BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.Summary of Evidence and Recommendations:Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) .Interventional Diagnosis:Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥80% pain relief.Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, 9 of the 10 studies with either controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo controls with concordant pain relief with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence and false-positive rates ranged from 29% to 60% and of 27% to 63%, with high variability. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Three relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with concordant pain relief, with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence varied from 34% to 48%, whereas false-positive rates varied from 42% to 58%.Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for lumbar radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of 11 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 negative studies and 4 studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is IV with weak strength of recommendation for lumbar facet joint intraarticular injections with inclusion of 9 relevant randomized controlled trials, with majority of them showing lack of effectiveness without the use of local anesthetic. Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for cervical radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with positive results and 2 observational studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic cervical facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for cervical intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with 2 observational studies, the majority showing lack of effectiveness, whereas one study with 6-month follow-up, showed lack of long-term improvement. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation with emerging evidence for thoracic radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 2 randomized controlled trials and one observational study with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with 6 month follow-up, with emerging evidence. Antithrombotic Therapy: • Facet joint interventions are considered as moderate to low risk procedures; consequently, antithrombotic therapy may be continued based on overall general status. Sedation: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation to avoid opioid analgesics during the diagnosis with interventional techniques. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation that moderate sedation may be utilized for patient comfort and to control anxiety for therapeutic facet joint interventions. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These facet joint intervention guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis.
1. Introduction Chronic pain has been recognized as pain that persists past normal healing time5 and hence lacks the acute warning function of physiological nociception.35 Usually pain is regarded as chronic when it lasts or recurs for more than 3 to 6 months.29 Chronic pain is a frequent condition, affecting an estimated 20% of people worldwide6,13,14,18 and accounting for 15% to 20% of physician visits.25,28 Chronic pain should receive greater attention as a global health priority because adequate pain treatment is a human right, and it is the duty of any health care system to provide it.4,13 The current version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) of the World Health Organization (WHO) includes some diagnostic codes for chronic pain conditions, but these diagnoses do not reflect the actual epidemiology of chronic pain, nor are they categorized in a systematic manner. The ICD is the preeminent tool for coding diagnoses and documenting investigations or therapeutic measures within the health care systems of many countries. In addition, ICD codes are commonly used to report target diseases and comorbidities of participants in clinical research. Consequently, the current lack of adequate coding in the ICD makes the acquisition of accurate epidemiological data related to chronic pain difficult, prevents adequate billing for health care expenses related to pain treatment, and hinders the development and implementation of new therapies.10,11,16,23,27,31,37 Responding to these shortcomings, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) contacted the WHO and established a Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force, which comprises pain experts from across the globe,19 has developed a new and pragmatic classification of chronic pain for the upcoming 11th revision of the ICD. The goal is to create a classification system that is applicable in primary care and in clinical settings for specialized pain management. A major challenge in this process was finding a rational principle of classification that suits the different types of chronic pain and fits into the general ICD-11 framework. Pain categories are variably defined based on the perceived location (headache), etiology (cancer pain), or the primarily affected anatomical system (neuropathic pain). Some diagnoses of pain defy these classification principles (fibromyalgia). This problem is not unique to the classification of pain, but exists throughout the ICD. The IASP Task Force decided to give first priority to pain etiology, followed by underlying pathophysiological mechanisms, and finally the body site. Developing this multilayered classification was greatly facilitated by a novel principle of assigning diagnostic codes in ICD-11, termed “multiple parenting.” Multiple parenting allows the same diagnosis to be subsumed under more than 1 category (for a glossary of ICD terms refer to Table 1). Each diagnosis retains 1 category as primary parent, but is cross-referenced to other categories that function as secondary parents.Table 1: Glossary of ICD-11 terms.The new ICD category for “Chronic Pain” comprises the most common clinically relevant disorders. These disorders were divided into 7 groups (Fig. 1): (1) chronic primary pain, (2) chronic cancer pain, (3) chronic posttraumatic and postsurgical pain, (4) chronic neuropathic pain, (5) chronic headache and orofacial pain, (6) chronic visceral pain, and (7) chronic musculoskeletal pain. Experts assigned to each group are responsible for the definition of diagnostic criteria and the selection of the diagnoses to be included under these subcategories of chronic pain. Thanks to Bedirhan Üstün and Robert Jakob of the WHO, these pain diagnoses are now integrated in the beta version of ICD-11 (http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1581976053). The Task Force is generating content models for single entities to describe their clinical characteristics. After peer review overseen by the WHO Steering Committee,39 the classification of chronic pain will be voted into action by the World Health Assembly in 2017.Figure 1: Organizational chart of Task Force, IASP, and WHO interactions. The IASP Task Force was created by the IASP council and its scope defined in direct consultation of the chairs (R.D.T. and W.R.) with WHO representatives in 2012. The Task Force reports to the IASP Council on an annual basis.2. Classification of chronic pain Chronic pain was defined as persistent or recurrent pain lasting longer than 3 months. This definition according to pain duration has the advantage that it is clear and operationalized. Optional specifiers for each diagnosis record evidence of psychosocial factors and the severity of the pain. Pain severity can be graded based on pain intensity, pain-related distress, and functional impairment. 