trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR3531.

An estimated 40% of chronic lumbosacral spinal pain is attributed to the discus intervertebralis. Degenerative changes following loss of hydration of the nucleus pulposus lead to circumferential or radial tears within the annulus fibrosus. Annular tears within the outer annulus stimulate the ingrowth of blood vessels and accompanying nociceptors into the outer and occasionally inner annulus. Sensitization of these nociceptors by various inflammatory repair mechanisms may lead to chronic discogenic pain. The current criterion standard for diagnosing discogenic pain is pressure-controlled provocative discography using strict criteria and at least one negative control level. The strictness of criteria and the adherence to technical detail will allow an acceptable low false positive response rate. The most important determinants are the standardization of pressure stimulus by using a validated pressure monitoring device and avoiding overly high dynamic pressures by the slow injection rate of 0.05 mL/s. A positive discogram requires the reproduction of the patient's typical pain at an intensity of > 6/10 at a pressure of < 15 psi above opening pressure and at a volume less than 3.0 mL. Perhaps the most important and defendable response is the failure to confirm the discus is symptomatic by not meeting this strict criteria. Various interventional treatment strategies for chronic discogenic low back pain unresponsive to conservative care include reduction of inflammation, ablation of intradiscal nociceptors, lowering intranuclear pressure, removal of herniated nucleus, and radiofrequency ablation of the nociceptors. Unfortunately, most of these strategies do not meet the minimal criteria for a positive treatment advice. In particular, single-needle radiofrequency thermocoagulation of the discus is not recommended for patients with discogenic pain (2 B-). Interestingly, a little used procedure, radiofrequency ablation of the ramus communicans, does meet the (2 B+) level for endorsement. There is currently insufficient proof to recommend intradiscal electrothermal therapy (2 B±) and intradiscal biacuplasty (0). It is advised that ozone discolysis, nucleoplasty, and targeted disc decompression should only be performed as part of a study protocol. Future studies should include more strict inclusion criteria.

Raising awareness about possible neurological complications and adoption of safety measures recommended by the work group aim at reducing the risks for these devastating events.

No abstract

Introduction Between 2009 and 2011 a series of 26 articles on evidence‐based medicine for interventional pain medicine according to clinical diagnoses were published. The high number of publications since the last literature search justified an update. Methods For the update an independent 3rd party, specialized in systematic reviews was asked in 2015 to perform the literature search and summarize relevant evidence using Cochrane and GRADE methodology to compile guidelines on interventional pain management. The guideline committee reviewed the information and made a last update on March 1st 2018. The information from new studies published after the research performed by the 3th party and additional observational studies was used to incorporate other factors such as side effects and complications, invasiveness, costs and ethical factors, which influence the ultimate recommendations. Results For the different indications a total of 113 interventions were evaluated. Twenty‐seven (24%) interventions were new compared to the previous guidelines and the recommendation changed for only 3 (2.6%) of the interventions. Discussion This article summarizes the evolution of the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations for the interventional pain treatment options for 28 clinical pain diagnoses.

Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment for chronic neuropathic, neuropathic‐like and ischaemic pain. However, the heterogeneity of patients in daily clinical practice makes it often challenging to determine which patients are eligible for this treatment, resulting in undesirable practice variations. This study aimed to establish patient‐specific recommendations for referral and selection of SCS in chronic pain. Methods A multidisciplinary European panel used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) to assess the appropriateness of (referral for) SCS for 386 clinical scenarios in four pain areas: chronic low back pain and/or leg pain, complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain syndromes and ischaemic pain syndromes. In addition, the panel identified a set of psychosocial factors that are relevant to the decision for SCS treatment. Results Appropriateness of SCS was strongly determined by the neuropathic or neuropathic‐like pain component, location and spread of pain, anatomic abnormalities and previous response to therapies targeting pain processing (e.g. nerve block). Psychosocial factors considered relevant for SCS selection were as follows: lack of engagement, dysfunctional coping, unrealistic expectations, inadequate daily activity level, problematic social support, secondary gain, psychological distress and unwillingness to reduce high‐dose opioids. An educational e‐health tool was developed that combines clinical and psychosocial factors into an advice on referral/selection for SCS. Conclusions The RUAM was useful to establish a consensus on patient‐specific criteria for referral/selection for SCS in chronic pain. The e‐health tool may help physicians learn to apply an integrated approach of clinical and psychosocial factors. Significance Determining the eligibility of SCS in patients with chronic pain requires careful consideration of a variety of clinical and psychosocial factors. Using a systematic approach to combine evidence from clinical studies and expert opinion, a multidisciplinary European expert panel developed detailed recommendations to support appropriate referral and selection for SCS in chronic pain. These recommendations are available as an educational e‐health tool (https://www.scstool.org/).

Objective Chronic pain is a prevalent condition which has a significant effect on the lives of those it impacts. High‐frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz SCS) has been shown to provide paresthesia‐free pain relief for a wide variety of pain indications. This article summarizes the current and emerging data as they relate to the clinical use of the therapy in various pain syndromes. Methods A literature search was conducted using the PubMed electronic database using keywords related to 10 kHz SCS. The database was queried from 2013 to May 2019. Articles reporting clinical studies that included human subjects permanently treated with 10 kHz SCS (Senza® system) were included in the review. Recent and relevant conference proceedings known to the authors were also included. Results The selected literature demonstrated significant evidence for the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS in treating chronic back and leg pain (CBLP), including a randomized, controlled trial as well as prospective and retrospective studies. One‐year follow‐up responder rates (pain relief ≥50%) ranged from 60% to 80%. Other studies and case series showed promising outcomes in specific conditions, including nonsurgical refractory back pain, neuropathic limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic widespread pain, chronic pelvic pain, and intractable headache. Subgroup analyses also pointed toward the potential of 10 kHz SCS being successful when low‐frequency SCS has failed. The vast majority of these studies reported improved quality of life (QOL) metrics and/or reduced opioid consumption. Conclusions Level I evidence already exists for the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS in treating CBLP, supported by real‐world clinical experience. Other studies demonstrate the potential of the therapy across a range of chronic pain etiologies, although larger confirmatory studies are recommended. Overall, the literature suggests that the therapy is associated with improved QOL as well as reduced opioid consumption.

A study published in PAIN in 2010 showed remarkable effects of intradiscal methylene blue (MB) injections compared with placebo on pain intensity in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain (CD-LBP). Both groups received lidocaine hydrochloride injections for pain associated with the procedure. We replicated the design of the previously published study and performed a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess whether the extraordinary effects of MB on pain intensity could be confirmed. The primary outcomes were treatment success defined as at least 30% reduction in pain intensity and the Patients' Global Impression of Change 6 months after the intervention. We included 84 patients with CD-LBP of which 14 (35%) in the MB plus lidocaine group showed treatment success compared with 11 (26.8%) in the control group who received placebo plus lidocaine (P = 0.426). Twenty-seven percent of all participants treated with MB stated that their overall health improved much or very much (Patients' Global Impression of Change), vs 25.6% in the placebo group (P = 0.958). We were unable to confirm that intradiscal MB injections are better capable of significantly reducing pain in patients with CD-LBP 6 months after treatment compared with placebo. We observed that over one-quarter of patients receiving only lidocaine injections reported treatment success, which is in contrast with the previously published study. Our results do not support the recommendation of using intradiscal MB injections for patients with CD-LBP.