Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (Part I): Guidelines for Preparing the Review Protocol

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of health care interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework-participants (P), interventions (I), comparators (C), outcomes (O)-and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in regional anesthesia and pain medicine (Part I): guidelines for preparing the review protocol

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework-participants (P), interventions (I),comparators (C), outcomes (O)-and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

Daring discourse: artificial intelligence in pain medicine, opportunities and challenges

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are currently expanding their influence within healthcare. For pain clinics, unfettered introduction of AI may cause concern in both patients and healthcare teams. Much of the concern stems from the lack of community standards and understanding of how the tools and algorithms function. Data literacy and understanding can be challenging even for experienced healthcare providers as these topics are not incorporated into standard clinical education pathways. Another reasonable concern involves the potential for encoding bias in healthcare screening and treatment using faulty algorithms. And yet, the massive volume of data generated by healthcare encounters is increasingly challenging for healthcare teams to navigate and will require an intervention to make the medical record manageable in the future. AI approaches that lighten the workload and support clinical decision-making may provide a solution to the ever-increasing menial tasks involved in clinical care. The potential for pain providers to have higher-quality connections with their patients and manage multiple complex data sources might balance the understandable concerns around data quality and decision-making that accompany introduction of AI. As a specialty, pain medicine will need to establish thoughtful and intentionally integrated AI tools to help clinicians navigate the changing landscape of patient care.

Congress of Neurological Surgeons Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Guidelines for Occipital Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Patients With Medically Refractory Occipital Neuralgia: Update

BACKGROUND

The Guidelines Task Force conducted a systematic review of the relevant literature on occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) for occipital neuralgia (ON) to update the original 2015 guidelines to ensure timeliness and accuracy for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of the literature and update the evidence-based guidelines on ONS for ON.

METHODS

The Guidelines Task Force conducted another systematic review of the relevant literature, using the same search terms and strategies used to search PubMed and Embase for relevant literature. The updated search included studies published between 1966 and January 2023. The same inclusion/exclusion criteria as the original guideline were also applied. Abstracts were reviewed, and relevant full text articles were retrieved and graded. Of 307 articles, 18 were retrieved for full-text review and analysis. Recommendations were updated according to new evidence yielded by this update .

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in the original guideline, reporting the use of ONS as an effective treatment option for patients with medically refractory ON. An additional 6 studies were included in this update. All studies in the original guideline and this current update provide Class III evidence.

CONCLUSION

Based on the availability of new literature, the current article is a minor update only that does not result in modification of the prior recommendations: Clinicians may use ONS as a treatment option for patients with medically refractory ON.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on postdural puncture headache: a consensus report from a multisociety international working group

INTRODUCTION

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH.

METHODS

Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients' interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Consensus Practice Guidelines on Postdural Puncture Headache From a Multisociety, International Working Group: A Summary Report

Importance

Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures, such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of this condition is, however, currently lacking.

Objective

To fill the practice guidelines void and provide comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing PDPH.

Evidence Review

With input from committee members and stakeholders of 6 participating professional societies, 10 review questions that were deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH were developed. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE on March 2, 2022. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews, and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for practice guideline development and shared with collaborator groups. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations that were rated according to the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence. Collaborators were asked to vote anonymously on each recommendation using 2 rounds of a modified Delphi approach.

Findings

After 2 rounds of electronic voting by a 21-member multidisciplinary collaborator team, 47 recommendations were generated to provide guidance on the risk factors for and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH, along with ratings for the strength and certainty of evidence. A 90% to 100% consensus was obtained for almost all recommendations. Several recommendations were rated as having moderate to low certainty. Opportunities for future research were identified.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this consensus statement suggest that current approaches to the treatment and management of PDPH are not uniform due to the paucity of evidence. The practice guidelines, however, provide a framework for individual clinicians to assess PDPH risk, confirm the diagnosis, and adopt a systematic approach to its management.

