Radiation safety and knowledge: an international survey of 708 interventional pain physicians.

INTRODUCTION: Interventional pain procedures have increased in complexity, often requiring longer radiation exposure times and subsequently higher doses. The practicing physician requires an in-depth knowledge and evidence-based knowledge of radiation safety to limit the health risks to themselves, patients and healthcare staff. The objective of this study was to examine current radiation safety practices and knowledge among interventional pain physicians and compare them to evidence-based recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 49-question survey was developed based on an extensive review of national and international guidelines on radiation safety. The survey was web-based and distributed through the following professional organizations: Association of Pain Program Directors, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, European Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Therapy, International Neuromodulation Society, and North American Neuromodulation Society. Responses to radiation safety practices and knowledge questions were evaluated and compared with evidence-based recommendations. An exploratory data analysis examined associations with radiation safety training/education, geographical location, practice type, self-perceived understanding, and fellowship experience. RESULTS: Of 708 responding physicians, 93% reported concern over the health effects of radiation, while only 63% had ever received radiation safety training/education. Overall, ≥80% physician compliance with evidence-based radiation safety practice recommendations was demonstrated for only 2/15 survey questions. Physician knowledge of radiation safety principles was low, with 0/10 survey questions having correct response rates ≥80%. CONCLUSION: We have identified deficiencies in the implementation of evidence-based practices and knowledge gaps in radiation safety. Further education and training are warranted for both fellowship training and postgraduate medical practice. The substantial gaps identified should be addressed to better protect physicians, staff and patients from unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation during interventional pain procedures.

Clinical and economic strategies in outpatient medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant clinical and economic consequences for medical practices of all specialties across the nation. Although the clinical implications are of the utmost importance, the economic consequences have also been serious and resulted in substantial damage to the US healthcare system, including pain practices. Outpatient pain practices have had to significantly change their clinical care pathways, including the incorporation of telemedicine. Elective medical and interventional care has been postponed. For the most part, ambulatory surgical centers have had to cease operations. As patient volumes have decreased for non-emergent elective care, the financial indicators have deteriorated. This review article will provide insight into solutions to mitigate the clinical and economic challenges induced by COVID-19. Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic will have short-term and long-term implications for all medical practices and facilities. In order to survive, medical practices will need dynamic, operational, and creative strategic plans to mitigate the disruption in medical care and pathways for successful reintegration of clinical and surgical practice.

Consensus practice guidelines on interventions for lumbar facet joint pain from a multispecialty, international working group.

BACKGROUND: The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of lumbar facet blocks and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to treat low back pain (LBP), yet nearly all aspects of the procedures remain controversial. METHODS: After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, letters were sent to a dozen pain societies, as well as representatives from the US Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense. A steering committee was convened to select preliminary questions, which were revised by the full committee. Questions were assigned to 4-5 person modules, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and Committee Chair on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee. We used a modified Delphi method, whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chair, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. RESULTS: 17 questions were selected for guideline development, with 100% consensus achieved by committee members on all topics. All societies except for one approved every recommendation, with one society dissenting on two questions (number of blocks and cut-off for a positive block before RFA), but approving the document. Specific questions that were addressed included the value of history and physical examination in selecting patients for blocks, the value of imaging in patient selection, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for block performance, the diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks (MBB) and intra-articular (IA) injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for a prognostic block, how many blocks should be performed before RFA, how electrodes should be oriented, the evidence for larger lesions, whether stimulation should be used before RFA, ways to mitigate complications, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and clinical trials and the evidence for repeating RFA (see table 12 for summary). CONCLUSIONS: Lumbar medial branch RFA may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with MBB being more predictive than IA injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of more false-negatives. Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation at 10 kHz for the Treatment of Combined Neck and Arm Pain: Results From a Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Intractable neck and upper limb pain has historically been challenging to treat with conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) being limited by obtaining effective paresthesia coverage. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of the 10-kHz SCS system, a paresthesia-independent therapy, in the treatment of neck and upper limb pain. METHODS: Subjects with chronic, intractable neck and/or upper limb pain of ≥5 cm (on a 0-10 cm visual analog scale [VAS]) were enrolled in 6 US centers following an investigational device exemption from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and institutional review board approval. Each subject was implanted with 2 epidural leads spanning C2-C6 vertebral bodies. Subjects with successful trial stimulation were implanted with a Senza® system (Nevro Corp) and included in the evaluation of the primary safety and effectiveness endpoints. RESULTS: In the per protocol population, the primary endpoint (≥50% pain relief at 3 mo) was achieved in 86.7% (n = 39/45) subjects. Compared to baseline, subjects reported a significant reduction (P < .001) in their mean (± standard error of the mean) VAS scores at 12-mo assessment for neck pain (7.6 ± 0.2 cm, n = 42 vs 1.5 ± 0.3 cm, n = 37) and upper limb pain (7.1 ± 0.3 cm, n = 24 vs 1.0 ± 0.2 cm, n = 20). At 12-mo assessment, 89.2% of subjects with neck pain and 95.0% with upper limb pain had ≥50% pain relief from baseline, 95.0% reported to be "satisfied/very satisfied" and 30.0% either eliminated or reduced their opioid intake. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, 10-kHz SCS can treat intractable neck and upper limb pain with stable long-term outcomes.

