An Updated (2026) Best-Evidence Synthesis Appraisal of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Utility of Facet (Zygapophysial) Joint Injections in Chronic Spinal Pain.

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain physician Pub Date : 2026-06-01
Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Mark V Boswell, Mahendra R Sanapati, Alan D Kaye, Miles Day, Nebojsa Nick Knezevic, Mittal S Prajapati, Amol Soin, Annu Navani, Vidyasagar Pampati, Christopher G Gharibo, Devi Nampiaparampil, Vivek Manocha, Navneet Boddu, Sairam Atluri, Shalini Shah, Alexander Bautista, Vinita Singh, Joshua A Hirsch
{"title":"An Updated (2026) Best-Evidence Synthesis Appraisal of the Diagnostic Accuracy and Utility of Facet (Zygapophysial) Joint Injections in Chronic Spinal Pain.","authors":"Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Mark V Boswell, Mahendra R Sanapati, Alan D Kaye, Miles Day, Nebojsa Nick Knezevic, Mittal S Prajapati, Amol Soin, Annu Navani, Vidyasagar Pampati, Christopher G Gharibo, Devi Nampiaparampil, Vivek Manocha, Navneet Boddu, Sairam Atluri, Shalini Shah, Alexander Bautista, Vinita Singh, Joshua A Hirsch","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the leading causes of disability. The literature demonstrates that expenditures for low back and neck pain continue to rise, not only in parallel with increasing disability, but also with escalating healthcare costs, accounting for the highest spending among multiple disease categories. Based on current evidence utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks, facet joints, nerve root dura, and sacroiliac joints have been identified as potential sources of spinal pain.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks in chronic spinal pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) instrument. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the predefined inclusion criteria were included in the analysis.The strength of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Levels of evidence were classified using a modified best evidence synthesis, ranging from Level I to Level V.Data sources included relevant literature identified through PubMed and other electronic searches published from 1966 through September 2025, Cochrane reviews, and manual searches of the bibliographies of primary and review articles.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Eligible studies were required to use placebo-controlled or comparative local anesthetic blocks. A positive diagnostic standard was defined as at least 50% pain relief from baseline scores along with the ability to perform previously painful movements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The available evidence demonstrated Level I for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, based on 18 studies employing dual diagnostic blocks, demonstrating 75% to 80% pain relief, with an average prevalence of 16% to 45% and estimated or presumed false-positive rates of 25% to 50%.Evidence for the diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain using cervical facet joint nerve blocks is Level II, derived from 12 controlled diagnostic accuracy studies, showing substantial heterogeneity and internal inconsistency. Reported prevalence ranged from 36% to 67% with ≥ 80% pain relief and estimated or presumed false-positive rates of 26% to 63%.The level of evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is Level II, based on 3 studies using dual diagnostic blocks, demonstrating 80% or greater pain relief, with prevalence ranging from 34% to 48% and estimated or presumed false-positive rates ranging from 42% to 58%.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Limitations of this systematic review include the limited number of studies involving the thoracic spine, ongoing debate regarding the appropriate reference standard, challenges in determining false-positive rates, concerns regarding the appropriateness of diagnostic blocks, the scarcity of recent publications, and issues related to clinical utility.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is Level I evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and Level II evidence for cervical and thoracic facet joint nerve blocks in the evaluation of chronic spinal pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":"29 4S","pages":"S229-S271"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the leading causes of disability. The literature demonstrates that expenditures for low back and neck pain continue to rise, not only in parallel with increasing disability, but also with escalating healthcare costs, accounting for the highest spending among multiple disease categories. Based on current evidence utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks, facet joints, nerve root dura, and sacroiliac joints have been identified as potential sources of spinal pain.

Study design: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks.

Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of spinal facet joint nerve blocks in chronic spinal pain.

Methods: Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) instrument. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the predefined inclusion criteria were included in the analysis.The strength of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Levels of evidence were classified using a modified best evidence synthesis, ranging from Level I to Level V.Data sources included relevant literature identified through PubMed and other electronic searches published from 1966 through September 2025, Cochrane reviews, and manual searches of the bibliographies of primary and review articles.