Violence in the pain clinic: the hidden pandemic

Workplace violence is any physical assault, threatening behavior or other verbal abuse directed toward persons at work or in the workplace. The incidence of workplace violence in healthcare settings in general and more specifically the pain clinic is thought to be underestimated due to hesitancy to report, lack of support from management and healthcare systems, and lack of institutional policies as it relates to violence from patients against healthcare workers. In the following article, we explore risk factors that place clinicians at risk of workplace violence, the cost and impact of workplace violence, how to build a violence prevention program and lastly how to recover from violence in the practice setting.

Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Role of patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain: a comprehensive narrative review

Background/importance

Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated.

Objective

We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials.

Evidence review

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success.

Findings

Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively.

Conclusions

Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Trial protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous ketamine for chronic daily headaches: the "KetHead" trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic daily headaches (CDH) are common and associated with significant morbidity, poor quality of life, and substantial burden on the healthcare system. CDH tends to be refractory to conventional medical management and/or patients cannot afford expensive treatments. It is stipulated that CDH share a mechanism of central sensitization in the trigeminocervical complex, mediated by activation of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Ketamine, a non-competitive NMDA antagonist, has been used in the treatment of chronic pain, but its role in CDH has not been completely established. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of high-dose IV ketamine infusions (compared to placebo) on the number of headache days at 28 days post-infusion.

METHODS

A multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trial will be conducted with two parallel groups and blinding of participants and outcome assessors. The study will include 56 adults with a CDH diagnosis as per ICHD-3 criteria. Participants will be randomized (1:1) to either ketamine (1 mg. kg^-1 bolus followed by infusion of 1 mg. kg^-1. h^-1 for 6 h) or placebo (0.9% saline in the same volume and infusion rate as the trial medication) bolus and infusion for 6 h. The impact on the number of monthly headache days, headache intensity, physical activity, mood, sleep, quality of life, analgesic consumption, and adverse effects will be recorded at baseline, immediately post-infusion, and from 1 to 28 days, 29 to 56 days, and 57 to 84 days after the infusion DISCUSSION: Despite advancements in treatment, many patients continue to suffer from CDH. This trial investigates whether high-dose IV ketamine infusions can effectively and safely improve the CDH burden as compared to a placebo infusion. This treatment could become a safe, affordable, and widely available option for patients living with refractory headache.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05306899. Registered on April 1, 2022.

ASRA Pain Medicine consensus guidelines on the management of the perioperative patient on cannabis and cannabinoids

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have seen an increase in cannabis use due to both regulatory changes and an interest in potential therapeutic effects of the substance, yet many aspects of the substance and their health implications remain controversial or unclear.

METHODS

In November 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine charged the Cannabis Working Group to develop guidelines for the perioperative use of cannabis. The Perioperative Use of Cannabis and Cannabinoids Guidelines Committee was charged with drafting responses to the nine key questions using a modified Delphi method with the overall goal of producing a document focused on the safe management of surgical patients using cannabinoids. A consensus recommendation required ≥75% agreement.

RESULTS

Nine questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved on third-round voting. Topics addressed included perioperative screening, postponement of elective surgery, concomitant use of opioid and cannabis perioperatively, implications for parturients, adjustment in anesthetic and analgesics intraoperatively, postoperative monitoring, cannabis use disorder, and postoperative concerns. Surgical patients using cannabinoids are at potential increased risk for negative perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Specific clinical recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoids were successfully created.

Recommended Musculoskeletal and Sports Ultrasound Terminology: A Delphi-Based Consensus Statement

OBJECTIVES

The current lack of agreement regarding standardized terminology in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound presents challenges in education, clinical practice, and research. This consensus was developed to provide a reference to improve clarity and consistency in communication.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened consisting of 18 members representing multiple specialty societies identified as key stakeholders in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound. A Delphi process was used to reach consensus which was defined as group level agreement >80%.

RESULTS

Content was organized into seven general topics including: 1) General Definitions, 2) Equipment and Transducer Manipulation, 3) Anatomic and Descriptive Terminology, 4) Pathology, 5) Procedural Terminology, 6) Image Labeling, and 7) Documentation. Terms and definitions which reached consensus agreement are presented herein.

