Guidelines for Composing and Assessing a Paper on the Treatment of Pain: A Practical Application of Evidence-Based Medicine Principles to the Mint Randomized Clinical Trials

Lumbar facet joint denervation targeting the medial branch in the sub-mammillary fossa: An anatomical optimization study

Introduction

Recent anatomical studies have identified the sub-mammillary fossa as a potential target site to extend the length and more reliably capture the medial branch during lumbar facet joint denervation. Although a clinical case series was published describing positive outcomes targeting the sub-mammillary fossa, the ideal location for radiofrequency cannula placement has not been assessed. Further anatomical investigation of this novel technique is warranted to refine fluoroscopic landmarks for optimal placement.

Methods

Twelve cannulae were placed under fluoroscopic guidance targeting the L3, L4, & L5 medial branches in 2 embalmed cadaveric specimens. Dissection, digitization, and high-fidelity 3D modelling methodology was used to identify fluoroscopic landmarks. Lesion simulation was performed on 3D models to analyze nerve capture.

Results

In 5 of 12 placements (41.7 %), the medial branch capture rate was classified as "complete," as the simulated lesion overlapped with the medial branch trunk or all of its distal branches. In 4 of 12 placements (33.3 %), the nerve capture rate was "partial" with at least one distal branch found beyond the boundary of the simulated lesion. In the remaining 3 placements (25.0 %), the capture rate was classified as "none," as the medial branch trunk and all distal branches transited beyond the simulated lesion boundary. Refined fluoroscopic landmarks proposed were the lateral boundary of mammillary process (AP view); the mamillo-accessory notch/inferior boundary of facet joint line (oblique view); and the inferior aspect of the mammillary process (lateral view).

Conclusions

This anatomy optimization study used dissection, imaging correlation, and high-fidelity modelling to assess cannula placement for capture of the medial branch at the sub-mammillary fossa for lumbar facet joint denervation. Based on the present analysis, refined fluoroscopic landmarks were proposed for further investigation.

Combining procedural and behavioral treatments for chronic low back pain: A pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Individual treatments for chronic low back pain (CLBP) have small magnitude effects. Combining different types of treatments may produce larger effects.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) assess feasibility of conducting a factorial randomized controlled trial of these treatments; and (2) estimate individual and combined treatment effects of (a) lumbar radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) of the dorsal ramus medial branch nerves (vs. a simulated LRFA control procedure) and (b) Activity Tracker-Informed Video-Enabled Cognitive Behavioral Therapy program for CLBP (AcTIVE-CBT) (vs. an educational control treatment) on back-related disability at 3 months post-randomization.

METHODS

Participants (n = 13) were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio in a 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial. Feasibility goals included an enrollment proportion ≥ 30%, a randomization proportion ≥ 80%, and a ≥ 80% proportion of randomized participants completing the 3-month Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) primary outcome end point. An intent-to-treat analysis was used.

RESULTS

The enrollment proportion was 62%, the randomization proportion was 81%, and all randomized participants completed the primary outcome. Though not statistically significant, there was a beneficial, moderate-magnitude effect of LRFA versus control on 3-month RMDQ (-3.25 RMDQ points [95% confidence interval [CI], -10.18 to 3.67]). There was a significant, beneficial, large-magnitude effect of AcTIVE-CBT versus control (-6.29 [95% CI, -10.97 to -1.60]). Though not statistically significant, there was a beneficial, large effect of LRFA+AcTIVE-CBT versus control (-8.37 [95% CI: -21.47, 4.74]).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that it is feasible to conduct a randomized controlled trial combining procedural and behavioral treatments for CLBP.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03520387.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation versus placebo for chronic and moderate to severe low back pain: study protocol for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading global cause of disability. Patients with moderate to severe LBP who respond positively to a diagnostic medial nerve branch block can be offered radiofrequency denervation (RFD). However, high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of RFD is lacking.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RADICAL (RADIofrequenCy denervAtion for Low back pain) is a double-blind, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 250 adults listed for RFD will be recruited from approximately 20 National Health Service (NHS) pain and spinal clinics. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 12-month internal pilot phase. Participants will be randomised in theatre using a 1:1 allocation ratio to RFD or placebo. RFD technique will follow best practice guidelines developed for the trial. Placebo RFD will follow the same protocol, but the electrode tip temperature will not be raised. Participants who do not experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain 3 months after randomisation will be offered the alternative intervention to the one provided at the outset without disclosing the original allocation. The primary clinical outcome will be pain severity, measured using a pain Numeric Rating Scale, at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be assessed up to 2 years after randomisation and include disability, health-related quality of life, psychological distress, time to pain recovery, satisfaction, adverse events, work outcomes and healthcare utilisation. The primary statistical analyses will be by intention to treat and will follow a prespecified analysis plan. The primary economic evaluation will take an NHS and social services perspective and estimate the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net benefit of RFD over the 2-year follow-up period.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was obtained from the London-Fulham Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0471). Results will be disseminated in open-access publications and plain language summaries.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16473239.

