Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsAfter 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.Results17 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).ConclusionsLumbar 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.

Abstract Background It is nearly impossible to overestimate the burden of chronic pain, which is associated with enormous personal and socioeconomic costs. Chronic pain is the leading cause of disability in the world, is associated with multiple psychiatric comorbidities, and has been causally linked to the opioid crisis. Access to pain treatment has been called a fundamental human right by numerous organizations. The current COVID-19 pandemic has strained medical resources, creating a dilemma for physicians charged with the responsibility to limit spread of the contagion and to treat the patients they are entrusted to care for. Methods To address these issues, an expert panel was convened that included pain management experts from the military, Veterans Health Administration, and academia. Endorsement from stakeholder societies was sought upon completion of the document within a one-week period. Results In these guidelines, we provide a framework for pain practitioners and institutions to balance the often-conflicting goals of risk mitigation for health care providers, risk mitigation for patients, conservation of resources, and access to pain management services. Specific issues discussed include general and intervention-specific risk mitigation, patient flow issues and staffing plans, telemedicine options, triaging recommendations, strategies to reduce psychological sequelae in health care providers, and resource utilization. Conclusions The COVID-19 public health crisis has strained health care systems, creating a conundrum for patients, pain medicine practitioners, hospital leaders, and regulatory officials. Although this document provides a framework for pain management services, systems-wide and individual decisions must take into account clinical considerations, regional health conditions, government and hospital directives, resource availability, and the welfare of health care providers.

Chronic, non-surgical, non-specific anterior knee pain is a common source of functionally limiting chronic ailment, especially in a young athletic and active-duty military population. The infrapatellar branch of the saphenous is becoming a common therapeutic target for the diagnosis and treatment of anterior knee pain. It is a nerve commonly injured during knee surgeries and trauma, resulting in neuroma formation and chronic neuropathic pain states, and it can also transmit nociceptive input from patients with non-surgical anterior knee pain of multiple etiologies. Several methods have been employed to treat this condition. After the diagnosis of infrapatellar saphenous neuralgia, the nerve is safely ablated using radiofrequency ablation, neurolytic solutions, and, most recently, cryoablation using the handheld iovera® cryoablation system (Myoscience, Inc. Fremont, CA). Cryoablation is an attractive technique because it is minimally invasive, not permanent, and well tolerated by the patient with only local anesthesia. We have previously described a technique using a non-invasive peripheral nerve stimulator to identify and treat the exact location of the nerve more precisely, thereby optimizing treatment success and procedural simplicity. This case series illustrates our initial use and success with this technique. Further follow-up and randomized sham-controlled trials are also planned.

The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is an important contributor to persistent and functionally limiting lower back pain. Despite extensive debate and research, there is no definitive treatment recommendation or high-level evidence to support a conservative care treatment approach, nor interventional or surgical management procedures for the alleviation of pain originating from the SIJ. Traditional physical therapy and conservative approaches to generalized lower back pain often fail in this patient subset prompting sub-specialty consultation to a pain management center. Diagnosis of the SIJ as the pain generator can be accomplished through physical exam maneuvers and comparative diagnostic blocks; however, upon diagnosis, management remains a challenge. After the diagnosis of SIJ dysfunction is made in our young and active patient population, we have seen significant success in the application of an interdisciplinary and evidence-based treatment algorithm similar to the presented case. To our knowledge, this treatment approach has not been previously described.The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is an important contributor to persistent and functionally limiting lower back pain. Despite extensive debate and research, there is no definitive treatment recommendation or high-level evidence to support a conservative care treatment approach, nor interventional or surgical management procedures for the alleviation of pain originating from the SIJ. Traditional physical therapy and conservative approaches to generalized lower back pain often fail in this patient subset prompting sub-specialty consultation to a pain management center. Diagnosis of the SIJ as the pain generator can be accomplished through physical exam maneuvers and comparative diagnostic blocks; however, upon diagnosis, management remains a challenge. After the diagnosis of SIJ dysfunction is made in our young and active patient population, we have seen significant success in the application of an interdisciplinary and evidence-based treatment algorithm similar to the presented case. To our knowledge, this treatment approach has not been previously described.