A proposed definition of remission from chronic pain, based on retrospective evaluation of 24-month outcomes with spinal cord stimulation.

Objective: In the treatment of chronic diseases, remission is commonly used as a meaningful treatment goal, synonymous with the absence of significant clinical signs and symptoms of a disease, but not representing a cure. The objective of this paper is to propose a definition for remission for use as an outcome to evaluate the long-term efficacy of therapies for chronic pain. Methods: Data from a randomized clinical trial (NCT01609972) testing the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in low back and leg pain subjects was used to evaluate the association between pain and functional outcomes and identify the cut-off value to predict remission. Available data over 24-month assessment period included visual analog score (VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), patient and clinician global impression of change (PGIC and CGIC), and patient satisfaction. Cluster analysis, Pearson's correlation coefficients, sensitivity, and specificity analyses were used to evaluate its utility in predicting higher patient functionality and satisfaction. Results: Though the term remission has been used in the chronic pain field, a consistent definition has not been previously established. Based on the analysis of the clinical data, we propose that a sustained (≥6 months) pain score of ≤3.0 cm out of 10 cm on VAS be defined as remission. Applying this definition to the clinical trial data: subjects in remission at 24 months versus non-remitters were significantly more likely to be in the highest functional category of minimally disabled according to the ODI (31.5 vs. 8.2%, respectively, p = 0.001), and be 'very satisfied' (75.7 vs 22.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The validity of the proposed definition of remission is supported by the persistence of remission in this study group, and its correspondence with patient satisfaction, and reduced disability. Further evaluation of the definition using clinical data from other long-term studies is needed.

Long-term quality of life improvement for chronic intractable back and leg pain patients using spinal cord stimulation: 12-month results from the SENZA-RCT.

PURPOSE: Chronic axial low-back pain is a debilitating disorder that impacts all aspects of an afflicted individual's life. Effective, durable treatments have historically been elusive. Interventional therapies, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS), have shown limited efficacy at best. Recently, a novel treatment, 10 kHz SCS, has demonstrated superior pain relief compared with traditional SCS in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In this manuscript, we report on the long-term improvements in quality of life (QoL) outcomes for subjects enrolled in this study. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-RCT) was conducted. Patients with both chronic back and leg pain were enrolled and randomized (1:1) into 10 kHz SCS or traditional SCS treatment groups. A total of 171 subjects received a permanent SCS device implant. QoL and functionality measures were collected up to 12 months. The device remote control utilization, which is an indication of patient interaction with the device for adjustments, was collected at 24-month post-implantation. RESULTS: At 12 months, a higher proportion of 10 kHz SCS subjects had marked improvement of their disability (Oswestry Disability Index) to a "moderate" or "minimal" impact on their daily function versus the control group. The subjects also reported better improvement in the Global Assessment of Functioning, Clinician Global Impression of Change, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, compared to traditional SCS subjects. The 10 kHz SCS subjects also reported far higher rates of both driving and sleeping with their device turned on, as well as reduced reliance on their programmers to adjust therapy settings. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to superior pain relief, 10 kHz SCS provides long-term improvements in quality of life and functionality for subjects with chronic low-back and leg pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01609972).