2.1. Chronic primary pain Chronic primary pain is pain in 1 or more anatomic regions that persists or recurs for longer than 3 months and is associated with significant emotional distress or significant functional disability (interference with activities of daily life and participation in social roles) and that cannot be better explained by another chronic pain condition. This is a new phenomenological definition, created because the etiology is unknown for many forms of chronic pain. Common conditions such as, eg, back pain that is neither identified as musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain, chronic widespread pain, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome will be found in this section and biological findings contributing to the pain problem may or may not be present. The term “primary pain” was chosen in close liaison with the ICD-11 revision committee, who felt this was the most widely acceptable term, in particular, from a nonspecialist perspective. 2.2. Chronic cancer pain Pain is a frequent and debilitating accompaniment of cancer8 that as yet has not been represented in the ICD. The Task Force decided to list it as a separate entity because there are specific treatment guidelines.7,38 Chronic cancer pain includes pain caused by the cancer itself (the primary tumor or metastases) and pain that is caused by the cancer treatment (surgical, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and others). Cancer-related pain will be subdivided based on location into visceral, bony (or musculoskeletal), and somatosensory (neuropathic). It will be described as either continuous (background pain) or intermittent (episodic pain) if associated with physical movement or clinical procedures. The treatment-related pain will be cross-referenced from the chapters on postsurgical pain and neuropathic pain. 2.3. Chronic postsurgical and posttraumatic pain Because pain that persists beyond normal healing is frequent after surgery and some types of injuries, the entity of postsurgical and posttraumatic pain was created. This is defined as pain that develops after a surgical procedure or a tissue injury (involving any trauma, including burns) and persists at least 3 months after surgery or tissue trauma26; this is a definition of exclusion, as all other causes of pain (infection, recurring malignancy) as well as pain from a pre-existing pain problem need to be excluded. In view of the different causality, as well as from a medicolegal point of view, a separation between postsurgical pain and pain after all other trauma is regarded as useful. Depending on the type of surgery, chronic postsurgical pain is often neuropathic pain (on average 30% of cases with a range from 6% to 54% and more).15 Pain including such a neuropathic component is usually more severe than nociceptive pain and often affects the quality of life more adversely.21 2.4. Chronic neuropathic pain Chronic neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease of the somatosensory nervous system.20,22 The somatosensory nervous system provides information about the body including skin, musculoskeletal, and visceral organs. Neuropathic pain may be spontaneous or evoked, as an increased response to a painful stimulus (hyperalgesia) or a painful response to a normally nonpainful stimulus (allodynia). The diagnosis of neuropathic pain requires a history of nervous system injury, for example, by a stroke, nerve trauma, or diabetic neuropathy, and a neuroanatomically plausible distribution of the pain.22 For the identification of definite neuropathic pain, it is necessary to demonstrate the lesion or disease involving the nervous system, for example, by imaging, biopsy, neurophysiological, or laboratory tests. In addition, negative or positive sensory signs compatible with the innervation territory of the lesioned nervous structure must be present.36 Diagnostic entities within this category will be divided into conditions of peripheral or central neuropathic pain. 2.5. Chronic headache and orofacial pain The International Headache Society (IHS) has created a headache classification17 that is implemented in full in the chapter on neurology. This classification differentiates between primary (idiopathic), secondary (symptomatic) headache, and orofacial pain including cranial neuralgias. In the section on chronic pain, only chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain will be included. Chronic headache and chronic orofacial pain is defined as headaches or orofacial pains that occur on at least 50% of the days during at least 3 months. For most purposes, patients receive a diagnosis according to the headache phenotypes or orofacial pains that they currently present. The section will list the most frequent chronic headache conditions. The most common chronic orofacial pains are temporomandibular disorders,32 which have been included in this subchapter of chronic pain. Chronic orofacial pain can be a localized presentation of a primary headache.2 This is common in the trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias, less common in migraines, and rare in tension-type headache. Several chronic orofacial pains such as post-traumatic trigeminal neuropathic pain,3 persistent idiopathic orofacial pain, and burning mouth syndrome are cross-referenced to, eg, primary chronic pain and neuropathic pain. The temporal definition of “chronic” has been extrapolated from that of chronic headaches.1 2.6. Chronic visceral pain Chronic visceral pain is persistent or recurrent pain that originates from the internal organs of the head and neck region and the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic cavities.24,33,34 The pain is usually perceived in the somatic tissues of the body wall (skin, subcutis, muscle) in areas that receive the same sensory innervation as the internal organ at the origin of the symptom (referred visceral pain).12 In these areas, secondary hyperalgesia (increased sensitivity to painful stimuli in areas other than the primary site of the nociceptive input) often occurs30; the intensity of the symptom may bear no relationship with the extent of the internal damage or noxious visceral stimulation.9 The section on visceral pain will be subdivided according to the major underlying mechanisms, ie, persistent inflammation, vascular mechanisms (ischemia, thrombosis), obstruction and distension, traction and compression, combined mechanisms (eg, obstruction and inflammation concurrently), and referral from other locations. Pain due to cancer will be cross-referenced to the chapter chronic cancer pain and pain due to functional or unexplained mechanisms to chronic primary pain. 2.7. Chronic musculoskeletal pain Chronic musculoskeletal pain