Systematic review of lumbar discography as a diagnostic test for chronic low back pain.

Chronic neck pain represents a significant public health problem. Despite high prevalence rates, there is a lack of consensus regarding the causes or treatments for this condition. Based on controlled evaluations, the cervical intervertebral discs, facet joints, and atlantoaxial joints have all been implicated as pain generators. Cervical provocation discography, which includes disc stimulation and morphological evaluation, is occasionally used to distinguish a painful disc from other potential sources of pain. Yet in the absence of validation and controlled outcome studies, the procedure remains mired in controversy. A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of cervical discography. To systematically evaluate and update the diagnostic accuracy of cervical discography. The available literature on cervical discography was reviewed. Methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. However, studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF).Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. A total of 41 manuscripts were considered for accuracy and utility of cervical discography in chronic neck pain. There were 23 studies evaluating accuracy of discography. There were 3 studies meeting inclusion criteria for assessing the accuracy and prevalence of discography, with a prevalence of 16% to 53%. Based on modified Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) accuracy evaluation and United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) level of evidence criteria, this systematic review indicates the strength of evidence is limited for the diagnostic accuracy of cervical discography. Limitations include a paucity of literature, poor methodological quality, and very few studies performed utilizing International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) criteria. There is limited evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of cervical discography. Nevertheless, in the absence of any other means to establish a relationship between pathology and symptoms, cervical provocation discography may be an important evaluation tool in certain contexts to identify a subset of patients with chronic neck pain secondary to intervertebral disc disorders. Based on the current systematic review, cervical provocation discography performed according to the IASP criteria with control disc(s), and a minimum provoked pain intensity of 7 of 10, or at least 70% reproduction of worst pain (i.e. worst spontaneous pain of 7 = 7 x 70% = 5), may be a useful tool for evaluating chronic pain and cervical disc abnormalities in a small proportion of patients.

Secular Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Efficacy and Neurobiology.

Lumbar facet joints are a well recognized source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity in patients with chronic low back pain. Conventional clinical features and other non-invasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. Controlled diagnostic studies have shown the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain in 27% to 40% of the patients with chronic low back pain without disc displacement or radiculitis, with a false-positive rate of 27% to 47% with a single diagnostic block. A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions. To determine the clinical utility of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions in managing chronic low back pain of facet joint origin. Review of the literature for clinical studies on efficacy and utility of facet joint interventions in diagnosing and managing facet joint pain was performed according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria for diagnostic studies and observational studies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials. Data sources included relevant literature of the English language identified through searches of Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2008 and manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Analysis results were performed for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions separately. The level of evidence was defined as Level I, II, or III with 3 subcategories in Level II based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for therapeutic interventions. For diagnostic interventions, studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. Pain relief was categorized as at least 80% pain relief from baseline pain and ability to perform previously painful movements. For therapeutic interventions, the primary outcome measure was pain relief with secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. For therapeutic interventions, short-term pain relief was defined as relief lasting 6 months or less and long-term relief as longer than 6 months. Based on USPSTF criteria, evidence showed Level I or II-1 for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. Based on the review of included therapeutic studies, Level II-1 to II-2 evidence was indicated for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with indicated level of evidence of Level II-2 to II-3 for lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy. The shortcoming of this systematic review of lumbar facet joint interventions is the paucity of published literature. The evidence for diagnosis of lumbar facet joint pain with controlled local anesthetic blocks is Level I or II-1. The indicated level of evidence for therapeutic lumbar facet joint interventions is Level II-1 or II-2 for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, Level II-2 or II-3 evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy, and Level III (limited) evidence for intraarticular injections.