Cooled radiofrequency ablation versus standard medical management for chronic sacroiliac joint pain: a multicenter, randomized comparative effectiveness study

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide, with sacroiliac joint pain comprising up to 30% of cases of axial lower back pain. Conservative therapies provide only modest relief. Although placebo-controlled trials show efficacy for sacral lateral branch cooled radiofrequency ablation, there are no comparative effectiveness studies.

METHODS

In this randomized, multicenter comparative effectiveness study, 210 patients with clinically suspected sacroiliac joint pain who obtained short-term benefit from diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections and prognostic lateral branch blocks were randomly assigned to receive cooled radiofrequency ablation of the L5 dorsal ramus and S1-S3 lateral branches or standard medical management consisting of pharmacotherapy, injections and integrative therapies. The primary outcome measure was mean reduction in low back pain score on a 0-10 Numeric Rating Scale at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included measures of quality of life and function.

RESULTS

3 months post-treatment, the mean Numeric Rating Scale pain score for the cooled radiofrequency ablation group was 3.8±2.4 (mean reduction 2.5±2.5) compared with 5.9±1.7 (mean reduction 0.4±1.7) in the standard medical management group (p<0.0001). 52.3% of subjects in the cooled radiofrequency ablation group experienced >2 points or 30% pain relief and were deemed responders versus 4.3% of standard medical management patients (p<0.0001). Comparable improvements favoring cooled radiofrequency ablation were noted in Oswestry Disability Index score (mean 29.7±15.2 vs 41.5+13.6; p<0.0001) and quality of life (mean EuroQoL-5 score 0.68±0.22 vs 0.47±0.29; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with sacroiliac joint pain, cooled radiofrequency ablation provided statistically superior improvements across the spectrum of patient outcomes compared with standard medical management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03601949.

3. Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints

INTRODUCTION

Pain originating from the lumbar facets can be defined as pain that arises from the innervated structures comprising the joint: the subchondral bone, synovium, synovial folds, and joint capsule. Reported prevalence rates range from 4.8% to over 50% among patients with mechanical low back pain, with diagnosis heavily dependent on the criteria employed. In well-designed studies, the prevalence is generally between 10% and 20%, increasing with age.

METHODS

The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar facet joint pain was retrieved and summarized.

RESULTS

There are no pathognomic signs or symptoms of pain originating from the lumbar facet joints. The most common reported symptom is uni- or bilateral (in more advanced cases) axial low back pain, which often radiates into the upper legs in a non-dermatomal distribution. Most patients report an aching type of pain exacerbated by activity, sometimes with morning stiffness. The diagnostic value of abnormal radiologic findings is poor owing to the low specificity. SPECT can accurately identify joint inflammation and has a predictive value for diagnostic lumbar facet injections. After "red flags" are ruled out, conservatives should be considered. In those unresponsive to conservative therapy with symptoms and physical examination suggesting lumbar facet joint pain, a diagnostic/prognostic medial branch block can be performed which remains the most reliable way to select patients for radiofrequency ablation.

CONCLUSIONS

Well-selected individuals with chronic low back originating from the facet joints may benefit from lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation.

A pragmatic randomized prospective trial of cooled radiofrequency ablation of the medial branch nerves versus facet joint injection of corticosteroid for the treatment of lumbar facet syndrome: 12 month outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) and intraarticular facet steroid injections (FJI) are commonly performed for recalcitrant facet joint-mediated pain. However, no study has compared clinical outcomes of the two treatments in patients selected using dual medial branch blocks (MBBs) with an 80% relief threshold.

