A Systematic Literature Review of Spine Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. METHODS: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. RESULTS: The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. CONCLUSIONS: MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

Safeguards to prevent neurologic complications after epidural steroid injections: consensus opinions from a multidisciplinary working group and national organizations.

BACKGROUND: Epidural corticosteroid injections are a common treatment for radicular pain caused by intervertebral disc herniations, spinal stenosis, and other disorders. Although rare, catastrophic neurologic injuries, including stroke and spinal cord injury, have occurred with these injections. METHODS: A collaboration was undertaken between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Safe Use Initiative, an expert multidisciplinary working group, and 13 specialty stakeholder societies. The goal of this collaboration was to review the existing evidence regarding neurologic complications associated with epidural corticosteroid injections and produce consensus procedural clinical considerations aimed at enhancing the safety of these injections. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Safe Use Initiative representatives helped convene and facilitate meetings without actively participating in the deliberations or decision-making process. RESULTS: Seventeen clinical considerations aimed at improving safety were produced by the stakeholder societies. Specific clinical considerations for performing transforaminal and interlaminar injections, including the use of nonparticulate steroid, anatomic considerations, and use of radiographic guidance are given along with the existing scientific evidence for each clinical consideration. CONCLUSION: Adherence to specific recommended practices when performing epidural corticosteroid injections should lead to a reduction in the incidence of neurologic injuries.

Long-term outcomes during treatment of chronic pain with intrathecal clonidine or clonidine/opioid combinations.

To evaluate the effectiveness of intrathecal clonidine or clonidine/opioid admixture for the treatment of chronic pain states, a retrospective chart audit of 15 patients seen by the Pain Medicine and Neurosurgical Services was performed. Subjects included 9 men and 6 women aged 26-86 years. Diagnoses included complex regional pain syndrome, neuropathic pain, and cancer pain. All patients received a trial of single-shot and/or short-term infusion of clonidine. Those reporting a significant reduction in pain, or at least 50% reduction in their visual analog scale (VAS), received long-term therapy. Intrathecal clonidine as a single-shot dose, infusion, or as intrathecal polytherapy did not improve VAS scales from pre-treatment values in 5 patients. Ten patients reported significant pain relief or >50% decrease in VAS scores with the initial trial and received long-term therapy. Two received clonidine alone for 7-11 months before the therapy failed; others failed after just a few days. Seven of eight initially responded to clonidine alone (75-950 microg/day) before failing and requiring a second drug. Three received hydromorphone (200-8000 microg/day) and four morphine (0.15-15 mg/day) with clonidine. Four patients then failed 2-drug therapy (duration 6-21 months). Two continue with intrathecal clonidine/hydromorphone (duration 19-29 months) and 1 with clonidine/morphine (duration 21 months). After initiation of intrathecal clonidine, one patient reported good relief with clonidine/morphine until his death 5 months later. In this population, intrathecal clonidine was of limited utility for most patients. It may be of benefit for subset(s) of patients, but in our experience, duration of relief is typically <18 months.

Applying the ASRA guidelines to the use of low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis in major orthopedic surgery.

Although low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is a widely used form of thromboprophylaxis in orthopedic surgery, concerns remain over the concomitant use of regional anesthesia (RA)/postoperative regional analgesia (PRA) stemming from reports in the 1990s of spinal hematoma associated with this combination. One of the objectives of the Second American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA) Consensus Conference was to address the safety of LMWH in combination with neuraxial anesthesia. The guidelines are designed in part to help orthopedic surgeons already using or contemplating the use of LMWH prophylaxis to avoid or minimize potential complications arising from its use with RA/PRA. Clinicians should consult the ASRA guidelines for recommendations on total daily dose, timing of the first postoperative dose, and dose schedule for anticoagulants used in conjunction with RA/PRA.