Back Pain: Manchikanti L

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."

Helm S, Hayek SM, Benyamin RM, Manchikanti L. · Pacific Coast Pain Management Center, Laguna Hills, CA, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19165305 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Chronic discogenic low back pain is a common problem with significant personal and societal costs. Thermal annular procedures (TAPs) have been developed in an effort to provide a minimally invasive treatment for this disorder. Multiple techniques utilized are intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), radiofrequency annuloplasty, and intradiscal biacuplasty (IDB). However, these treatments continue to be controversial, coupled with a paucity of evidence. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature evaluating the efficacy or effectiveness of TAPs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of TAPs in reducing low back pain in patients with intradiscal disorders. METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to TAPs was performed. The literature was evaluated according to Cochrane Review criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). OUTCOME MEASURES: Short-term effectiveness was defined as one-year or less and long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one-year. RESULTS: Systematic review of IDET identified 2 RCTs and 16 observational studies with an indicated evidence of Level II-2. Systematic review of radiofrequency annuloplasty identified no RCTs but 2 observational studies with an uncertain evidence of Level II-3. Systematic review of IDB identified one pilot study. The level of evidence is lacking with Level III. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this review include paucity of the literature and lack of evidence with internal validity and generalizability. CONCLUSION: IDET offers functionally significant relief in approximately one-half of appropriately chosen chronic discogenic low back pain patients. There is minimal evidence supporting the use of radiofrequency annuloplasty and IDB.

Singh V, Manchikanti L, Shah RV, Dunbar EE, Glaser SE. · Pain Diagnostics Associates, Niagara, WI 54151, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #18850027 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Even though the prevalence of thoracic pain has been reported to be 15% of the general population and up to 22% of the population in interventional pain management settings, the role of thoracic discs as a cause of chronic thoracic and extrathoracic pain has not been well researched. The intervertebral discs, zygapophysial or facet joints, and other structures including the costovertebral and costotransverse joints have been identified as a source of thoracic pain. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the quality of clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of provocation thoracic discography. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of provocation thoracic discography. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic discography with respect to chronic, function limiting, thoracic or extrathoracic pain. Studies meeting the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic quality criteria with scores of 50 or higher were included for the assessment of the level of evidence. Level of evidence was based on the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for the assessment of accuracy of diagnostic studies. Based on the level of evidence, recommendations were made according to Guyatt et al's criteria. RESULTS: The clinical value of thoracic provocation discography is limited (Level II-3) with 2C/weak recommendation derived from low quality or very low quality evidence indicating that other alternatives may be equally reasonable. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence for this systematic review, thoracic provocation discography is provided with a weak recommendation for the diagnosis of discogenic pain in the thoracic spine, if conservative management has failed. This is qualified by the need to appropriately evaluate and diagnose other causes of chronic thoracic pain including pain originating from thoracic facet joints.

Manchikanti L, Singh V, Derby R, Schultz DM, Benyamin RM, Prager JP, Hirsch JA. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #18690276 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. OBJECTIVE: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. METHODS: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. CONCLUSION: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM's conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques.

Manchikanti L, Singh V, Helm S, Trescot AM, Hirsch JA. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #18523501 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Today, with the growing interest of the medical community and others in practice guidelines, there is greater emphasis on formal procedures and methods for arriving at a widely scrutinized and endorsed consensus than ever before. Conflicts in terminology and technique are notable for the confusion that guidelines create and for what they reflect about differences in values, experiences, and interests among different parties. While public and private development activities continue to multiply, the means for coordinating these efforts to resolve inconsistencies, fill in gaps, track applications and results, and assess the soundness of particular guidelines continue to be limited. In this era of widespread guideline development by private organizations, the American College of Occupational and Environment Medicine (ACOEM) has developed guidelines that evaluate areas of clinical practice well beyond the scope of occupational medicine and yet fail to properly involve physicians expert in these, especially those in the field of interventional pain management. As the field of guidelines suffers from imperfect and incomplete scientific knowledge as well as imperfect and uneven means of applying that knowledge without a single or correct way to develop guidelines, ACOEM guidelines have been alleged to hinder patient care, reduce access to interventional pain management procedures, and transfer patients into a system of disability, Medicare, and Medicaid. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise occupational medicine practice guidelines for interventional pain management by an independent review utilizing the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), American Medical Association (AMA), Institute of Medicine (IOM), and other commonly utilized criteria. METHODS: Revised chapters of ACOEM guidelines, low back pain and chronic pain, developed in 2007 and 2008 are evaluated, utilizing AGREE, AMA, IOM instruments, and Shaneyfelt et al's criteria, were independently reviewed by 4 appraisers. RESULTS: Critical appraisal utilizing the AGREE instrument found that both chapters scored less than 10% in 3 of the 6 domains, less than 20% in one domain, over 30% in one domain, and over 70% in one domain. Global assessment also scored below 30% with a recommendation from AGREE, "not recommended or suitable for use in practice." Based on AMA key attributes, both chapters of ACOEM guidelines met only one of the 6 key attributes, only 3 of the 8 attributes were met by IOM criteria, and based on the criteria described by Shaneyfelt et al, overall only 28% of criteria were met. CONCLUSION: Both the low back pain and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines may not be ideal for clinical use based on the assessment by the AGREE instrument, AMA attributes, and criteria established by Shaneyfelt et al. They also scored low on IOM criteria (37.5%). These guidelines may not be applicable for clinical use.

