Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose of Review This comprehensive review of current concepts in the management of vertebral compression fractures is a manuscript of vertebral augmentation literature of risk factors, clinical presentation, and management. The objective of this review is to compare outcomes between multiple augmentation techniques and ongoing discussions of effectiveness of vertebral augmentation procedures. Recent Findings Vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) are a prevalent disease affecting approximately 1.5 million US adults annually. VCFs can cause severe physical limitations, including back pain, functional disability, and progressive kyphosis of the thoracic spine that ultimately results in decreased appetite, poor nutrition, impaired pulmonary function, and spinal cord compression with motor and sensory deficits. The deconditioning that affects patients with vertebral compression fractures leads to mortality at a far higher rate than age-matched controls. The management of vertebral compression fractures has been extensively discussed with opponents arguing in favor or restricting conservative management and against augmentation, while proponents argue in favor of augmentation. The literature is well established in reference to the effects on mortality when patients undergo treatment with vertebral augmentation; in over a million patients with vertebral compression fractures treated with vertebral augmentation as compared with patients treated with non-surgical management, the patients receiving augmentation performed well with a decrease in morbidity and mortality. Summary Summary of the literature review shows that understanding the risk factors, appropriate clinical evaluation, and management strategies are crucial. Analysis of the evidence shows, based on level I and II studies, balloon kyphoplasty had significantly better and vertebroplasty tended to have better pain reduction compared with non-surgical management. In addition, balloon kyphoplasty tended to have better height restoration than vertebroplasty.

Purpose of Review Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a musculoskeletal pain condition that stems from localized, taut regions of skeletal muscle and fascia, termed trigger points. The purpose of this comprehensive review is to provide updated information on prevalence, pathophysiology, and treatment modalities with a focus on interventional modalities in managing MPS. Recent Findings Though MPS can present acutely, it frequently presents as a chronic condition, affecting up to 85% of adults during their lifetime. MPS is an often-overlooked component of pain with overarching effects on society, including patient quality of life, physical and social functioning, emotional well-being, energy, and costs on health care. The prevalence of MPS is generally increased among patients with other chronic pain disorders and has been associated with various other conditions such as bladder pain syndrome, endometriosis, and anxiety. Summary MPS is poorly understood and remains a challenging condition to treat. Non-pharmacologic treatment modalities such as acupuncture, massage, transcutaneous electrical stimulation, and interferential current therapy may offer relief to some patients with MPS. Additional studies are warranted to get a better understanding of managing myofascial pain.

Scientific peer review is pivotal in health care research in that it facilitates the evaluation of findings for competence, significance, and originality by qualified experts. While the origins of peer review can be traced to the societies of the eighteenth century, it became an institutionalized part of the scholarly process in the latter half of the twentieth century. This was a response to the growth of research and greater subject specialization. With the current increase in the number of specialty journals, the peer review process continues to evolve to meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policy makers. The peer review process itself faces challenges. Unblinded peer review might suffer from positive or negative bias towards certain authors, specialties, and institutions. Peer review can also suffer when editors and/or reviewers might be unable to understand the contents of the submitted manuscript. This can result in an inability to detect major flaws, or revelations of major flaws after acceptance of publication by the editors. Other concerns include potentially long delays in publication and challenges uncovering plagiarism, duplication, corruption and scientific misconduct. Conversely, a multitude of these challenges have led to claims of scientific misconduct and an erosion of faith. These challenges have invited criticism of the peer review process itself. However, despite its imperfections, the peer review process enjoys widespread support in the scientific community. Peer review bias is one of the major focuses of today’s scientific assessment of the literature. Various types of peer review bias include content-based bias, confirmation bias, bias due to conservatism, bias against interdisciplinary research, publication bias, and the bias of conflicts of interest. Consequently, peer review would benefit from various changes and improvements with appropriate training of reviewers to provide quality reviews to maintain the quality and integrity of research without bias. Thus, an appropriate, transparent peer review is not only ideal, but necessary for the future to facilitate scientific progress. Key words: Scientific research, peer review process, scientific publications, peer review bias, blinded peer review, scientific misconduct.

