The sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) has attracted the interest of practitioners treating head and face pain for over a century because of its anatomical connections and role in the trigemino-autonomic reflex. In this review, we discuss the anatomy of the SPG, as well as what is known about its role in the pathophysiology of headache disorders, including cluster headache and migraine. We then address various therapies that target the SPG, including intranasal medication delivery, new SPG blocking catheter devices, neurostimulation, chemical neurolysis, and ablation procedures.

Since inflammatory mechanisms have been postulated to link obesity to osteoarthritis, the current study evaluated the ratio of immune cells to multipotent stromal cells within the infrapatellar fat pad (IPFP) and subcutaneous adipose tissue (SQ) of the knee; each depot has potential as a source of regenerative cells. The immunophenotypes of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) and adipose‐derived stem cells (ASCs) of the IPFP and SQ were determined in tissues from osteoarthritic subjects (n = 7) undergoing total knee replacement. Based on a subset of surface antigens, the immunophenotype of ASCs from SQ of OA subjects was not significantly different from that of relatively healthy and leaner subjects undergoing elective liposuction surgery. Flow‐cytometry comparison of SVF cell populations in the IPFP of OA subjects resembled those within the subject's own matched SQ, with the exception of the endothelial marker CD31+, which was significantly greater in cells from SQ. In the OA subjects, lower numbers of capillary‐like structures and higher numbers of stromal and alkaline phosphatase colony‐forming units in the IPFP vs SQ were consistent with this finding; however, ASCs from both depots in OA subjects exhibited comparable adipogenic and osteogenic differentiation potential. Thus, the IPFP contains an ASC and immune cell population similar to that of donor‐matched SQ, making it an alternative ASC source for tissue regeneration. Further studies will be needed to determine whether IPFP immune cell infiltrates play an aetiological role in osteoarthritis equivalent to that shown in diabetes associated with obesity. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Background: The COVID pandemic has impacted almost every aspect of human interaction, causing global changes in financial, health care, and social environments for the foreseeable future. More than 1.3 million of the 4 million cases of COVID-19 confirmed globally as of May 2020 have been identified in the United States, testing the capacity and resilience of our hospitals and health care workers. The impacts of the ongoing pandemic, caused by a novel strain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have far-reaching implications for the future of our health care system and how we deliver routine care to patients. The adoption of social distancing during this pandemic has demonstrated efficacy in controlling the spread of this virus and has been the only proven means of infection control thus far. Social distancing has prompted hospital closures and the reduction of all non-COVID clinical visits, causing widespread financial despair to many outpatient centers. However, the need to treat patients for non-COVID problems remains important despite this pandemic, as care must continue to be delivered to patients despite their ability or desire to report to outpatient centers for their general care. Our national health care system has realized this need and has incentivized providers to adopt distance-based care in the form of telemedicine and video medicine visits. Many institutions have since incorporated these into their practices without financial penalty because of Medicare’s 1135 waiver, which currently reimburses telemedicine at the same rate as evaluation and management codes (E/M Codes). Although the financial burden has been alleviated by this policy, the practitioner remains accountable for providing proper assessment with this new modality of health care delivery. This is a challenge for most physicians, so our team of national experts has created a reference guide for musculoskeletal and neurologic examination selection to retrofit into the telemedicine experience. Objectives: To describe and illustrate musculoskeletal and neurologic examination techniques that can be used effectively in telemedicine. Study Design: Consensus-based multispecialty guidelines. Setting: Tertiary care center. Methods: Literature review of the neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand, lumbar, hip, and knee physical examinations were performed. A multidisciplinary team comprised of physical medicine and rehabilitation, orthopedics, rheumatology, neurology, and anesthesia experts evaluated each examination and provided consensus opinion to select the examinations most appropriate for telemedicine evaluation. The team also provided consensus opinion on how to modify some examinations to incorporate into a nonhealth care office setting. Results: Sixty-nine examinations were selected by the consensus team. Household objects were identified that modified standard and validated examinations, which could facilitate the examinations.The consensus review team did not believe that the modified tests altered the validity of the standardized tests.Limitations: Examinations selected are not validated for telemedicine. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were not performed. Conclusions: The physical examination is an essential component for sound clinical judgment and patient care planning. The physical examinations described in this manuscript provide a comprehensive framework for the musculoskeletal and neurologic examination, which has been vetted by a committee of national experts for incorporation into the telemedicine evaluation. Key words: COVID, pain, telemedicine, physical examination, spine, shoulder, elbow, hand, hip, knee