is defined as persistent or recurrent pain that arises as part of a disease process directly affecting bone(s), joint(s), muscle(s), or related soft tissue(s). According to the constraints of the approach as described in the Introduction, this category is therefore limited to nociceptive pain and does not include pain that may be perceived in musculoskeletal tissues but does not arise therefrom, such as the pain of compression neuropathy or somatic referred pain. The entities subsumed in this approach include those characterized by persistent inflammation of infectious, autoimmune or metabolic etiology, such as rheumatoid arthritis, and by structural changes affecting bones, joints, tendons, or muscles, such as symptomatic osteoarthrosis. Musculoskeletal pain of neuropathic origin will be cross-referenced to neuropathic pain. Well-described apparent musculoskeletal conditions for which the causes are incompletely understood, such as nonspecific back pain or chronic widespread pain, will be included in the section on chronic primary pain. 3. Outlook Irrespective of its etiology, chronic pain is a major source of suffering and requires special treatment and care. Our proposal may not represent a perfect solution for the classification of all manifestations of chronic pain. However, it does represent the first systematic approach to implementing a classification of chronic pain in the ICD. It is based on international expertise and agreement, and consistent with the requirements of the ICD regarding the structure and format of content models. The 7 major categories of chronic pain were identified after considerable research and discussion. They represent a compromise between comprehensiveness and practical applicability of the classification system. Several clinically important conditions that were neglected in former ICD revisions will now be mentioned, eg, chronic cancer pain or chronic neuropathic pain. Etiological factors, pain intensity, and disability related to pain will be reflected. With the introduction of chronic primary pain as a new diagnostic entity, the classification recognizes conditions that affect a broad group of patients with pain and would be neglected in etiologically defined categories. We hope that this classification strengthens the representation of chronic pain conditions in clinical practice and research and welcome comments to improve it further. Conflict of interest statement Q. Aziz has attended advisory board meetings for Almirall pharmaceuticals and Grunenthal. He has also received funding for clinical trials from Ono Pharmaceutical and Protexin. M.I. Bennett has received consultancy or speaker fees from Pfizer, Bayer, Astellas, and Grunenthal in the last 5 years. M. Cohen has received honoraria for contributions to educational programs from Mundipharma Pty Limited and Pfizer. S. Evers received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards) and research grants within the past 5 years by AGA Medical (now St Jude), Allergan, Almirall, Astra Zeneca, Berlin-Chemie, CoLucid, Desitin, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Ipsen Pharma, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Reckitt-Benckiser, UCB. N.B. Finnerup has received speaker's honoraria from Pfizer, Grunenthal, and Norpharma, research grant from Grünenthal, and consultancy fee from Astellas and is member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. M.B. First on the faculty of the Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation. In the past 2 years, M.A. Giamberardino received research funding or honoraria (participation in Advisory Board) from Bayer Healthcare, Helsinn, and Epitech Group. S. Kaasa declares no conflict of interest related to this work. In the past year he received honoraria from Helsinn related to participation in Advisory Board. E. Kosek has received consultancy and speaker fees in the past 24 months from Eli Lilly and Company and Orion and has ongoing research collaborations with Eli Lilly and Company and Abbott and Pierre Fabre. M. Nicholas received honoraria for contributing to educational sessions for Mundipharma and Pfizer in the last 5 years. S. Perrot received honoraria as a speaker and/or member of the advisory board in the past 5 years from Pfizer, BMS, Grunenthal, Elli Lilly, Sanofi, Daichi-Sankyo, Astellas, and Mundipharma. He has received grant support from BMS. W. Rief received honoraria (as speaker and/or member of advisory boards on topics such as adherence, placebo mechanisms) within the past 5 years from Berlin Chemie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Heel (research grant). J. Scholz has received speaker fees from Convergence, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, St Jude Medical, and Zalicus. He has served on advisory boards or consulted for Convergence, Pfizer, Sanofi Aventis, and Zalicus Pharmaceuticals. He has received grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. In the last 5 years, the Anaesthesiology Unit of the University of Western Australia, but not S. Schug personally, has received research and travel funding and speaking and consulting honoraria from bioCSL, Bionomics, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Janssen, Mundipharma, Pfizer, Phosphagenics and iX Biopharma within the last 2 years. B.H. Smith has received lecture and consultancy fees, on behalf of his institution, from Pfizer, Grunenthal, Eli Lilly, and Napp. He has received unconditional educational grants from Pfizer Ltd; and he has received travel and accommodation support from Napp. P. Svensson served as a paid consultant for Sunstar Suisse SA. R.-D. Treede has received speaker's honoraria, research grants or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Acron, Astellas, Bauerfeind, Boehringer Ingelheim, Grünenthal, Hydra, Mundipharma, and Pfizer and is a member of the IMI “Europain” collaboration where industry members of this are: Astra Zeneca, Pfizer, Esteve, UCB-Pharma, Sanofi Aventis, Grünenthal, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Astellas, Abbott, and Lundbeck. J.W.S. Vlaeyen is a member of the PHILIPS advisory board on pain management and declares no conflicts of interest with regard to this work. S.-J. Wang has served on the advisory boards of Allergan and Eli Lilly, Taiwan. He has received speaking honoraria from local companies (Taiwan branches) of Pfizer, Elli Lilly, and GSK. He has received research grants from the Novartis Taiwan, Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology, Taipei-Veterans General Hospital and Taiwan Headache Society. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Acknowledgements The authors are members of the Classification of Pain Diseases Task Force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), which gave logistical and financial support to perform this work. We acknowledge the contributions of the following IASP Special Interest Groups (SIGs): Abdominal & Pelvic Pain SIG, Acute Pain SIG, Cancer Pain SIG, Neuropathic Pain SIG and the Orofacial Pain SIG, and the Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). Author contributions: R.-D. Treede, W. Rief, and A. Barke contributed equally to this topical review.