OBJECTIVE

Compare the effectiveness of cooled LRFA (C-LRFA) to FIJ as assessed by pain and functional improvements.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized comparative trial.

METHODS

Patients with dual MBB-confirmed facet joint-mediated pain were randomized to receive C-LRFA or FIJ. Outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was ≥50% improvement in numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included ≥30% Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement and Patient Global Impression of Chance (PGIC) ≥6 points, among others. Data were analyzed using contingency tables and mixed-effects logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Of 1128 patients screened, 32 met eligibility criteria, were randomized, and received their allocated study treatment. In total, 20 (62.5%) and 12 (37.5%) participants received C-LRFA and FIJ, respectively. In the C-LRFA group, 70% (95% CI 48-85), 55% (95% CI 34-74), and 45% (95% CI 26-66) of participants met the NPRS responder definition, compared to 25% (95%CI 9-53), 25% (95% CI 9-53), and 17% (95% CI 5-45) in the FJI group at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively (P = .014 at 3 months). The PGIC responder proportion was higher in the C-LRFA compared to FJI group at 3 and 6 months (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

C-LRFA demonstrated superior success rates compared to FJI across pain and functional outcome domains.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03614793); August 3, 2018.

FactFinders for patient safety: Motor stimulation testing in lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy and radiofrequency neurotomy in patients with posterior hardware

This series of FactFinders presents a brief summary of the evidence and outlines recommendations regarding the use of motor stimulation testing in lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy and performance of radiofrequency neurotomy in patients with posterior spinal hardware. The evidence in support of the following facts is presented: (1) Motor stimulation does not inherently protect against unwanted damage to the spinal nerve, exiting spinal nerve root or its ventral ramus due to a lack of sensitivity of this test for identification of electrode contact or close proximity to sensorimotor nerves. Even when motor stimulation is performed, verification of correct electrode placement with multiplanar imaging including a minimum of true anterior-posterior and lateral fluoroscopic views is a recommended safeguard. (2) The existence of posterior spinal hardware is not an absolute contraindication to radiofrequency neurotomy, but direct contact with hardware should be avoided.

Considerations for Lumbar Medial Branch Nerve Radiofrequency at Spinal Motion Segments Adjacent to a Fusion Construct

Instrumented lumbar spinal fusion is common and results in biomechanical changes at adjacent spinal segments that increase facet load bearing. This can cause facet-mediated pain at levels adjacent to the surgical construct. Medial branch nerve radiofrequency ablation (RFA) exists as a treatment for some cases. It is important to acknowledge that the approach and instrumentation used during some specific lumbar fusion approaches will disrupt the medial branch nerve(s). Thus, the proceduralist must consider the fusion approach when determining which medial branch nerves are necessary to anesthetize for diagnosis and then to potentially target with RFA. This article discusses the relevant technical considerations for preparing for RFA to denervate lumbosacral facet joints adjacent to fusion constructs.

Percutaneous treatments for residual and/or phantom limb pain in adults with lower-extremity amputations: A narrative review

Residual limb pain (RLP) and phantom limb pain (PLP) profoundly affect the lives of many individuals who have undergone lower- or upper-extremity amputation. Despite the considerable impact of RLP/PLP on quality of life in persons with amputation, there have been few attempts to evaluate the efficacy of percutaneous interventions in the treatment of RLP and/or PLP. This narrative review evaluates the effectiveness of percutaneous treatments for RLP and/or PLP in patients after lower-extremity amputation. Peripheral nerve stimulation, alcohol neurolysis, conventional thermal radiofrequency ablation, perineural corticosteroid injection, botulinum toxin injection, and etanercept injection were associated with varying success rates. Wide confidence intervals and small treatment cohorts impede assessments of overall success. High-quality studies of nonsurgical, percutaneous treatments for RLP and/or PLP are lacking. Well-designed randomized controlled trials and large cohort studies with comparison groups using validated outcomes are needed to determine the effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions for the treatment of RLP and PLP.