Best Practices in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

STUDY DESIGN: A review of clinical best practices for spinal cord stimulation (SCS). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to summarize published and evidence based guidelines with regards to utilizing SCS, including patient selection, disease indication, perioperative management, complication mitigation strategies, and device selection. Additional focus has been provided on quality care to individual patients by acknowledging the importance of durable outcomes and care delivery costs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: For more than 30 years, SCS has successfully alleviated patient suffering and enhanced the lives of patients with refractory pain conditions. Prospective studies of SCS have consistently demonstrated benefits through reduction of pain, improvement in function, and reduced healthcare expenditures in select patient diagnosis groups. Although the benefits of SCS are well-supported, the clinical application of this therapy varies widely based on physician training and experience, regional clinical practice variations, and insurance coverage. METHODS: This article provides a summary of published studies, case reports, evidence-based guidelines and expert consensus, with the intent of increasing physician competency and enhancing patient care through improved clinical outcomes. RESULTS: A guide to SCS implantation, appropriate patient selection, ranked recommendations for diseases that may most benefit for SCS treatment, complication mitigation strategies, and finally, indications for choosing the most efficacious modality of SCS therapy for specific patients and pain conditions. CONCLUSION: Although SCS has been shown to be safe and effective for a number of pain conditions, emerging SCS modalities promise even greater efficacy over traditional SCS. To achieve this promise, physicians must carefully select and manage their patients and the SCS device. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N\A.

Paresthesia-Independence: An Assessment of Technical Factors Related to 10 kHz Paresthesia-Free Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been successfully used to treat chronic intractable pain for over 40 years. Successful clinical application of SCS is presumed to be generally dependent on maximizing paresthesia-pain overlap; critical to achieving this is positioning of the stimulation field at the physiologic midline. Recently, the necessity of paresthesia for achieving effective relief in SCS has been challenged by the introduction of 10 kHz paresthesia-free stimulation. In a large, prospective, randomized controlled pivotal trial, HF10 therapy was demonstrated to be statistically and clinically superior to paresthesia-based SCS in the treatment of severe chronic low back and leg pain. HF10 therapy, unlike traditional paresthesia-based SCS, requires no paresthesia to be experienced by the patient, nor does it require paresthesia mapping at any point during lead implant or post-operative programming. OBJECTIVES: To determine if pain relief was related to technical factors of paresthesia, we measured and analyzed the paresthesia responses of patients successfully using HF10 therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, non-controlled interventional study. SETTING: Outpatient pain clinic at 10 centers across the US and Italy. METHODS: Patients with both back and leg pain already implanted with an HF10 therapy device for up to 24 months were included in this multicenter study. Patients provided pain scores prior to and after using HF10 therapy. Each patient's most efficacious HF10 therapy stimulation program was temporarily modified to a low frequency (LF; 60 Hz), wide pulse width (~470 mus), paresthesia-generating program. On a human body diagram, patients drew the locations of their chronic intractable pain and, with the modified program activated, all regions where they experienced LF paresthesia. Paresthesia and pain drawings were then analyzed to estimate the correlation of pain relief outcomes to overlap of pain by paresthesia, and the mediolateral distribution of paresthesia (as a surrogate of physiologic midline lead positioning). RESULTS: A total of 61 patients participated across 11 centers. Twenty-eight men and 33 women with a mean age of 56 ± 12 years of age participated in the study. The average duration of implantable pulse generator (IPG) implant was 19 ± 9 months. The average predominant pain score, as measured on a 0 - 10 visual analog scale (VAS), prior to HF10 therapy was 7.8 ± 1.3 and at time of testing was 2.5 ± 2.1, yielding an average pain relief of 70 ± 24%. For all patients, the mean paresthesia coverage of pain was 21 ± 28%, with 43% of patients having zero paresthesia coverage of pain. Analysis revealed no correlation between percentage of LF paresthesia overlap of predominant pain and HF10 therapy efficacy (P = 0.56). Exact mediolateral positioning of the stimulation electrodes was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of pain relief outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized/non-controlled study design; short-term evaluation; certain technical factors not investigated. CONCLUSION: Both paresthesia concordance with pain and precise midline positioning of the stimulation contacts appear to be inconsequential technical factors for successful HF10 therapy application. These results suggest that HF10 therapy is not only paresthesia-free, but may be paresthesia-independent.

Evidence Gaps in the Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treating Chronic Spine Conditions.

