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: Conventional neurostimulation typically involves a brief (eg, ≤ 10-day) trial to assess presumed effectiveness prior to permanent implantation. Low trial conversion rates and high explant rates due to inadequate pain relief highlight the need for improved patient identification strategies. The development of a 60-day percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) system enables evaluation of outcomes following an extended temporary treatment period of up to 60 days, that may obviate or validate the need for permanent implant. The present study provides the first real-world evidence regarding patient response throughout a 60-day PNS treatment period. Methods: Anonymized data listings were compiled from patients who underwent implantation of temporary percutaneous leads and opted-in to provide real-world data to the device manufacturer during routine interactions with device representatives throughout the 60-day treatment. Results: Overall, 30% (222/747) of patients were early responders (≥ 50% pain relief throughout treatment). Another 31% (231/747) of patients initially presented as non-responders but surpassed 50% pain relief by the end of treatment. Conversely, 32% (239/747) of patients were non-responders throughout treatment. An additional 7% (55/747) of patients initially presented as responders but fell below 50% relief by the end of the treatment period. Conclusion: An extended, 60-day PNS treatment may help identify delayed responders, providing the opportunity for sustained relief and improving access to effective PNS treatment. Compared to a conventionally short trial of ≤ 10 days, a longer 60-day PNS treatment may also help reduce explant rates by identifying delayed non-responders unlikely to benefit long-term. These scenarios support the importance of an extended 60-day temporary PNS stimulation period to help inform stepwise treatment strategies that may optimize outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Background: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is a common cause of low back pain, a problem experienced by two-thirds of adults in the United States population. Traditionally, the management of persistent SIJ-related pain has involved conservative therapies (physical therapy, topical medications, oral anti-inflammatory medications), interventional therapies (SIJ steroid injections or ablation), and surgery (SIJ fusion; open and lateral approach). Recent advancements in technology have paved the way for SIJ fusion via a posterior approach, which aims to minimize complications and enhance recovery. Objective: The purpose of this study is to introduce the concept of the posterior approach to SIJ fusion as a feasible adjunct and salvage technique for patients with inadequate pain relief from other minimally invasive surgical procedures, and to validate its efficacy through a retrospective multicenter data analysis. Design: Multicenter retrospective observational study. Methods: Patients with refractory SIJ pain were treated by interventional pain physicians at one of the eight different pain management centers. All patients underwent posterior SIJ fusion via the LinQ^TM sacroiliac fusion procedure. Demographical data were collected, in addition to patient-reported pain relief. Results: A total of 111 patients were included in the study and underwent posterior SIJ fusion for refractory SIJ-related pain following the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), interspinous spacer (ISS), intrathecal drug delivery (IDDS), and/or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). Overall, the mean patient reported pain relief following posterior SIJ fusion was 67.6%. In patients with a history of failed back surgery syndrome, the mean patient reported pain relief was 76.5%. Conclusion: In this retrospective case series of patients with continued intolerable pain following SCS, ISS, IDDS, or MILD, a novel posterior SIJ fusion device provided significant pain relief in a salvage manner. These early results suggest that this intervention may be a therapeutic option to consider in these patients.

Background: The discipline of interventional pain management has changed significantly over the past decade with an expected greater evolution in the next decade. Not only have the number of procedures increased, some of the procedures that were created for spine surgeons are becoming more facile in the hands of the interventional pain physician. Such change has outpaced academic institutions, societies, and boards. When a pain physician is in the credentialing process for novel procedure privileges, it can leave the healthcare system in a challenging situation with little to base their decision upon. Methods: This paper was developed by a consensus working group from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience from various disciplines. The goal was to develop processes and resources to aid in the credentialing process. Results: These guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience provide background information to help facilities create a process to appropriately credential physicians on novel procedures. They are not intended to serve as a standard or legal precedent. Conclusion: This paper serves as a guide for facilities to credential physicians on novel procedures.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has evolved with various applications and durations of therapy. In recent years, extensive data has been developed on a 60-day treatment using a novel approach. Confusion exists on the use of a trial therapy, a permanent implant, and a 60-day duration treatment. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) seeks to clarify the literature associated with this neuromodulation approach. A diverse group of experts was nominated to provide opinions and guidance based on evidence-graded assessment and clinical knowledge. This guidance is the first to specifically assess the clinical use of 60-day PNS and best medical practice.

Dove Press is a member of the Open Access Initiative, specializing in peer reviewed Medical Journals. View articlesor submit your research for publishing