Outcome measures: Eligible studies were required to use placebo-controlled or comparative local anesthetic blocks. A positive diagnostic standard was defined as at least 50% pain relief from baseline scores along with the ability to perform previously painful movements.

Results: The available evidence demonstrated Level I for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, based on 18 studies employing dual diagnostic blocks, demonstrating 75% to 80% pain relief, with an average prevalence of 16% to 45% and estimated or presumed false-positive rates of 25% to 50%.Evidence for the diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain using cervical facet joint nerve blocks is Level II, derived from 12 controlled diagnostic accuracy studies, showing substantial heterogeneity and internal inconsistency. Reported prevalence ranged from 36% to 67% with ≥ 80% pain relief and estimated or presumed false-positive rates of 26% to 63%.The level of evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is Level II, based on 3 studies using dual diagnostic blocks, demonstrating 80% or greater pain relief, with prevalence ranging from 34% to 48% and estimated or presumed false-positive rates ranging from 42% to 58%.

Limitations: Limitations of this systematic review include the limited number of studies involving the thoracic spine, ongoing debate regarding the appropriate reference standard, challenges in determining false-positive rates, concerns regarding the appropriateness of diagnostic blocks, the scarcity of recent publications, and issues related to clinical utility.

Conclusion: There is Level I evidence for the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and Level II evidence for cervical and thoracic facet joint nerve blocks in the evaluation of chronic spinal pain.

一个更新的(2026)最佳证据综合评价的诊断准确性和小面(关节突)关节注射在慢性脊柱疼痛的效用。
背景:慢性脊柱轴痛是致残的主要原因之一。文献表明,腰背部和颈部疼痛的支出持续上升,不仅与残疾人数的增加并行,而且与医疗保健费用的上升同步,在多种疾病类别中占最高的支出。基于目前使用控制诊断块的证据,小关节、神经根硬脑膜和骶髂关节已被确定为脊柱疼痛的潜在来源。研究设计:对脊髓小关节神经阻滞的诊断准确性进行系统回顾。目的:探讨脊髓小关节神经阻滞对慢性脊柱痛的诊断准确性。方法:采用可靠性研究质量评价(QAREL)工具对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评估。只有符合至少50%预定义纳入标准的诊断准确性研究才被纳入分析。使用推荐、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)标准对证据的强度进行分级。使用改进的最佳证据合成法对证据级别进行分类,从I级到v级。数据来源包括通过PubMed和其他电子检索确定的1966年至2025年9月发表的相关文献,Cochrane综述,以及手工检索主要和综述文章的参考书目。结果测量:符合条件的研究需要使用安慰剂对照或比较局部麻醉阻滞。阳性诊断标准定义为疼痛从基线评分中缓解至少50%,并有能力进行先前的疼痛运动。结果:基于18项采用双重诊断阻滞的研究,现有证据表明腰椎小关节神经阻滞的疗效为I级,显示疼痛缓解75%至80%,平均患病率为16%至45%,估计或推定假阳性率为25%至50%。使用颈椎小关节神经阻滞诊断颈椎小关节疼痛的证据是II级,来自12个对照诊断准确性研究,显示了大量的异质性和内部不一致性。报告的患病率为36%至67%,疼痛缓解≥80%,估计或推定的假阳性率为26%至63%。基于使用双诊断阻滞的3项研究,胸椎小关节神经阻滞的诊断准确性的证据水平为II级,显示80%或更高的疼痛缓解,患病率为34%至48%,估计或假定的假阳性率为42%至58%。局限性:本系统综述的局限性包括涉及胸椎的研究数量有限,关于适当参考标准的持续争论,确定假阳性率的挑战,对诊断块的适当性的关注,最近出版物的稀缺性以及与临床实用性相关的问题。结论:腰椎小关节神经阻滞诊断慢性脊柱疼痛的准确性为一级证据,颈胸椎小关节神经阻滞诊断慢性脊柱疼痛的准确性为二级证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书