Patients and physicians often disagree in their assessment of pain intensity. This study explores the impact of patient factors on underestimation of pain intensity in chronic noncancer pain. We surveyed patients and their physicians in 12 primary care centers. To measure pain intensity, patients completed an 11-point numeric rating scale for which pain scores range from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain). Physicians rated patients' pain on the same scale. We defined disagreement of pain intensity as underestimation or overestimation by 22 points. Of 601 patients approached, 463 (77%) completed the survey. The majority of participants were black (39%) or white (47%), 67% were female, and the mean age was 53 years. Physicians underestimated pain intensity relative to their patients 39% of the time. Forty-six percent agreed with their patients' pain perception, and 15% of physicians overestimated their patients' pain levels by > or =2 points. In both the bivariate and multivariable models, black race was a significant variable associated with underestimation of pain by physicians (p < 0.05; OR = 1.92; 95% CI: 1.31-2.81). This study finds that physicians are twice as likely to underestimate pain in blacks patients compared to all other ethnicities combined. A qualitative study exploring why physicians rate blacks patients' pain low is warranted.
Functional movement disorder (FMD) is a common cause of debilitating symptoms in neurology patients. Due to the stigma that is associated with FMD, it is possible that discrepancies between patient and physician judgements of severity and disability are more pronounced in FMD compared with non-FMD. A patient-physician discrepancy in judgement may be explained by associated comorbid non-motor symptoms. In the prospective TASMAN study, 171 FMD and 294 non-FMD patients were recruited from the Netherlands and Australia. Patient characteristics included non-motor symptoms: depression, anxiety, dissociation, pain and fatigue. Patient-reported and physician-reported severity and disability were collected using seven-point Likert scales. A quantitative measure of discrepancies was calculated by subtracting the physician's score from the patient's score. Associations between non-motor symptoms and disability were analysed using linear regression. Patients reported significantly higher severity and disability compared with physicians in both groups. Patient-physician discrepancies in both severity and disability outcomes were not statistically different between FMD and non-FMD. FMD patients scored significantly higher on all non-motor symptoms compared with non-FMD. Patient-reported, but not physician-reported, disability was associated with increased pain and fatigue in both the FMD and non-FMD groups. In FMD, dissociation was associated with disability in both patient-reported and physician-reported outcomes. In non-FMD, depression was associated with disability in both patient-reported and physician-reported outcomes. Our results do not support notions of ongoing FMD-specific stigmatisation in physicians. Similar patient-physician discrepancies regarding severity and disability exist in both FMD and non-FMD patients. Patient-physician discrepancies in disability in all movement disorder patients might be in part explained by different appreciation of the importance of non-motor symptoms.
Leading cause of global disability, lower back pain, affects 84% of adults and costs the U.S. $134 billion annually. Traditional care fails to improve outcomes despite rising spending. This study assessed the effectiveness of a digital musculoskeletal integrated practice unit (IPU) in reducing pain and function in adults with back pain. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 784 adults (18-95 years) with low back pain enroled in our IPU between September 2023 and February 2025. Intervention included virtual physician/nurse practitioner and physical therapist assessments, coordinated care with health coaching and nutrition counselling, and digital physical therapy. Primary outcomes were improvement in pain (Numeric Pain Rating Scale) and function (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation). Analyses used paired t-tests for within-subject changes, multivariable linear regression adjusting for baseline severity, follow-up duration, age, sex, and comorbidities, and engagement-stratified analyses to assess associations between visit frequency and outcomes. Among 784 patients (mean age 60.1 ± 17.0 years), mean pain scores decreased 4.94 ± 0.07 to 2.61 ± 0.08 (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = -1.02), with 61.9% achieving the MCID of ≥ 2-point pain reduction. Among patients with severe baseline pain (≥ 7), 78.1% achieved pain MCID. Among the 688 patients (87.8%) with paired functional data, SANE scores increased 51.18 ± 0.96 to 74.97 ± 0.83 (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.94), with 58.0% achieving SANE MCID of ≥ 15 points. Digital musculoskeletal IPU care for low back pain may provide convenient access to care for patients while supporting clinical effectiveness.
Long-term alendronate use has been associated with tendinopathies and ligament disorders that may result in chronic pain and functional impairment. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has emerged as a regenerative treatment option for chronic tendinopathies by promoting tissue healing and improving pain and function. A 61-year-old woman with an athletic lifestyle took alendronate for 14 years for osteopenia before she stopped taking it. Nine years later, she reported chronic right hamstring complex pain and loss of function after sustaining a lifting injury. She underwent conservative therapy, including stretching exercises and physical therapy and had an evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon. Her pain and function did not improve. She was referred to an interventional pain management physician who diagnosed her with chronic semimembranosus tendinopathy. She was initially treated with a 3-injection series of 12.5% dextrose prolotherapy which did not provide lasting pain relief nor lasting functional improvement. Her treatment was then changed to a holistic regimen of ultrasound-guided leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma injections, a post platelet-rich plasma physical therapy program, and acupuncture. This holistic treatment program enabled her to attain 90%-95% pain relief and a significantly improved functional status and quality of life. Platelet-rich plasma injection therapy is an evolving area in Medicine. It holds much promise for those in need of musculoskeletal repair, pain relief and improved function without the need for surgery or chronic use of medications. Much work remains to be done in developing more standardization of platelet-rich plasma therapy, but medical specialists are moving in the right direction as we become more sophisticated and attune in studying, understanding and implementing the potential that platelet-rich plasma injection therapy holds for healing. Incorporation of leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma using holistic treatment of chronic semimembranosus tendinopathy associated with chronic use of alendronate was much more effective for pain reduction and restoration of function as compared to only more conservative therapies of physical therapy, stretching exercises, acupuncture, and dextrose prolotherapy.
The transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) is a widely used interventional procedure for managing radicular pain. Although TFESI is well established as a safe and effective treatment, patients frequently seek detailed explanations regarding its procedural steps, expected outcomes, and potential risks. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based platforms, particularly large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, have emerged as accessible sources of periprocedural medical information. However, the accuracy, readability, and empathy of AI-generated responses in the context of interventional pain management remain uncertain. To compare the accuracy and readability of responses generated by ChatGPT and fellowship-trained pain medicine physicians to common patient questions about TFESIs and to assess the potential utility of AI in patient education and periprocedural guidance. A cross-sectional comparative study. Twenty frequently asked patient questions about TFESIs were retrospectively identified from pain clinic consultations and submitted individually to ChatGPT-4o and to fellowship-level physicians. Two interventional pain specialists independently evaluated all responses for accuracy and empathy using a 5-point Likert scale; discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Readability was analyzed using the Readable® tool kit across 7 indices: Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGRL), Gunning Fog Index, SMOG Index, Coleman-Liau Index, average word and sentence length, and estimated overall reach. Both sources delivered highly accurate responses. However, ChatGPT's answers had significantly lower FRES scores, reflecting reduced reading ease, and higher scores across all other readability indices, indicating greater linguistic complexity and lower accessibility. These responses required a higher level of education to understand. Although empathy scores for ChatGPT were lower than the physicians', the difference was not statistically significant. This study assessed a single AI platform (ChatGPT-4o). Accuracy and empathy ratings were performed subjectively by 2 pain specialists, which might have limited generalizability. Additionally, AI-generated responses can vary with software updates, reducing reproducibility across time. ChatGPT provides accurate information regarding TFESIs but demonstrates lower readability and a less empathetic tone than answers given by fellowship-trained physicians. With targeted improvements in clarity and patient-centered communication, AI holds potential as a useful adjunct in patient education and clinical support.
We identified significant gaps in perioperative pain management for sports medicine surgery at our hospital, including a high incidence of severe postoperative pain possibly due to a lack of preemptive analgesia. We aimed to improve pain management outcomes by optimizing multimodal analgesia, which was implemented by the "Pain-Free Hospital" project at Peking University Third Hospital. A single-center retrospective observational study. Peking University Third Hospital. A total of 6,610 sports medicine surgery patients seen from July 2022 through August 2023 were divided into baseline (the first 3 months) and intervention (the subsequent 11 months) phases. Data on postoperative Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) pain scores and analgesic utilization were extracted from the hospital information system. Analgesic consumption was measured by the Analgesic Use Rate (AUR) and Number of Defined Daily Doses (DDDs). The DDD value of each drug is provided by the World Health Organization (WHO). The proportion of Days with Severe Pain (DSP, NRS-11 ≥ 7) was assessed on the first postoperative day and over the first 3 days. We addressed the gap in preemptive analgesia, with its implementation rate increasing from 0% to 53.8%. Etoricoxib (not approved for use in the United States by the FDA) use increased significantly (AUR: 13.4% to 53.2%; DDDs: 116.0 to 433.1), while pethidine use decreased significantly (AUR: 48.5% to 19.6%; DDDs: 47.1 to 17.0). These changes were accompanied by significant reductions in severe postoperative pain: DSP declined from 21.3% to 8.8% on the first postoperative day and from 10.8% to 4.8% over the first 3 days. As a single-center retrospective study in a tertiary hospital in the People's Republic of China's capital, the regional patient pool may limit the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, the study did not account for the potential effect of COVID-19 on patient severity, surgical patterns, and analgesic prescription diversity during the pandemic. Our study demonstrates that implementing a structured perioperative protocol emphasizing preemptive analgesia and multimodal analgesia resulted in pain management effects, including decreased incidences of severe postoperative pain and reduced analgesic opioid consumption.
