Interventional Pain Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Durable pain relief following basivertebral nerve ablation in patients with prior lumbar decompression: A retrospective case series","authors":"Emily Bellow,&nbsp;Derek Johnson,&nbsp;Sandi Bajrami,&nbsp;Jennifer Bae,&nbsp;William Caldwell","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100818","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100818","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Basivertebral nerve (BVN) ablation has emerged as a safe and effective treatment for vertebrogenic low back pain. However, patients with prior lumbar surgery were excluded from prior clinical trials, and BVN ablation outcomes in this patient population remain poorly characterized.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate clinical outcomes following BVN ablation in patients with a history of lumbar decompression surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective case series included 14 adult patients who underwent BVN ablation at our institution from November 2019 to January 2025. Patients were included if they had a history of prior lumbar decompressive surgery with at least one overlapping vertebral level between the surgical site and subsequent BVN ablation levels. Pain severity was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at baseline, 4–6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months post-procedure.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Mean (±SD) VAS decreased from 7.07 ± 2.24 at baseline to 4.43 ± 2.21 at 4–6 weeks, 3.71 ± 1.94 at 6 months, and 3.21 ± 1.89 at 12 months. The mean decrease in VAS from baseline was 3.86 ± 2.51 at 12 months. 12 patients (85.7%; 95% CI: 57.2%-98.2%) achieved a ≥ 2-point VAS decrease from baseline at 12 months, and 13 patients (92.9%; 95% CI: 66.1%-99.8%) reported functional improvement at 12 months. No vertebral compression fractures were observed during a mean (±SD) follow-up period of 3.29 ± 1.10 years.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In this 14-patient retrospective case series, BVN ablation was associated with sustained and clinically meaningful pain reduction in patients with prior lumbar decompression surgery. Our findings suggest that evaluation for a vertebrogenic pain component should be considered in patients with persistent pain after lumbar decompression, as appropriately selected patients may still benefit from BVN ablation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100818"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148951282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rethinking nonspecific low back pain: Evolving from an undifferentiated working diagnosis to precision spine care","authors":"Aditya Raghunandan,&nbsp;Aaron Conger,&nbsp;Zachary L. McCormick,&nbsp;Byron J. Schneider,&nbsp;Belinda Duszynski,&nbsp;W. Evan Rivers","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100821","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100821","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100821"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148951283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Risk of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications associated with continuation versus interruption of antithrombotic therapy for cervical transforaminal injections: A retrospective study","authors":"Audrey V. Adler,&nbsp;Daniel C. Persson,&nbsp;Christopher G. Leonardi,&nbsp;Cody S. Crandall,&nbsp;Jessica C. Garcia,&nbsp;William Tang,&nbsp;Akbar S. Nabi,&nbsp;Amanda N. Cooper,&nbsp;Katharine A. Smolinski,&nbsp;Zachary L. McCormick,&nbsp;Aaron M. Conger","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100820","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100820","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESI) and cervical selective nerve root blocks (CSNRB) are commonly performed for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radicular pain. Periprocedural management of antithrombotic therapy remains challenging, requiring a balance between the potential risk of hemorrhagic complications, particularly epidural hematoma, and the risk of thromboembolic complications associated with medication interruption. Although recent evidence suggests a low risk of hemorrhagic complications when antithrombotic therapy is continued during spinal procedures, data specific to cervical transforaminal injections remain limited.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To assess the incidence of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications at 0—30 days (primary outcome) and 31—90 days (secondary outcome) post-procedure among patients undergoing CTFESI and CSNRB who continued versus interrupted antithrombotic therapy prior to the procedure.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Retrospective chart review of consecutive patients who underwent fluoroscopically-guided CTFESI or CSNRB at a single tertiary academic institution.