Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome: A Proposal for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome and ICD-11.

OBJECTIVE: For many medical professionals dealing with patients with persistent pain following spine surgery, the term Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) as a diagnostic label is inadequate, misleading, and potentially troublesome. It misrepresents causation. Alternative terms have been suggested, but none has replaced FBSS. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) published a revised classification of chronic pain, as part of the new International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), which has been accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO). This includes the term Chronic pain after spinal surgery (CPSS), which is suggested as a replacement for FBSS. METHODS: This article provides arguments and rationale for a replacement definition. In order to propose a broadly applicable yet more precise and clinically informative term, an international group of experts was established. RESULTS: 14 candidate replacement terms were considered and ranked. The application of agreed criteria reduced this to a shortlist of four. A preferred option-Persistent spinal pain syndrome-was selected by a structured workshop and Delphi process. We provide rationale for using Persistent spinal pain syndrome and a schema for its incorporation into ICD-11. We propose the adoption of this term would strengthen the new ICD-11 classification. CONCLUSIONS: This project is important to those in the fields of pain management, spine surgery, and neuromodulation, as well as patients labeled with FBSS. Through a shift in perspective, it could facilitate the application of the new ICD-11 classification and allow clearer discussion among medical professionals, industry, funding organizations, academia, and the legal profession.

A Systematic Literature Review of Dorsal Root Ganglion Neurostimulation for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for DRG stimulation. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, 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: DRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

The impact of an innovative pharmacist-led inpatient opioid de-escalation intervention in post-operative orthopedic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients are discharged from hospital after surgery with excessive doses of opioid, and prescription opioid addiction has become a serious public health problem. Inpatient opioid de-escalation performed by clinical phar-macists may assist in reducing opioids before discharge. We aimed to evaluate whether clinical pharmacist-led opioid de-escalation for inpatients after orthopedic surgery led to significant reductions in opioid use at discharge, without resulting in greater pain intensity and side effects. DESIGN: This retrospective pre-/post-intervention study evaluated patients before and after implementation of a phar-macist-led opioid de-escalation service. SETTING: A major tertiary institution. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety eight participants underwent de-escalation, and 98 controls received standard care following ortho-pedic surgery. INTERVENTION: Pharmacist-led opioid de-escalation was initiated after discharge from the institution's Acute Pain Service. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was total morphine oral equivalence (MOE) required in the 24-hours before discharge between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity scores and opioid-related side effects. RESULTS: The post-intervention group used significantly less opioids in the 24 hours preceding discharge compared with the precohort (total MOE 30 vs 45 mg; p = 0.025).There were no differences in pain intensity at rest (p = 0.19) or with movement (p = 0.19). Cases experienced significantly less constipation (29 vs 49 percent; p = 0.004); no differences were observed for other side effects. DISCUSSION: We observed statistically similar pain intensity ratings, in the setting of significantly lowered opioid doses among the post-intervention group prior to discharge. CONCLUSION: Pharmacist-led inpatient opioid de-escalation is effective, does not increase pain intensity, and reduces constipation. Hospitals should explore the viability of extending pharmacist-led opioid de-escalation to other surgical patients and following hospital discharge, aiming for opioid cessation.

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.