Prevalence of facet joint pain in chronic spinal pain of cervical, thoracic, and lumbar regions

BACKGROUND: Facet joints are a clinically important source of chronic cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain. The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the prevalence of facet joint pain by spinal region in patients with chronic spine pain referred to an interventional pain management practice. METHODS: Five hundred consecutive patients with chronic, non-specific spine pain were evaluated. The prevalence of facet joint pain was determined using controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks (1% lidocaine or 1% lidocaine followed by 0.25% bupivacaine), in accordance with the criteria established by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). The study was performed in the United States in a non-university based ambulatory interventional pain management setting. RESULTS: The prevalence of facet joint pain in patients with chronic cervical spine pain was 55% 5(95% CI, 49% – 61%), with thoracic spine pain was 42% (95% CI, 30% – 53%), and in with lumbar spine pain was 31% (95% CI, 27% – 36%). The false-positive rate with single blocks with lidocaine was 63% (95% CI, 54% – 72%) in the cervical spine, 55% (95% CI, 39% – 78%) in the thoracic spine, and 27% (95% CI, 22% – 32%) in the lumbar spine. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that in an interventional pain management setting, facet joints are clinically important spinal pain generators in a significant proportion of patients with chronic spinal pain. Because these patients typically have failed conservative management, including physical therapy, chiropractic treatment and analgesics, they may benefit from specific interventions designed to manage facet joint pain

Explosive growth of facet joint interventions in the medicare population in the United States: a comparative evaluation of 1997, 2002, and 2006 data

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG-DHHS) issued a report which showed explosive growth and also raised questions of lack of medical necessity and/or indications for facet joint injection services in 2006.</p> <p>The purpose of the study was to determine trends of frequency and cost of facet joint interventions in managing spinal pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This analysis was performed to determine trends of frequency and cost of facet joint</p> <p>Interventions in managing spinal pain, utilizing the annual 5% national sample of the Centers for</p> <p>Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for 1997, 2002, and 2006.</p> <p>Outcome measures included overall characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries receiving facet joint interventions, utilization of facet joint interventions by place of service, by specialty, reimbursement characteristics, and other variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From 1997 to 2006, the number of patients receiving facet joint interventions per 100,000</p> <p>Medicare population increased 386%, facet joint visits increased 446%, and facet joint interventions increased 543%. The increases were higher in patients aged less than 65 years compared to those 65 or older with patients increasing 504% vs. 355%, visits increasing 587% vs. 404%, and services increasing 683% vs. 498%.</p> <p>Total expenditures for facet joint interventions in the Medicare population increased from over $229 million in 2002 to over$511 million in 2006, with an overall increase of 123%. In 2006, there was a 26.8-fold difference in utilization of facet joint intervention services in Florida compared to the state with the lowest utilization - Hawaii.</p> <p>There was an annual increase of 277.3% in the utilization of facet joint interventions by general physicians, whereas a 99.5% annual increase was seen for nurse practitioners (NPs) and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) from 2002 to 2006. Further, in Florida, 47% of facet joint interventions were performed by general physicians.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The reported explosive growth of facet joint interventions in managing spinal pain in certain regions and by certain specialties may result in increased regulations and scrutiny with reduced access.</p

Zygapophysial joint blocks in chronic low back pain: a test of Revel's model as a screening test

BACKGROUND: Only controlled blocks are capable of confirming the zygapophysial joints (ZJ) as the pain generator in LBP patients. However, previous workers have found that a cluster of clinical signs ("Revel's criteria"), may be valuable in predicting the results of an initial screening ZJ block. It was suggested that these clinical findings are unsuitable for diagnosis, but may be of value in selecting patients for diagnostic blocks of the lumbar ZJ's. To constitute evidence in favour of a clinical management strategy, these results need confirmation. This study evaluates the utility of 'Revel's criteria' as a screening tool for selection of chronic low back pain patients for controlled ZJ diagnostic blocks. METHODS: This study utilized a prospective blinded concurrent reference standard related validity design. Consecutive chronic LBP patients completed pain drawings, psychosocial distress and disability questionnaires, received a clinical examination and lumbar zygapophysial blocks. Two reference standards were evaluated simultaneously: 1. 75% reduction of pain on a visual analogue scale (replication of previous work), and 2. abolition of the dominant or primary pain. Using "Revel's criteria" as predictors, logistic regression analyses were used to test the model. Estimates of sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios for selected variables were calculated for the two proposed clinical strategies. RESULTS: Earlier results were not replicated. Sensitivity of "Revel's criteria" was low sensitivity (<17%), and specificity high (approximately 90%). Absence of pain with cough or sneeze just reached significance (p = 0.05) within one model. CONCLUSIONS: "Revel's criteria" are unsuitable as a clinical screening test to select chronic LBP patients for initial ZJ blocks. However, the criteria may have use in identifying a small subset (11%) of patients likely to respond to the initial block (specificity 93%)

Risk of adverse events in patients prescribed long‐term opioids: a cohort study in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink

Background Long‐term opioid prescribing for musculoskeletal pain is controversial due to uncertainty regarding effectiveness and safety. This study examined the risks of a range of adverse events in a large cohort of patients prescribed long‐term opioids using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Methods Patients with musculoskeletal conditions starting a new long‐term opioid episode (defined as ≥3 opioid prescriptions within 90 days) between 2002 and 2012 were included. Primary outcomes: major trauma and intentional overdose (any). Secondary outcomes: addiction (any), falls, accidental poisoning, attempted suicide/self‐harm, gastrointestinal pathology and bleeding, and iron deficiency anaemia. “Control” outcomes (unrelated to opioid use): incident eczema and psoriasis. Results A total of 98,140 new long‐term opioids users (median age 61, 41% male) were followed for (median) 3.4 years. Major trauma risk increased from 285 per 10,000 person‐years without long‐term opioids to 369/10,000 for a long‐term opioid episode (<20 mg MED), 382/10,000 (20–50 mg MED), and 424/10,000 (≥50 mg MED). Adjusted hazard ratios were 1.09 (95% CI; 1.04, 1.14 for <20 mg MED vs. not being in an episode of long‐term prescribing), 1.24 (95% CI; 1.16, 1.32: 20–50 mg MED) and 1.34 (95% CI; 1.20, 1.50: ≥50 mg MED). Significant dose‐dependent increases in the risk of overdose (any type), addiction, falls, accidental poisoning, gastrointestinal pathology, and iron deficiency anaemia were also found. Conclusions Patients prescribed long‐term opioids are vulnerable to dose‐dependent serious adverse events. Opioid prescribing should be reviewed before long‐term use becomes established, and periodically thereafter to ensure that patients are not being exposed to increased risk of harm, which is not balanced by therapeutic benefit. Significance Long‐term opioid use is associated with serious adverse events such as major trauma, addiction and overdose. The risk increases with higher opioid doses. Opioid prescribing should be reviewed before long‐term use becomes established, and periodically thereafter to assess ongoing effectiveness

Injection therapy and denervation procedures for chronic low-back pain: a systematic review

Injection therapy and denervation procedures are commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) despite uncertainty regarding their effectiveness and safety. To provide an evaluation of the current evidence associated with the use of these procedures, a systematic review was performed. Existing systematic reviews were screened, and the Cochrane Back Review Group trial register was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they recruited adults with chronic LBP, evaluated the use of injection therapy or denervation procedures and measured at least one clinically relevant outcome (such as pain or functional status). Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias (RoB). A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies, and the GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 27 RCTs were included, 14 on injection therapy and 13 on denervation procedures. 18 (66%) of the studies were determined to have a low RoB. Because of clinical heterogeneity, only two comparisons could be pooled. Overall, there is only low to very low quality evidence to support the use of injection therapy and denervation procedures over placebo or other treatments for patients with chronic LBP. However, it cannot be ruled out that in carefully selected patients, some injection therapy or denervation procedures may be of benefit

Responsible, safe, and effective prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: American society of interventional pain physicians (ASIPP) guidelines

Background: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. Objectives: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

Radiofrequency Treatment of Facet-related Pain: Evidence and Controversies

Pain originating from the lumbar facet joints is estimated to represent about 15% of all low back pain complaints. The diagnostic block is considered to be a valuable tool for confirming facetogenic pain. It was demonstrated that a block of the ramus medialis of the ramus dorsalis is preferred over an intra-articular injection. The outcome of the consequent radiofrequency treatment is not different in patients reporting over 80% pain relief after the diagnostic block than in those who have between 50% and 79% pain relief. There is one well-conducted comparative trial assessing the value of one or two controlled diagnostic blocks to none. The results of the seven randomized trials on the use of radiofrequency treatment of facet joint pain demonstrate that good patient selection is imperative for good clinical outcome. Therefore, we suggest one block of the ramus medialis of the ramus dorsalis before radiofrequency treatment

Psychopathology predicts the outcome of medial branch blocks with corticosteroid for chronic axial low back or cervical pain: a prospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Comorbid psychopathology is an important predictor of poor outcome for many types of treatments for back or neck pain. But it is unknown if this applies to the results of medial branch blocks (MBBs) for chronic low back or neck pain, which involves injecting the medial branch of the dorsal ramus nerves that innervate the facet joints. The objective of this study was to determine whether high levels of psychopathology are predictive of pain relief after MBB injections in the lumbar or cervical spine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a prospective cohort study. Consecutive patients in a pain medicine practice undergoing MBBs of the lumbar or cervical facets with corticosteroids were recruited to participate. Subjects were selected for a MBB based on operationalized selection criteria and the procedure was performed in a standardized manner. Subjects completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) just prior to the procedure and at one-month follow up. Scores on the HADS classified the subjects into three groups based on psychiatric symptoms, which formed the primary predictor variable: <it>Low</it>, <it>Moderate</it>, or <it>High </it>levels of psychopathology. The primary outcome measure was the percent improvement in average daily pain rating one-month following an injection. Analysis of variance and chi-square were used to analyze the analgesia and functional rating differences between groups, and to perform a responder analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eighty six (86) subjects completed the study. The <it>Low </it>psychopathology group (n = 37) reported a mean of 23% improvement in pain at one-month while the <it>High </it>psychopathology group (n = 29) reported a mean worsening of -5.8% in pain (p < .001). Forty five percent (45%) of the <it>Low </it>group had at least 30% improvement in pain versus 10% in the <it>High </it>group (p < .001). Using an analysis of covariance, no baseline demographic, social, or medical variables were significant predictors of pain improvement, nor did they mitigate the effect of psychopathology on the outcome.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Psychiatric comorbidity is associated with diminished pain relief after a MBB injection performed with steroid at one-month follow-up. These findings illustrate the importance of assessing comorbid psychopathology as part of a spine care evaluation.</p