Does Anesthetic Relief Correspond to Future Pain Relief?: A Prospective Trial Examining Future Pain Relief for Ultrasound-Guided Corticosteroid-Anesthetic Injections

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to prospectively evaluate the association between immediate pain relief from injections of local anesthetic with corticosteroid and subsequent pain relief up to 3 mos. The secondary aim was to examine the time until subjective pain relief after these injections.

DESIGN

This was a single-center, prospective study of patients undergoing ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injections for musculoskeletal pain. Subjects completed follow-up surveys at 2 wks, 1 mo, and 3 mos postinjections. χ 2 tests and sensitivity analysis were used to examine the primary outcome, at least 50% relief from the injection. Regression modeling examined the effects of demographic and injection-related variables on outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients were enrolled (55% female, mean age 52 yrs). Response rates were 87.1% at 2 wks and 77.2% at 3 mos. The positive likelihood ratios from 50% initial pain relief ranged from 1.22 to 1.29 at the three time points, whereas the negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.54 to 0.63. More than 75% of participants reported subjective pain relief by day 4 after injection.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive value of immediate pain relief for subsequent longer-term pain relief from corticosteroid-anesthetic injections is not particularly high. Most patients will obtain pain relief within 4 days of a corticosteroid injection.

The Relationship Between Patient Demographic and Clinical Characteristics and Successful Treatment Outcomes After Basivertebral Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation: A Pooled Cohort Study of Three Prospective Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of basivertebral nerve radiofrequency ablation (BVN RFA) for improving low back pain related to the vertebral endplate. However, the influence of patient demographic and clinical characteristics on treatment outcome is unknown.

DESIGN

Pooled cohort study of three clinical trials of patients with vertebral endplate pain identified by Type 1 and/or Type 2 Modic changes and a correlating presentation of anterior spinal element pain.

SETTING

Thirty-three global study centers.

SUBJECTS

Patients (n = 296) successfully treated with BVN RFA.

METHODS

Participant demographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed with stepwise logistic regression to identify predictors of treatment success. Three definitions of treatment success were defined: 1) ≥50% visual analog scale pain improvement, 2) ≥15-point Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement, and 3) ≥50% visual analog scale or ≥15-point ODI improvement from baseline.

RESULTS

Low back pain of ≥5 years' duration and higher ODI scores at baseline increased the odds of treatment success, whereas baseline opioid use and higher Beck Depression Inventory scores reduced these odds. However, the three regression models demonstrated receiver-operating characteristics of 62-70% areas under the curve, and thus, limited predictive capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis identified no demographic or clinical characteristic that meaningfully increased or reduced the odds of treatment success from BVN RFA. On the basis of these findings and the high response rates from the three analyzed trials, we recommend the use of objective imaging biomarkers (Type 1 and/or 2 Modic changes) and a correlating presentation of anterior spinal element pain to determine optimal candidacy for BVN RFA.

Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Complex Pain: A Comprehensive Review

Radiofrequency ablation of the sacral lateral branches targets the innervation of the posterior sacroiliac ligaments and posterior portion of the sacroiliac joint. These structures are also collectively referred to as the posterior sacroiliac joint complex. This review will discuss current diagnostic block paradigms and selection criteria for sacral lateral branch radiofrequency ablation, varying techniques and technologies utilized for sacral lateral branch radiofrequency ablation, and updates on the clinical outcome literature. The current evidence suggests that sacral lateral branch radiofrequency ablation can provide relief for posterior sacroiliac joint complex pain, but the literature is limited by variability in selection criteria, the specific nerves targeted by radiofrequency ablation, and the types of radiofrequency ablation technology and techniques utilized in clinical outcome studies.

The Effectiveness of Intraosseous Basivertebral Nerve Radiofrequency Neurotomy for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain in Patients with Modic Changes: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Determine the effectiveness of intraosseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency neurotomy for the treatment of chronic low back pain with type 1 or 2 Modic changes.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

POPULATION

Persons aged ≥18 years with chronic low back pain with type 1 or 2 Modic changes.

INTERVENTION

Intraosseous basivertebral nerve radiofrequency neurotomy.