Abdi S, Datta S, Trescot AM, Schultz DM, Adlaka R, Atluri SL, Smith HS, Manchikanti L. · University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #17256030 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Epidural injection of corticosteroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. However, there has been a lack of well-designed randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections. Consequently, debate continues as to the value of epidural steroid injections in managing spinal pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of various types of epidural steroid injections (interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal), in managing various types of chronic spinal pain (axial and radicular) in the neck and low back regions. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review utilizing the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials, and criteria of Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials were used. METHODS: Data sources included relevant English literature performed by a librarian experienced in Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), as well as manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years. Three reviewers independently assessed the trials for the quality of their methods. Subgroup analyses were performed among trials with different control groups, with different techniques of epidural injections (interlaminar, transforaminal, and caudal), with different injection sites (cervical/thoracic, lumbar/sacral), and with timing of outcome measurement (short- and long-term). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure is pain relief. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Short-term improvement is defined as 6 weeks or less, and long-term relief is defined as 6 weeks or longer. RESULTS: In managing lumbar radicular pain with interlaminar lumbar epidural steroid injections, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. In managing cervical radiculopathy with cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, the evidence is moderate. The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar radicular pain is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections in managing cervical nerve root pain is moderate. The evidence is moderate in managing lumbar radicular pain in post lumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief, in managing chronic pain of lumbar radiculopathy and postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. CONCLUSION: There is moderate evidence for interlaminar epidurals in the cervical spine and limited evidence in the lumbar spine for long-term relief. The evidence for cervical and lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections is moderate for long-term improvement in managing nerve root pain. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is moderate for long-term relief in managing nerve root pain and chronic low back pain.

Hansen HC, McKenzie-Brown AM, Cohen SP, Swicegood JR, Colson JD, Manchikanti L. · The Pain Relief Center, Conover, NC 28613, USA. hans.hippocrates.org · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #17256029 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint is a diarthrodial synovial joint with abundant innervation and capability of being a source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity. There are no definite historical, physical, or radiological features to provide definite diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain, although many authors have advocated provocational maneuvers to suggest sacroiliac joint as a pain generator. An accurate diagnosis is made by controlled sacroiliac joint diagnostic blocks. The sacroiliac joint has been shown to be a source of pain in 10% to 27% of suspected cases with chronic low back pain utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. Intraarticular injections, and radiofrequency neurotomy have been described as therapeutic measures. This systematic review was performed to assess diagnostic testing (non-invasive versus interventional diagnostic techniques) and to evaluate the clinical usefulness of interventional techniques in the management of chronic sacroiliac joint pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the available evidence regarding diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions in the management of sacroiliac joint pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review using the criteria as outlined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Cochrane Review Group Criteria for therapeutic interventions and AHRQ, and Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) for diagnostic studies. METHODS: The databases of EMBASE and MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006), and Cochrane Reviews were searched. The searches included systematic reviews, narrative reviews, prospective and retrospective studies, and cross-references from articles reviewed. The search strategy included sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction, sacroiliac joint injections, interventions, and radiofrequency. RESULTS: The results of this systematic evaluation revealed that for diagnostic purposes, there is moderate evidence showing the accuracy of comparative, controlled local anesthetic blocks. Prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated to range between 10% and 27% using a double block paradigm. The false-positive rate of single, uncontrolled, sacroiliac joint injections is around 20%. The evidence for provocative testing to diagnose sacroiliac joint pain is limited. For therapeutic purposes, intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections with steroid and radiofrequency neurotomy were evaluated. Based on this review, there is limited evidence for short-term and long-term relief with intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections and radiofrequency thermoneurolysis. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the specificity and validity of diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is moderate. The evidence for accuracy of provocative maneuvers in diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for therapeutic intraarticular sacroiliac joint injections is limited. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy in managing chronic sacroiliac joint pain is limited.

Manchikanti L, Singh V. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, 2831 Lone Oak Road, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Curr Pain Headache Rep. · Pubmed #12413401 No free full text.

Abstract: Chronic low back pain is one of the most common ailments in modern medicine, with as many as 79% of patients with acute pain continuing to suffer with chronic or recurrent low back pain 1 year after its onset. Lumbar epidural fibrosis and post-lumbar laminectomy syndrome are increasingly recognized as being responsible for persistent low back pain. Estimations show that approximately 5% to 40% of lumbar surgeries result in failed back surgery syndrome. Epidural adhesiolysis with myeloscopy is an interventional technique based on the premise that the three-dimensional visualization of the contents of the epidural space provides the physician with the ability to directly visualize the structures, perform appropriate adhesiolysis, and administer drugs specifically to the target. This review describes pathophysiologic aspects, purposes and goals, rationale and indications, complications, and effectiveness of epidural lysis of adhesions with myeloscopy.

Manchikanti L, Jasper J, Singh V. · No affiliation provided · Spine (Phila Pa 1976). · Pubmed #11725251 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Manchikanti L, Singh V, Falco FJ, Cash KA, Pampati V. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #18690278 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Thoracic facet joints have been implicated as the source of chronic pain in the mid back or upper back in 34% to 48% of the patients. Various therapeutic techniques utilized in managing chronic thoracic pain of facet joint origin include intraarticular injections, medial branch blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy of thoracic facet joint nerves. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic local anesthetic medial branch blocks with or without steroid in managing chronic function-limiting mid back or upper back pain of facet joint origin. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. SETTING: An interventional pain management private practice, a tertiary referral center, in the United States. METHODS: A total of 48 patients were included, with 24 patients in each of the local anesthetic and steroid groups. All of the patients met the diagnostic criteria of thoracic facet joint pain by means of comparative, controlled diagnostic blocks and the inclusion criteria. Group I patients received thoracic medial branch blocks with bupivacaine, whereas Group II patients received thoracic medial branch blocks with bupivacaine and non-particulate betamethasone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Numeric pain scores (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), opioid intake, and return to work status. All outcomes were assessed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Significant pain relief was defined as > 50% pain relief. Significant functional improvement was defined as 40% reduction of ODI. RESULTS: In Group I, 79% of patients showed significant pain relief and functional improvement at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, a significant change from baseline. In Group II, 83%, 81%, and 79% of patients showed significant pain relief and functional improvement at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months, a significant change from baseline. The majority of the patients experienced significant pain relief of 46 to 50 weeks, requiring approximately 3 to 4 treatments with an average relief of 16 weeks per episode of treatment. CONCLUSION: The majority of the patients in both groups experienced significant pain relief and improvement in functional status. Therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, with or without steroid, may provide a management option for chronic function-limiting mid back or upper back pain of facet joint origin.

Manchikanti L, Singh V, Falco FJ, Cash KA, Pampati V. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #18354721 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Lumbar facet joints have been implicated as the source of chronic pain in 15% to 45% of patients with chronic low back pain. Various therapeutic techniques including intraarticular injections, medial branch blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy of lumbar facet joint nerves have been described in the alleviation of chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. OBJECTIVE: The study was conducted to determine the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic local anesthetic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with or without steroid in managing chronic function-limiting low back pain of facet joint origin. DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. SETTING: An interventional pain management setting in the United States. METHODS: This study included 60 patients in Group I with local anesthetic and 60 patients in Group II with local anesthetic and steroid. The inclusion criteria was based on the positive response to the diagnostic controlled comparative local anesthetic lumbar facet joint blocks. OUTCOME MEASURES: Numeric pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index, opioid intake, and work status. All outcome assessments were performed at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. RESULTS: Significant improvement with significant pain relief (> 50%) and functional improvement (> 40%) were observed in 82% and 85% in Group I, with significant pain relief in over 82% of the patients and improvement in functional status in 78% of the patients. Based on the results of the present study, it appears that patients may experience significant pain relief 44 to 45 weeks of 1 year, requiring approximately 3 to 4 treatments with an average relief of 15 weeks per episode of treatment. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, with or without steroid, may provide a management option for chronic function-limiting low back pain of facet joint origin.