Non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP) is a very common and functionally limiting pain complaint that vexes patients and medical providers leading to time-consuming and expensive diagnostic work-ups as well as significant disability and lost productivity. Despite extensive debate and research, there is no definitive treatment recommendation or high-level evidence to support a conservative care treatment approach, or interventional management procedures for the diagnosis and alleviation of NCCP. In patients presenting with chest pain, after ruling out life-threatening causes, the diagnosis of NCCP is made. This process is a diagnosis of exclusion rather than a specific etiology with a defined treatment plan. This results in specialty consultation, advanced diagnostic testing, and delayed definitive care. A better triage process may include the incorporation of diagnostic maneuvers at the primary care and emergency room to justify referral to a musculoskeletal specialist in lieu of or during advanced diagnostic work-up. After the diagnosis of NCCP is made in our young and active patient population, we have seen significant success in the application of manipulation and a functional restoration program similar to the presented case. To our knowledge, this treatment approach has not been previously described. While this management strategy may be taught in physiotherapy courses, we provide the case to illustrate a multimodal treatment approach that seems to be unknown or underutilized based on the number of referrals and prevalence of this condition.Non-cardiac chest pain (NCCP) is a very common and functionally limiting pain complaint that vexes patients and medical providers leading to time-consuming and expensive diagnostic work-ups as well as significant disability and lost productivity. Despite extensive debate and research, there is no definitive treatment recommendation or high-level evidence to support a conservative care treatment approach, or interventional management procedures for the diagnosis and alleviation of NCCP. In patients presenting with chest pain, after ruling out life-threatening causes, the diagnosis of NCCP is made. This process is a diagnosis of exclusion rather than a specific etiology with a defined treatment plan. This results in specialty consultation, advanced diagnostic testing, and delayed definitive care. A better triage process may include the incorporation of diagnostic maneuvers at the primary care and emergency room to justify referral to a musculoskeletal specialist in lieu of or during advanced diagnostic work-up. After the diagnosis of NCCP is made in our young and active patient population, we have seen significant success in the application of manipulation and a functional restoration program similar to the presented case. To our knowledge, this treatment approach has not been previously described. While this management strategy may be taught in physiotherapy courses, we provide the case to illustrate a multimodal treatment approach that seems to be unknown or underutilized based on the number of referrals and prevalence of this condition.

The infrapatellar branch of the saphenous is becoming a common therapeutic target for the diagnosis and treatment of anterior knee pain. It is a nerve commonly injured during knee surgeries, resulting in neuroma formation and chronic neuropathic pain states, and can also transmit nociceptive input in patients with non-surgical anterior knee pain of multiple etiologies. After diagnosing infrapatellar saphenous neuralgia, the nerve is safely ablated using radiofrequency ablation, neurolytic solutions, and, most recently, cryoablation using the handheld iovera® cryoablation system (Myoscience, Inc. Fremont, CA). The iovera® technology benefits from procedural simplicity in that the nerve doesn't specifically need to be identified and the described technique involves treating a long line over which the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve is expected to course. However, there is significant variability in the course of the nerve and much of the area treated misses the actual location of the nerve, wasting time and potentially increasing patient discomfort and risk of complications. To address these limitations we endeavored to identify a way to more precisely treat the specific location of the nerve thereby optimizing treatment success and procedural simplicity. Using a MiniStim® peripheral nerve stimulator (Halyard Health, Inc., Georgia, US) to scan for the nerve along the previously described treatment line, we have been able to identify a more precise location of the nerve and optimize the treatment target area. This non-invasive identification technique has, to our knowledge, not been previously described.

 To perform a quality assurance and performance improvement project through review of our single center data on the safety and patient acceptability of the stellate ganglion blockade (SGB) procedure for the relief of symptoms related to chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.  Our interventional pain management service has been offering trials of SGB therapy to assist with the management of the sympathetically mediated anxiety and hyperarousal symptoms of severe and treatment-refractory combat-related PTSD. There have been multiple case series in the literature describing the potential impact of this procedure for PTSD symptom management as well as the safety of image-guided procedures. We wished to ensure that we were performing this procedure safely and that patients were tolerating and accepting of this adjunctive treatment option.  We conducted a review of our quality assurance and performance improvement data over the past 18 months during which we performed 250 stellate ganglion blocks for the management of PTSD symptoms to detect any potential complications or unanticipated side effects.  We also analyzed responses from an anonymous patient de-identified survey collected regarding the comfort and satisfaction associated with the procedure.  We did not identify any immediate post-procedural complications or delayed complications from any of the 250 procedures performed from November 2013 to April 2015. Of the 110 surveys that were returned and tabulated, 100% of the patients surveyed were overall satisfied with our process and with the procedure, 100% said they would recommend the procedure to a friend, and 95% stated that they would be willing to undergo as many repeat procedures as necessary based on little discomfort and tolerable side effects.  Our quality assurance assessment suggests that in our center the SGB procedure for PTSD is a safe, well-tolerated, and acceptable treatment adjunct in the management of severe symptoms associated with chronic treatment-refractory PTSD. Patient satisfaction responses are strongly suggestive of high therapeutic value, and further studies are indicated to determine the effectiveness, duration of action, and optimal treatment regimen.

David Benatar offers a compelling and challenging argument against this common view. He endorses anti-natalism, which is the view that there's always a pro tanto moral reason, grounded in the interests of a potential child, against creating the child because its always better for the child never to have been born. Benatar's strongest case for anti-natalism is that it follows from the best explanation of four common value judgments that are essential to our moral theorizing. Though initially counterintuitive, anti-natalism should be endorsed because our acceptance of these common value judgments commits us to the anti-natalist conclusion. In this paper, I present an alternative, and at least equally good, explanation of these four common value judgments one that does not entail anti-natalism.