CONCLUSIONS

The historic use of multiple similar terms in the absence of precise definitions has led to confusion when conveying information between colleagues, patients, and third-party payers. This multidisciplinary expert consensus addresses multiple areas of variability in diagnostic ultrasound imaging and ultrasound-guided procedures related to musculoskeletal and sports medicine.

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its consequences for chronic pain: a narrative review

The COVID-19 pandemic transformed everyday life, but the implications were most impactful for vulnerable populations, including patients with chronic pain. Moreover, persistent pain is increasingly recognised as a key manifestation of long COVID. This narrative review explores the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for chronic pain. Publications were identified related to the COVID-19 pandemic influence on the burden of chronic pain, development of new-onset pain because of long COVID with proposed mechanisms and COVID-19 vaccines and pain interventions. Broadly, mechanisms underlying pain due to SARS-CoV-2 infection could be caused by 'systemic inflammatory-immune mechanisms', 'direct neuropathic mechanisms' or 'secondary mechanisms due to the viral infection or treatment'. Existing chronic pain populations were variably impacted and social determinants of health appeared to influence the degree of effect. SARS-CoV-2 infection increased the absolute numbers of patients with pain and headache. In the acute phase, headache as a presenting symptom predicted a milder course. New-onset chronic pain was reportedly common and likely involves multiple mechanisms; however, its prevalence decreases over time and symptoms appear to fluctuate. Patients requiring intensive support were particularly susceptible to long COVID symptoms. Some evidence suggests steroid exposure (often used for pain interventions) may affect vaccine efficacy, but there is no evidence of clinical repercussions to date. Although existing chronic pain management could help with symptomatic relief, there is a need to advance research focusing on mechanism-based treatments within the domain of multidisciplinary care.

Cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines: future research directions for analgesia

The use of cannabis spans thousands of years and encompasses almost all dimensions of the human experience, including consumption for recreational, religious, social, and medicinal purposes. Its use in the management of pain has been anecdotally described for millennia. However, an evidence base has only developed over the last 100 years, with an explosion in research occurring in the last 20-30 years, as more states in the USA as well as countries worldwide have legalized and encouraged its use in pain management. Pain remains one of the most common reasons for individuals deciding to use cannabis medicinally. However, cannabis remains illegal at the federal level in the USA and in most countries of the world, making it difficult to advance quality research on its efficacy for pain treatment. Nonetheless, new products derived both from the cannabis plant and the chemistry laboratory are being developed for use as analgesics. This review examines the current landscape of cannabinoids research and future research directions in the management of pain.

Recommended musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound terminology: a Delphi-based consensus statement

The current lack of agreement regarding standardised terminology in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound presents challenges in education, clinical practice and research. This consensus was developed to provide a reference to improve clarity and consistency in communication. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened consisting of 18 members representing multiple specialty societies identified as key stakeholders in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound. A Delphi process was used to reach consensus, which was defined as group level agreement of >80%. Content was organised into seven general topics including: (1) general definitions, (2) equipment and transducer manipulation, (3) anatomical and descriptive terminology, (4) pathology, (5) procedural terminology, (6) image labelling and (7) documentation. Terms and definitions which reached consensus agreement are presented herein. The historic use of multiple similar terms in the absence of precise definitions has led to confusion when conveying information between colleagues, patients and third-party payers. This multidisciplinary expert consensus addresses multiple areas of variability in diagnostic ultrasound imaging and ultrasound-guided procedures related to musculoskeletal and sports medicine.

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.

The practice of regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey of members of three regional anesthesia societies

Purpose

To determine the preferences and attitudes of members of regional anesthesia societies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We distributed an electronic survey to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Regional Anaesthesia-UK, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. A questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was developed by a panel of experienced regional anesthesiologists and distributed by email to the participants. The survey covered the following domains: participant information, practice settings, preference for the type of anesthetic technique, the use of personal protective equipment, and oxygen therapy.