ABSTRACTBackgroundLittle attention in the literature appears to have been paid to the issue of postoperative weight-bearing protocols for different injury patterns after pelvic fracture surgery. The primary aim of this study is to review the currently available literature to define the level of available evidence used to inform surgical decisions on weight-bearing after pelvic fracture surgery. Secondary aims are to assess the published methods of fracture classification, surgical management, and assessment or reporting of patient outcomes.MethodsA systematic review of the English language literature from 1990 to 2016 was undertaken. Eligible papers were all papers reporting minimum 6-month outcomes following surgery for pelvic fractures in adults. Exclusion criteria included pathological fractures or those resulting from penetrating injury, solely osteoporotic fractures, or series with less than 6 months of follow-up data.ResultsThere is very little published scientific data to inform the treating surgeon on postoperative weight-bearing protocols after pelvic fracture surgery, with no randomized trials and only 1 paper out of 122 stating this as a primary aim. More than half of the papers published did not state what postoperative protocol was employed. There is no standardization of outcome measures, with less than 20% of papers using the most common validated outcome scoring system; in contrast, there is good agreement on the use of either the Tile (75%) or Burgess and Young (20%) classification.LimitationsDue to the lack of published studies looking at the topic of postoperative weight-bearing after pelvic fractures, no specific recommendations are possible. As large numbers of papers were included, they were not individually assessed for bias.ConclusionA review of postoperative weight-bearing regimes reveals a nonexistent scientific evidence base from which to make recommendations, although a consensus strategy has been identified. Future research needs to be directed at this topic, as has already been the case in numerous other fracture areas, since the advantages of early mobility are potentially significant. The reported methodology for assessing and reporting patient outcomes after pelvic fracture surgery reveals no consistent standards, and the majority of papers use no specific outcome scoring system.How to cite this articleRickman M, Link B-C, Solomon LB. Patient Weight-bearing after Pelvic Fracture Surgery—A Systematic Review of the Literature: What is the Modern Evidence Base? Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2019;14(1):45–52.

Even though the prevalence of thoracic pain has been reported to be 13% of the general population and up to 22% of the population in interventional pain management settings, the role of thoracic discs as a cause of chronic thoracic and extrathoracic pain has not been well studied. The intervertebral discs, zygapophysial or facet joints, and other structures including the costovertebral and costotransverse joints have been identified as a source of thoracic pain. A systematic review of provocation thoracic discography. To systematically assess and update the quality of clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of provocation thoracic discography. A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic discography with respect to chronic, function limiting, thoracic or extrathoracic pain. The available literature on thoracic discography was reviewed. A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. The evidence and clinical value of thoracic provocation discography is limited (poor) with a paucity of evidence, with only 2 studies meeting inclusion criteria. The limitation of this study continues to be the paucity of literature. Based on the available evidence for this systematic review, due to limited evidence, thoracic provocation discography is rarely recommended for the diagnosis of discogenic pain in the thoracic spine, if conservative management has failed and facet joint pain has been excluded.

Background: Low back pain after either post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis in the absence of surgery is a vexing problem. Post lumbar surgery syndrome can occur in any age group, while low back and radicular pain from spinal stenosis is a disease of aging. As the population ages, the incidence of symptomatic spinal stenosis will increase. There are currently limited treatment options for either group. Further surgery is not uniformly effective in relieving pain after previous surgery. While therapies are being developed to treat pain due to spinal stenosis, no therapy other than adhesiolysis will treat pain due to scarring. Adhesiolysis was developed as a means of removing epidural scarring leading directly or indirectly to compression, inflammation, swelling, or a decreased nutritional supply of nerve roots. Adhesiolysis utilizes a number of modalities in the effort to break up epidural scarring, including the use of a wirebound catheter for mechanical adhesiolysis, placement of the catheter in the ventro-lateral aspect of the epidural space at the site of the exiting nerve root, and the use of high volumes of injectate, including local anesthetics and saline, either hypertonic or isotonic, along with steroids. Study Design: A systematic review of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. The severity of risks and adverse events associated with percutaneous adhesiolysis were also evaluated. Methods: The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis for the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief of at least 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, change in psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid use or interventions. Results: For this systematic review, 15 studies were identified and selected for review. Of these, 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Applying the USPSTF criteria, these studies indicate that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain caused by post lumbar surgery syndrome and that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/ or leg pain caused by spinal stenosis The incidence of complications from percutaneous adhesiolysis is low and the complications are generally minimal and self-limited. The procedure should be considered to be low risk for serious adverse events when performed by well-trained physicians. Limitations: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. Conclusion: In summary, there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. Key words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, leg pain, adhesiolysis, Racz procedure, post lumbar surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis

Background: Appropriately developed practice guidelines present statements of best practice based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence from published studies on the outcomes of treatments, which include the application of multiple methods for collecting and evaluating evidence for a wide range of clinical interventions and disciplines. However, the guidelines are neither infallible, nor a substitute for clinical judgment. While the guideline development process is a complex phenomenon, conflict of interest in guideline development and inappropriate methodologies must be avoided. It has been alleged that the guidelines by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) prevent injured workers from receiving the majority of medically necessary and appropriate interventional pain management services. An independent critical appraisal of both chapters of the ACOEM guidelines showed startling findings with a conclusion that these guidelines may not be applied in patient care as they scored below 30% in the majority of evaluations utilizing multiple standardized criteria. Objective: To reassess the evidence synthesis for the ACOEM guidelines for the low back pain and chronic pain chapters utilizing an expanded methodology, which includes the criteria included in the ACOEM guidelines with the addition of omitted literature and application of appropriate criteria. Methods: For reassessment, randomized trials were utilized as it was in the preparation of the guidelines. In this process, quality of evidence was assessed and recommendations were made based on grading recommendations of Guyatt et al. The level of evidence was determined utilizing the quality of evidence criteria developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), as well as the outdated quality of evidence criteria utilized by ACOEM in the guideline preparation. Methodologic quality of each individual article was assessed utilizing the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic assessment criteria for diagnostic interventions and Cochrane methodologic quality assessment criteria for therapeutic interventions. Results: The results of reassessment are vastly different from the conclusions derived by the ACOEM guidelines. The differences in strength of rating for the diagnosis of discogenic pain by provocation discography and facet joint pain by diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks is established with strong evidence. Therapeutic cervical and lumbar medial branch blocks and radiofrequency neurolysis, therapeutic thoracic medial branch blocks, cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections, caudal epidural steroid injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, percutaneous and endoscopic adhesiolysis, and spinal cord stimulation qualified for moderate to strong evidence. Additional insight is also provided for evidence rating for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET), automated percutaneous disc decompression, and intrathecal implantables. Conclusion: The reassessment and reevaluation of the low back and chronic pain chapters of the ACOEM guidelines present results that are vastly different from the published and proposed guidelines. Contrary to ACOEM’s conclusions of insufficient evidence for most interventional techniques, the results illustrate moderate to strong evidence for most diagnostic and therapeutic interventional techniques. Key words: Guidelines, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, ACOEM, interventional pain management, interventional techniques, guideline development, workers’ compensation, chronic pain guidelines, low back pain guidelines

Intradiscal electrothermal treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain: a prospective outcome study with minimum 1‐year follow‐up. (SOAR, Physiatry Medical Group, Menlo Park, CA) <i>Spine</i> 2000;25:2622–2627.

Dear Editor, Discogenic pain affects approximately 45% of patients suffering from chronic low back pain, and it is caused by chemical and mechanical changes of the intervertebral disc [1]. Many different minimally invasive techniques have been used for the treatment of this condition, with various results. We report the combination of intradiscal pulsed radiofrequency combined to gelified ethanol application for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. Pulsed radiofrequency mechanism of action has been well discussed [2,3]. Gelified ethanol is an implantable medical device in which an opaque agent in X-rays (the tungsten) was added [4,5]. The implant is administered within the affected intervertebral disc's nucleus pulposus, via a fine needle that is guided into the center of the disc, transdermally, under fluoroscopic guidance [4,5]. To our knowledge, this is the first report of the combination of the two methods via the same radiofrequency needle, for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain. The patients enrolled suffered from discogenic low back pain, refractory to conservative treatment and physiotherapy for at least 6 months, and reported concordant pain during provocative discography. Pain scores (numeric rating scale 0–10) and satisfaction rates (visual analogue scale 0–10, where 0: “worst” satisfaction and …

Systematic review. We sought to answer the following clinical questions: (1) Is structured exercise more effective in the treatment of chronic low back pain (LBP) than spinal manipulative therapy (SMT)? (2) Is structured exercise more effective in the treatment of chronic LBP than acupuncture? (3) Is SMT more effective in the treatment of chronic LBP than acupuncture? (4) Do certain subgroups respond more favorably to specific treatments? (5) Are any of these treatments more cost-effective than the others? Exercise, SMT, and acupuncture are widely used interventions in the treatment of chronic LBP. There is evidence that all of these approaches may offer some benefit for patients with chronic LBP when compared with usual care or no treatment. The relative benefits or cost-effectiveness of any one of these treatments when compared with the others are less well-defined, and it is difficult to identify specific subgroups of those with chronic LBP who may preferentially respond to a particular treatment modality. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify randomized controlled trials comparing a structured exercise program, SMT, or acupuncture with one another in patients with chronic LBP. Two studies were identified comparing the use of structured exercise with SMT that met our inclusion criteria. Although these studies utilized different approaches for the exercise and SMT treatment groups, patients in both groups improved in terms of pain and function in both studies. Using random-effects modeling, there was no difference between the exercise and SMT groups when the data from these studies were pooled. We identified no studies meeting our inclusion criteria that compared acupuncture with either structured exercise or SMT or that addressed the relative cost-effectiveness of these approaches in the treatment of patients with chronic LBP. The studies identified indicate that structured exercise and SMT appear to offer equivalent benefits in terms of pain and functional improvement for those with chronic LBP with clinical benefits evident within 8 weeks of care. However, the level of evidence is low. There is insufficient evidence to comment on the relative benefit of acupuncture compared with either structured exercise or SMT or to address the differential effects of structured exercise, SMT, or acupuncture for specific subgroups of individuals with chronic LBP. There is also insufficient evidence regarding the relative cost-effectiveness of structured exercise, SMT, or acupuncture in the treatment of chronic LBP. Structured exercise and SMT appear to offer equivalent benefits in the management of pain and function for patients with nonspecific chronic LBP. If no clinical benefit is appreciated after using one of these approaches for 8 weeks, then the treatment plan should be reevaluated and consideration should be given to modifying the treatment approach or using alternate forms of care. Strength of recommendation: Weak.There is insufficient evidence regarding the relative benefits of the acupuncture compared with either structured exercise or SMT in the treatment of chronic LBP.There is insufficient evidence to address differential effects of structured exercise, SMT, or acupuncture for specific subgroups of individuals with chronic LBP. There is insufficient evidence regarding the relative cost-effectiveness of structured exercise, SMT, or acupuncture in the treatment of chronic LBP.