Manchikanti L, Pampati V, Fellows B, Bakhit CE. · Pain Management Center, 2831 Lone Oak Road, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Curr Rev Pain. · Pubmed #10998741 No free full text.

Abstract: Facet joints have been described as an important source of low back pain. The value of medial branch blocks in the diagnosis of facet joint mediated pain is considered important. However, the therapeutic value of medial branch blocks has not been determined. This study was designed to evaluate the duration of relief obtained and therapeutic value following controlled medial branch blocks with or without adjuvant agents Sarapin (High Chemical Company, Levittown, PA) and Depo-medrol (Pharmacia and Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, MI). The study population consisted of 180 consecutive patients seen in a single pain management practice, divided into three groups with 60 patients in each group. Group I was treated with local anesthetic only, Group II with the addition of Sarapin, and Group III with the addition of Depo-medrol along with Sarapin. The prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic low back pain was determined as 36%, with a false-positive rate of 25%. Comparison of duration of relief in days with each block in the three groups showed that the relief was significantly superior in Group III compared with Group I and Group II, whereas Group II was superior to Group I.

Hirsch JA, Singh V, Falco FJ, Benyamin RM, Manchikanti L. · Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19461826 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Lumbar disc prolapse, protrusion, and extrusion account for less than 5% of all low back problems, but are the most common causes of nerve root pain and surgical interventions. The typical rationale for traditional surgery is an effort to provide more rapid relief of pain and disability. It should be noted that the majority of patients will recover with conservative management. The primary rationale for any form of surgery for disc prolapse associated with radicular pain is to relieve nerve root irritation or compression due to herniated disc material. The primary modality of treatment continues to be either open or microdiscectomy, but several alternative techniques including automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD) have been described. However, there is a paucity of evidence for all decompression techniques, specifically alternative techniques including automated and laser discectomy. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature. OBECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of APLD. METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to automated lumbar disc decompression was performed. The literature was evaluated according to Cochrane review criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria was utilized for observational studies. A literature search was conducted of English language literature through PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, systematic reviews, and cross references from reviews and systematic reviews. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return to work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as one year or less, whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one year. RESULTS: Based on USPSTF criteria, the indicated evidence for APLD is Level II-2 for short- and long-term relief. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of RCTs in the literature. CONCLUSION: This systematic review indicated Level II-2 evidence for APLD. APLD may provide appropriate relief in properly selected patients with contained lumbar disc prolapse.

Manchikanti L, Derby R, Benyamin RM, Helm S, Hirsch JA. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19461823 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Lumbar disc prolapse, protrusion, or extrusion account for less than 5% of all low back problems, but are the most common causes of nerve root pain and surgical interventions. The primary rationale for any form of surgery for disc prolapse is to relieve nerve root irritation or compression due to herniated disc material. The primary modality of treatment continues to be either open or microdiscectomy, but several alternative techniques including nucleoplasty, automated percutaneous discectomy, and laser discectomy have been described. There is a paucity of evidence for all decompression techniques, specifically alternative techniques including nucleoplasty. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of mechanical lumbar disc decompression with nucleoplasty. METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to mechanical lumbar disc decompression with nucleoplasty was performed. The literature was evaluated according to Cochrane review criteria for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria was utilized for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). A literature search was conducted using only English language literature through PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, systematic reviews, and cross-references from reviews and systematic reviews. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return to work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as one year or less, whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one year. RESULTS: Based on USPSTF criteria the level of evidence for nucleoplasty is Level II-3 in managing predominantly lower extremity pain due to contained disc herniation. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of literature, both observational and randomized. CONCLUSION: This systematic review illustrates Level II-3 evidence for mechanical lumbar percutaneous disc decompression with nucleoplasty in treatment of leg pain. However, there is no evidence available in managing axial low back pain.

