American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians.
Pain Physician. 2013 Apr;16(2 Suppl):S49-283.
To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain.
Systematic assessment of the literature.
I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events.
Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed.
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."
制定介入技术在慢性脊柱疼痛的诊断和治疗中的循证临床实践指南。
系统评估文献。
I. 腰椎 • 选择性神经根阻滞诊断准确性的证据有限,而腰椎激发性椎间盘造影的证据则是适度的。 • 腰椎关节突关节神经阻滞和骶髂关节内注射诊断的证据良好,以 75%至 100%的疼痛缓解为标准,与对照局部麻醉或安慰剂阻滞相比。 • 对于椎间盘突出症或神经根炎,经尾侧、椎间或经椎间孔硬膜外注射的证据良好;对于没有椎间盘突出症、神经根炎或关节突关节疼痛的轴向或椎间盘源性疼痛,经尾侧和椎间硬膜外注射的证据适度,经椎间孔硬膜外注射的证据有限;对于椎管狭窄症,经尾侧、椎间和经椎间孔硬膜外注射的证据适度;对于手术后综合征,经尾侧硬膜外注射的证据良好,经经椎间孔硬膜外注射的证据有限。 • 关节突关节介入治疗的证据良好,常规射频为良好,脉冲射频为适度,腰椎关节突关节神经阻滞为适度至良好,关节内注射为有限。 • 对于骶髂关节介入,冷却射频神经切断术的证据适度;关节内注射和关节周围注射的证据有限;脉冲射频和常规射频神经切断术的证据有限。 • 对于腰椎经皮粘连松解术,在管理术后综合征和椎管狭窄引起的慢性下腰痛和下肢疼痛方面,证据适度。 • 对于椎间盘内手术,椎间盘内电热疗法(IDET)和双髂骨成形术的证据有限,为适度至良好,椎间盘 TRODE 的证据有限。 • 对于经皮椎间盘减压术,自动经皮腰椎间盘切除术(APLD)、经皮腰椎激光椎间盘减压术和 Dekompressor 的证据有限;对于 CMS 发布非覆盖决定的髓核成形术,证据有限至适度。 II. 颈椎 • 颈椎激发性椎间盘造影的证据有限;而颈椎关节突关节神经阻滞的诊断准确性证据良好,以 75%或更高的缓解为标准,与对照诊断阻滞相比。 • 颈椎间盘突出症或神经根炎的颈椎间硬膜外注射的证据良好;对于轴向或椎间盘源性疼痛、椎管狭窄症和颈椎手术后综合征,证据适度。 • 颈椎关节突关节介入治疗的证据良好,对于常规颈椎射频神经切断术和颈椎内侧支阻滞,证据适度,对于颈椎关节内注射,证据有限。 III. 胸椎 • 胸椎激发性椎间盘造影的证据有限,而胸椎关节突关节神经阻滞的诊断准确性证据良好,以 75%或更高的缓解为标准,与对照诊断阻滞相比。 • 胸椎硬膜外注射治疗胸椎疼痛的证据适度。 • 胸椎关节突关节神经阻滞的治疗证据适度,射频神经切断术的证据有限,胸椎关节内注射的证据不可用。 IV. 植入物 • 脊髓刺激(SCS)在治疗失败的背部手术综合征(FBSS)患者中的证据适度,对于植入式鞘内药物管理系统,证据有限。 V. 抗凝 • 如果停止抗血栓治疗,存在血栓栓塞现象的高风险;如果停止抗凝治疗,无论是否有抗凝治疗,都会出现自发性硬膜外血肿,包括创伤性损伤和非创伤性损伤,华法林治疗可将国际标准化比值(INR)恢复正常;在进行介入技术之前,无需停止非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs),包括低剂量阿司匹林。 • 当继续抗血栓治疗时,证据适度,有过度出血的风险,包括硬膜外血肿形成,在进行介入技术之前,停止抗血小板治疗的证据适度,与停止抗血小板治疗相比,血栓栓塞现象的风险更高,继续磷酸二酯酶抑制剂(双嘧达莫、西洛他唑和阿加格雷)。 • 有有限的证据表明,为避免出血和硬膜外血肿,需要停止血小板聚集抑制剂的抗血小板治疗,并且为避免脑血管和心血管血栓栓塞性死亡,需要在介入技术期间继续抗血小板治疗(氯吡格雷、噻氯匹定、普拉格雷)。 • 关于新型抗血栓药物达比加群(Pradaxa)和利伐沙班(Xarelto),有有限的证据表明,为避免出血和硬膜外血肿,需要停药,在介入技术期间继续使用,以避免脑血管和心血管血栓栓塞事件。
诊断性干预的证据良好至适度占 62%,治疗性干预的证据良好至适度占 52%。
作者仅对本文内容负责。本文中的任何陈述均不应被解释为 ASIPP 的官方立场。本指南并不代表“标准护理”。