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 105 procedures from 95 patients met inclusion criteria. Antithrombotic therapy was continued in 25 procedures (23.8%) and interrupted in 80 procedures (76.2%). No hemorrhagic complications occurred in either group from 0 to 30 days (continued: 0/25, 0.0%, 95% CI 0.0—13.3; interrupted: 0/80, 0.0%, 95% CI 0.0—4.6; <em>p</em> = 1.000). Ischemic complications occurred from 0 to 30 days in 1 procedure in the continued group (1/25, 4.0%, 95% CI 0.7-19.5) and 2 procedures in the interrupted group (2/80, 2.5%, 95% CI 0.7-8.8; <em>p</em> = 0.562). No additional hemorrhagic or ischemic complications occurred between 31 and 90 days in either group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>No hemorrhagic complications were observed following cervical transforaminal injections when antithrombotic therapy was continued or interrupted, though 3 total ischemic events occurred. Due to the small sample size and low frequency of observed events, this study provides primarily descriptive data on adverse events rather than offering definitive evidence for procedure safety when continuing therapy or comparative ischemic risk between groups. Larger studies are needed to better characterize the risks associated with continuation versus interruption of antithrombotic therapy.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100820"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148951263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Perioperative management of spinal cord stimulators in patients undergoing non-SCS spine surgery: A retrospective cohort study","authors":"Ahmad R. Saleh,&nbsp;Emily Standage,&nbsp;Choopong Luansritisakul,&nbsp;Eileen Jin,&nbsp;Matthew Robert Smith,&nbsp;David Hao","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100823","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100823","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) use has expanded, so perioperative teams increasingly encounter these devices during unrelated spine surgery, where leads, anchors, and the generator may lie within or adjacent to the operative field. Real-world perioperative management of these devices remains uncharacterized.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To characterize documented perioperative SCS management in adults undergoing non-SCS spine surgery and to benchmark prespecified management elements against current practical guidance.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In this single-center retrospective pilot cohort study, we identified adults (≥18 years) with a previously implanted SCS who underwent non-SCS spine surgery between April 1, 2016, and March 22, 2026. Prespecified primary outcomes were alignment with (1) preoperative deactivation or surgery mode and (2) appropriate electrocautery management (bipolar only, or monopolar with the generator contralateral to the return pad). Secondary outcomes were device-related adverse events. Analyses were descriptive, using frequencies and Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty-eight surgical cases were included (mean age 59.2 [SD 13.8] years; 30 [51.7%] male; 42 [72.4%] instrumented fusion; all general anesthesia). Electrocautery was used in every case. Alignment with Element 1 was 13.8% (95% CI, 7.2 to 24.9) and to Element 2 was 43.1% (95% CI, 31.2 to 55.9); only 2 cases (3.4%; 95% CI, 1.0 to 11.7) met both. A perioperative plan was documented in 36.2% (95% CI, 25.1 to 49.1) and reactivation before discharge in 19.0% (95% CI, 10.9 to 30.9). Five cases (8.6%; 95% CI, 3.7 to 18.6) had an SCS-related adverse event, including one generator failure requiring replacement after monopolar cautery with an undocumented return-pad location.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Documented perioperative SCS management during non-SCS spine surgery was infrequent and fell short of current guidance in this pilot study, coexisting with a small but non-trivial rate of device-related adverse events. These gaps warrant prospective evaluation of structured protocols and defined pain-service engagement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100823"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148995336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Clinical outcomes after SPECT/CT-guided dual medial branch block and radiofrequency ablation for cervical and thoracic facet pain","authors":"Alex Reid,&nbsp;Masilan Sundara,&nbsp;Keith Polston,&nbsp;Lendrum Morrow,&nbsp;James Eubanks,&nbsp;Renee Rosati,&nbsp;Matthew Sherrier,&nbsp;Ameet Nagpal","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100819","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100819","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an established treatment for cervical and thoracic facet-mediated pain, but selecting the most appropriate treatment levels remains challenging. Single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) has been proposed as an adjunct imaging modality to identify metabolically active facet joints, though its relationship to clinical outcomes is not well defined.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To describe outcomes following SPECT/CT-guided dual MBB and RFA and to <strong>explore</strong> whether concordance between SPECT/CT findings and RFA target levels was associated with differences in pain and disability.