Manchikanti L, Glaser SE, Wolfer L, Derby R, Cohen SP. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19461822 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The intervertebral disc has been implicated as an etiology of chronic lumbar spine pain based on clinical, basic science, and epidemiological research. However, there is lack of consensus regarding the diagnosis and treatment of intervertebral disc disorders. Based on controlled evaluations, the lumbar intervertebral discs have been shown to be sources of chronic back pain without disc herniation in 26% to 39%. Lumbar provocation discography, which includes disc stimulation and morphological evaluation, is often used to distinguish a painful disc from other potential sources of pain. Despite the extensive literature, controversy continues about provocation lumbar discography. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the lumbar provocation discography literature. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar discography. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar discography with respect to chronic low back pain. Study inclusion/exclusion criteria were based on International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) standards with pain provocation and determination of controlled discs. Selected studies were then subjected to a rating instrument for diagnostic accuracy studies. Specific data were then culled from these studies and tabulated. Quality of evidence was assessed using modified Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) diagnostic accuracy evaluation. Studies meeting methodologic quality criteria scores of 50 or higher were included in the assessment of the level of evidence. Qualitative analysis was conducted using 5 levels of evidence, ranging from Level I to III, with 3 subcategories in Level II. The rating scheme was modified to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Based on a modified U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) level of evidence criteria, this systematic review indicates the strength of evidence as Level II-2 for the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar provocation discography utilizing IASP criteria. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a paucity of literature, poor methodologic quality, and very few studies performed utilizing IASP criteria. CONCLUSION: Based on the current systematic review, lumbar provocation discography performed according to the IASP criteria with control disc (s) with minimum pain intensity of 7 of 10, or at least 70% reproduction of worst pain (i.e. worst spontaneous pain of 7 = 7 x 70% = 5) may be a useful tool for evaluating chronic lumbar discogenic pain. Discography is an important imaging and pain evaluation tool in identifying a subset of patients with chronic low back pain secondary to intervertebral disc disorders.

Rupert MP, Lee M, Manchikanti L, Datta S, Cohen SP. · Vanderbilt Interventional Pain Center, Cool Springs, Cool Springs Surgery Center, Franklin, TN 37067, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19305487 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint has been implicated as a source of low back and lower extremity pain. There are no definite historical, physical, or radiological features that can definitively establish a diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain. Based on the present knowledge, an accurate diagnosis is made only by controlled sacroiliac joint diagnostic blocks. The sacroiliac joint has been shown to be a source of pain in 10% to 27% of suspected patients with chronic low back pain utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of diagnostic sacroiliac joint interventions and the utility of therapeutic sacroiliac joint interventions. METHODS: The literature search was carried out by searching the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane reviews. Methodologic quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic quality criteria for diagnostic accuracy and observational studies, whereas randomized trials were evaluated utilizing the Cochrane review criteria. Only studies with scores of 50 or higher were included for assessment. Level of evidence was based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. OUTCOME MEASURES: For diagnostic interventions, the outcome criteria included at least 50% pain relief coupled with a patient's ability to perform previously painful maneuvers with sustained relief using placebo-controlled or comparative local anesthetic blocks. For therapeutic purposes, outcomes included significant pain relief and improvement in function and other parameters. Short-term relief for therapeutic interventions was defined as 6 months or less, whereas long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than 6 months. RESULTS: The indicated level of evidence is II-2 for the diagnosis of sacroiliac joint pain utilizing comparative, controlled local anesthetic blocks. The prevalence of sacroiliac joint pain is estimated to range between 10% and 38% using a double block paradigm in the study population. The false-positive rate of single, uncontrolled, sacroiliac joint injections is 20% to 54%. The evidence for provocative testing to diagnose sacroiliac joint pain is Level II-3 or limited. For radiofrequency neurotomy the indicated evidence is limited (Level II-3) for short- and long-term relief. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature evaluating the role of both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and widespread methodological flaws. CONCLUSIONS: The indicated evidence for the validity of diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is Level II-2. The evidence for the accuracy of provocative maneuvers in the diagnosing of sacroiliac joint pain is limited (Level II-3). The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy is also limited (Level II-3).

