have no disclosures related to this work. Dr. Verduzco-Gutierrez has no disclosures related to this work. She serves as Social Media editor of the American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. She has also been a consultant or done prior research with Allergan, Merz, Ipsen, Medtronic, and ReNeuron.

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.

Purpose of reviewIn recent years, neuromodulation has experienced a renaissance. Novel waveforms and anatomic targets show potential improvements in therapy that may signify substantial benefits. New innovations in peripheral nerve stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation have shown prospective evidence and sustainability of results. Sub-perception physiologic bursting, high-frequency stimulation and feedback loop mechanisms provide significant benefits over traditional tonic spinal cords stimulation (SCS) in peer reviewed investigations. We reviewed the themes associated with novel technology in the context of historical stalwart publications. Recent findingsNew innovations have led to better nerve targeting, improvements in disease-based treatment, and opioid alternatives for those in chronic pain. In addition, new neural targets from both structural and cellular perspectives have changed the field of Neurostimulation.

Historically, intervertebral disc degeneration has been the etiological target of chronic low back pain; however, disc degeneration is not necessarily directly associated with pain, and many other anatomical structures are potential etiologies. The vertebral endplates have been postulated to be a source of vertebral pain, where these endplates become particularly susceptible to increased expression of nociceptors and inflammatory proliferation carried by the basivertebral nerve (BVN), expressed on diagnostic imaging as Modic changes. This is useful diagnostic information that can help physicians to phenotype a subset of low back pain, which is known as vertebral pain, in order to directly target interventions, such as BVN ablation, to this significant pain generator. Therefore, this review describes the safety, efficacy, and the rationale behind the use of BVN ablation, a minimally invasive spinal intervention, for the treatment of vertebral pain. Our current literature review of available up-to-date publications utilizing BVN ablation in the treatment of vertebral pain suggests that there is limited, but moderate-quality evidence that this is an effective intervention for reduction of disability and improvement in function, at short- and long-term follow-up, in addition to limited moderate-quality evidence that BVN RFA is superior to conservative care for pain reduction, at least at 3-month follow-up. Our review concluded that there is a highly clinical and statistically significant treatment effect of BVN ablation for vertebral pain with clinically meaningful benefits in pain reduction, functional improvements, opioid dose reduction, and improved quality of life. There were no reported device-related patient deaths or serious AEs based on the available literature. BVN ablation is a safe, well-tolerated and clinically beneficial intervention for vertebral pain, when proper patient selection and surgical/procedural techniques are applied.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common causes of joint pain in the United States and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), such as Diclofenac sodium, which is currently available in two main routes of administration; oral and topical distribution have been established as one of the standard treatments for OA. Generally, oral NSAIDs are well tolerated; however our narrative review suggests that the topical solution had a better tolerability property than oral Diclofenac sodium, especially due to side effects of gastrointestinal bleeding with the utilization of the oral format. In addition, the topical route may be considered a reasonable selection by clinicians for management of musculoskeletal pain in those patients with a history of potential risk and adverse side effects. Most studies reviewed comparing oral versus topical solution of Diclofenac sodium revealed comparable efficacy, with minimal side effects utilizing the topical route. The key point of this narrative review is to help clinicians that currently must decide between very inexpensive diclofenac oral presentations and expensive topical presentations especially in the elderly population and the pros and cons of such decision-making process.

Since the inception of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in 1967, the technology has evolved dramatically with important advancements in waveforms and frequencies. One such advancement is Nevro’s Senza® SCS System for HF10, which received Food and Drug and Administration (FDA) approval in 2015. Low-frequency SCS works by activating large-diameter Aβ fibers in the lateral discriminatory pathway (pain location, intensity, quality) at the dorsal column (DC), creating paresthesia-based stimulation at lower-frequencies (30–120 Hz), high-amplitude (3.5–8.5 mA), and longer-duration/pulse-width (100–500 μs). In contrast, high-frequency 10 kHz SCS works with a proposed different mechanism of action that is paresthesia-free with programming at a frequency of 10,000 Hz, low amplitude (1–5 mA), and short-duration/pulse-width (30 μS). This stimulation pattern selectively activates inhibitory interneurons in the dorsal horn (DH) at low stimulation intensities, which do not activate the dorsal column fibers. This ostensibly leads to suppression of hyperexcitable wide dynamic range neurons (WDR), which are sensitized and hyperactive in chronic pain states. It has also been reported to act on the medial pathway (drives attention and pain perception), in addition to the lateral pathways. Other theories include a reversible depolarization blockade, desynchronization of neural signals, membrane integration, glial–neuronal interaction, and induced temporal summation. The body of clinical evidence regarding 10 kHz SCS treatment for chronic back pain and neuropathic pain continues to grow. There is high-quality evidence supporting its use in patients with persistent back and radicular pain, particularly after spinal surgery. High-frequency 10 kHz SCS studies have demonstrated robust statistically and clinically significant superiority in pain control, compared to paresthesia-based SCS, supported by level I clinical evidence. Yet, as the field continues to grow with the technological advancements of multiple waveforms and programming stimulation algorithms, we encourage further research to focus on the ability to modulate pain with precision and efficacy, as the field of neuromodulation continues to adapt to the modern healthcare era.

No abstract

The purpose of this research was to employ the audit method to measure performance and identify targets of change, setting a template for future large-scale investigations that may inform decisions involving sonographer role expansion in Canada. The authors conducted an audit of 433 sonographic examinations performed in the ultrasound department of a Canadian hospital. Sonographer reports were contrasted with radiologist final reports, and a degree of agreement (DoA) 1 to 4 was assigned to each exam package. In total, 322 of 429 (75%) exam packages were ranked as DoA 1 (complete agreement between sonographer and radiologist), 86 of 429 (20%) were ranked as DoA 2, 16 of 429 (4%) were ranked as DoA 3, and 5 of 429 (1%) were ranked as DoA 4 (significant discrepancy between sonographer and radiologist). The results revealed a 75% agreement between sonographer and radiologist on imaging findings as they are recorded in technical impression sheets and reports. Discrepancies are usually minor and involve the omission of incidental findings by the radiologist.