BackgroundThe 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.MethodsAfter 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.Results17 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).ConclusionsLumbar 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.

Objectives. In a companion article, we synthesized current clinical and preclinical data to formulate hypotheses about the etiology of drug administration catheter-tip inflammatory masses. In this article, we communicate our recommendations for the detection, treatment, mitigation, and prevention of such masses.Methods. We reviewed published and unpublished case reports and our own experiences to find methods to diagnose and treat catheter-tip inflammatory masses in a manner that minimized adverse neurological sequelae. We also formulated hypotheses about theoretical ways to mitigate, and possibly, prevent the formation of such masses.Results. Human cases have occurred only in patients with chronic pain who received intrathecal opioid drugs, alone or mixed with other drugs, or in patients who received agents that were not labeled for long-term intrathecal use. Most patients had noncancer pain owing to their large representation among the population with implanted pumps. Such patients also had a longer life expectancy and exposure to intrathecal drugs, and they received higher daily doses than patients with cancer pain. Clues to diagnosis included the loss of analgesic drug effects accompanied by new, gradually progressive neurological symptoms and signs. When a mass was diagnosed before it filled the spinal canal or before it caused severe neurological symptoms, open surgery to remove the mass often was not required. Anecdotal reports and the authors' experiences suggest that cessation of drug administration through the affected catheter was followed by shrinkage or disappearance of the mass over a period of 2-5 months.Conclusions. Attentive follow-up and maintenance of an index of suspicion should permit timely diagnosis, minimally invasive treatment, and avoidance of neurological injury from catheter-tip inflammatory masses. Whenever it is feasible, positioning the catheter in the lumbar thecal sac and/or keeping the daily intrathecal opioid dose as low as possible for as long possible may mitigate the seriousness, and perhaps, reduce the incidence of such inflammatory masses.

Evidence-based medicine depends on the existence of controlled clinical trials that establish the safety and efficacy of specific therapeutic techniques. Many interventions in clinical practice have achieved widespread acceptance despite little evidence to support them in the scientific literature; the critical appraisal of these interventions based on accumulating experience is a goal of medicine. To clarify the current state of knowledge concerning the use of various drugs for intraspinal infusion in pain management, an expert panel conducted a thorough review of the published literature. The exhaustive review included 5 different groups of compounds, with morphine and bupivacaine yielding the most citations in the literature. The need for additional large published controlled studies was highlighted by this review, especially for promising agents that have been shown to be safe and efficacious in recent clinical studies.

Consensus guidelines developed by an expert panel are helpful to clinicians when there is variation in practice and lack of a firm evidence base for an intervention, such as intraspinal therapy for pain. An internet-based survey of practitioners revealed remarkable variation in practice patterns surrounding intraspinal therapy. This prompted an interdisciplinary panel with extensive clinical experience in intraspinal infusion therapy to evaluate the results of the survey, the systematic reviews of the literature pertaining to this approach, and their own clinical experience with long-term spinal infusions. The panel proposed a scheme for the selection of drugs and doses for intraspinal therapy, and suggested guidelines for administration that would increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. These expert panel guidelines were designed to provide an initial structure for clinical decision making that is based on the best available evidence and the perspectives of experienced clinicians.

Background: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is one of the most common causes of low back pain, accounting for 15 to 30% of all cases. Although SIJ dysfunction accounts for a large portion of chronic low back pain prevalence, it is often overlooked or under diagnosed and subsequently under treated. The purpose of this review was to establish a best practices model to effectively diagnose SIJ pain through detailed history, physical exam, review of imaging, and diagnostic block. Methods: A literature search was performed on the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain and sacroiliac joint dysfunction. The authors proposed diagnostic recommendations based upon the available literature and a detailed understanding of diagnosing SIJ pain. Results:The practitioner must focus on the history, location of pain, observed gait pattern, and perform key points of the physical exam including sacroiliac provocative maneuvers. If the patient exhibits at least three provocative maneuvers then the SIJ may be considered as a possible source of pain. Additionally, a thorough review of the imaging should be performed to rule out other etiologies of low back pain. In the absence of any pathognomonic tests or examination findings, diagnostic SIJ blocks have evolved as the diagnostic standard. Conclusion:The diagnosis of SIJ pain is a multifaceted process that involves a careful assessment including differentiating other pain generators in the region. This involves careful history taking, appropriate physical examination including provocative maneuvers and diagnostic injections. Once the diagnosis is confirmed, long-term solutions may be considered, including recent advances in sacral lateral branch denervation and sacroiliac joint fusion.