Frey ME, Manchikanti L, Benyamin RM, Schultz DM, Smith HS, Cohen SP. · Advanced Pain Management and Spine Specialists, Fort Myers, FL 33919, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19305486 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Failed back surgery syndrome is common in the United States. Management of post lumbar surgery syndrome with multiple modalities includes interventional techniques, resulting in moderate improvement, leaving a proportion of patients in intractable pain. The systematic reviews of long-term benefits and risks of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with failed back surgery syndrome showed limited to moderate evidence and cost effectiveness. However, with the exponential increase in surgery in the United States, spinal cord implants are also increasing. Thus, the discussion continues with claims of lack of evidence on one hand and escalating increases in utilization on the other hand. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of SCS in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review is undertaken to examine the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of SCS in post lumbar surgery syndrome and to demonstrate clinical and cost effectiveness. METHODS: Review of the literature was performed according to the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group Criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for observational studies. The 5 levels of evidence were classified as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2008, and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief < or = one-year and long-term > one-year). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were utilized. RESULTS: The indicated evidence is Level II-1 or II-2 for long-term relief in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this review included the paucity and heterogeneity of the literature. CONCLUSION: This systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of SCS in relieving chronic intractable pain of failed back surgery syndrome indicated the evidence to be Level II-1 or II-2 for clinical use on a long-term basis.

Manchikanti L, Hirsch JA. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19305481 links to  free full text

Abstract: Rapidly rising health care costs over the decades have prompted the application of business practices to medicine with goals of improving the efficiency, restraining expenses, and increasing quality. Average health insurance premiums and individual contributions for family coverage have increased approximately 120% from 1999 to 2008. Health care spending in the United States is stated to exceed 4 times the national defense, despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. health care system has been blamed for inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, inappropriate waste, and fraud and abuse. While many people lack health insurance, others who do have health insurance allegedly receive care ranging from superb to inexcusable. In criticism of health care in the United States and the focus on savings, methodologists, policy makers, and the public in general seem to ignore the major disadvantages of other global health care systems and the previous experiences of the United States to reform health care. Health care reform is back with the Obama administration with great expectations. It is also believed that for the first time since 1993, momentum is building for policies that would move the United States towards universal health insurance. President Obama has made health care a central part of his domestic agenda, with spending and investments in Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and proposed 2010 budget. It is the consensus now that since we have a fiscal emergency, Washington is willing to deal with the health care crisis. Many of the groups long opposed to reform, appear to be coming together to accept a major health care reform. Reducing costs is always at the center of any health care debate in the United States. These have been focused on waste, fraud, and abuse; administrative costs; improving the quality with health technology information dissemination; and excessive regulations on the health care industry in the United States. Down payment on health care reform, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and CHIP include many provisions to reach towards universal health care.

Manchikanti L, Cash KA, McManus CD, Pampati V, Abdi S. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19057629 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Spinal stenosis is one of the 3 most common diagnoses of low back and leg symptoms which also include disc herniation and degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spinal stenosis is a narrowing of the spinal canal with encroachment on the neural structures by surrounding the bone and soft tissue. In the United States, one of the most commonly performed interventions for managing chronic low back pain are epidural injections, including their use for spinal stenosis. However, there have not been any randomized trials and evidence is limited with regards to the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief in the management of chronic low back pain in spinal stenosis and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, with Group I patients receiving caudal epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Randomization is being performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as reduction of 40% or more. RESULTS: Significant pain relief (> or =50%) was demonstrated in 55% to 65% of the patients and functional status improvement with 40% reduction in ODI scores in 55% to 80% of the patients. The overall average procedures per year were 3.4 +/- 1.27 in Group I and 2.6 +/- 1.35 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 30.3 +/- 19.49 weeks in Group I and 23.1 +/- 21.36 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. LIMITATIONS: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 20 patients in each group, even though sample was justified. CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting low back and lower extremity pain with spinal stenosis in approximately 60% of the patients.

Manchikanti L, Singh V, Cash KA, Pampati V, Datta S. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19057628 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Post surgery syndrome resulting in persistent pain following lumbar spine surgery is common. Speculated causes of post lumbar surgery syndrome include stenosis, degeneration of adjacent segments, internal disc disruption, recurrent disc herniation, retained disc fragment, epidural or intraneural fibrosis, radiculopathy, and various other causes. Epidural injections are most commonly used in post surgery syndrome. There is lack of evidence for the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections in patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain after surgical intervention with post lumbar surgery syndrome. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of 6 mg non-particulate Celestone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was described as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in the disability score was defined as a reduction of 40% or more. RESULTS: Significant pain relief (> or =50%) was recorded in 60% to 70% of the patients with no significant differences noted with or without steroid over a period of one-year. In addition, functional assessment measured by the ODI also showed significant improvement with at least 40% reduction in Oswestry scores in 40% to 55% of the patients. The average procedures per year were 3.4 with an average total relief per year of 31.7 +/- 19.10 weeks in Group I and 26.2 +/- 18.34 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. LIMITATIONS: The results of this study are limited by the lack of a placebo group and the preliminary report size of only 20 patients in each group. CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections in chronic function-limiting low back pain in post surgery syndrome without facet joint pain demonstrated effectiveness with over 55% of the patients showing improvement in functional status with significant pain relief in 60% to 70%.