Chronic axial spinal pain is a major cause of disability. The literature shows that expenditures related to low back and neck pain and other musculoskeletal disorders continue to rise, not only due to disability but also due to increasing healthcare costs, accounting for the highest expenditure among various disease categories. Based on current evidence utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks, facet joints, nerve root dura, and sacroiliac joints have been identified as potential sources of spinal pain. Therapeutic facet joint interventional modalities for axial spinal pain include radiofrequency ablation, therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks, and therapeutic intraarticular injections. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation as a therapeutic modality in managing chronic axial spinal pain of facet joint origin. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. The available literature on radiofrequency ablation in axial spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized included the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials. The evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The level of evidence was determined based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V.A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from 1966 to June 2025, including manual searches of the bibliographies of relevant review articles, was performed. Quality assessment of the included studies and best evidence synthesis were incorporated into both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients achieving significant pain relief and functional improvement of greater than 50% for at least 6 months. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (greater than 6 months). This assessment identified 17 RCTs, including 14 high-quality and 3 moderate-quality studies based on Cochrane criteria, and 11 high-quality and 6 moderate-quality studies based on IPM-QRB criteria. Based on the GRADE assessment, 8 trials demonstrated at least moderate levels of impact and certainty, whereas 7 trials showed low impact with low certainty, and 2 trials demonstrated very low impact and certainty. Despite the availability of multiple studies, the relative paucity of high-quality literature remains a major limitation. Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 17 RCTs, the evidence is Level II with moderate certainty and a moderate strength of recommendation for the use of radiofrequency ablation in managing chronic axial spinal pain of facet joint origin.
Degenerative disc disease is a leading cause of low back pain. Conservative treatments like pain medication and exercise therapy have shown mixed results, while procedures like fusion surgery carry risks such as adjacent segment disorder and surgical morbidity. Therefore, there is a critical need for treatments that bridge the gap between conservative care and surgery. To assess the efficacy of intradiscal hydrogel implantation compared with sham treatment of intradiscal injection of saline in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. Prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial. Two tertiary interventional pain care centers in Switzerland and in the Netherlands. Forty-nine patients with chronic discogenic low back pain unresponsive to conservative treatment were randomized to receive either intradiscal hydrogel implantation or a sham treatment. Control Group patients could cross over to hydrogel treatment after 6 months. The primary outcome was pain improvement at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included disability, quality of life, employment status, Patient Global Impression of Change score, analgesic use, disc space height, and disc degeneration. Adverse events were continually assessed. At 6 months postprocedure, the Hydrogel Group patients had improved pain scores compared to Control Group patients, though not statistically significant (P = 0.070). Six out of 24 patients in the Hydrogel Group reported much improvement on their Patient Global Impression of Change scores, compared to 0 out of 25 in the Control Group (P = 0.008). Within-group disability improvements were statistically significant in the Hydrogel Group but not in the Control Group. No significant differences were found between groups in disability, quality of life, or employment status. Only one serious adverse event was reported-a patient from the Hydrogel Group was hospitalized due to a possible exacerbation of low back pain 6 days postprocedure. This trial's limitations include strict eligibility criteria and questions about the validity of intradiscal saline as a placebo. This trial suggests that percutaneous intradiscal hydrogel implantation may reduce chronic discogenic pain and disability, with significant Patient Global Impression of Change improvements, though larger trials are needed to confirm efficacy.
The physician-patient relationship can be undermined by biased behaviours. There is a lack of epidemiological data in Europe and in the field of anaesthesia. BiPAC is a prospective and bicentric survey study, conducted in a public and a private hospital. We recruited both the patient and the physician during consultation. A biased behaviour is defined as any action or statement perceived as degrading. A total of 1980 patients were included, and physicians returned 258 questionnaires. Biased behaviour from the physician was experienced by 3.7% of the patients. The consequences were poor answers, disrespectful remarks, and denial of care. Patients encountering difficulties with the French language were more likely to be experiencing biased behaviour (OR = 6.90 [1.34-35.48]; p < 0.001), as were LGBTQ patients (OR=3.32 [1.38-7.97] ; p = 0.007). In contrast, being seen in a private centre was a protective factor (OR=0.52 [0.27-0.99]; p = 0.046). Biased behaviour from patients was experienced by 2.1% (n=63) of the physicians. Being a woman (p = 0.039) and European (p < 0.001) were risk factors. In multivariate analyses, being 60 years or older was a protective factor (OR=0.21 [0.09-0.54]; p = 0.001) while being a resident was a risk factor (OR=2.7 [1.38-5.68]; p = 0.004). Biased behaviours during pre-anaesthesia consultations, even when perceived as harmless, undermined patient trust, understanding, and perceptions of physician competence. Language barriers and identifying as LGBTQ were risk factors for patients, whereas belonging to an ethnic minority group was not. Among physicians, being a woman, a resident, or younger in age was associated with greater exposure.