Although the association of chronic pain (CP) with a poor work-life balance has been well studied, the interaction effect of multiple pain sites on work-life balance is unknown. To evaluate the most prevalent CP site among healthcare workers, the demographic characteristics of the individuals with the predominant pain type, and to assess the interaction of multiple pain sites on work-life balance. Using data from the National Health Interview Survey, 2,458 healthcare works were identified for this study. The independent variables were chronic low back and hip pain. The dependent variables were (1) if pain affected their family or significant other, (2) if pain limited their life or work activities, and (3) Usually working >35 hours/week. Multiple logistic regression and an interaction analysis were used to analyze the impact of different pain sites on work-life balance. Among healthcare workers, chronic low back pain was more prevalent than chronic hip pain (69.4% vs 61.4%, p-value<0.001). Respondents with chronic low back pain were mostly 40 - 64 years of age (49.6%), females (71.2%), white (77.6%), married (55.5%), had no college degree (85.4%), earn greater than $75,000 (50.0%). In the interaction analysis, in the presence of chronic hip pain, those with chronic low back pain had an AOR of 2.20 (1.05 - 4.64), p-value 0.038 of chronic low back pain affecting their family and significant others, and an AOR of 2.18 (1.17- 4.05), p-value 0.014 of chronic low back pain affecting their life or work. Chronic low back pain was more prevalent than chronic hip pain among healthcare workers. Together both pain sites had a significant impact on the work-life balance of this population. Further studies should assess other dimensions of work-life balance and chronic pain.

SAT0438 Postural control in individuals with and without non-specific chronic low back pain: A comparative study

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global burden with an unknown etiology. Reorganization of the cortical representation of paraspinal muscles in the primary motor cortex (M1) may be related to the pathology. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), commonly used to map the functional organization of M1, is not potent enough to stimulate the cortical maps of paraspinal muscles in M1 in CLBP patients with reduced corticospinal excitability (CSE) with intensities even as high as maximum stimulator output (100% MSO). This makes TMS mapping impractical for these patients. The aim of this study was to increase the practicality of TMS mapping for people with CLBP. This study included eight men and ten women who had CLBP for over three months. A biphasic paired-pulse TMS paradigm, conjunct anticipatory postural adjustment (APA), and maximal voluntary activation of paraspinal muscles (MVC) were used to facilitate TMS mapping. TMS mapping was possible in all CLBP participants, with TMS intensities <50% of the MSO. Reorganization in terms of an anterior and lateral shift of the center of gravity (COG) of the cortical maps of paraspinal muscles was observed in all participants with CLBP, and a reduced number of discrete peaks was found in 33%. The facilitation of the CSE to paraspinal muscles makes TMS mapping more practical and tolerable in people with CLBP, lowering the risk of seizure and discomfort associated with high-intensity TMS pulses. Conventional transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) brain mapping is not optimal for patients with Chronic low back pain (CLBP).Paired-pulse TMS dramatically lessens the energy needed for brain mapping.Maximal voluntary contraction of back muscles facilitates TMS mapping.Anticipatory postural activity of back muscles enhances the efficacy of TMS mapping. Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a social, emotional, and economic burden and the leading cause of disability worldwide. Yet the etiology of the CLBP is unknown. The persistence of aberrant or antalgic movement patterns observed in people with CLBP has been suggested as a possible cause of pain chronification by inducing continuous damage to sensitive structures of the lumbar spine. It is well known that the brain is in charge of the production and planning of movements, so it is likely that abnormal movement patterns also stem from the abnormalities in the brain. However, until recently, human knowledge about the structure and function of the brain has been very limited. The invention of noninvasive and painless brain imaging and stimulating techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during the last decades has augmented our knowledge about the structure and function of the brain. Modification in terms of shift, shrinkage, or expansion of areas of the brain devoted to movement control or sensation of the back muscles has been documented in CLBP via these techniques, which are argued to relate to pain chronification but need further clarification. Yet monitoring the course of CLBP via TMS, despite its many potentials, is challenging. This could be due to the reduced cortical drive to back muscles in CLBP patients and the small area devoted to control of back muscles in the brain in general that increases the brain threshold to TMS in people with CLBP. The aim of this study was to tailor an approach to make TMS more applicable for CLBP patients by reducing the threshold to TMS. This could be achieved by engaging back muscles in anticipatory postural activity in combination with maximal voluntary activation of these muscles, along with TMS paradigms that induce intracortical facilitation.

