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

Thoracic costotransverse joint pain patterns: a study in normal volunteers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain referral patterns of asymptomatic costotransverse joints have not been established. The objective of this study was to determine the pain referral patterns of asymptomatic costotransverse joints via provocative intra-articular injection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight asymptomatic male volunteers received a combined total of 21 intra-articular costotransverse joint injections. Fluoroscopic imaging was used to identify and isolate each costotransverse joint and guide placement of a 25 gauge, 2.5 inch spinal needle into the costotransverse joint. Following contrast medium injection, the quality, intensity, and distribution of the resultant pain produced were recorded.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 21 costotransverse joint injections, 16 (76%) were classified as being intra-articular via arthrograms taken at the time of injection, and 14 of these injections produced a pain sensation distinctly different from that of needle placement. Average pain produced was 3.3/10 on a 0–10 verbal pain scale. Pain was described generally as a deep, dull ache, and pressure sensation. Pain patterns were located superficial to the injected joint, with only the right T2 injections showing referred pain 2 segments cranially and caudally. No chest wall, upper extremity or pseudovisceral pains were reported.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study provides preliminary data of the pain referral patterns of costotransverse joints. Further research is needed to compare these findings with those elicited from symptomatic subjects.</p

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

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

Designing an automated clinical decision support system to match clinical practice guidelines for opioid therapy for chronic pain

Abstract Background Opioid prescribing for chronic pain is common and controversial, but recommended clinical practices are followed inconsistently in many clinical settings. Strategies for increasing adherence to clinical practice guideline recommendations are needed to increase effectiveness and reduce negative consequences of opioid prescribing in chronic pain patients. Methods Here we describe the process and outcomes of a project to operationalize the 2003 VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain into a computerized decision support system (DSS) to encourage good opioid prescribing practices during primary care visits. We based the DSS on the existing ATHENA-DSS. We used an iterative process of design, testing, and revision of the DSS by a diverse team including guideline authors, medical informatics experts, clinical content experts, and end-users to convert the written clinical practice guideline into a computable algorithm to generate patient-specific recommendations for care based upon existing information in the electronic medical record (EMR), and a set of clinical tools. Results The iterative revision process identified numerous and varied problems with the initially designed system despite diverse expert participation in the design process. The process of operationalizing the guideline identified areas in which the guideline was vague, left decisions to clinical judgment, or required clarification of detail to insure safe clinical implementation. The revisions led to workable solutions to problems, defined the limits of the DSS and its utility in clinical practice, improved integration into clinical workflow, and improved the clarity and accuracy of system recommendations and tools. Conclusions Use of this iterative process led to development of a multifunctional DSS that met the approval of the clinical practice guideline authors, content experts, and clinicians involved in testing. The process and experiences described provide a model for development of other DSSs that translate written guidelines into actionable, real-time clinical recommendations.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78267/1/1748-5908-5-26.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78267/2/1748-5908-5-26.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78267/3/1748-5908-5-26-S3.TIFFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78267/4/1748-5908-5-26-S2.TIFFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78267/5/1748-5908-5-26-S1.TIFFPeer Reviewe

Inconsistencies in Guidelines for Visual Health Surveillance of VDT Workers

Objectives: In Europe, 25% of workers use video display terminals (VDTs). Occupational health surveillance has been considered a key element in the protection of these workers. Nevertheless, it is unclear if guidelines available for this purpose, based on EU standards and available evidence, meet currently accepted quality criteria. The aim of this study was to appraise three sets of European VDT guidelines (UK, France, Spain) in which regulatory and evidence-based approaches for visual health have been formulated and recommendations for practice made. Methods: Three independent appraisers used an adapted AGREE instrument with seven domains to appraise the guidelines. A modified nominal group technique approach was used in two consecutive phases: first, individual evaluation of the three guidelines simultaneously, and second, a face-to-face meeting of appraisers to discuss scoring. Analysis of ratings obtained in each domain and variability among appraisers was undertaken (correlation and kappa coefficients). Results: All guidelines had low domain scores. The domain evaluated most highly was Scope and purpose, while Applicability was scored minimally. The UK guidelines had the highest overall score, and the Spanish ones had the lowest. The analysis of reliability and differences between scores in each domain showed a high level of agreement. Conclusions: These results suggest current guidelines used in these countries need an update. The formulation of evidence-base European guidelines on VDT could help to reduce the significant variation of national guidelines, which may have an impact on practical application.This study was supported by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at Work of the Spanish Work and Immigration Ministry (INSHT). Project reference: 606/UAL/PVDVIS

Reviewing the review:a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals

Abstract Background Despite rapid growth of the scientific literature, no consensus guidelines have emerged to define the optimal criteria for editors to grade submitted manuscripts. The purpose of this project was to assess the peer reviewer metrics currently used in the surgical literature to evaluate original manuscript submissions. Methods Manuscript grading forms for 14 of the highest circulation general surgery-related journals were evaluated for content, including the type and number of quantitative and qualitative questions asked of peer reviewers. Reviewer grading forms for the seven surgical journals with the higher impact factors were compared to the seven surgical journals with lower impact factors using Fisher’s exact tests. Results Impact factors of the studied journals ranged from 1.73 to 8.57, with a median impact factor of 4.26 in the higher group and 2.81 in the lower group. The content of the grading forms was found to vary considerably. Relatively few journals asked reviewers to grade specific components of a manuscript. Higher impact factor journal manuscript grading forms more frequently addressed statistical analysis, ethical considerations, and conflict of interest. In contrast, lower impact factor journals more commonly requested reviewers to make qualitative assessments of novelty/originality, scientific validity, and scientific importance. Conclusion Substantial variation exists in the grading criteria used to evaluate original manuscripts submitted to the surgical literature for peer review, with differential emphasis placed on certain criteria correlated to journal impact factors