Background: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. Objectives: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. Methods: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

No abstract

Chronic pelvic pain is defined as the presence of pain in the pelvic girdle region for over a 6-month period and can arise from the gynecologic, urologic, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal systems. As 15% of women experience pelvic pain at some time in their lives with yearly direct medical costs estimated at $2.8 billion, effective evaluation and management strategies of this condition are necessary. This merits a thorough discussion of a systematic approach to the evaluation of chronic pelvic pain conditions, including a careful history-taking and clinical examination. The challenge of accurately diagnosing chronic pelvic pain resides in the degree of peripheral and central sensitization of the nervous system associated with the chronicity of the symptoms, as well as the potential influence of the affective and biopsychosocial factors on symptom development as persistence. Once the musculoskeletal origin of the symptoms is identified, a clinical examination schema that is based on the location of primary onset of symptoms (lumbosacral, coccygeal, sacroiliac, pelvic floor, groin or abdominal region) can be followed to establish a basis for managing the specific pain generator(s) and manage tissue dysfunction.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs; however, low back pain (LBP) is difficult to treat using traditional SCS. Differential Target Multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) is an advanced approach inspired from animal studies demonstrating improved pain-related behavior and pain-relevant biological processes. Objective:The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of DTM SCS and traditional SCS in treating chronic LBP and leg pain (LP).Methods: This prospective, postmarket randomized controlled trial compared DTM SCS to traditional SCS in patients with chronic LBP and LP. Primary end point was LBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥ 50% relief) at 3 months. Noninferiority and superiority were assessed. Other outcomes included mean change in back and leg pain, responder rates, disability, global health, satisfaction, and safety profile throughout the 12-month follow-up.Results: One hundred twenty-eight subjects were randomized across 12 centers (67 DTM SCS and 61 traditional SCS). Of the 94 patients implanted, 46 subjects in each group completed the 3-month assessment. LBP responder rate of 80.1% with DTM SCS was superior to 51.2% with traditional SCS (p = 0.0010). Mean LBP reduction (5.36 cm) with DTM SCS was greater than reduction (3.37 cm) with traditional SCS (p < 0.0001). These results were sustained at 6 months and 12 months. Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups. Conclusion:Superiority of DTM SCS compared with traditional SCS for chronic LBP was demonstrated. Clinical improvements provided by DTM SCS were M ET HOD S Study design and patient selectionThis multicenter, prospective, open-label, postmarket RCT was designed to assess DTM SCS as compared with traditional SCS in subjects with intractable LBP and LP. The study was conducted at 12 investigational sites across the United States in compliance with the US Code of Federal Regulations, Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the 18th World Medical Assembly of Helsinki. The study protocol and informed consent forms were approved by the Western Institutional Review Board, Puyallup, WA. The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03606187). Key eligibility criteria are listed in Table 1.sustained over 12 months and are expected to significantly impact the management of chronic LBP.

Pelvic pain is a common condition. Treatment interventions have traditionally targeted biomedical conditions with variable success. Utilizing a systematic approach to examination of the pelvic girdle and related organ systems contained within the pelvis will aid the clinician in identifying the painful structure(s) as well as the associated impairments limiting functional recovery. From this, a complete management program can be instituted. The following description of gynecologic, urologic, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and neurologic conditions that can cause or are associated with chronic pelvic pain leads to conservative management proposals based on the available evidence. Finally, nonoperative interventional strategies are described, which target the pain system from a cognitive behavioral perspective, address movement dysfunctions, and address interventional pain technique possibilities.