Background: Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis are interventional pain management techniques used to treat patients with refractory low back pain due to epidural scarring. Standard epidural steroid injections are often ineffective, especially in patients with prior back surgery. Adhesions in the epidural space can prevent the flow of medicine to the target area; lysis of these adhesions can improve the delivery of medication to the affected areas, potentially improving the therapeutic efficacy of the injected medications. Study Design: A systematic review utilizing the methodologic quality criteria of the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group for randomized trials and the criteria established by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) for evaluation of randomized and non-randomized trials. Objective: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain due to radiculopathy, with or without prior lumbar surgery, since the 2005 systematic review. Methods: Basic search identified the relevant literature, in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and BioMed databases (November 2004 to September 2006). Manual searches of bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and abstracts from scientific meetings within the last 2 years were reviewed. Randomized and non-randomized studies are included in the review based on criteria established. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and endoscopic adhesiolysis are analyzed separately. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was significant pain relief (50% or greater). Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, and return to work. Short-term relief was defined as less than 3 months, and long-term relief was defined as 3 months or longer. Results: Studies regarding the treatment of epidural adhesions for the treatment of low back and lower extremity pain were sought and reviewed. The evidence from the previous systematic review was combined with new studies since November 2004. There is strong evidence for short term and moderate evidence for long term effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy. Conclusion: Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy may be effective interventions to treat low back and lower extremity pain caused by epidural adhesions. Key Words: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, percutaneous adhesiolysis, spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, spinal stenosis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, epidural fibrosis, epidural adhesions, caudal neuroplasty.

There is ongoing controversy regarding the validity of controlled diagnostic blocks due to variability in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Consequently, identification of false-positive rates, false-negative rates, and placebo responses is crucial. The reasons described for false-positive responses to diagnostic anesthetic blocks are many; however, sedation and psychological factors have been implied as causes. Further, there is no consensus with regards to sedation prior to controlled diagnostic blocks and their influence on the accuracy and validity of a diagnosis. A systematic review of the literature evaluating the influence of sedation on diagnostic spinal interventional techniques. To systematically assess the quality of clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of controlled diagnostic blocks in the diagnosis of chronic spinal pain. A comprehensive evaluation of the literature relating to sedation in diagnostic interventional techniques was performed. The methodologic quality assessment of the studies was carried out by utilizing Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) methodologic quality criteria with scores of 50 or higher included in the assessment of the level of evidence. Level of evidence was based on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for the assessment of accuracy of diagnostic studies. All 3 of the studies were produced by one group of authors. Thus paucity of the literature on the subject of facet joint pain and the lack of literature on the subjects of discogenic pain and sacroiliac joint pain are major limitations. Three studies were identified which met inclusion and methodologic assessment quality criteria. Sedation can be a confounding factor in a small population of patients specifically if fentanyl is employed and non-stringent criteria are followed. Based on the 3 randomized double-blind trials with stringent criteria utilizing 80% pain relief and the ability to perform prior painful movements without any significant pain following the diagnostic injection in evaluation of facet joint pain, the indicated evidence is Level II-1. This systematic review provides no significant evidence of the influence of sedation either with midazolam or fentanyl in the evaluation of cervical and lumbar facet joint pain with controlled cervical and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with an indicated evidence of Level II-1, with application of stringent criteria of at least 80% pain relief and the ability to perform previously painful movements after the diagnostic blocks.