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This retrospective single-center cohort included patients who underwent SPECT/CT imaging, dual diagnostic medial branch blocks, and subsequent RFA between January 2023 and May 2025. SPECT/CT imaging was ordered at the discretion of the treating physician, and the resulting cohort reflects patients selected for imaging as part of routine clinical care. Pain was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and disability using the Modified Oswestry Disability Index (MODI). Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was defined as a ≥34% reduction in NRS and a ≥17% reduction in MODI. An exploratory Fisher's Exact Test with exact odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used to compare MCID achievement between combined cohorts.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-two patients met inclusion criteria (cervical n = 16; thoracic n = 6). Subgroups were Concordant (n = 6), Partially Concordant (n = 6), Discordant (n = 3), and No Facet Uptake (n = 7). At first follow-up, 16/18 patients (89%) achieved MCID for NRS and 7/13 (54%) achieved MCID for MODI. The small sample size limited the ability to detect differences between concordance groups (NRS 80% vs 100%, p = 0.48; OR 0.00, 95% CI 0.00–6.62; MODI 62.5% vs 40%, p = 0.59; OR 2.32, 95% CI 0.16–44.94); these results are reported for descriptive purposes.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Clinically meaningful pain reduction following RFA was observed across all concordance categories. The study was not adequately powered to detect an association between SPECT/CT–RFA concordance and clinical outcomes. Observed point estimates and wide confidence intervals are reported for descriptive purposes. These preliminary findings suggest that SPECT/CT may serve as a complementary diagnostic tool within current interventional pain practice. Larger prospective studies with a non-SPECT/CT control arm are needed to further define its role in procedural planning and patient selection.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100819"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148951264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The association between patient- and procedure-related factors and patient-reported intraprocedural pain during fluoroscopically guided lumbar epidural injections: A real-world cohort study","authors":"Andrew R. Stephens,&nbsp;Hasan S. Sen,&nbsp;Timothy M. Curtis,&nbsp;Ali Arafat,&nbsp;Austin Le,&nbsp;Campbell Miller,&nbsp;Amanda N. Cooper,&nbsp;Zachary L. McCormick,&nbsp;Aaron Conger,&nbsp;Daniel M. Cushman","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100813","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100813","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Background&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Fluoroscopically guided lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are commonly performed to treat lumbar radicular pain. Intraprocedural pain is an important patient centered aspect of the procedural experience and may influence satisfaction, anxiety, and willingness to undergo repeat interventions. Although prior studies have suggested that interlaminar approaches may be less painful than transforaminal injections, the patient and procedure related factors associated with intraprocedural pain in routine clinical practice remain incompletely characterized.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Objective&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;1. To evaluate the association between patient- and procedure-related factors and intraprocedural pain during lumbar epidural steroid injections. 2. To compare intraprocedural pain between lumbar transforaminal epidural steroid injections (LTFESI), lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections (LIESI) and caudal epidural steroid injections.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Methods&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;This single-center observational cohort study analyzed consecutive adult patients who underwent fluoroscopically guided LTFESI, LIESI or caudal injections between February 2022 and June 2022. Pain scores were collected immediately before and after the procedure, with intraprocedural pain assessed using immediate recall. Scores were obtained by non-physician staff while the performing physician was not present. Demographic variables including age, sex, and body mass index were obtained through electronic medical record review. Multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations between patient- and procedure-related factors and intraprocedural pain scores.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;A total of 582 injections were performed. The mean intraprocedural pain score was 4.57 ± 2.79 on a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale. Increasing age was significantly associated with lower intraprocedural pain scores (β = −0.029; 95% CI −0.043 to −0.014; p &lt; 0.001), while male sex was associated with lower reported pain compared with female sex (β = −0.59; 95% CI −1.05 to −0.12; p = 0.013). Higher pre-procedure pain (β = 0.24; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.34; p &lt; 0.001) and greater injectate volume (β = 0.45; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.77; p = 0.007) were independently associated with higher intraprocedural pain after adjustment for injection approach and other covariates. In contrast, injection approach (LTFESI vs. LIESI vs. caudal ESI) itself was not associated with intraprocedural pain.