COMPARISON

Sham, placebo procedure, active standard care treatment, or none.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of individuals with ≥50% pain reduction. Secondary outcomes included ≥10-point improvement in function as measured by Oswestry Disability Index as well as ≥2-point reduction in pain score on the Visual Analog Scale or Numeric Rating Scale, and decreased use of pain medication.

METHODS

Three reviewers independently assessed publications before May 15, 2020, in MEDLINE and Embase and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Of the 725 publications screened, seven publications with 321 participants were ultimately included. The reported 3-month success rate for ≥50% pain reduction ranged from 45% to 63%. Rates of functional improvement (≥10-point Oswestry Disability Index improvement threshold) ranged from 75% to 93%. For comparison to sham treatment, the relative risk of treatment success defined by ≥50% pain reduction and ≥10-point Oswestry Disability Index improvement was 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .88-1.77) and 1.38 (95% CI: 1.10-1.73), respectively. For comparison to continued standard care treatment the relative risk of treatment success defined by ≥50% pain reduction and ≥10-point Oswestry Disability Index improvement was 4.16 (95% CI: 2.12-8.14) and 2.32 (95% CI: 1.52-3.55), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-quality evidence that suggests this procedure is effective in reducing pain and disability in patients with chronic low back pain who are selected based on type 1 or 2 Modic changes, among other inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the published literature to date. Success of the procedure appears to be dependent on effective targeting of the BVN. Non-industry funded high-quality, large prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation for the treatment of chronic low back pain: 12-month results

Introduction

Vertebral endplates, innervated by the basivertebral nerve (BVN), are a source of chronic low back pain correlated with Modic changes. A randomized trial comparing BVN ablation to standard care (SC) recently reported results of an interim analysis. Here, we report the results of the full randomized trial, including the 3-month and 6-month between-arm comparisons, 12-month treatment arm results, and 6-month outcomes of BVN ablation in the former SC arm.

Methods

Prospective, open label, 1:1 randomized controlled trial of BVN ablation versus SC in 23 US sites with follow-up at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. SC patients were re-baselined and followed up for 6 months post BVN ablation. The primary endpoint was the between-arm comparison of mean Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) change from baseline. Secondary endpoints were Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Short Form (SF-36), EuroQual Group 5 Dimension 5-Level Quality of Life (EQ-5D-5L), responder rates, and rates of continued opioid use.

Results

140 were randomized. Results from BVN ablation (n=66) were superior to SC (n=74) at 3 months for the primary endpoint (mean ODI reduction, difference between arms of −20.3 (CI −25.9 to −14.7 points; p<0.001)), VAS pain improvement (difference of −2.5 cm between arms (CI −3.37 to −1.64, p<0.001)) and quality of life outcomes. At 12 months, basivertebral ablation demonstrated a 25.7±18.5 point reduction in mean ODI (p<0.001), and a 3.8±2.7 cm VAS reduction (p<0.001) from baseline, with 64% demonstrating ≥50% reduction and 29% pain free. Similarly, the former SC patients who elected BVN ablation (92%) demonstrated a 25.9±15.5 point mean ODI reduction (p<0.001) from baseline. The proportion of opioid use did not change in either group (p=0.56).

Discussion/Conclusion

BVN ablation demonstrates significant improvements in pain and function over SC, with treatment results sustained through 12 months in patients with chronic low back pain of vertebrogenic origin.

The Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation of Medial Branch Nerves for Chronic Lumbar Facet Joint Syndrome in Patients Selected by Guideline-Concordant Dual Comparative Medial Branch Blocks

OBJECTIVES

Although the effectiveness of lumbar medial branch radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of zygapophyseal joint (z-joint)-mediated low back pain has been characterized, few studies have described outcomes in patients selected using a guideline-concordant paradigm of ≥80% pain relief with dual comparative medial branch blocks (MBBs). We investigated long-term treatment outcomes of patients selected according to this paradigm.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional cohort study.

METHODS

The medical records of 111 consecutive patients were reviewed; 85 met inclusion criteria. A standardized telephone survey was used to capture current numerical rating scale (NRS) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting ≥50% reduction of index pain. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to explore associations between the primary outcome and covariates, including age, duration of pain, presence of scoliosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, and >75% disc height loss.