The transition toward value-based care in the United States has introduced episode-based payment models that increasingly tie physician reimbursement to longitudinal costs and standardized outcomes. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Ambulatory Specialty Model (ASM), targeting chronic low back pain (cLBP), represents a pivotal extension of this framework into interventional pain management. While intended to reduce low-value utilization, such models risk redefining clinical success in ways that may not align with the heterogeneous and biopsychosocial nature of chronic pain. This perspective examines the potential for outcome-driven reimbursement to incentivize risk selection, marginalize clinically meaningful but non-durable functional gains, and exacerbate existing health disparities. Based on available literature, we propose a "Value Plus" framework incorporating enhanced risk adjustment and patient-centered composite outcomes to better align economic incentives with the realities of chronic pain care. In conclusion, in the field of interventional pain management, withdrawal of multiple conflicting models (ASM, WISER, etc.), and addition of a payment model including a value plus framework would better align incentives with the realities of delivering care to chronic pain patients.
BACKGROUND: Despite extensive progress in the scientific understanding of pain in humans, serious mismanagement and undermedication in treating acute and chronic pain is a continuing problem. This study was designed to examine the barriers to adequate pain management, especially as they might be associated with community size and medical discipline. METHODS: A 59-item survey was used to measure physicians' attitudes, knowledge, and psychologic factors that contribute to pain management practices. RESULTS: Overall, a significant number of physicians in this survey revealed opiophobia (prejudice against the use of opioid analgesics), displayed lack of knowledge about pain and its treatment, and had negative views about patients with chronic pain. There were significant differences among groups of physicians based on size of geographic practice area and medical discipline. CONCLUSIONS: New educational strategies are needed to overcome these barriers and to improve pain treatment in routine medical practice. The effect of practice milieu must be taken into consideration.
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
Decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment (LST) in intensive care frequently generate ethical tensions between physicians and patients' relatives. Although France and the United States both emphasize respect for patient autonomy, their decisional frameworks allocate different roles to physicians and surrogates, raising questions about how these models shape ethical practice. The aim of this study was to compare French and American approaches to LST decision-making to identify shared ethical difficulties in physician-relative interactions beyond framework differences. Qualitative comparative analysis combining a review of decisional frameworks with semi-structured interviews of intensivists and ethicists in France and the United States. Data were analyzed thematically. Three recurrent ethical issues emerged across both contexts. First, while patient autonomy remains a central normative reference, its implementation is limited by the scarcity, ambiguity, and contextual inadequacy of advance directives, as well as uncertainties in interpreting patients' wishes through relatives. Second, irrespective of formal decision-making authority, physicians report a strong sense of moral responsibility grounded in medical expertise and professional integrity, often associated with moral distress when asked to provide treatments perceived as non-beneficial. Third, conflicts with relatives commonly arise from value-based disagreements regarding proportionality of care and perceived medical futility. Despite contrasting legal models - physician-led decision-making in France and surrogate-led decision-making in the United States - ethical tensions surrounding LST decisions appear largely similar. These findings suggest that procedural frameworks alone are insufficient to address the moral complexity of end-of-life decision-making, underscoring the need to strengthen ethical deliberation, and recognition of shared moral responsibility between physicians and relatives.
The use of facet joint interventions for spinal pain management increased rapidly between 2000 and 2010, followed by slower growth from 2010 to 2019. Post-COVID analyses demonstrated a marked decline in facet joint interventions despite an increasing prevalence of chronic pain among traditional Medicare beneficiaries after 2019, together with multiple contributing factors over time, including enactment of the Affordable Care Act, COVID-19, the Inflation Reduction Act, and other influences. This study aims to update and analyze utilization patterns of facet joint interventions for chronic pain management in the U.S. traditional Medicare population across multiple periods from 2000 to 2024. A retrospective cohort study evaluating utilization trends and influencing factors for facet joint interventions in the fee-for-service (FFS) traditional Medicare population in the United States from 2000 to 2024. Data were derived from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary database (2000-2024). Utilization rates per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, percentage of change, and geometric average changes were calculated. Facet joint intervention utilization increased rapidly from 2000 to 2010 (15.5% annually), slowed from 2010 to 2019 (4.2% annually), and declined from 2019 to 2024 (-6.1% annually). Episodes followed similar patterns but declined less steeply than procedures (-6.7% vs. -27.1%). By 2024, service rates had returned to approximately 2012 levels (5,016 vs 5,046 per 100,000 beneficiaries). From 2000 to 2010, lumbar and cervical/thoracic facet joint blocks and radiofrequency ablation procedures increased substantially (13.5%-24.6% annually), followed by slower growth from 2010 to 2019 (2.8%-11.0%), a sharp pandemic-related decline from 2019 to 2020 (10.6%-17.4%), and partial recovery with modest growth or stabilization through 2024. Between 2019 and 2024, the episode ratio of facet joint nerve blocks to radiofrequency ablation declined from 1.9 to 1.7 for lumbar procedures and from 2.4 to 2.0 for cervical procedures, attributed to the mandatory radiofrequency policy. Interventional pain-related specialties accounted for the majority of facet joint procedures, increasing their share from 87.3% in 2010 to 95% by 2024, while surgical specialties declined from 4.8% to 2.0%. During the same period, the site of service shifted modestly from office settings (50.7% to 48.8%) and hospital outpatient departments (HOPD) (declining to 20.5%) toward ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) (25.6% to 30.6%). These findings reflect increasing specialization, recent reductions in treatment intensity, and the influence of policy changes, Medicare Advantage shifts, and broader system pressures on pain management. The analysis was limited to the FFS traditional Medicare population and data availability through 2024, excluding utilization patterns for Medicare Advantage Plans, which covered 54% of Medicare enrollees in 2024. As with other retrospective claims-based studies, inherent limitations related to coding and administrative data apply. This retrospective analysis demonstrates a substantial decline in facet joint intervention episodes, with an overall reduction of 6.7% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries and an annual decline rate of 1.4% for episodes from 2019 to 2024. In contrast, services or procedures declined more markedly, with an overall reduction of 27.1% and an annual decline rate of 6.1% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries.