STUDY DESIGN: A review of literature. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to define and explore the current evidence gaps in the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treating chronic spine conditions. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although over the last 40 years SCS therapy has undergone significant technological advancements, evidence gaps still exist. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to define current evidence gaps for the use of SCS. Areas of focus included 1) treatment of cervical spine conditions, 2) treatment of lumbar spine conditions, 3) technological advancement and device selection, 4) appropriate patient selection, 5) the ability to curb pharmacological treatment, and 6) methods to prolong efficacy over time. New SCS strategies using advanced waveforms are explored. RESULTS: The efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of traditional SCS for chronic pain conditions are well-established. Evidence gaps do exist. Recently, advancement in waveforms and programming parameters have allowed for paresthesia-reduced/free stimulation that in specific clinical areas may improve clinical outcomes. New waveforms such as 10-kHz high-frequency have resulted in an improvement in back coverage. To date, clinical efficacy data are more prevalent for the treatment of painful conditions originating from the lumbar spine in comparison to the cervical spine. CONCLUSION: Evidence gaps still exist that require appropriate study designs with long-term follow-up to better define and improve the use of this therapy for the treatment of chronic spine pain in both the cervical and lumbar regions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Comparison of 10-kHz High-Frequency and Traditional Low-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: 24-Month Results From a Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has focused historically on paresthesias overlapping chronically painful areas. A higher level evidence supports the use of SCS in treating leg pain than supports back pain, as it is difficult to achieve adequate paresthesia coverage, and then pain relief, in the low back region. In comparison, 10-kHz high-frequency (HF10 therapy) SCS therapy does not rely on intraoperative paresthesia mapping and remains paresthesia-free during therapy. OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term results of HF10 therapy and traditional low-frequency SCS. METHODS: A pragmatic randomized, controlled, pivotal trial with 24-month follow-up was conducted across 11 comprehensive pain treatment centers. Subjects had Visual Analog Scale scores of ≥5.0/10.0 cm for both back and leg pain, and were assigned randomly (1:1) to receive HF10 therapy or low-frequency SCS. The primary end point was a responder rate, defined as ≥50% back pain reduction from baseline at 3 months with a secondary end point at 12 months (previously reported). In this article, 24-month secondary results are presented. Non-inferiority was first assessed, and if demonstrated the results were tested for superiority. RESULTS: In the study, 198 subjects were randomized (101 HF10 therapy, 97 traditional SCS). One hundred seventy-one subjects (90 HF10 therapy, 81 traditional SCS) successfully completed a short-term trial and were implanted. Subjects averaged 54.9 ± 12.9 years old, 13.6 ± 11.3 years since diagnosis, 86.6% had back surgery, 88.3% were taking opioid analgesics. At 3 months, 84.5% of implanted HF10 therapy subjects were responders for back pain and 83.1% for leg pain, and 43.8% of traditional SCS subjects were responders for back pain and 55.5% for leg pain (P < .001 for both back and leg pain comparisons, non-inferiority and superiority). At 24 months, more subjects were responders to HF10 therapy than traditional SCS (back pain: 76.5% vs 49.3%; 27.2% difference, 95% CI, 10.1%-41.8%; P < .001 for non-inferiority and superiority; leg pain: 72.9% vs 49.3%; 23.6% difference, 95% CI, 5.9%-38.6%; P < .001 for non-inferiority and P = .003 for superiority). Also at 24 months, back pain decreased to a greater degree with HF10 therapy (66.9% ± 31.8%) than traditional SCS (41.1% ± 36.8%, P < .001 for non-inferiority and superiority). Leg pain also decreased to a greater degree with HF10 therapy (65.1% ± 36.0%) than traditional SCS (46.0% ± 40.4%, P < .001 for non-inferiority and P = .002 for superiority). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates long-term superiority of HF10 therapy compared with traditional SCS in treating both back and leg pain. The advantages of HF10 therapy are anticipated to impact the management of chronic pain patients substantially. ABBREVIATIONS: IPG, implantable pulse generatorMCID, minimal clinically important differencePI, permanent implantODI, Oswestry Disability IndexSCS, spinal cord stimulationVAS, Visual Analog Scale.

