Back Pain: Deer TR

Boswell MV, Trescot AM, Datta S, Schultz DM, Hansen HC, Abdi S, Sehgal N, Shah RV, Singh V, Benyamin RM, Patel VB, Buenaventura RM, Colson JD, Cordner HJ, Epter RS, Jasper JF, Dunbar EE, Atluri SL, Bowman RC, Deer TR, Swicegood JR, Staats PS, Smith HS, Burton AW, Kloth DS, Giordano J, Manchikanti L, Anonymous00089. · American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, Paducah, KY 42001, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #17256025 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of chronic spinal pain with interventional techniques were developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain, utilizing all types of evidence and to apply an evidence-based approach, with broad representation by specialists from academic and clinical practices. DESIGN: Study design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. METHODS: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). RESULTS: Among the diagnostic interventions, the accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks is strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it is moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence is strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence is limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies is moderate. The evidence for diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is moderate. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections is moderate for short-term and long-term improvement, whereas, it is limited for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks is moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy is moderate. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence is moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it is moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited in managing pain secondary to lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence is moderate for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain is limited.The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy is moderate in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas for annuloplasty the evidence is limited. Among the various techniques utilized for percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is moderate for short-term and limited for long-term relief for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, and percutaneous laser discectomy, whereas it is limited for nucleoplasty and for DeKompressor technology. For vertebral augmentation procedures, the evidence is moderate for both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. CONCLUSION: These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines also do not represent a "standard of care."

Deer TR. · The Center for Pain Relief, 1201 Washington Street East, Suite 100, Charleston, WV 25301, USA. · Curr Pain Headache Rep. · Pubmed #11676884 No free full text.

Abstract: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a reversible treatment for chronic pain that is gaining favor as a first-line therapy for many disease states. Because there are no addictive issues and no side effects systemically, the treatment is moving up the treatment continuum ladder. First used clinically in 1967, the procedure was used exclusively for failed back surgery syndrome. Over the past 30 years selection criteria, psychologic screening, and technology have improved. These advances have broadened the treatment options for many patients in pain. This review focuses on the selection, indications, techniques, new advances, complications, and outcomes involved with SCS. A review is provided for the treatment of radiculitis, failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, peripheral neuropathies, pelvic pain, occipital neuralgia, angina, ischemic extremity pain, and spasticity. Technologic advances such as multi-lead and multi-electrode arrays are also discussed in regard to the impact these developments have on the clinical application of the therapy.

Deer TR. · The Center for Pain Relief, 400 Court Street, Suite 100, Charleston, WV 25301, USA. · Curr Pain Headache Rep. · Pubmed #19126366 No free full text.

Abstract: Spinal cord stimulation has been shown to be an effective and well-established treatment for failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, and other neuropathic pain states. Recent advances in this therapy have led to its use in enhancing blood flow and reducing ischemic pain patterns. The application of spinal cord stimulation to treat angina and improve outcomes in patients suffering from peripheral vascular disease is now becoming a part of the algorithmic standard of care. This article examines the selection of patients, application of the therapy, outcomes, and future uses of stimulation for patients afflicted with these diseases. This article also examines possible study protocols to further examine the overall outcome of these therapies.

Chopra P, Smith HS, Deer TR, Bowman RC. · Department of Medicine Division of Biology and Medicine, Brown Medical School, Providence, RI, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #16850047 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis are interventional pain management techniques that play an active role in managing chronic intractable low back pain. There have not been any systematic reviews performed on this subject. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review utilizing the methodologic quality criteria of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials and the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials. METHODS: Search identified the relevant literature, through searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (January 1966 to November 2004), BioMed Central and Cochrane Review database. Manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years, in English language. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included in the review based on the criteria established.Three reviewers independently assessed the trials for the quality of their methods. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and endoscopic adhesiolysis were analyzed separately. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was significant pain relief (50% or greater). Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Short-term relief was defined as less than 3 months, and long-term relief was defined as 3 months or longer. RESULTS: There was strong evidence to indicate effectiveness of percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis with administration of epidural steroids for short term and long term in chronic, refractory low back pain and radicular pain. There was moderate evidence of effectiveness of addition of hypertonic saline. The evidence of effectiveness of hyaluronidase was negative.There was strong evidence to indicate effectiveness of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis and epidural steroid administration for short-term improvement, and moderate evidence for long-term improvement in managing chronic, refractory, low back and lower extremity pain. CONCLUSION: The evidence of effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis with administration of hypertonic sodium chloride administration, and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis with epidural steroid administration in managing chronic, refractory low back and lower extremity pain of post lumbar laminectomy syndrome or epidural fibrosis was moderate to strong.