Results

The survey was completed by 729 participants from 73 different countries, with a response rate of 20.1% (729/3,630) for the number of emails opened and 8.5% (729/8,572) for the number of emails sent. Most respondents (87.7%) identified as anesthesia staff (faculty or consultant) and practiced obstetric and non-obstetric anesthesia (55.3%). The practice of regional anesthesia either expanded or remained the same, with only 2% of respondents decreasing their use compared with the pre-pandemic period. The top reasons for an increase in the use of regional anesthesia was to reduce the need for an aerosol-generating medical procedure and to reduce the risk of possible complications to patients. The most common reason for decreased use of regional anesthesia was the risk of urgent conversion to general anesthesia. Approximately 70% of the responders used airborne precautions when providing care to a patient under regional anesthesia. The most common oxygen delivery method was nasal prongs (cannula) with a surgical mask layered over it (61%).

Conclusions

Given the perceived benefits of regional over general anesthesia, approximately half of the members of three regional anesthesia societies seem to have expanded their use of regional anesthesia techniques during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-021-02150-8.

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.

International consensus on anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia

There is no universally agreed set of anatomical structures that must be identified on ultrasound for the performance of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) techniques. This study aimed to produce standardized recommendations for core (minimum) structures to identify during seven basic blocks. An international consensus was sought through a modified Delphi process. A long-list of anatomical structures was refined through serial review by key opinion leaders in UGRA. All rounds were conducted remotely and anonymously to facilitate equal contribution of each participant. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for the "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). Strong recommendations for inclusion were made if ≥75% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" in any round. Weak recommendations were made if >50% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds (but the criterion for "strong recommendation" was never met). Thirty-six participants (94.7%) completed all rounds. 128 structures were reviewed; a "strong recommendation" is made for 35 structures on orientation scanning and 28 for the block view. A "weak recommendation" is made for 36 and 20 structures, respectively. This study provides recommendations on the core (minimum) set of anatomical structures to identify during ultrasound scanning for seven basic blocks in UGRA. They are intended to support consistent practice, empower non-experts using basic UGRA techniques, and standardize teaching and research.

Interests and concerns regarding medical marijuana among chronic pain patients in Ohio: an online survey

Background

Since the legalization of medical marijuana (MMJ) in Ohio in 2018, many chronic pain (CP) patients have become interested in it as an alternative or adjunct to prescription opioids. This has not only created a need for pain management specialists to learn about this potential indication for MMJ but also for them to have more detailed knowledge of patient attitudes and willingness to comply with providers’ recommendations regarding its safe use with other pain medications. For this purpose, we surveyed CP patients in a region severely affected by the opioid crisis in order to provide better education, formulate treatment plans, and develop clinical policies.

Methods

We designed and administered the Medical Marijuana Interest Questionnaire (MMIQ) online to patients of the Western Reserve Hospital Center for Pain Medicine (CPM) with a diagnosis of CP who were not yet using MMJ. Questions addressed demographic and clinical characteristics, willingness to consider MMJ, and compliance with treatment plans and concerns. We then carried out a statistical analysis including Pearson chi-square, Spearman’s rho and Kendall’s tau tests to measure associations between variables to identify factors that may influence willingness to use MMJ.

Results

After sending 1047 email invitations to complete the MMIQ, 242 (23.1%) completed questionnaires were returned. The average age range of all respondents was 51-60 years, 171 (70.7%) were female and 147 (60.7%) were current opioid users. The 204 (84.3%) respondents who were willing to consider using MMJ were given access to the entire questionnaire. Of these, 138 (67.6%) reported wanting to use less opioids after starting MMJ and 191 (93.6%) were amenable to following their pain specialists’ recommendations about using MMJ concurrently with opioids. Their greatest concern on a 0-5 scale was affordability (2.98) and there was a statistically significant negative correlation between older age and preference for inhaled forms (p = 0.023).