RESULTS

At six to 12, 12-24, and >24 months, 63.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 41-85%), 65.6% (95% CI = 49-82%), and 44.1% (95% CI = 27-61%) of patients reported a ≥50% pain reduction (P = 0.170), respectively. At a minimum of six months, 70.6% of patients reported a pain reduction of two or more points (minimally clinically important change), and 54.1% reported a PGIC score consistent with "much improved" or better. Older age and a smaller Cobb angle were associated with a ≥50% pain reduction (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lumbar medial branch RFA is an effective, durable treatment for a significant proportion of patients with recalcitrant lumbar z-joint pain when candidacy is determined by the guideline-concordant paradigm of ≥80% pain relief with dual comparative MBBs.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Practical Guidelines to Study Design and Scientific Manuscript Preparation in Neuromodulation

Background

Healthcare clinical and even policy decisions are progressively made based on research-based evidence. The process by which the appropriate trials are developed and well-written manuscripts by means of evidence-based medicine recommendations has resulted in unprecedented necessity in evidence-based medicine in neuromodulation.

Methods

The essential considerations in the planning of neuromodulation research are discussed in the light of available scientific literature as well as the authors’ scientific expertise regarding research study design and scientific manuscript preparation.

Conclusion

This article should enable the reader to understand how to appropriately design a clinical research study and prepare scientific manuscripts. The high-quality and well-designed studies, when performed and reported effectively, support evidence-based medicine and foster improved patient outcomes.

Radiofrequency denervation of the lumbar facet joints: guidelines for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial

Background and aim:

The RADICAL trial has been funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation (RFD) for low back pain. Recommendations have been published which aim to standardise selection of patients and RFD technique. However, it is important to ensure these recommendations are acceptable to clinicians within the context of the trial. The aim of this work was to develop standardised criteria for the trial entry and RFD technique for implementation within the RADICAL trial.

Methods:

Fourteen pain clinicians completed a survey, which involved reviewing the current recommendations and indicating whether they disagreed with any of the recommendations and if so why. Responses were collated and presented at a half-day workshop with 14 attendees. During the workshop, the National Low Back and Radicular Pain Pathway (NLBRPP) guidelines for patient selection and an article by Eldabe and colleagues presenting recommendations on the RFD technique were reviewed. Attendees discussed whether each component of the recommendations should be mandatory, mandatory with alteration or clarification or optional within the RADICAL trial.

Results:

Attendees agreed during the workshop that 5 of the 10 criteria for patient selection described in the NLBRPP should be mandatory within the RADICAL trial. Three were agreed as mandatory criteria but required further clarification, one of which involved defining a positive response to a diagnostic medial branch block as ⩾60% pain relief. Two criteria had optional components. After reviewing the recommendations on the RFD technique from Eldabe and colleagues, seven components were agreed as mandatory, three were mandatory with alterations and three were optional.

Conclusion:

When evaluating complex interventions, such as RFD, it is important to ensure agreement and clarity on the clinical protocol, so that the intervention can be reproduced, if found to be effective.

The Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for the Treatment of Suspected Sacroiliac Joint Complex Pain; a Systematic Review

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) for the treatment of suspected sacroiliac joint complex (SIJC) pain.

Design

Systematic review.

Subjects

Persons aged ≥18 with suspected SIJC pain.

Comparison

Sham, placebo procedure, or active standard of care treatment.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was ≥50% pain improvement, and the secondary outcome was functional improvement of ≥30% at three or more months after the treatment intervention.

Methods

Publications in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Databases were reviewed up to April 3, 2019. Randomized or nonrandomized comparative studies and nonrandomized studies without internal controls were included. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system and the joint consensus American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery/National Institutes of Health recommendations were used for quality assessment and reporting standards.

Results

Query identified 151 publications; three were appropriate for inclusion. There were no studies of BMAC that met inclusion criteria. There were three eligible PRP studies: one randomized comparative trial (RCT) and two case series. In the single RCT comparing ultrasound-guided PRP with corticosteroid injection for suspected SIJC pain, the PRP group had a significantly increased likelihood of achieving ≥50% improvement of pain at three months (adjusted odds ratio = 37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.65–298.69). Pooled pain outcomes from two studies showed that 28/30, 93% (95% CI = 93–100%), experienced ≥50% pain improvement at three months.

