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.

Myofascial pain is a soft tissue pain syndrome with local and referred musculoskeletal pain arising from trigger points. Myofascial pain and myofascial pain syndromes are among some of the most common acute and chronic pain conditions. Myofascial pain can exist independently of other pain generators or can coexist with or is secondary to other acute and chronic painful musculoskeletal conditions. Myofascial pain is most effectively treated with a multimodal treatment plan including injection therapy (known as trigger point injections, physical therapy, postural or ergonomic correction, and treatment of underlying musculoskeletal pain generators. The objectives of this review are to outline the prevalence of myofascial pain, describe the known pathophysiology of myofascial pain and trigger points, discuss the clinical presentation of myofascial pain, and present evidence-based best practices for pharmacologic, non-pharmacologic, and interventional treatments for myofascial pain.

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.

Chronic low back pain is a worldwide leading cause of pain and disability. Degenerative disc disease has been the presumptive etiology in the majority of cases of chronic low back pain (CLBP). More recent study and treatments have discovered that the vertebral endplates play a large role in CLBP in a term defined as vertebrogenic back pain. As the vertebral endplates are highly innervated via the basivertebral nerve (BVN), this has resulted in a reliable target in treating patients suffering from vertebrogenic low back pain (VLBP). The application of BVN ablation for patients suffering from VLBP is still in its early stages of adoption and integration into spine care pathways. BVN ablation is grounded in a solid foundation of both pre-clinical and clinical evidence. With the emergence of this therapeutic option, the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified the need for formal evidence-based guidelines for the proper identification and selection of patients for BVN ablation in patients with VLBP. ASPN formed a multidisciplinary work group tasked to examine the available literature and form best practice guidelines on this subject. Based on the United States Preventative Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for grading evidence, gives BVN ablation Level A grade evidence with high certainty that the net benefit is substantial in appropriately selected individuals.

Objective: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is multifactorial in nature, with recent research highlighting the role of multifidus dysfunction in a subset of nonspecific CLBP. This review aimed to provide a foundational reference that elucidates the pathophysiological cascade of multifidus dysfunction, how it contrasts with other CLBP etiologies and the role of restorative neurostimulation.Methods: A scoping review of the literature.Results: In total, 194 articles were included, and findings were presented to highlight emerging principles related to multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation. Multifidus dysfunction is diagnosed by a history of mechanical, axial, nociceptive CLBP and exam demonstrating functional lumbar instability, which differs from other structural etiologies. Diagnostic images may be used to grade multifidus atrophy and assess other structural pathologies. While various treatments exist for CLBP, restorative neurostimulation distinguishes itself from traditional neurostimulation in a way that treats a different etiology, targets a different anatomical site, and has a distinctive mechanism of action.Conclusions: Multifidus dysfunction has been proposed to result from loss of neuromuscular control, which may manifest clinically as muscle inhibition resulting in altered movement patterns. Over time, this cycle may result in potential atrophy, degeneration and CLBP. Restorative neurostimulation, a novel implantable neurostimulator system, stimulates the efferent lumbar medial branch nerve to elicit repetitive multifidus contractions. This intervention aims to interrupt the cycle of dysfunction and normalize multifidus activity incrementally, potentially restoring neuromuscular control. Restorative neurostimulation has been shown to reduce pain and disability in CLBP, improve quality of life and reduce health care expenditures.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been utilized for over 50 years with accumulating evidence of efficacy in a variety of chronic pain conditions. The level and strength of evidence supporting the use of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain remains unclear. The purpose of this review is to synthesize data from prospective studies on the efficacy of PNS for neuropathic pain as it pertains to pain intensity, neurological deficits/neuropathy (e.g., weakness, sensory deficits, gait/balance), and other secondary outcomes (quality of life, satisfaction, emotional functioning, and adverse events). In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this review identified articles from MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Overall, per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, pooled results demonstrate very low quality or low quality of evidence supporting modest to substantial improvement in pain and neurological function after PNS implantation for treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. PNS for phantom limb pain was the only indication that had moderate level evidence. Future prospective and well-powered studies are warranted to assess the efficacy of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain.