Interventional Pain Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Assessment of real-world, prospective outcomes in patients treated with cervical radiofrequency ablation for chronic pain (RAPID)","authors":"David A. Provenzano ,&nbsp;Bradley Holt ,&nbsp;Michael Danko ,&nbsp;Joseph Atallah ,&nbsp;Maaz Iqbal ,&nbsp;Binit Shah ,&nbsp;Albert Singh ,&nbsp;Harsh Sachdeva ,&nbsp;Ella Ver Donck ,&nbsp;Bart Liebrand ,&nbsp;Erik Shaw ,&nbsp;Sherri Haas ,&nbsp;Rajat Sekhar ,&nbsp;Ann Pan ,&nbsp;Daniel S. Halperin ,&nbsp;Edward Goldberg","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100623","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100623","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Cervical facet joint syndrome (CFJS) is a common cause of chronic neck pain. While numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for facetogenic pain, its use in treating CFJS remains a subject of ongoing debate.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Here, we sought to evaluate real-world clinical outcomes in cervical RFA-treated patients with chronic cervical facetogenic pain.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The RAPID study (<span><span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> identifier: NCT04673032) is an international, multicenter, prospective study of patients using a commercially-available radiofrequency ablation system for the treatment of chronic pain, provided per standard of care. Patients were monitored at study follow-up visits (1-, 3-. 6-, 12-, and 24-months post-index procedure). Key clinical endpoint measures collected and evaluated include numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (functional disability, ODI), EQ-5D-5L (quality-of-life), and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 56 patients were enrolled in this cervical facetogenic pain cohort. At both 6 (n = 49) and 12 months (n = 40), mean NPRS pain scores significantly decreased from a baseline of 6.0 ± 1.9 to 3.3 ± 2.8 and 3.3 ± 2.2, respectively (p &lt; 0.0001). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores also improved, dropping by 7.9- and 9.7-points from a baseline of 32.7 (p &lt; 0.0001). Treatment response rates (≥50 % pain relief) were 81 % at 1 month and 80 % at 12 months. Improvements in quality-of-life (EQ-5D-5L) and self-reported change (PGIC) were also consistently observed.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The cervical RFA cohort in the RAPID study demonstrated consistent, clinically meaningful improvements in pain, function, quality-of-life, and treatment satisfaction across all follow-up visits, underscoring the real-world effectiveness of RFA for appropriately selected patients with cervical facetogenic pain.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100623"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144888861","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A systematic review of evidence comparing spinal cord stimulation to sham or conservative medical management in the treatment of persistent spinal pain syndrome - Type 2","authors":"Allison Glinka Przybysz ,&nbsp;To-Nhu Vu ,&nbsp;Andrew J.B. Pisansky ,&nbsp;Nathaniel M. Schuster ,&nbsp;Samir Sheth ,&nbsp;David S. Cheng ,&nbsp;Steven M. Lobel ,&nbsp;Danielle Binler ,&nbsp;Belinda Duszynski ,&nbsp;Aaron Conger ,&nbsp;Byron J. Schneider ,&nbsp;Ryan Mattie","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100635","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100635","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To assess the effectiveness of dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in treating persistent spinal pain syndrome — Type 2 (PSPS-T2).</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Systematic review.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>PICOS (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Studies) criteria were developed to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining dorsal column stimulation for PSPS-T2 compared to conventional medical management or sham. Eight reviewers independently assessed publications through April 2025 and utilized the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Outcomes included measures of pain, function, quality of life, and adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of the 1988 publications initially screened, six publications were included, comprising a total of 448 participants, of which 257 were randomized to an SCS trial and 220 ultimately received SCS implants. Follow-up periods for the primary endpoints varied across the studies, ranging from 1 month to 2 years. For studies reporting success rates for achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain, responder rates spanned from 14% to 80% in the tonic SCS groups, compared with 3%–20% for CMM. The mean improvement in pain levels between 1 month and 6 months varied between 16% and 48% for tonic SCS, 16 and 17% for burst SCS, −15% and 16% for CMM, and 10 and 16% for sham. The mean improvement in function at six months ranged from 21 to 45% for the tonic SCS group, compared with 0–21% for CMM. Adverse events reported in these studies included lead migration (10–14%), IPG site pain (1–12%), infection (6.9–10%), and dural puncture (6%). Cochrane risk of bias assessments revealed low risks for one-third of the included studies, while some concerns were noted for over half of the studies. According to the GRADE system, based on the available RCTs, there is moderate-quality evidence overall that SCS is clinically effective in reducing pain and disability in patients with PSPS-T2 at 6 months.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion/conclusion</h3><div>Substantial proportions of patients achieved ≥50% relief at 6 months following tonic SCS when compared with CMM, demonstrating clinical effectiveness. Significant improvements in function and quality of life were observed at study endpoints ranging from 3 to 24 months following tonic SCS. No studies included in this review utilized newer and potentially more effective SCS technologies such as closed loop, high frequency, or multiple waveform SCS. The only sham-controlled study included did not demonstrate efficacy of burst SCS. Adverse event rates, including infection and implant site pain, varied significantly between studies, with the newer and older studies representing the lower and upper ends of these ranges, respectively.