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
Pain Medicine fellowship programs have reported increasing numbers of unfilled positions in recent match cycles, accompanied by a growing perception that the applicant pipeline is shrinking. In response to concerns regarding application volume and applicant-program fit, the Electronic Residency Application Service® (ERAS) introduced program signaling for the Pain Medicine fellowship in the 2024-2025 application cycle. Of note, Pain Medicine was the first fellowship across all medical specialties to utilize signaling, with further plans by ERAS to expand access to signaling to other fellowships in the future. However, the effectiveness of this intervention in the context of fewer applications to the field remains unclear. To evaluate the association between ERAS program signaling and interview invitation rates in Pain Medicine fellowship applications, and to contextualize signaling outcomes alongside longitudinal National Resident Matching Program® (NRMP) match trends and unfilled positions. Our study integrated data from 3 sources: NRMP Specialties Matching Service reports (2019-2025), Association of American Medical Colleges ERAS signaling dashboards (2024-2025), and a post match survey distributed to all 442 applicants in the 2025 cycle. Primary outcomes included interview invitation rates by signal status and applicant type (MD, DO, international medical graduate [IMG]). Secondary outcomes included match rates at signaled vs nonsignaled programs and applicant perceptions of signaling. Cross-sectional. Sixty-five applicants responded (14.7% response rate), 86.1% matched. Applicants utilized a mean of 4.6 of the 5 available signals. Interview invitation rates were substantially higher for signaled applications than for nonsignaled applications across all applicant types. Among applicants who sent signals, interview rates were 70.3% for MDs, 58.3% for DOs, and 34.1% for IMGs, compared with 39.7%, 32.3%, and 18.0%, respectively, among nonsignaled applications. The signal-associated increase in interview rate was greatest for MD applicants (30.6 percentage points), followed by DOs (26.0 percentage points) and IMGs (16.1 percentage points). Of matched respondents, 70.7% matched at a program they had signaled. Applicant perceptions of signaling were mixed, with 64.1% reporting it as useful and 35.9% reporting it as useless. Program signaling is strongly associated with increased interview invitation rates in Pain Medicine fellowship applications and appears to improve applicant-program alignment, particularly for MD applicants. However, the differential benefits across applicant types raise equity concerns, and signaling cannot address the fundamental workforce changes driving a reduced applicant pool. Sustainable recruitment strategies must extend beyond match optimization to address the structural factors underlying declining interest in Pain Medicine fellowships.
暂无摘要（点击查看详情）
Understanding the concerns that motivate requests for assisted dying (euthanasia or assisted suicide) is essential for understanding these practices. Our objective was to determine whether there are significant trends in end-of-life concerns cited in requests for physician-assisted suicide (PAS) in Oregon and Washington. We estimated regressions using data on reported end-of-life concerns (autonomy, enjoyment, dignity, control, burden, pain, and finance) taken from annual state reports and which covered 6853 deaths. We pooled the data for our two states and estimated the trend for each end-of-life concern. We added controls for demographic variables, separated time trends for each state, and added other tests for robustness. Our estimates suggested no significant trend for autonomy or enjoyment. The common trend was negative and statistically significant for dignity and control, but control was not significant for Washington. Trends were significantly positive for burden, pain, and finance, but finance was not significant for Washington. There have been significant trends in reported end-of-life concerns that motivate requests for PAS in Oregon and Washington. The increase in perceived burdensomeness as a motivation for PAS adds weight to the argument that changing the law can have an adverse effect on the self-perception of those who receive care. Qualitative research has identified adverse impacts of assisted dying on pain management. Our findings suggest a significant increase in concerns about inadequate pain control since the legalization of PAS. We found no evidence that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has reduced the proportion of people seeking death because of concerns about the cost of their care.