Manchikanti L, Singh V, Cash KA, Pampati V, Damron KS, Boswell MV. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19057627 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The pathophysiology of lumbar radicular pain is a subject of ongoing research. The prevalence of sciatica or radiculitis ranges from 1.2% to 43%. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis. There is a paucity of evidence with contemporary methodology used in performing epidural injections under fluoroscopy and based on pain relief and functional status improvement. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief and evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. METHODS: Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups; Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with an injection of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas, Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocations sequence by simple randomization. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as a reduction of 40% or more. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with significant pain relief of 50% or greater at 12 months was 79% in Group I and 81% in Group II. Reduction of Oswestry scores of at least 40% was seen in 83% of the patients in Group I and 91% in Group II. The overall average procedures per year were 3.9 +/- 1.26 in Group I and 3.6 +/- 1.08 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 35.2 +/- 17.18 weeks in Group I and 35.9 +/- 15.34 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. LIMITATIONS: The results of this study are limited by lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 42 patients in each group. CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with disc herniation or radiculitis with between 79% to 91% of patients showing significant pain relief and improvement in functional status.

Manchikanti L, Cash KA, McManus CD, Pampati V, Smith HS. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19057626 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Intervertebral discs, facet joints, ligaments, fascia, muscles, and nerve root dura have been described as tissues capable of transmitting pain in the low back. The pathophysiology of spinal radicular pain is the subject of ongoing research and controversy with discogenic pain assuming a major role as a cause of non-specific low back pain. Even though epidural injections are frequently administered in managing axial low back pain, the evidence is lacking. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, equivalence trial. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic low back pain without disc herniation or radiculitis in providing effective and long-lasting pain relief and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups, Group I patients received caudal epidural injections with local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%), whereas Group II patients received caudal epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine 9 mL mixed with 1 mL of steroid. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized which included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more, whereas significant improvement in disability score was defined as reduction of 40% or more. RESULTS: Significant pain relief (> or =50%) was demonstrated in 72% to 81% of patients and functional status improvement was demonstrated by a reduction of 40% in the ODI scores in 81% of the patients. The overall average procedures per year were 3.6 +/- 1.05 in Group I and 3.9 +/- 1.33 in Group II with an average total relief per year of 32.3 +/- 16.93 weeks in Group I and 30.7 +/- 17.94 weeks in Group II over a period of 52 weeks. LIMITATIONS: The results of this study are limited by lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 36 patients in each group. CONCLUSION: Caudal epidural injections with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting low back pain without facet joint pain, disc herniation, and/or radiculitis in over 70% of the patients.

Manchikanti L, Cash KA, Pampati V, Fellows B. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #18354709 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Facet or zygapophysial joint pain is one of the common conditions responsible for chronic spinal pain. Controlled diagnostic blocks are considered the only means of reliable diagnosis of facet joint pain, due to the inability of physical examination, clinical symptoms, radiologic evaluation, and nerve conduction studies to provide a reliable diagnosis. The prevalence of facet joint pain has been established to be 15% to 45% of patients with low back pain, 39% to 67% of patients with neck pain, and 34% to 48% of patients with thoracic pain. However, using only a single block, false-positive rates of 27% to 63% in the cervical spine, 42% to 58% in the thoracic spine, and 17% to 50% in the lumbar spine have been reported. While there are multiple reasons for false-positive results, psychological variables may also contribute to false-positive results. A lack of influence of psychological factors on the validity of controlled diagnostic local anesthetic blocks of lumbar facet joints has been demonstrated. However, no such studies have been performed in the thoracic or cervical spine. OBJECTIVE: To study the influence of psychopathology (depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and somatization individually or in combinations of multiple psychopathologic conditions) on the ability of controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks to accurately identify facet joint pain and false-positive rates with a single block. METHODS: Four hundred thirty-eight patients undergoing controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks were included in the study. Patients were allocated based on their psychological profiles - each diagnostic group or combination was divided into distinct categories. Primary groups consisted of patients with major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and somatization disorder. Combination groups consisted of 4 categories based on multiple combinations. All the patients were treated with controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks either with 1% lidocaine or 1% lidocaine and 0.25% bupivacaine. A positive response was defined as at least an 80% reduction in pain and the ability to perform previously painful movements with appropriate relief with 2 separate local anesthetics. RESULTS: The prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain ranged from 25% to 40% in patients without psychopathology, whereas it ranged from 28% to 43% in patients with a positive diagnosis of major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and somatization disorder, respectively, compared to 23% to 39% in patients with a negative diagnosis. Regional facet joint pain prevalence and false-positive rates were higher in the cervical region in patients with major depression. In the lumbar and thoracic regions, no significant differences were noted. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that, based on patient psychopathology, there were no significant differences among the patients either in terms of prevalence or false-positive rates in the lumbar and thoracic regions. A higher prevalence and lower false-positive rates in the cervical region were established in patients with major depression.