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100635"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144886662","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Advancing the diagnosis and treatment of posterior ligamentous complex inflammatory syndrome (PLCIS) in chronic axial low back pain","authors":"Javier De Andrés Ares MD PhD FIPP","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100629","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100629","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100629"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144886661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessing the availability, readability, and content of online patient Education materials for cancer pain interventions: A cross-sectional analysis of major cancer center websites","authors":"Meha Aggarwal ,&nbsp;Marshall Yuan ,&nbsp;David Hao","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100633","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100633","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>As cancer survival improves, chronic cancer-related pain is an increasing clinical concern. Interventional procedures offer targeted, opioid-sparing pain relief, yet the quality and readability of online educational materials about these options remain poorly understood.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the availability, quality, and readability of online educational resources on interventional cancer pain management available from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 65 NCI-designated clinical cancer center websites to identify patient-facing content discussing interventional cancer pain procedures. Eligible materials were evaluated for quality using the DISCERN instrument and for readability using seven validated metrics. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Statistical comparisons were performed using t-tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Only 20 of 65 cancer center websites (31%) contained relevant educational materials. Sixty qualifying texts were identified: 28 full articles and 32 substantial mentions (≥50 words). The mean DISCERN score was 37 ± 9, indicating poor quality. Articles scored significantly higher than substantial mentions (mean difference 9.4 points, p &lt; 0.001). The ICC for DISCERN scores was 0.872 (p &lt; 0.001), reflecting good inter-rater agreement. Readability analysis revealed an average reading level equivalent to the 11th grade across all metrics, significantly higher than the NIH-recommended 8th-grade level (p &lt; 0.001). Substantial mentions were significantly more difficult to read than articles (p &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Online materials on cancer pain interventions are generally scarce, low in quality, and written above nationally recommended reading levels. These findings highlight the need for cancer centers to improve online education materials using plain language and health literacy tools to better support informed decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100633"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144878769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Where are advanced interventional pain procedures happening?","authors":"Sandy Christiansen ,&nbsp;Rosa Garcia ,&nbsp;Daniel A. Jimenez ,&nbsp;Shauna Rakshe","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100631","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100631","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>An unprecedented volume of interventional procedures has entered the pain medicine market, including many “advanced” interventional pain procedures. Given the rapid influx, there is concern that there is discordance between what is taught in pain medicine fellowship programs and done in post-graduate practice.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The goal of the study was to compare sales volumes of advanced procedure devices in academic versus non-academic practice settings to better understand the status quo of procedural practice patterns. This information will be critical to establish a baseline understanding of where advanced pain procedures are happening for future comparison.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This cross-sectional observational study examines relative percentages of industry-reported device sales to academic versus non-academic practices from January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 in predefined regions of the United States. The data were tabulated and reported as means with corresponding ranges.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Six companies, representing nine distinct interventional pain procedures, certified the requested data. The region with the lowest relative mean device sales at academic institutions was the West (10 %) and the highest was the Northeast (22 %). The procedure with the lowest relative mean sales at academic institutions was dorsal root ganglion stimulation (4 %) and the highest was vertebral body cooled radiofrequency for bone tumors (30 %).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study highlights the difference between the relative percentage sales of advanced procedure devices in non-academic versus academic institutions, favoring non-academic sites of service. Yet, for each reported pain procedure, there were device sales in academic settings for almost all regions. It will be essential to continue to monitor how academic procedural training compares to post-graduate practice realities to tailor future educational offerings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100631"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144866835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"“Is this injection going to hurt?” Quantifying the pain experience during common lumbosacral spine injections","authors":"Asher Smuek ,&nbsp;Rishi Bakshi ,&nbsp;Romeo Mays ,&nbsp;Lisa Huynh ,&nbsp;Joshua Levin ,&nbsp;Joshua Rittenberg ,&nbsp;Matthew Smuck","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100632","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100632","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>“Is this injection going to hurt?” Physicians typically answer this from experience since accurate answers are not available in the literature.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To quantify pain during common lumbosacral spine injections and compare to baseline pain prior to the injections. Analyze differences based on demographic and procedure variables.