The Effect of Sedation on Diagnostic Lumbar Medial Branch Blocks for Facetogenic Low Back Pain: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar medial branch blocks (MBB) are some of the most commonly performed pain procedures in the United States. Diagnostic MBBs are performed to confirm if the generator of low back pain is the facet joint. However, with diagnostic injections, false positive blocks may occur. OBJECTIVES:   Our prospective observational study aims to investigate the effects of midazolam sedation on patients' perceived intensity of pain relief following lumbar MBB. STUDY DESIGN: This is a single-center multi-site prospective observational study registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04453449). SETTING: The study was approved by the Henry Ford Health System Institutional Review Board (IRB) in June 2020 (IRB# 14010) and registered on clinicaltrials.gov in July 2020 (NCT04453449). This manuscript adheres to the applicable EQUATOR STROBE guidelines for an observational cohort study. METHODS: Patients that underwent MBB without sedation were compared to sedated patients. Patients were asked to complete the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline, one day after their diagnostic blocks, as well as 4 weeks and 8 weeks after their lumbar radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The primary outcome is the difference between baseline NRS pain scores and the lowest reported score in the 8 hours following MBB. For patients who proceed to RFA, the frequency of false positive blocks was evaluated. A patient was considered to have a false positive block when they failed to achieve 50% pain relief from RFA after 2 successful sequential MBBs. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the NRS pain score change between the sedated and non-sedated groups for diagnostic block one (P = 0.167) and diagnostic block 2 (P = 0.6145). There was no significant difference of false positive rates between non-sedation and sedation patients at 4-weeks post-RFA (P = 0.7178) and at 8-weeks post-RFA (P = 1.000). LIMITATIONS: Some of the limitations of this study include its nonrandomized design, patient self-reported pain scores, as well as the small variability in the injection technique of proceduralists and in the anatomical location of the injection site. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that midazolam did not change patients' perceived intensity of pain following MBB, as well as false positive rates after RFA. Larger studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.

Randomized Phase 3, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Prophylactic Gabapentin for the Reduction of Oral Mucositis Pain During the Treatment of Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to determine whether prophylactic gabapentin usage in patients undergoing definitive concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (chemoRT) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) improves treatment-related oral mucositis pain, opioid use, and feeding tube (FT) placement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This double-blind, randomized phase 3 study for patients with locally advanced OPC undergoing chemoRT randomly allocated patients to prophylactic gabapentin (600 mg thrice daily) or placebo. The primary endpoint was change in Patient-Reported Oral Mucositis Symptom (PROMS) scores over the entire treatment period (baseline to 6 weeks post-radiation therapy [RT] follow-up) with higher scores indicating worse outcomes. Opioid requirements, FT placement, and other patient-reported quality of life (QOL) metrics (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck [FACT-HN] and Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [PRO-CTCAE]) were assessed. Lower scores suggested poorer QOL with the FACT-HN questionnaire, and higher scores suggested worse outcomes with the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, weekly during RT, and at 6 weeks post-RT follow-up. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to detect differences in PROMS scores and change in opioid use from baseline. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare averages for the other secondary endpoints. A P value less than .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Treatment arms were well balanced overall, including T and N staging and dosimetric variables. There were 58 patients analyzed. No significant difference was found in PROMS scores (mean 29.1, standard deviation [SD] 22.5 vs 20.1, SD 16.8 for gabapentin vs placebo, respectively, P = .11). The FACT-HN functional well-being index had a significant decrease in scores from baseline to follow-up in the gabapentin arm (median -6, interquartile range [IQR] -10.0 to -0.5 vs -1, IQR -5.5 to 3.0, P = .03). PRO-CTCAE scores increased significantly at follow-up for gabapentin (median 6.5, IQR 3.5-11.8 vs 1, IQR -2.0 to 6.0, P = .01). There was no significant difference in average or change in opioid use. FT placement was significantly higher in the gabapentin arm (62.1% vs 20.7%, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that prophylactic gabapentin is not effective in improving treatment-related oral mucositis symptoms in a select population of patients with OPC undergoing definitive chemoRT.

Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study.

BACKGROUND: There is broad recognition of the importance of evidence in informing clinical decisions. When information from all studies included in a systematic review ("review") does not contribute to a meta-analysis, decision-makers can be frustrated. Our objectives were to use the field of eyes and vision as a case study and examine the extent to which authors of Cochrane reviews conducted meta-analyses for their review's pre-specified main outcome domain and the reasons that some otherwise eligible studies were not incorporated into meta-analyses. METHODS: We examined all completed systematic reviews published by Cochrane Eyes and Vision, as of August 11, 2017. We extracted information about each review's outcomes and, using an algorithm, categorized one outcome as its "main" outcome. We calculated the percentage of included studies incorporated into meta-analyses for any outcome and for the main outcome. We examined reasons for non-inclusion of studies into the meta-analysis for the main outcome. RESULTS: We identified 175 completed reviews, of which 125 reviews included two or more studies. Across these 125 reviews, the median proportions of studies incorporated into at least one meta-analysis for any outcome and for the main outcome were 74% (interquartile range [IQR] 0-100%) and 28% (IQR 0-71%), respectively. Fifty-one reviews (41%) could not conduct a meta-analysis for the main outcome, mostly because fewer than two included studies measured the outcome (21/51 reviews) or the specific measurements for the outcome were inconsistent (16/51 reviews). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome choice during systematic reviews can lead to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses. Core outcome sets and improved reporting of outcomes can help solve some of these problems.

Intrastromal corneal ring segments for treating keratoconus.

BACKGROUND: Keratoconus is a degenerative condition of the cornea that profoundly affects vision and vision-specific quality of life. The axial cornea thins and protrudes, resulting in irregularity and, eventually, scarring of the cornea. There are multiple options available for treating keratoconus. Intrastromal corneal ring segments are small, crescent-shaped plastic rings that are placed in the deep, peripheral corneal stroma in order to flatten the cornea. They are made of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). The procedure does not involve corneal tissue nor does it invade the central optical zone. Intrastromal corneal ring segments are approved for use when contact lenses or spectacles are no longer adequate. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intrastromal corneal ring segments as a treatment for keratoconus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS); ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We did not implement any date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 25 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently assessed records from the electronic searches to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Disagreements were resolved by discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned for two authors to independently review full-text reports, using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We found no RCTs comparing intrastromal corneal ring segments with spectacles or contact lenses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of eligible RCTs to review, no conclusions can be drawn.

Pathophysiology of Trigger Points in Myofascial Pain Syndrome.

Questions from patients about pain conditions and analgesic pharmacotherapy and responses from authors are presented to help educate patients and make them more effective self-advocates. Trigger point pathophysiology in myofascial pain syndrome, which involves muscle stiffness, tenderness, and pain that radiates to other areas of the body, is considered. The causes of trigger points and several theories about how they develop are reviewed, and treatment approaches, including stretching, physical therapy, dry needling, and injections, are offered.

The Risks of Chronic Corticosteroid Exposure.

Questions from patients about pain conditions and analgesic pharmacotherapy and responses from authors are presented to help educate patients and make them more effective self-advocates. This article focuses on the use of corticosteroids to decrease inflammation and treat painful conditions as well as their long-term side effects and risks. Their long-term use can expose the body to side effects and can cause long-term health concerns. It therefore is important to be aware of the risks of long-term corticosteroid use.