Conclusion

The MMIQ was successful in eliciting important data regarding patients’ attitudes about MMJ for opioid titration and potential compliance. Our study was limited by being administered online rather than in-person, which skewed the demographic makeup of the sample. The MMIQ can be used to study similar populations or adapted to patients already using MMJ. Similar surveys of MMJ-experienced patients could be combined with chart reviews to study the success of these products for pain control and opioid substitution.

Making a business plan for starting a transitional pain service within the US healthcare system

Chronic pain imposes a tremendous economic burden of up to US$635 billion per year in terms of direct costs (such as the costs of treatment) and indirect costs (such as lost productivity and time away from work). In addition, the initiation of opioids for pain is associated with a more than doubling of pharmacy and all-cause medical costs. The high costs of chronic pain are particularly relevant for anesthesiologists because surgery represents an inciting event that can lead to chronic pain and long-term opioid use. While the presence of risk factors and an individual patient's postoperative pain trajectory may predict who is at high risk for chronic pain and opioid use after surgery, to date, there are few interventions proven to reduce these risks. One promising approach is the transitional pain service. Programs like this attempt to bridge the gap between acute and chronic pain management, provide continuity of care for complicated acute pain patients after discharge from the hospital, and offer interventions for patients who are on abnormal trajectories of pain resolution and/or opioid use. Despite awareness of chronic pain after surgery and the ongoing opioid epidemic, there are few examples of successful transitional pain service implementation in the USA. Key issues and concerns include financial incentives and the required investment from the hospital or healthcare system. We present an economic analysis and discussion of important considerations when developing a business plan for a transitional pain service.

Radiation safety and knowledge: an international survey of 708 interventional pain physicians

INTRODUCTION

Interventional pain procedures have increased in complexity, often requiring longer radiation exposure times and subsequently higher doses. The practicing physician requires an in-depth knowledge and evidence-based knowledge of radiation safety to limit the health risks to themselves, patients and healthcare staff. The objective of this study was to examine current radiation safety practices and knowledge among interventional pain physicians and compare them to evidence-based recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 49-question survey was developed based on an extensive review of national and international guidelines on radiation safety. The survey was web-based and distributed through the following professional organizations: Association of Pain Program Directors, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, European Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Therapy, International Neuromodulation Society, and North American Neuromodulation Society. Responses to radiation safety practices and knowledge questions were evaluated and compared with evidence-based recommendations. An exploratory data analysis examined associations with radiation safety training/education, geographical location, practice type, self-perceived understanding, and fellowship experience.

RESULTS

Of 708 responding physicians, 93% reported concern over the health effects of radiation, while only 63% had ever received radiation safety training/education. Overall, ≥80% physician compliance with evidence-based radiation safety practice recommendations was demonstrated for only 2/15 survey questions. Physician knowledge of radiation safety principles was low, with 0/10 survey questions having correct response rates ≥80%.

CONCLUSION

We have identified deficiencies in the implementation of evidence-based practices and knowledge gaps in radiation safety. Further education and training are warranted for both fellowship training and postgraduate medical practice. The substantial gaps identified should be addressed to better protect physicians, staff and patients from unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation during interventional pain procedures.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine expert panel recommendations on point-of-care ultrasound education and training for regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians-part II: recommendations

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical skill for all regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians to help diagnose relevant complications related to routine practice and guide perioperative management. In an effort to inform the regional anesthesia and pain community as well as address a need for structured education and training, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Society (ASRA) commissioned this narrative review to provide recommendations for POCUS. The recommendations were written by content and educational experts and were approved by the guidelines committee and the Board of Directors of the ASRA. In part II of this two-part series, learning goals and objectives were identified and outlined for achieving competency in the use of POCUS, specifically, airway ultrasound, lung ultrasound, gastric ultrasound, the focus assessment with sonography for trauma exam, and focused cardiac ultrasound, in the perioperative and chronic pain setting. It also discusses barriers to POCUS education and training and proposes a list of educational resources. For each POCUS section, learning goals and specific skills were presented in the Indication, Acquisition, Interpretation, and Medical decision-making framework.