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This is a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from a multicenter trial of patients undergoing bilateral symmetric transforaminal epidural (TFE), facet joint (FJ), or sacroiliac joint (SIJ) injections. Numeric pain ratings (0-10) were obtained at baseline in preop (“What is your current pain?”) and for each injection procedure (“How much did this injection hurt from start to finish?”) first on the right side then the left. Between group comparisons used Chi-squared and ANOVA for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. T-tests compared various pain responses, and multivariate regression determined factors associated with higher procedure pain.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From 244 injections (124 TFE, 60 FJ, 60 SIJ) on 122 consecutive patients (mean age 57.2, 50 % female), age and BMI did not differ between injection groups while sex did (p = 0.001) with more FJ males and SIJ females. Mean baseline pain was statistically equivalent between demographic and injection groups. Mean procedure pain was consistently higher than mean baseline pain, however this difference was small and non-significant for TFE (4.0 vs 3.8) and FJ (3.9 vs 3.3), but larger and significant for SIJ (5.3 vs. 3.6; p = 0.0001). In the multivariate regression analysis only 2 variables remained associated with higher procedure pain, older age (p &lt; 0.0001) and SIJ injection group (p = 0.0021).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The majority of patients (79.1 %) report mild or moderate pain during common lumbosacral spine injections. The average procedure pain of 4.3 on the NPRS scale was only 0.7 points higher than baseline pain recorded in pre-op. Procedure pain from TFE and FJ injections is statistically equivalent to baseline pain and to each other, while SIJ injections produce higher procedure pain with a significant +1.7 point mean increase in pain from baseline. Finally, older adults report significantly greater procedure pain compared to those under 65 years old.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100632"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144866834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Authors' response to the letter to the editor on “Tendon modification with percutaneous ultrasound-guided tenotomy using TENEX®: A histological and macroscopic analysis of a bovine cadaveric model.”","authors":"Sayed E. Wahezi ,&nbsp;Ugur Yener ,&nbsp;Suwannika Palee","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100626","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100626","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100626"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144842108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reassessing the risks of Cervical Transforaminal Epidural Steroid Injections (CTFESI)","authors":"Clark C. Smith MD, MPH","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100625","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100625","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100625"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144842127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Safety and effectiveness of basivertebral nerve ablation in patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia: A real-world study","authors":"Emily Bellow,&nbsp;Derek Johnson,&nbsp;Sandi Bajrami,&nbsp;William Caldwell","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100624","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100624","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The Intracept procedure was the first FDA-cleared technique for basivertebral nerve ablation, a minimally invasive treatment for vertebrogenic chronic low back pain. While prior studies support its effectiveness, data in patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia remains limited.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of basivertebral nerve ablation with a specific focus on pain reduction, functional improvement, and the incidence of post-procedure vertebral compression fractures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients who underwent the Intracept procedure at our institution from November 2019 to January 2025. Bone density status was categorized using available DEXA scans. Patients were stratified into a Reduced Bone Density group (N = 32), consisting of 23 patients with osteopenia and 9 with osteoporosis, and the overall cohort (N = 134). Pain severity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at baseline and at the 4–6-week post-procedure follow-up visit, and functional improvement was determined based on patient-reported outcomes at the same time point. Post-procedure complications, including vertebral compression fractures, were monitored until the most recent available follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A significant decrease in VAS was observed for the overall cohort (7.04 vs. 3.78, p &lt; 0.001) and the Reduced Bone Density group (6.75 vs. 4.13, p &lt; 0.001). Functional improvement was reported by 79.1 % of patients in the overall study population and 78.1 % of patients in the Reduced Bone Density group. No post-procedure vertebral compression fractures were observed in the entire cohort, with a mean follow-up length of 18.07 months.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The Intracept procedure demonstrated significant pain reduction and functional improvement in the overall cohort and in patients with reduced bone density. Notably, no post-procedure vertebral compression fractures were observed, even in patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia. These findings contribute to the growing body of independent literature supporting the safety and effectiveness of the Intracept procedure and offer real-world insight into its use in patients with reduced bone density.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100624"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144842107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Perioperative considerations for peripheral nerve stimulation devices: A practical guide","authors":"Stefani M. Schwartz MD,&nbsp;David Hao MD","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100628","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100628","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100628"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144809611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}