Back Pain: Smith HS

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."

Buenaventura RM, Datta S, Abdi S, Smith HS. · Pain Relief of Dayton, Centerville, OH, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19165306 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Epidural injection of corticosteroids is one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. The transforaminal route to the lumbar epidural space for steroid injection has gained rapid and widespread acceptance for the treatment of lumbar and leg pain. However, there are few well-designed randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections. The role and value of transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections is still questioned. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of transforaminal epidural injection therapy for low back and lower extremity pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar (low-back) and sciatica (leg) pain. METHODS: The available literature of lumbar transforaminal epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by 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). Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to November 2008, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. RESULTS: The indicated evidence is Level II-1 for short-term relief and Level II-2 for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. CONCLUSION: The indicated evidence for transforaminal lumbar epidural steroid injections is Level II-1 for short-term relief and Level II-2 for long-term improvement in the management of lumbar nerve root and low back pain.

Lavelle WF, Lavelle ED, Smith HS. · Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland Clinic Center for Spine Health, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk A41, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. · Clin Geriatr Med. · Pubmed #18387460 No free full text.

Abstract: Most Americans will be afflicted by some form of spine-related pain in their lifetime. In older patients, the most frequent source of back pain is lumbar spinal stenosis or vertebral compression fracture. Although most back pain is self-limited, some patients will require interventional techniques. This article reviews minimally invasive techniques for treating back pain, lumbosacral radicular pain, lumbar spinal stenosis, and compression fractures.

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.

Datta S, Everett CR, Trescot AM, Schultz DM, Adlaka R, Abdi S, Atluri SL, Smith HS, Shah RV. · Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #17256026 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Selective nerve root blocks or transforaminal epidural injections are used for diagnosis and treatment of different spinal disorders. A clear consensus on the use of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool does not currently exist. Additionally, the effectiveness of this procedure as a diagnostic tool is not clear. A systematic review of diagnostic utility of selective nerve root blocks was performed and published in January 2005, which concluded that selective nerve root injections may be helpful as a diagnostic tool in evaluating spinal pain with radicular features, but its role needs to be further clarified. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing spinal disorders. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of selective nerve root blocks for the diagnosis of spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature for clinical studies was performed to assess the accuracy of selective nerve root injections in diagnosing spinal pain. Methodologic quality evaluation was performed utilizing Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and Quality Assessment Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS) criteria. Studies were graded and evidence classified into 5 levels: conclusive, strong, moderate, limited, or indeterminate. An extensive literature search was performed utilizing resources from the library at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, PubMed, EMBASE, BioMed, and Cochrane Reviews. Manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years were also reviewed. RESULTS: There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic tool for spinal pain. There is insufficient research for stronger support, but the available literature is supportive of selective nerve root injections as a diagnostic test for equivocal radicular pain. There is moderate evidence for use in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies. The positive predictive value of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is low, but they have a useful negative predictive value. CONCLUSION: Selective nerve root injections may be helpful as a diagnostic tool in evaluating spinal pain with radicular features. However, their role needs to be further clarified by additional research and consensus.

Hayek SM, Helm S, Benyamin RM, Singh V, Bryce DA, Smith HS. · University Hospitals and Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19305488 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Post lumbar surgery syndrome with persistent chronic low back and lower extremity pain is common in the United States. Epidural fibrosis may account for as much as 20% to 36% of all cases of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Percutaneous adhesiolysis with a catheter or direct visualization of the spinal canal and the contents with an endoscope are techniques employed in resistant cases when patients fail to respond to conservative modalities of treatment, including fluoroscopically directed epidural injections. Some patients failing to respond to percutaneous adhesiolysis are candidates for spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis. However, literature evaluating the effectiveness of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis is sparse and discussions continue about its effectiveness, utility, and complications. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the available literature. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in the management of chronic low back and lower extremity pain in post surgical patients with chronic recalcitrant pain, non-responsive to conservative modalities of management and fluoroscopically directed epidural injections. METHODS: A search of relevant resources (PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database) was accomplished and the resulting publications were examined based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria set forth. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included in the search. Two reviewers assessed the studies' methodologies and outcomes. Randomized clinical trials were assessed and scored based on the criteria established by the Cochrane methodological assessment criteria of randomized clinical trials and the observational studies were assessed and scored based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria. Clinical relevance was evaluated utilizing Cochrane review criteria. Analysis was conducted using 5 levels of evidence, ranging from Level I to III, with 3 subcategories in Level II. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (> or = 50%) in follow-up for at least 6 months. Pain relief for longer than 6 months was considered long-term and 6 months or less was considered short-term. The secondary outcome measures were functional and psychological status, return to work, patient satisfaction, and opioid intake. RESULTS: Of the 13 studies considered for inclusion, one randomized trial and 5 observational studies met inclusion criteria for evidence synthesis based on the inclusion criteria and methodologic quality scores of 50 or more. The indicated level of evidence for endoscopic adhesiolysis is Level II-1 or II-2 evidence for short- and long-term relief based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria. LIMITATIONS: There was a paucity of literature for randomized trials. CONCLUSION: Spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis may be used as an effective treatment modality for chronic refractory low back pain and radiculopathy that is related to epidural adhesions.

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.

Epter RS, Helm S, Hayek SM, Benyamin RM, Smith HS, Abdi S. · Augusta Pain Center, Augusta, GA 30917-1839, USA. · Pain Physician. · Pubmed #19305485 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Post lumbar surgery syndrome or failed back surgery syndrome with persistent pain continues to increase over the years. The speculated causes of post lumbar laminectomy syndrome include acquired stenosis, epidural fibrosis, arachnoiditis, radiculopathy, and recurrent disc herniation. Epidural fibrosis may account for as much as 20% to 36% of all cases of failed back surgery syndrome. Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis has been employed in interventional pain management in the treatment of chronic, refractory low back and lower extremity pain after back surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized trials and observational studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted utilizing electronic databases, as well as systematic reviews and cross references from 1966 through December 2008. The quality of individual articles used in this analysis was assessed by modified Cochrane review criteria for randomized trials and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for assessment of observational studies. Clinical relevance was evaluated using 5 questions according to the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Review Back Group. Analysis was conducted using 5 levels of evidence, ranging from Level I to III, with 3 subcategories in Level II. OUTCOME PARAMETERS: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief of at least 6 months and long-term relief of more than 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and change in opioid intake. RESULTS: Of the 13 studies considered for inclusion, 3 randomized trials and 4 observational studies met the inclusion criteria for methodologic quality assessment and evidence synthesis based on methodologic quality scores of 50 or more. Evidence of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the management of chronic low back pain in post-lumbar surgery syndrome is Level I to Level II-1, with evidence derived from 3 randomized trials. LIMITATIONS: There is a paucity of efficacy and pragmatic trials. No trials have been published after 2006. CONCLUSION: The indicated level of evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis is Level I or II-1 based on the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria.

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.

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".