American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine expert panel recommendations on point-of-care ultrasound education and training for regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians-part I: clinical indications

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a critical skill for all regional anesthesiologists and pain physicians to help diagnose relevant complications related to routine practice and guide perioperative management. In an effort to inform the regional anesthesia and pain community as well as address a need for structured education and training, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) commissioned this narrative review to provide recommendations for POCUS. The guidelines were written by content and educational experts and approved by the Guidelines Committee and the Board of Directors of the ASRA. In part I of this two-part series, clinical indications for POCUS in the perioperative and chronic pain setting are described. The clinical review addresses airway ultrasound, lung ultrasound, gastric ultrasound, the focus assessment with sonography for trauma examination and focused cardiac ultrasound for the regional anesthesiologist and pain physician. It also provides foundational knowledge regarding ultrasound physics, discusses the impact of handheld devices and finally, offers insight into the role of POCUS in the pediatric population.

A physician survey of perioperative neuraxial anesthesia management in patients on a direct oral anticoagulant

BACKGROUND

The perioperative management of patients taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) who require a high-bleed-risk surgery and/or neuraxial anesthesia is uncertain. We surveyed clinician practices relating to DOAC interruption and related perioperative management in patients having high-bleed-risk surgery with neuraxial anesthesia, and assess the suitability of a randomized trial of different perioperative DOAC management strategies.

METHODS

We surveyed members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the Canadian Anesthesia Society and Thrombosis Canada. We developed four clinical scenarios involving DOAC-treated patients who required anticoagulant interruption for elective high-bleed-risk surgery. In three scenarios, patients were to receive neuraxial anesthesia, and in one scenario they were to receive general anesthesia. We also asked about the merit of a randomized trial to compare a 2-day versus longer (3- to 5-day) duration of DOAC interruption.

RESULTS

There were 399 survey respondents of whom 356 (89%) were anesthetists and 43 (11%) were medical specialists. The responses indicate uncertainty about the DOAC interruption interval for high-bleed-risk surgery and/or neuraxial anesthesia; anesthetists favor 3- to 5-day interruption whereas medical specialists favor 2-day interruption. Anesthetists were unwilling to proceed with neuraxial anesthesia in patients with a 2-day DOAC interruption interval, preferring to cancel the surgery or switch to general anesthesia. There is general agreement on the need for a randomized trial in this field to compare a 2-day and a 3- to 5-day DOAC interruption management strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is variability in practices relating to the perioperative management of DOAC-treated patients who require a high-bleed-risk surgery with neuraxial anesthesia; this variability relates to the duration of DOAC interruption in such patients.

Topical intranasal lidocaine is not a sphenopalatine ganglion block

There is renewed interest in the central role of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) in cerebrovascular autonomic physiology and the pathophysiology of different primary and secondary headache disorders. There are diverse neural structures (parasympathetic, sympathetic and trigeminal sensory) that convene into the SPG which is located within the pterygopalatine fossa (PPF). This makes the PPF an attractive target to neuromodulatory interventions of these different neural structures. Some experts advocate for the nasal application of local anesthetics as an effective route for SPG block with the belief that the local anesthetic can freely access the PPF. It is time to challenge this historical concept from the early 1900s. In this daring discourse, I will review anatomical studies, CT and MRI reports to debunk this old myth. Will provide anatomical evidence to explain that all these assumptions are untrue and the local anesthetic has to magically 'travel' a distance of 4-12 mm of adipose and connective tissue to reach the SPG in sufficient concentration and volume to effectively induce SPG blockade. Future research should focus on assessing a clinical biomarker to confirm SPG blockade. It could be regional cerebral blood flow or lacrimal gland secretion.