Boswell MV, Shah RV, Everett CR, Sehgal N, McKenzie Brown AM, Abdi S, Bowman RC, Deer TR, Datta S, Colson JD, Spillane WF, Smith HS, Lucas LF, Burton AW, Chopra P, Staats PS, Wasserman RA, Manchikanti L. · Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospitals of Cleveland Case School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #16850041 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The lifetime prevalence of spinal pain has been reported as 54% to 80%, with as many as 60% of patients continuing to have chronic pain five years or longer after the initial episode. Spinal pain is associated with significant economic, societal, and health impact. Available evidence documents a wide degree of variance in the definition and the practice of interventional pain management. OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the management of chronic spinal pain, with utilization of all types of evidence, applying an evidence-based approach, with broad representation of specialists from academic and clinical practices. DESIGN: A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions applied in managing chronic spinal pain by a policy committee. Design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions, and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. METHODS: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, formal endorsement by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP), and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included AHRQ criteria, QUADAS criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). RESULTS: The accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks was strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it was moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence was strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence was limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence was moderate for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies. The evidence was moderate for sacroiliac joint injections in the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections of local anesthetics and steroids was moderate for short-term improvement and limited for long-term improvement, whereas, it was negative for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks was moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy was moderate to strong for relief of chronic low back and neck pain. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections was strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections was strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence was moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections was strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it was moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited for lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis was strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence was strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence was moderate for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain was indeterminate. The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy was strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas, for nucleoplasty, the evidence was limited. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome was strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems was moderate to strong. CONCLUSION: These guidelines included the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines do not represent "a standard of care".

Deer TR, Caraway DL, Kim CK, Dempsey CD, Stewart CD, McNeil KF. · Center for Pain Relief, 1201 Washington Street, Suite 100, Charleston, WV 25301, USA. · Spine J. · Pubmed #14589479 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Bupivacaine is a local anesthetic agent of the amide class. This drug has been used in many clinical situations including intrathecal infusion. The literature regarding intrathecal bupivacaine is limited to small case studies, and anecdotal reports. This article examines a large patient group receiving bupivacaine with opioids over an extended period of time and analyzes efficacy and safety. The patients had pain related to failed back surgery syndrome or metastatic cancer to the spine. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of intrathecal bupivacaine combined with opioids for treatment of pain of spinal origin when opioids alone were inadequate. The secondary purpose of this study was to determine if the combination of bupivacaine and opioids created a neurological safety risk. Study design/setting: The study design was retrospective, and involved consecutive medical records review by a disinterested third party. Patient sample: One hundred nine consecutive patients were studied for a total of 6,780 patient weeks of bupivacaine/opioid infusion. These data were compared with a comparable time in the opioid alone treatment arm. The population included 84 noncancer patients and 25 cancer patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain relief obtained by a group of patients with a combination of bupivacaine and opioids as compared with opioid alone when delivered by intrathecal infusion. The visual analog scale was used to measure pain levels. Secondary objectives included measuring the amount of oral and transdermal medication required (opioid and nonopioid), emergency visits, routine office visits and patient satisfaction. These secondary objectives give a measure of health-care utilization. We also reviewed neurological complications during the combined arm of treatment. METHODS: The study was done retrospectively with 109 consecutive patients. Patient chart reviews were used to determine the visual analog scales, amount of oral opioids, oral nonopioid adjuvant and patient satisfaction ratings. Patient satisfaction and pain rating was measured by a visual analog scale. Other factors recorded were emergency room visits, doctor's visits (other than the primary pain physician) and pain center visits. We also reviewed records for neurological deficits in the opioid arm and the combined arm. The t test was used to analyze statistical significance. RESULTS: The findings suggested that in the combination arm the pain relief was significantly better (p=.008), the number of oral opioids used were significantly less (p=.008), the number of oral nonopioid adjuvants were reduced, the number of doctor's visits were less in the combined arm (p=.008), the number of pain clinic visits were less (p=.03), the number of emergency visits were significantly less (p=.01) and patient satisfaction was better (p=.003). The total dose of morphine was reduced by 23% in the combined arm (p=.005). During the course of treatment with intrathecal bupivacaine, there were no irreversible complications. CONCLUSION: Bupivacaine, when used in combination with opioids, is a helpful and safe method of treatment in a select population of patients who have not responded to intrathecal opioids alone.