Novel 10-kHz High-frequency Therapy (HF10 Therapy) Is Superior to Traditional Low-frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: The SENZA-RCT Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for chronic pain have limited effectiveness and commonly known side effects. Given the prevalence and burden of intractable pain, additional therapeutic approaches are desired. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivered at 10 kHz (as in HF10 therapy) may provide pain relief without the paresthesias typical of traditional low-frequency SCS. The objective of this randomized, parallel-arm, noninferiority study was to compare long-term safety and efficacy of SCS therapies in patients with back and leg pain. METHODS: A total of 198 subjects with both back and leg pain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a treatment group across 10 comprehensive pain treatment centers. Of these, 171 passed a temporary trial and were implanted with an SCS system. Responders (the primary outcome) were defined as having 50% or greater back pain reduction with no stimulation-related neurological deficit. RESULTS: At 3 months, 84.5% of implanted HF10 therapy subjects were responders for back pain and 83.1% for leg pain, and 43.8% of traditional SCS subjects were responders for back pain and 55.5% for leg pain (P < 0.001 for both back and leg pain comparisons). The relative ratio for responders was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.5) for back pain and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9) for leg pain. The superiority of HF10 therapy over traditional SCS for leg and back pain was sustained through 12 months (P < 0.001). HF10 therapy subjects did not experience paresthesias. CONCLUSION: HF10 therapy promises to substantially impact the management of back and leg pain with broad applicability to patients, physicians, and payers.

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference--2012: recommendations to reduce morbidity and mortality in intrathecal drug delivery in the treatment of chronic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted intrathecal drug infusion to treat moderate to severe chronic pain has become a standard part of treatment algorithms when more conservative options fail. This therapy is well established in the literature, has shown efficacy, and is an important tool for the treatment of both cancer and noncancer pain; however, it has become clear in recent years that intrathecal drug delivery is associated with risks for serious morbidity and mortality. METHODS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference is a meeting of experienced implanting physicians who strive to improve care in those receiving implantable devices. Employing data generated through an extensive literature search combined with clinical experience, this work group formulated recommendations regarding awareness, education, and mitigation of the morbidity and mortality associated with intrathecal therapy to establish best practices for targeted intrathecal drug delivery systems. RESULTS: Best practices for improved patient care and outcomes with targeted intrathecal infusion are recommended to minimize the risk of morbidity and mortality. Areas of focus include respiratory depression, infection, granuloma, device-related complications, endocrinopathies, and human error. Specific guidance is given with each of these issues and the general use of the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted intrathecal drug delivery systems are associated with risks for morbidity and mortality that can be devastating. The panel has given guidance to treating physicians and healthcare providers to reduce the incidence of these problems and to improve outcomes when problems occur.

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference 2012: recommendations for the management of pain by intrathecal (intraspinal) drug delivery: report of an interdisciplinary expert panel.

INTRODUCTION: The use of intrathecal (IT) infusion of analgesic medications to treat patients with chronic refractory pain has increased since its inception in the 1980s, and the need for clinical research in IT therapy is ongoing. The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) panel of experts convened in 2000, 2003, and 2007 to make recommendations on the rational use of IT analgesics based on preclinical and clinical literature and clinical experiences. METHODS: The PACC panel convened again in 2011 to update the standard of care for IT therapies to reflect current knowledge gleaned from literature and clinical experience. A thorough literature search was performed, and information from this search was provided to panel members. Analysis of published literature was coupled with the clinical experience of panel members to form recommendations regarding the use of IT analgesics to treat chronic pain. RESULTS: After a review of literature published from 2007 to 2011 and discussions of clinical experience, the panel created updated algorithms for the rational use of IT medications for the treatment of neuropathic pain and nociceptive pain. CONCLUSIONS: The advent of new algorithmic tracks for neuropathic and nociceptive pain is an important step in improving patient care. The panel encourages continued research and development, including the development of new drugs, devices, and safety recommendations to improve the care of patients with chronic pain.

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference--2012: consensus on diagnosis, detection, and treatment of catheter-tip granulomas (inflammatory masses).

INTRODUCTION: Continuous intrathecal infusion of drugs to treat chronic pain and spasticity has become a standard part of the algorithm of care. The use of opioids has been associated with noninfectious inflammatory masses at the tip of the intrathecal catheter, which can result in neurologic complications. METHODS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference is a meeting of a group of well-published and experienced practitioners; the purpose of the meeting is to update the standard of care for intrathecal therapies to reflect current knowledge gleaned from literature and clinical experience. An exhaustive literature search was performed, and information from this search was provided to panel members. Analysis of the published literature was coupled with the clinical experience of panel participants to form recommendations regarding intrathecal inflammatory masses or granulomas. RESULTS: The panel has made recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of intrathecal granulomas. CONCLUSION: The use of chronic infusions of intrathecal opioids is associated with the formation of inflammatory masses at the intrathecal catheter tip in a small minority of treated patients. Nonetheless, the appearance of these space-occupying lesions can lead to devastating neurologic sequelae. The prevention, early detection, and successful treatment of intraspinal granulomas are important considerations when offering intrathecal drug therapy to patients with chronic intractable pain.