Purpose of Review The purpose of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive review of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) with a focus on epidemiology, pathophysiology, treatment, and prophylaxis. Recent Findings PDPH is an adverse iatrogenic complication of neuraxial anesthesia that occurs following inadvertent puncture of the dura after epidural or spinal anesthesia. The overall incidence of PDPH after neuraxial procedures varies from 6 to 36%. The occurrence of PDPH can lead to increased patient morbidity, delayed discharge, and increased readmission. PDPH is a self-limiting postural headache that most often will resolve within 1 week, without need for treatment. Various prophylactic measures have been studied; however, more studies have been recommended to be undertaken in order to establish a proven benefit. Summary For mild PDPH, conservative treatments are currently focused around bed rest, as well as oral caffeine. For moderate-to-severe PDPH, epidural blood patch (EBP) remains the most effective treatment; however, this invasive treatment is not without inherent risks. Further less invasive treatments have been explored such as epidural saline, dextran 40 mg solutions, hydration, caffeine, sphenopalatine ganglion blocks, greater occipital nerve blocks, and surgical closure of the gap; all have shown promise. Further studies are essential to prove efficacy as well as safety over the proven treatment of epidural blood patches. There is still limited evidence in literature about the understanding of PDPH and optimal treatment.

Multiple case reports of neurological complications resulting from intraarterial injection of corticosteroids have led the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a warning, requiring label changes, warning of serious neurological events, some resulting in death. The FDA has identified 131 cases of neurological adverse events, including 41 cases of arachnoiditis. A review of the literature reveals an overwhelming proportion of the complications are related to transforaminal epidural injections, of which cervical transforaminal epidural injections constituted the majority of neurological complications. Utilization data of epidural injections in the Medicare population revealed that cervical transforaminal epidural injections constitute only 2.4 % of total epidural injections and <5 % of all transforaminal epidural injections. Multiple theories have been proposed as the cause of neurological injury including particulate steroid, arterial intimal flaps, arterial dissection, dislodgement of plaque causing embolism, arterial muscle spasm, and embolism of a fresh thrombus following disruption of the intima.

Purpose of Review Chronic abdominal pain (CAP) is a significant health problem that can dramatically affect quality of life and survival. Pancreatic cancer is recognized as one of the most painful malignancies with 70–80% suffering from substantial pain, often unresponsive to typical medical management. Celiac plexus neurolysis and celiac plexus block (CPB) can be performed to mitigate pain through direct destruction or blockade of visceral afferent nerves. The objective of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive review of the CPB as it pertains to CAP with a focus on the associated anatomy, indications, techniques, neurolysis/blocking agents, and complications observed in patients who undergo CPB for the treatment of CAP. Recent Findings The CAP is difficult to manage due to lack of precision in diagnosis and limited evidence from available treatments. CAP can arise from both benign and malignant causes. Treatment options include pharmacologic, interventional, and biopsychosocial treatments. Opioid therapy is typically utilized for the treatment of CAP; however, opioid therapy is associated with multiple complications. CPB has successfully been used to treat a variety of conditions resulting in CAP. The majority of the literature specifically related to CPB is surrounding chronic pain associated with pancreatic cancer. The literature shows emerging evidence in managing CAP with CPB, specifically in pancreatic cancer. Summary This review provides multiple aspects of CAP and CPB, including anatomy, medical necessity, indications, technical considerations, available evidence, and finally complications related to the management.

Increasing utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic spinal pain, specifically facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint injections, is a major concern of healthcare policy makers. We analyzed the patterns of utilization of facet and sacroiliac joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. The results showed significant increase of facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2014 in Medicare FFS service beneficiaries. Overall, the Medicare population increased 35 %, whereas facet joint and sacroiliac joint interventions increased 313.3 % per 100,000 Medicare population with an annual increase of 10.7 %. While the increases were uniform from 2000 to 2014, there were some decreases noted for facet joint interventions in 2007, 2010, and 2013, whereas for sacroiliac joint injections, the decreases were noted in 2007 and 2013. The increases were for cervical and thoracic facet neurolysis at 911.5 % compared to lumbosacral facet neurolysis of 567.8 %, 362.9 % of cervical and thoracic facet joint blocks, 316.9 % of sacroiliac joints injections, and finally 227.3 % of lumbosacral facet joint blocks.