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;In this real-world cohort, younger age, female sex, higher pre-procedure pain and higher injectate volume were associated with increased intraprocedural pain during fluoroscopically-guided lumbar ESIs. There were no differences in intraprocedural pain scores between LTFESI, LIESI, and caudal injections. These findings highlight the importance of considering patient-specific demographic factors when counseling patients and optimizing ","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100813"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148951281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reimagining pain procedural education through spatial education co-presence through recorded avatar (SPECTRA) lessons","authors":"Oranicha Jumreornvong,&nbsp;Ana Portilla,&nbsp;Jeniffer Rios Rojas,&nbsp;Rebecca Howard,&nbsp;Mina Girgis,&nbsp;John Rubin,&nbsp;Robert White,&nbsp;Rohan Jotwani","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100822","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100822","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100822"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148951284","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"International Pain and Spine Intervention Society Emergency Protocols: Advance Preparation for Emergencies","authors":"Fred DeFrancesch ,&nbsp;Kathryn Grace ,&nbsp;Mihir Joshi","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100777","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100777","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This review outlines the foundational requirements for safely managing medical emergencies during interventional pain procedures. It emphasizes staff preparedness, continuous patient monitoring, emergency response planning, transfer protocols, and the availability of essential crash cart equipment, medications, and airway supplies. The review highlights the importance of regular training, Basic Life Support/Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support competency, and systematic risk mitigation to optimize patient outcomes during unforeseen emergencies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 2","pages":"Article 100777"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148184426","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lumbar medial branch radiofrequency neurotomy in a patient with a leadless pacemaker: a case report","authors":"James Bruzzese,&nbsp;Lisa V. Doan","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100793","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100793","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Facet-mediated lumbar pain is commonly treated with radiofrequency neurotomy (RFN) following confirmatory medial branch blocks. Because RFN generates electrical current, concerns exist regarding electromagnetic interference (EMI) in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, particularly leadless pacemakers, for which limited procedural guidance is available.</div></div><div><h3>Case report</h3><div>We present the case of an 81-year-old man with chronic low back pain and a right ventricular leadless pacemaker (Medtronic Micra) who underwent lumbar RFN after successful diagnostic blocks. Pre-procedural electrophysiology evaluation confirmed he was not pacemaker dependent, and the device was interrogated without reprogramming. Bipolar lesioning was performed with continuous cardiac monitoring. The procedure was completed without complication, and post-procedural interrogation demonstrated normal device function. The patient reported significant pain relief at follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>This case highlights that lumbar RFN can be safely performed in patients with a leadless pacemaker when a multidisciplinary approach is utilized. Key considerations include confirmation of device type and pacemaker dependency, pre-procedural interrogation, use of bipolar lesioning to reduce EMI risk, and continuous peri-procedural monitoring. As leadless pacemakers become increasingly prevalent, further research is needed to guide specialty-specific recommendations for interventional pain procedures involving radiofrequency-based therapies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 2","pages":"Article 100793"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148231320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Contrast Spread into the Retrodural Space of Okada: Observations from Two Interlaminar Epidural Injections","authors":"Kathryn Slaughter MD ,&nbsp;Austin Thompson MD ,&nbsp;Adam Green DO ,&nbsp;Jayesh Vallabh MD","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100758","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.inpm.2026.100758","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"5 2","pages":"Article 100758"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148103673","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}