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference--2012: recommendations on trialing for intrathecal (intraspinal) drug delivery: report of an interdisciplinary expert panel.

INTRODUCTION: Trialing for intrathecal pump placement is an essential part of the decision-making process in placing a permanent device. In both the United States and the international community, the proper method for trialing is ill defined. METHODS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) is a group of well-published experienced practitioners who meet to update the state of care for intrathecal therapies on the basis of current knowledge in the literature and clinical experience. Anexhaustive search is performed to create a base of information that the panel considers when making recommendations for best clinical practices. This literature, coupled with clinical experience, is the basis for recommendations and for identification of gaps in the base of knowledge regarding trialing for intrathecal pump placement. RESULTS: The panel has made recommendations for the proper methods of trialing for long-term intrathecal drug delivery. CONCLUSION: The use of intrathecal drug delivery is an important part of the treatment algorithm for moderate to severe chronic pain. It has become common practice to perform a temporary neuroaxial infusion before permanent device implantation. On the basis of current knowledge, the PACC has developed recommendations to improve care. The need to update these recommendations will be very important as new literature is published.

Profiles of pain in Mississippi: results from the Southern Pain Prevalence Study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence, intensity, frequency, and origins of pain in Mississippi residents and explore the social and cultural aspects of pain and pain management by measuring the impacts of pain on everyday life as well as respondents' beliefs and attitudes toward pain. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of Mississippi adults. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Data from previous population surveys and clinical studies indicate that pain is a pervasive part of everyday life. The prevalence, intensity and frequency of reported pain is substantial throughout these studies. The literature documents large and profound consequences of pain both for individual lives and for society. The data also suggest that beliefs and attitudes rooted in the social and cultural context of society may help explain how pain is managed or endured. METHODS: Telephone interviews with a representative sample (random digit dialing) of 604 Mississippi adults were conducted utilizing a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. The cooperation rate was 94.8% (5.2 % refusal). The Code of Standards and Ethics for Survey Research rate was 67.4% and the maximum sampling error was +/- 4.0% (95% confidence interval). The Mississippi survey data represent a subset of the data obtained in the six-state Southern Pain Prevalence Study. RESULTS: The pain prevalence rate was estimated to be 37% of the overall Mississippi sample: 9% of the sample reported severe pain on at least a monthly basis; 16% reported moderate pain; and 12% reported mild pain. Among those reporting pain, a majority (52%) experienced pain on a daily basis. The most commonly reported origins of pain were back pain (49%), leg and knee pain (41%), and shoulder.and arm pain (20%). Respondents also reported that both moderate and severe pain had substantial negative impacts on multiple facets of everyday life, including interference with sleep (84%), recreational/leisure activities (78%), ability to work (68%), sexual relations (43%), and relationships with others (36%). Mental health impacts for respondents with moderate to severe pain on at least a monthly basis included increased feelings of anxiety (66%), self-reported depression (63%), and loneliness (46%). When responding to questions regarding beliefs and attitudes about pain and pain management, the majority of respondents (62%) considered pain to be a normal part of everyday life. Many respondents felt that medicine should be saved until the pain becomes worse (55%), and a substantial number of respondents felt that good patients do not complain about pain to their doctors (22%). CONCLUSIONS: This study expands the body of knowledge about the prevalence of pain in Mississippi, suggesting that approximately one-third of the state's adults are affected by pain on at least a monthly basis. Most of this pain is moderate to severe and quite frequent--occurring daily for the majority of pain sufferers. The study also illuminates social and cultural dimensions of pain, revealing that a) the presence of pain negatively affects almost every facet of life, from sleep and work to relationships, leisure activities, and mental health, and b) respondents attitudes and beliefs are often at variance with modern approaches to pain management. Knowledge gained could have critical implications for understanding patients and the treatment of pain.