Conclusions

The literature supporting the effectiveness of PRP for SIJC pain is very low-quality according to the GRADE system. Well-designed RCTs and large cohort studies with consistent selection protocols and reporting characteristics are needed to determine the effectiveness of PRP and BMAC for the treatment of SIJC pain.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group

BACKGROUND

The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial.

METHODS

After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4-5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. We used a modified Delphi method, whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached.

RESULTS

17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary).

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Randomized prospective trial of cooled versus traditional radiofrequency ablation of the medial branch nerves for the treatment of lumbar facet joint pain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

No previous study has assessed the outcomes of cooled radiofrequency ablation (C-RFA) of the medial branch nerves (MBN) for the treatment of lumbar facet joint pain nor compared its effectiveness with traditional RFA (T-RFA). This study evaluated 6-month outcomes for pain, function, psychometrics, and medication usage in patients who underwent MBN C-RFA versus T-RFA for lumbar Z-joint pain.

METHODS

In this blinded, prospective trial, patients with positive diagnostic MBN blocks (>75% relief) were randomized to MBN C-RFA or T-RFA. The primary outcome was the proportion of 'responders' (≥50% Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) reduction) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included NRS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Patient Global Impression of Change.

RESULTS

Forty-three participants were randomized to MBN C-RFA (n=21) or T-RFA (n=22). There were no significant differences in demographic variables (p>0.05). A ≥50% NRS reduction was observed in 52% (95% CI 31% to 74%) and 44% (95% CI 22% to 69%) of participants in the C-RFA and T-RFA groups, respectively (p=0.75). A ≥15-point or ≥30% reduction in ODI score was observed in 62% (95% CI 38% to 82%) and 44% (95% CI 22% to 69%) of participants in the C-RFA and T-RFA groups, respectively (p=0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

When using a single diagnostic block paradigm with a threshold of >75% pain reduction, both treatment with both C-RFA and T-RFA resulted in a success rate of approximately 50% when defined by both improvement in pain and physical function at 6-month follow-up. While the success rate was higher in the C-RFA group, this difference was not statistically significant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02478437.

The Effectiveness of Fluoroscopically Guided Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injection for the Treatment of Radicular Pain; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

Determine the effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injection (CTFESI) for the treatment of radicular pain.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Subjects

Persons aged ≥18 years with cervical radicular pain due to disc herniation or degenerative spondylosis.

Comparison

Sham, placebo procedure, or active standard of care treatment, excluding alternative versions of epidural steroid injection.

Outcomes

The primary outcome measure was patient-reported improvement in pain of at least 50% from baseline, assessed four or more weeks after the treatment intervention. Secondary outcomes included validated functional assessment tools and avoidance of spinal surgery.

Methods

Randomized or nonrandomized comparative studies and nonrandomized studies without internal control were included. Three reviewers independently assessed publications in the Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane databases up to July 2018. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate risk of bias and overall quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was conducted for comparative measures of effect and for within-group response rates if applicable.

Results

There were no studies with an internal comparison group (control group) meeting the review’s definition of comparison group. Therefore, comparative measures of effect were not calculated. In cohort studies, pooled response rates were 48% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 34–61%) at one month and 55% (95% CI = 45–64%) at three months.

Conclusions

Approximately 50% of patients experience ≥50% pain reduction at short- and intermediate-term follow-up after CTFESI. However, the literature is very low quality according the GRADE criteria, primarily due to a lack of studies with placebo/sham or active standard of care control comparison groups.

Low back pain

Low back pain affects individuals of all ages and is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide. Despite advancements in assessment and treatment methods, the management of low back pain remains a challenge for researchers and clinicians alike. One reason for the limited success in identifying effective treatments is the large variation in the manifestations, possible causes, precipitating and maintaining factors, course, prognosis and consequences in terms of activity interference and quality of life. However, despite these challenges, steady progress has been achieved in the understanding of back pain, and important steps in the understanding of the psychological and social risk factors, genetics and brain mechanisms of low back pain have been made. These new findings have given impetus to the development of new diagnostic procedures, evidence-based screening methods and more targeted interventions, which underscore the need for a multidisciplinary approach to the management of low back pain that integrates biological, psychological and social aspects.