Purpose of Review Public acceptance of Cannabis sativa L. (cannabis) as a therapeutic option grows despite lags in both research and clinician familiarity. Cannabis-whether as a medical, recreational, or illicit substance-is and has been commonly used by patients. With ongoing decriminalization efforts, decreased perception of harms, and increased use of cannabis in the treatment of symptoms and disease, it is critical for clinicians to understand the rationale for specific therapies and their medical and practical implications for patients. In view of the opioid crisis, overall patient dissatisfaction, and lack of adherence to current chronic pain and headache therapies, this review provides up-to-date knowledge on cannabis as a potential treatment option for headache pain. Recent Findings Research into the use of cannabinoids for disease treatment have led to FDA-approved drugs for seizures, nausea, and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy; and for decreased appetite and weight loss in people with HIV/AIDS. For a wide variety of conditions and symptoms (including chronic pain), cannabis has gained increasing acceptance in society. The effects of cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in pain pathways have been significantly elucidated. An increasing number of retrospective studies have shown a decrease in pain scores after administration of cannabinoids, as well as longterm benefits such as reduced opiate use. Yet, there is no FDA-approved cannabis product for headache or other chronic pain disorders. More is being done to determine who is likely to benefit from cannabis as well as to understand the long-term effects and limitations of the treatment. Summary Cannabis can refer to a number of products derived from the plant Cannabis sativa L. Relatively well-tolerated, these products come in different configurations, types, and delivery forms. Specific formulations of the plant have been shown to be an effective treatment modality for chronic pain, including headache. It is important for clinicians to know which product is being discussed as well as the harms, benefits, contraindications, interactions, and unknowns in order to provide the best counsel for patients.This article is part of the Topical Collection on Hot Topics in Pain and Headache * Robert A. Duarte

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction An estimated 54 million Americans currently suffer from debilitating arthritis. Patients who have exhausted conservative measures can be subject to chronic pain and resort to symptomatic management with anti-inflammatories, acetaminophen, and opioids. Cannabidiol (CBD) is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid that has shown promise in preclinical studies to reduce inflammation and pain associated with arthritis. The purpose of this study was to explore patient perceived effects of cannabidiol on symptoms of arthritis. Methods A novel anonymous questionnaire was created to evaluate perceived efficacy of cannabidiol for the treatment of arthritis. A self-selected convenience sample (N=428) was recruited through online methods including social media accounts and newsletters (The Arthritis Foundation and Savvy Cooperative) between May 5, 2020, and November 5, 2020. Statistical analysis was performed to determine differences between types of arthritis and improvements in quality-of-life symptoms. Furthermore, a regression analysis was performed to identify variables associated with decreasing or discontinuing other medications. Results CBD use was associated with improvements in pain (83%), physical function (66%), and sleep quality (66%). Subgroup analysis by diagnosis type (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid, or other autoimmune arthritis) found improvements among groups for physical function (P=0.013), favoring the osteoarthritis group. The overall cohort reported a 44% reduction in pain after CBD use (P<0.001). The osteoarthritis group had a greater percentage reduction (P=0.020) and point reduction (P<0.001) in pain compared to rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune arthritis. The majority of respondents reported a reduction or cessation of other medications after CBD use (N=259, 60.5%): reductions in anti-inflammatories (N=129, 31.1%), acetaminophen (N=78, 18.2%), opioids (N=36, 8.6%) and discontinuation of anti-inflammatories (N=76, 17.8%), acetaminophen (N=76, 17.8%), and opioids (N=81, 18.9%). Conclusion Clinicians and patients should be aware of the various alternative therapeutic options available to treat their symptoms of arthritis, especially in light of the increased accessibility to cannabidiol products. The present study found associations between CBD use and improvements in patient’s arthritis symptoms and reductions in other medications. Future research should focus on exploring the benefits of CBD use in this patient population with clinical trials.