Antinociception mechanisms of action of cannabinoid-based medicine: an overview for anesthesiologists and pain physicians

Cannabinoid-based medications possess unique multimodal analgesic mechanisms of action, modulating diverse pain targets. Cannabinoids are classified based on their origin into three categories: endocannabinoids (present endogenously in human tissues), phytocannabinoids (plant derived) and synthetic cannabinoids (pharmaceutical). Cannabinoids exert an analgesic effect, peculiarly in hyperalgesia, neuropathic pain and inflammatory states. Endocannabinoids are released on demand from postsynaptic terminals and travels retrograde to stimulate cannabinoids receptors on presynaptic terminals, inhibiting the release of excitatory neurotransmitters. Cannabinoids (endogenous and phytocannabinoids) produce analgesia by interacting with cannabinoids receptors type 1 and 2 (CB1 and CB2), as well as putative non-CB1/CB2 receptors; G protein-coupled receptor 55, and transient receptor potential vanilloid type-1. Moreover, they modulate multiple peripheral, spinal and supraspinal nociception pathways. Cannabinoids-opioids cross-modulation and synergy contribute significantly to tolerance and antinociceptive effects of cannabinoids. This narrative review evaluates cannabinoids' diverse mechanisms of action as it pertains to nociception modulation relevant to the practice of anesthesiologists and pain medicine physicians.

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.

Neuraxial anaesthesia and peripheral nerve blocks during the COVID-19 pandemic: a literature review and practice recommendations

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has had a significant impact on global healthcare services. In an attempt to limit the spread of infection and to preserve healthcare resources, one commonly used strategy has been to postpone elective surgery, whilst maintaining the provision of anaesthetic care for urgent and emergency surgery. General anaesthesia with airway intervention leads to aerosol generation, which increases the risk of COVID‐19 contamination in operating rooms and significantly exposes the healthcare teams to COVID‐19 infection during both tracheal intubation and extubation. Therefore, the provision of regional anaesthesia may be key during this pandemic, as it may reduce the need for general anaesthesia and the associated risk from aerosol‐generating procedures. However, guidelines on the safe performance of regional anaesthesia in light of the COVID‐19 pandemic are limited. The goal of this review is to provide up‐to‐date, evidence‐based recommendations or expert opinion when evidence is limited, for performing regional anaesthesia procedures in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection. These recommendations focus on seven specific domains including: planning of resources and staffing; modifying the clinical environment; preparing equipment, supplies and drugs; selecting appropriate personal protective equipment; providing adequate oxygen therapy; assessing for and safely performing regional anaesthesia procedures; and monitoring during the conduct of anaesthesia and post‐anaesthetic care. Implicit in these recommendations is preserving patient safety whilst protecting healthcare providers from possible exposure.

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.

Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: evidence and theory for mechanisms of action

Well-established in the field of bioelectronic medicine, Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) offers an implantable, non-pharmacologic treatment for patients with intractable chronic pain conditions. Chronic pain is a widely heterogenous syndrome with regard to both pathophysiology and the resultant phenotype. Despite advances in our understanding of SCS-mediated antinociception, there still exists limited evidence clarifying the pathways recruited when patterned electric pulses are applied to the epidural space. The rapid clinical implementation of novel SCS methods including burst, high frequency and dorsal root ganglion SCS has provided the clinician with multiple options to treat refractory chronic pain. While compelling evidence for safety and efficacy exists in support of these novel paradigms, our understanding of their mechanisms of action (MOA) dramatically lags behind clinical data. In this review, we reconstruct the available basic science and clinical literature that offers support for mechanisms of both paresthesia spinal cord stimulation (P-SCS) and paresthesia-free spinal cord stimulation (PF-SCS). While P-SCS has been heavily examined since its inception, PF-SCS paradigms have recently been clinically approved with the support of limited preclinical research. Thus, wide knowledge gaps exist between their clinical efficacy and MOA. To close this gap, many rich investigative avenues for both P-SCS and PF-SCS are underway, which will further open the door for paradigm optimization, adjunctive therapies and new indications for SCS. As our understanding of these mechanisms evolves, clinicians will be empowered with the possibility of improving patient care using SCS to selectively target specific pathophysiological processes in chronic pain.