Manchikanti L, Manchikanti KN, Cash KA, Singh V, Giordano J. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #18196171 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Spinal pain is common in all age groups. While the research has focused primarily on incidence and prevalence in younger working adults, there is evidence that spinal pain is one of the most frequent complaints in older persons and is responsible for functional limitations. While facet arthrosis is a common radiographic finding, which has been suggested to be a potential cause of spinal pain, nearly 10% of all adults show signs of degeneration by the time they reach age 30. Radiographic changes of osteoarthritis have been shown to be equally common in patients with and without low back or neck pain. The studies of low back pain have shown the prevalence of facet joint involvement to be approximately 15% to 45%. However, age related prevalence of facet joint neck pain has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: To assess age-related prevalence and false-positive rates of facet-joint involvement in chronic spinal pain using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of 424 patients, divided into 6 groups based upon age (Group I: aged 18 - 30 years, Group II: aged 31 - 40 years, Group III: aged 41 - 50 years, Group IV: aged 51 - 60, Group V: 61 - 70 years, and Group VI: greater than 70 years of age). RESULTS: The prevalence of cervical facet joint-related pain was the lowest (33%) in Group VI and highest (42%) in Group I. False-positive rates for cervical facet joint blocks ranged from 39% (Group III) to 58% (Group V) with an overall false-positive rate of 45%. The prevalence of facet joint involvement in lumbar spinal pain ranged from 18% (in Group II) to 44% (in Group IV), with significant differences noted when Group II and Group III were compared to other groups and with higher rates in Group V. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a variable age-related prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic low back pain, whereas in the cervical spine it was similar among all the age groups.

Manchukonda R, Manchikanti KN, Cash KA, Pampati V, Manchikanti L. · Pain Management Center of Paducah, Paducah, KY 42003, USA. · J Spinal Disord Tech. · Pubmed #17912133 No free full text.

Abstract: STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review. OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of the prevalence of facet or zygapophysial joint pain in chronic spinal pain of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar origin by using controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks and evaluation of false-positive rates of single blocks in the diagnosis of chronic spinal pain of facet joint origin. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Facet or zygapophysial joints are clinically important sources of chronic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain. The previous studies have demonstrated the value and validity of controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks in the diagnosis of facet joint pain, with a prevalence of 15% to 67% variable in lumbar, thoracic, and cervical regions. False-positive rates of single diagnostic blocks also varied from 17% to 63%. METHODS: Five hundred consecutive patients receiving controlled, comparative local anesthetic blocks of medial branches for the diagnosis of facet or zygapophysial joint pain were included. Patients were investigated with diagnostic blocks using 0.5 mL of 1% lidocaine per nerve. Patients with lidocaine-positive results were further studied using 0.5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine per nerve on a separate occasion. Medial branch blocks were performed with intermittent fluoroscopic visualization, at 2 levels to block a single joint. A positive response was considered as one with at least 80% pain relief from a block of at least 2 hours duration when lidocaine was used, and at least 3 hours or longer than the duration of relief with lidocaine when bupivacaine was used, and also the ability to perform prior painful movements. RESULTS: A total of 438 patients met inclusion criteria. The prevalence of facet joint pain was 39% in the cervical spine [95% confidence interval (CI), 32%-45%]; 34% (95% CI, 22%-47%) in the thoracic pain; and 27% (95% CI, 22%-33%) in the lumbar spine. The false-positive rate with a single block in the cervical region was 45%, in the thoracic region was 42%, and in the lumbar region 45%. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective review once again confirmed the significant prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain.