopoulos A, Jain S, Azeem N, Tolba R, Chang Chien GC, Ghosh P, Mazzola AJ, Amirdelfan K, Chakravarthy K, Petersen E, Schatman ME, Deer T. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain. J Pain Res 2022; 15:3729-3832. [PMID: 36510616 PMCID: PMC9739111 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s386879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety. Objective The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Methods The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented. Results After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain. Conclusion The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawood Sayed
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA,Correspondence: Dawood Sayed, The University of Kansas Health System, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA, Tel +1 913-588-5521, Email
| | - Jay Grider
- University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Natalie Strand
- Interventional Pain Management, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
| | | | - Steven Falowski
- Functional Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA
| | - Christopher M Lam
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Vinicius Tieppo Francio
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | | | - Nestor D Tomycz
- AHN Neurosurgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | - Rohit Aiyer
- Interventional Pain Management and Pain Psychiatry, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - David W Lee
- Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Pain Medicine, Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group, Fullerton, CA, USA
| | - Hemant Kalia
- Rochester Regional Health System, Rochester, NY, USA,Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Soun Sheen
- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Mark N Malinowski
- Adena Spine Center, Adena Health System, Chillicothe, OH, USA,Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Athens, OH, USA
| | - Michael Verdolin
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Pain Consultants of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Shashank Vodapally
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
| | - Alexios Carayannopoulos
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rhode Island Hospital, Newport Hospital, Lifespan Physician Group, Providence, RI, USA,Comprehensive Spine Center at Rhode Island Hospital, Newport Hospital, Providence, RI, USA,Neurosurgery, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Sameer Jain
- Interventional Pain Management, Pain Treatment Centers of America, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Nomen Azeem
- Department of Neurology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA,Florida Spine & Pain Specialists, Riverview, FL, USA
| | - Reda Tolba
- Pain Management, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,Anesthesiology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - George C Chang Chien
- Pain Management, Ventura County Medical Center, Ventura, CA, USA,Center for Regenerative Medicine, University Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Krishnan Chakravarthy
- Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA,Va San Diego Healthcare, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Erika Petersen
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Science, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Michael E Schatman
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA,Department of Population Health - Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
| | - Timothy Deer
- The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Do KH, Ahn SH, Cho YW, Chang MC. Comparison of intra-articular lumbar facet joint pulsed radiofrequency and intra-articular lumbar facet joint corticosteroid injection for management of lumbar facet joint pain: A randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96:e6524. [PMID: 28353611 PMCID: PMC5380295 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000006524] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to demonstrate the effect of intra-articular (IA) lumbar facet joint (LFJ) pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for the management of LFJ pain, and to compare the effect of IA LFJ PRF to IA corticosteroid injection (ICI). Pathology in the LFJ is a common source of lower back pain (LBP). It is responsible for chronic LBP in approximately 15% to 45% of patients. It has been reported that PRF stimulation can effectively reduce refractory joint pain. METHODS Sixty patients with LFJ pain were recruited and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the IA PRF group and the ICI group. There were 30 patients in each group. At pretreatment, 2 weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment, we assessed the severity of LBP using a numeric rating scale (NRS). RESULTS Compared with the pretreatment NRS scores, patients in both groups showed a significant decrease in NRS scores at 2 weeks, and 1, 3, and 6 months after each treatment. Between groups, changes in the NRS scores were significantly different over time. At 2 weeks and 1 month after each procedure, the NRS score after ICI was significantly lower than that after the PRF stimulation. However, at 3 and 6 months after the procedures, the decrements of NRS scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Six months after treatment, about half of patients in both groups reported successful pain relief (pain relief of ≥50%). CONCLUSION In the current study, both IA PRF stimulation and ICI into the LFJ significantly relieved LFJ pain. Their effects persisted for at least 6 months after the procedure. Thus, IA PRF is a useful therapeutic option for the management of LFJ pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kyung Hee Do
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Veterans Health Service Medical Center, Seoul
| | - Sang Ho Ahn
- Dr Ahn's Spine & Pain Clinic, and Dr Ahn's Spine and Pain Institute, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Yun Woo Cho
- Dr Ahn's Spine & Pain Clinic, and Dr Ahn's Spine and Pain Institute, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| | - Min Cheol Chang
- Dr Ahn's Spine & Pain Clinic, and Dr Ahn's Spine and Pain Institute, Daegu, Republic of Korea
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Facchini G, Spinnato P, Guglielmi G, Albisinni U, Bazzocchi A. A comprehensive review of pulsed radiofrequency in the treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions. Br J Radiol 2017; 90:20150406. [PMID: 28186832 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150406] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment of pain associated with different spinal conditions. The mechanisms of action and biological effects are shortly discussed to provide the scientific basis for this radiofrequency modality. METHODS We systematically searched for clinical studies on spinal clinical conditions using PRF. We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. We classified the information in one table focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other types of studies. Date of last electronic search was October 2016. RESULTS We found four RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of PRF on cervical radicular pain and five observational studies. Two trials and three observational studies were conducted in patients with facet pain. For disc-related pathology, we found one RCT with PRF applied intradiscally and three RCTs for dorsal root ganglia PRF modulation lumbosacral radicular pain. For sacroiliac joint pain, spondylolisthesis, malignancies and other minor spinal pathology, limited studies were conducted. CONCLUSION From the available evidence, the use of PRF to the dorsal root ganglion in cervical radicular pain is compelling. With regard to its lumbosacral counterpart, the use of PRF cannot be similarly advocated in view of the absence of standardization of PRF parameters, enrolment criteria and different methods in reporting results; but, the evidence is interesting. The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF. Advances in knowledge: The use of PRF in lumbar facet pain was found to be less effective than conventional RF techniques. For the other different spinal conditions, we need further studies to assess the effectiveness of PRF.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giancarlo Facchini
- 1 Department of Radiology, Scientific Institute Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy
| | - Paolo Spinnato
- 1 Department of Radiology, Scientific Institute Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Guglielmi
- 2 Department of Radiology, Scientific Institute Hospital "Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza", San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
| | - Ugo Albisinni
- 1 Department of Radiology, Scientific Institute Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy
| | - Alberto Bazzocchi
- 1 Department of Radiology, Scientific Institute Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Schianchi PM, Sluijter ME, Balogh SE. The Treatment of Joint Pain with Intra-articular Pulsed Radiofrequency. Anesth Pain Med 2013; 3:250-5. [PMID: 24282777 PMCID: PMC3833041 DOI: 10.5812/aapm.10259] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2013] [Accepted: 02/20/2013] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Background The intra-articular (IA) application of pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) for pain in small and large joints represents a recent development that has proven to be effective in many cases. We performed a retrospective study of 89 such procedures in 57 consecutive patients with chronic articular pain. Objectives The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate the effectiveness of intraarticular PRF in a group of 57 consecutive patients with chronic joint pain. Patients and Methods Patients with intractable joint pain for more than 6 months were treated with IA PRF 40-45V for 10-15 min in small joints and 60V for 15 min in large joints using fluoroscopic confirmation of correct needle position. A total of 28 shoulders, 40 knees, 10 trapezio-metacarpal, and 11 first metatarso-phalangeal joints were treated. Results were evaluated at 1, 2, and 5 months. The procedure was repeated after 1 month in 10 patients with initial suboptimal results. Success was defined as a reduction of pain score by at least 50%. Results All groups showed significant reductions in pain scores at all three follow-up visits. Success rates were higher in small joints (90% and 82%, respectively) than large ones (64% and 60%, respectively). Interestingly, IA PRF was successful in 6 out of 10 patients who had undergone previous surgery, including 3 with prosthetic joint replacement and in 6 of the 10 repeated procedures. There were no significant adverse effects or complications. Conclusions IA PRF induced significant pain relief of long duration in a majority of our patients with joint pain. The exact mechanism is unclear, but may be related to the exposure of immune cells to low-strength RF fields, inducing an anti-inflammatory effect. The success rate appears to be highest in small joints. We recommend additional research including control groups to further investigate and clarify this method; our data suggest that it may represent a useful modality in the treatment of arthrogenic pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pietro M Schianchi
- S. Anna Clinic, Lugano, Switzerland
- Corresponding author: Pietro M. Schianchi, S. Anna Clinic, Lugano, Switzerland. Tel: +41-919233978, Fax: +41-919238917, E-mail:
| | - Menno E Sluijter
- Centre for Pain Medicine, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland
| | - Susan E Balogh
- Centre for Pain Medicine, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|