Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become increasingly popular in pain medicine with hopes of becoming a safe, effective alternative to routine treatments. However, given its autologous nature, PRP injectate may differ depending on the specific manufacturer and protocol. Currently, there is no standardization of reporting protocol. This systematic review compiles and standardizes values on PRP preparation and final product composition of platelets, white cell count, and growth factors for ease of comparison. On review of 876 studies, 13 studies were selected according to our inclusion criteria. Data from 33 PRP systems and protocols were extracted and standardized. Overall, PRP final product concentrations as well as PRP preparation protocols varied widely between systems. However, platelet concentration was directly correlated with both volume of blood collected and device centrifugal force. In conclusion, there is a large heterogeneity between PRP separation systems that must be resolved for proper study of this promising treatment.

Introduction Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety. Objective The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Methods The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented. Results After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain. Conclusion The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Background: The shoulder region is a common area for pain. The shoulder has the largest range of motion and the most complex mechanical anatomy. The shoulder girdle and related tendons allow for numerous painful disorders to occur. Also, given the overall use of the shoulder, arthritic deformities are all too common. Finally, pain from more complex states such as poststroke shoulder pain and status post total shoulder arthroplasty pain have always been a difficult diagnosis to treat with effectiveness. The innervation to the shoulder predominantly comes from the suprascapular and axillary nerves. Both nerves relatively follow an expected anatomic course and whereby they can be targeted with ultrasound or fluoroscopy. Recently, there has been an increase in evidence that suggests peripheral nerve stimulation can make a difference in these patients with shoulder pain. Objectives: To provide a basic overview of peripheral nerve stimulator placement targeting the axillary and suprascapular nerves. Furthermore, to demonstrate the suggested implantation and current evidence of peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of shoulder pain. Study Design: Anatomic clinical review. Methods: A comprehensive review was performed regarding the available literature through targeting articles reporting on the use of peripheral nerve stimulation to treat pain of the shoulder region. Results: We compiled and discuss the current evidence available in treating shoulder pain utilizing peripheral stimulation. The strongest evidence currently is for peripheral nerve stimulation targeting either the axillary or suprascapular nerve, as well as placement targeting the motor points of the deltoid. The most common treated pathology is poststroke shoulder pain. Limitations: Peripheral nerve stimulation has been trialed and is promising for several shoulder pain pathologies; however, there remains a need for large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials to further evaluate the efficacy of most treatments. Much of the current data relies on case reports without randomization or placebo controls. Conclusions: Overall there is fair to moderate evidence for peripheral nerve stimulation to treat shoulder pain in hemiplegic poststroke patients. There is limited evidence when treating other shoulder pain etiologies. Utilizing ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance, the procedure has proven to be safe allowing proper placement of the electrodes near the target nerves. Considering the high prevalence of shoulder pain from degenerative conditions and overuse, future studies are undoubtedly warranted to evaluate whether peripheral nerve stimulation can modify our treatment algorithm for management of these conditions. Key words: Shoulder pain, suprascapular nerve, axillary nerve, ultrasonography, peripheral nerve stimulation, post stroke shoulder, osteoarthritis, rotator cuff, hemiplegic shoulder pain, adhesive capsulitis

Background: Head and facial pain is a common and often difficult to treat disorder. Routine treatments sometimes fail to provide acceptable relief, leaving the patient searching for something else, including narcotics and surgery. Recently, neuromodulation has been expanding to provide another option. Secondary to its potentially temporary nature and relatively manageable risk profile, several reviews have suggested trialing neuromodulation prior to starting narcotics or invasive permanent surgeries. There is evidence that neuromodulation can make a difference in those patients with intractable severe craniofacial pain. Objectives: To provide a basic overview of the anatomy, epidemiology, pathophysiology and common treatments of several common head and facial disorders. Furthermore, to demonstrate the suggested mechanisms of neuromodulation and the evidence currently existing for the use of neuromodulation. Methods: A comprehensive review was performed regarding the available literature through targeting articles reporting on the use of neuromodulation to treat pain of the head and face. Results: We compiled and discuss the current evidence available in treating head and facial pain. The strongest evidence currently for neuromodulation is for occipital nerve stimulation for migraine, transcutaneous vagal nerve stimulation for migraine and cluster headache, sphenopalatine ganglion microstimulation for cluster headache, and transcutaneous supraorbital and supratrochlear nerve stimulation for migraine. In addition, there is moderate evidence for occipital nerve stimulation in treating occipital neuralgia. Limitations: Neuromodulation has been trialed and is promising in several craniofacial pain disorders; however, there remains a need for large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of most treatments. Much of the current data relies on case reports without randomization or placebo controls. Conclusions: With advancing techniques and technology, neuromodulation can be promising in treating intractable pain of the head and face. Although more randomized controlled trials are warranted, the current literature supports the use of neuromodulation in intractable craniofacial pain. Key words: Neuromodulation, headache, facial pain, craniofacial pain, migraine, cluster headache, trigeminal neuralgia, occipital neuralgia, peripheral nerve stimulator, high cervical spinal cord stimulator, peripheral nerve field stimulator

Knee pain is second only to the back as the most commonly reported area of pain in the human body. With an overall prevalence of 46.2%, its impact on disability, lost productivity, and cost on healthcare cannot be overlooked. Due to the pervasiveness of knee pain in the general population, there are no shortages of treatment options available for addressing the symptoms. Ranging from physical therapy and pharmacologic agents to interventional pain procedures to surgical options, practitioners have a wide array of options to choose from – unfortunately, there is no consensus on which treatments are “better” and when they should be offered in comparison to others. While it is generally accepted that less invasive treatments should be offered before more invasive ones, there is a lack of agreement on the order in which the less invasive are to be presented. In an effort to standardize the treatment of this extremely prevalent pathology, the authors present an all-encompassing set of guidelines on the treatment of knee pain based on an extensive literature search and data grading for each of the available alternative that will allow practitioners the ability to compare and contrast each option.