BACKGROUND: The role of antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapy is well known for its primary and secondary prevention of sequela from cardiovascular disease by decreasing the incidence of acute cerebral, cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and other thrombo-embolicevents. The overwhelming data show that the risk of thrombotic events is significantly higher than that of bleeding during surgery after antiplatelet drug discontinuation. It has been assumed that discontinuing antiplatelet therapy prior to performing interventional pain management techniques is a common practice, even though doing so may potentially increase the risk of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events. A survey of practice patterns was conducted in 2012, since then the risks associated with thromboembolic events and bleeding, has not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an updated assessment of the perioperative antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice patterns of U.S. interventional pain management physicians and compare this with data collected in 2012 with 2021 data regarding practice patterns of continuing or discontinuing anticoagulant therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Postal survey of interventional pain management physicians. STUDY SETTING: Interventional pain management practices in the United States. METHODS: The survey was conducted based on online responses of the members of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) in 2021. The survey was designed similar to the 2012 survey to assess updated practice patterns. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent out to 1,700 members in October 2021. Out of these, 185 members completed the survey, while 105 were returned due to invalid addresses. The results showed that 23% changed their practice patterns during the previous year. The results also showed that all physicians discontinued warfarin therapy with the majority of physicians accepting an INR of 1.5 as a safe level. Low dose aspirin (81 mg) was discontinued for 3 to 7 days for low-risk procedures by 8% of the physicians, 34% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate risk procedures, whereas they were discontinued by 76% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. High dose aspirin (325 mg) was discontinued at a higher rate. Antiplatelet agents, including dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox (aspirin, extended-release dipyridamole) were discontinued from 3 to 5 days by 18%-23% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 60% of the physicians for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 90% of the physicians for high-risk procedures. Platelet aggregation inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticlopidine, and ticagrelor were discontinued for 3 to 5 days by approximately 26% to 41% for low-risk procedures, almost 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and over 97% for high-risk procedures. Thrombin inhibitor dabigatran was discontinued by 33% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, 92% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. Anti-Xa agents, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and Edoxaban were discontinued in over 25% of the physicians for low-risk procedures, approximately 90% for moderate or intermediate-risk procedures, and 99% for high-risk procedures. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its being an online survey of the membership of one organization in one country, that there was only a 11.6% response rate, and the sample size is relatively small. Underreporting in surveys is common. Further, the incidence of thromboembolic events or epidural hematomas was not assessed. CONCLUSION: The results in the 2021 survey illustrate a continued pattern of discontinuing antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in the perioperative period. The majority of discontinuation patterns appear to fall within guidelines. KEY WORDS: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, hemostasis, anticoagulants, antiplatelet therapy, thromboembolic events, bleeding, complications, aspirin, clopidogrel (Plavix), warfarin (Coumadin).

Purpose of Review The purpose of the present systematic review is to provide a current understanding of the mechanism of action and the evidence available to support clinical decision-making. The focus is to summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized or observational studies of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain to understand clinical effectiveness and the mechanism of action. Recent Findings Several recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain. Until recently, the mechanism of action was founded on a central paradigm derived from gate control theory, which is the need to stimulate the dorsal column of the spinal cord to generate paresthesia. The recent development of new therapies that do not rely on paresthesia has left the field without a clear mechanism of action that could serve as a strong foundation to further improve clinical outcomes. Consequently, multiple theories have emerged to explain how electrical pulse applied to the spinal cord could alleviate pain, including activation of specific supraspinal pathways, and segmental modulation of the neurological interaction. Recent systematic reviews also have shown the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic spinal pain, phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and other chronic painful conditions. Summary Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is rapidly evolving with technology at its forefront. This comprehensive focused review evaluated 11 RCTs and 7 nonrandomized/observational studies which provided levels of evidence ranging from I to II.