cohen s, dohi t, munjupong s, qian c, chalermkitpanit p, pannangpetch p, noragrai k, wang e, williams k, christo p, euasobhon p, ross j, sivanesan e, ukritchon s, tontisirin n

The use of sedation during interventional procedures has continued to rise resulting in increased costs, complications and reduced validity during diagnostic injections, prompting a search for alternatives. Virtual reality (VR) has been shown to reduce pain and anxiety during painful procedures, but no studies have compared it to a control and active comparator for a pain-alleviating procedure. The main objective of this study was to determine whether VR reduces procedure-related pain and other outcomes for epidural steroid injections (ESI)

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 146 patients undergoing an ESI at 6 hospitals in Thailand and the United States. Patients were allocated to receive immersive VR with local anesthetic, sedation with midazolam and fentanyl plus local anesthetic, or local anesthetic alone. The primary outcome was procedure-related pain recorded on a 0-10 scale. Other immediate-term outcome measures were pain from a standardized subcutaneous skin wheal, procedure-related anxiety, ability to communicate, satisfaction, and time to discharge. Intermediate-term outcome measures at 4 weeks included back and leg pain scores, function, and success defined as a ≥2-point decrease in average leg pain coupled with a score ≥5/7 on a Patient Global Impression of Change scale

Procedure-related pain scores with both VR (mean 3.7 (SD 2.5)) and sedation (mean 3.2 (SD 3.0)) were lower compared to control (mean 5.2 (SD 3.1); mean differences −1.5 (−2.7, −0.4) and −2.1 (−3.3, −0.9), respectively), but VR and sedation scores did not significantly differ (mean difference 0.5 (−0.6, 1.7)). Among secondary outcomes, communication was decreased in the sedation group (mean 3.7 (SD 0.9)) compared to the VR group (mean 4.1 (SD 0.5); mean difference 0.4 (0.1, 0.6)), but neither VR nor sedation was different than control. The trends favoring sedation and VR over control for procedure-related anxiety and satisfaction were not statistically significant. Post-procedural recovery time was longer for the sedation group compared to both VR and control groups. There were no meaningful intermediate-term differences between groups except that medication reduction was lowest in the control group.

Steven P. Cohen, Tina L. Doshi, COL Sithapan Munjupong, CeCe Qian, Pornpan Chalermkitpanit, Patt Pannangpetch, Kamolporn Noragrai, Eric J. Wang, Kayode A. Williams, Paul J. Christo, Pramote Euasobhon, Jason Ross, Eellan Sivanesan, Supak Ukritchon, Nuj Tontisirin. Multicenter, randomized, controlled comparative-effectiveness study comparing virtual reality to sedation and standard local anesthetic for pain and anxiety during epidural steroid injections. The Lancet Regional Health Southeast Asia.2024 Volume27:100437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lansea.2024.10043; ISSN 2772-3682.

Knotkova H, Hamani C, Sivanesan E, Elgueta Le Beuffe MF, Moon JY, Cohen SP, Huntoon MA

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

Knotkova, H., Hamani, C., Sivanesan, E., Elgueta Le Beuffe, M., Youn Moon, J., Cohen, S., & Huntoon, M. (2021). Neuromodulation for chronic pain. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00794-7

Fitzcharles MA, Cohen SP, Clauw DJ, Littlejohn G, Usui C, Häuser W

Nociplastic pain is the semantic term suggested by the international community of pain researchers to describe a third category of pain that is mechanistically distinct from nociceptive pain, which is caused by ongoing inflammation and damage of tissues, and neuropathic pain, which is caused by nerve damage. The mechanisms that underlie this type of pain are not entirely understood, but it is thought that augmented CNS pain and sensory processing and altered pain modulation play prominent roles. The symptoms observed in nociplastic pain include multifocal pain that is more widespread or intense, or both, than would be expected given the amount of identifiable tissue or nerve damage, as well as other CNS-derived symptoms, such as fatigue, sleep, memory, and mood problems. This type of pain can occur in isolation, as often occurs in conditions such as fibromyalgia or tension-type headache, or as part of a mixed-pain state in combination with ongoing nociceptive or neuropathic pain, as might occur in chronic low back pain. It is important to recognize this type of pain, since it will respond to different therapies than nociceptive pain, with a decreased responsiveness to peripherally directed therapies such as anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids, surgery, or injections.

Fitzcharles MA, Cohen SP, Clauw DJ, Littlejohn G, Usui C, Häuser W. (2021). Nociplastic Pain: Towards an Understanding of Prevalent Pain Conditions. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00392-5

Cohen S, Vase L, Hooten W

Chronic pain exerts an enormous personal and economic burden, affecting more than 30% of people worldwide according to some studies. Unlike acute pain, which carries survival value, chronic pain might be best considered to be a disease, with treatment (eg, to be active despite the pain) and psychological (eg, pain acceptance and optimism as goals) implications. Pain can be categorized as nociceptive (from tissue injury), neuropathic (from nerve injury), or nociplastic (from a sensitized nervous system), all of which affect work-up and treatment decisions at every level; however, in practice there is considerable overlap in the different types of pain mechanisms within and between patients, so many experts consider pain classification as a continuum. The biopsychosocial model of pain presents physical symptoms as the denouement of a dynamic interaction between biological, psychological, and social factors. Although it is widely known that pain can cause psychological distress and sleep problems, many medical practitioners do not realize that these associations are bidirectional. While predisposing factors and consequences of chronic pain are well known, the flipside is that factors promoting resilience, such as emotional support systems and good health, can promote healing and reduce pain chronification. Quality of life indicators and neuroplastic changes might also be reversible with adequate pain management. Clinical trials and guidelines typically recommend a personalized multimodal, interdisciplinary treatment approach, which might include pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, integrative treatments, and invasive procedures.

Cohen SP, Vase L, Hooten WM. (2021). Chronic Pain: An Update on Burden, Best Practices, and New Advances. Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00393-7