Minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a review of indications, techniques, efficacy and safety.

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common degenerative spine condition. In properly selected patients, minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild®) may be an option to improve outcomes. This review provides an in-depth description of the mild procedure and a comprehensive examination of safety and efficacy. Two randomized controlled trials, together with 11 other controlled clinical studies, have established the efficacy of mild, which is a minimally invasive procedure that does not involve implants and has demonstrated excellent efficacy and safety. With an established safety profile equivalent to epidural steroid injections, and efficacy that has been shown to be superior to such injections, mild can reasonably be positioned early in the treatment algorithm for these patients. Based on extensive review of the literature, robust safety and efficacy through 2 years, and in accordance with minimally invasive spine treatment guidelines, mild is recommended as the first intervention after failure of conservative measures for lumbar spinal stenosis patients with neurogenic claudication and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy.

The Impact of Age on the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild ®) is an effective long-term therapy for patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) resulting primarily from hypertrophic ligamentum flavum (HLF). Most subjects in clinical studies of the mild procedure have been older adults (age≥65). While the incidence of LSS increases with age, a substantial number of adults (age<65) also suffer from neurogenic claudication secondary to HLF. In this report, outcomes of mild were compared between adults and older adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All prospective studies of the mild procedure with a 1-year follow-up completed since the beginning of 2012 that allowed the inclusion of adult patients of all ages were reviewed. Outcomes of visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Pain Disability Index (PDI), Roland Morris Low Back Pain and Disability Questionnaire (RMQ), standing time and walking distance were compared for adults and older adults. RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in an analysis of 49 adults and 160 older adults. Patients in both age groups experienced significant mean improvements in all but one outcome measure at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Differences between the two age groups in all scores at 6 and 12 months were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the four studies indicated that symptom improvements for adults and older adults were significant from baseline, and no statistically significant difference was observed between the two age groups. These results illustrate that mild can be an effective treatment for LSS due primarily to HLF, regardless of the adult patient age.

Paresthesia-Free Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation: An ACCURATE Study Sub-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial comparing dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation to spinal cord stimulation, showed that DRG stimulation is a safe and effective therapy in individuals with lower extremity chronic pain due to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I or II. Investigators noted that DRG stimulation programming could be adjusted to minimize, or eliminate, the feeling of paresthesia while maintaining adequate pain relief. The present study explores treatment outcomes for DRG subjects who were paresthesia-free vs. those who experienced the sensation of paresthesia, as well as the factors that predicted paresthesia-free analgesia. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of therapy outcomes was conducted for 61 subjects in the ACCURATE study who received a permanent DRG neurostimulator. Outcomes of subjects who were paresthesia-free were compared to those who experienced paresthesia-present therapy at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-ups. Predictor variables for the presence or absence of paresthesias with DRG stimulation were also explored. RESULTS: The percentage of subjects with paresthesia-free pain relief increased from 16.4% at 1-month to 38.3% at 12-months. Paresthesia-free subjects generally had similar or better outcomes for pain severity, pain interference, quality of life, and mood state as subjects with paresthesia-present stimulation. Factors that increased the odds of a subject feeling paresthesia were higher stimulation amplitudes and frequencies, number of implanted leads, and younger age. CONCLUSIONS: Some DRG subjects achieved effective paresthesia-free analgesia in the ACCURATE trial. This supports the observation that paresthesia is not synonymous with pain relief or required for optimal analgesia with DRG stimulation.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication: 2-Year Results of MiDAS ENCORE.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the long-term durability of the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure in terms of functional improvement and pain reduction for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication due to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This is a report of 2-year follow-up for MILD study patients. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study compared outcomes for 143 patients treated with MILD versus 131 treated with epidural steroid injections. Follow-up occurred at 6 months and at 1 year for the randomized phase and at 2 years for MILD subjects only. Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire were used to evaluate function and pain. Safety was evaluated by assessing incidence of device-/procedure-related adverse events. RESULTS: All outcome measures demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement from baseline through 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. At 2 years, Oswestry Disability Index improved by 22.7 points, Numeric Pain Rating Scale improved by 3.6 points, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire symptom severity and physical function domains improved by 1.0 and 0.8 points, respectively. There were no serious device-/procedure-related adverse events, and 1.3% experienced a device-/procedure-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: MILD showed excellent long-term durability, and there was no evidence of spinal instability through 2-year follow-up. Reoperation and spinal fracture rates are lower, and safety is higher for MILD versus other lumbar spine interventions, including interspinous spacers, surgical decompression, and spinal fusion. Given the minimally invasive nature of this procedure, its robust success rate, and durability of outcomes, MILD is an excellent choice for first-line therapy for select patients with central spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication symptoms with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02093520.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Recommendations for Infection Prevention and Management.

INTRODUCTION: The use of neurostimulation for pain has been an established therapy for many decades and is a major tool in the arsenal to treat neuropathic pain syndromes. Level I evidence has recently been presented to substantiate the therapy, but this is balanced against the risk of complications of an interventional technique. METHODS: The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) of the International Neuromodulation Society convened an international panel of well published and diverse physicians to examine the best practices for infection mitigation and management in patients undergoing neurostimulation. The NACC recommendations are based on evidence scoring and peer-reviewed literature. Where evidence is lacking the panel added expert opinion to establish recommendations. RESULTS: The NACC has made recommendations to improve care by reducing infection and managing this complication when it occurs. These evidence-based recommendations should be considered best practices in the clinical implantation of neurostimulation devices. CONCLUSION: Adhering to established standards can improve patient care and reduce the morbidity and mortality of infectious complications in patients receiving neurostimulation.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) Safety Guidelines for the Reduction of Severe Neurological Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Neurostimulation involves the implantation of devices to stimulate the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral or cranial nerves for the purpose of modulating the neural activity of the targeted structures to achieve specific therapeutic effects. Surgical placement of neurostimulation devices is associated with risks of neurologic injury, as well as possible sequelae from the local or systemic effects of the intervention. The goal of the Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is to improve the safety of neurostimulation. METHODS: The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) is dedicated to improving neurostimulation efficacy and patient safety. Over the past two decades the INS has established a process to use best evidence to improve care. This article updates work published by the NACC in 2014. NACC authors were chosen based on nomination to the INS executive board and were selected based on publications, academic acumen, international impact, and diversity. In areas in which evidence was lacking, the NACC used expert opinion to reach consensus. RESULTS: The INS has developed recommendations that when properly utilized should improve patient safety and reduce the risk of injury and associated complications with implantable devices. CONCLUSIONS: On behalf of INS, the NACC has published recommendations intended to reduce the risk of neurological injuries and complications while implanting stimulators.

Radiofrequency neurolysis.

Pain that develops in the cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spine is typically initiated from a clinical condition called spondylosis. Radiofrequency ablation is a key element in the treatment protocol of patients with spondylosis of the cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacroiliac joint pain. A diagnosis can be made by blocking the median branch nerve that innervates each joint. Once this has been confirmed, an ablation procedure can be performed to increase the duration of pain relief desired by the patient with chronic pain originating from spondylosis. Radiofrequency neurolysis is a common technique used in the treatment of chronic pain, particularly facet (zygapophyseal joint) arthralgia. The technique involves an insulated needlelike cannula; x-rays passing through the patient show the projected relative radioopaque bony landmarks and the metallic cannula.

Percutaneous lumbar discectomy.

Percutaneous lumbar discectomy is a proven alternative to the more invasive open discectomy used to treat patients who experience discogenic pain. Estimated to cost the United States health care system more than $20 billion a year, discogenic leg pain represents the primary cause of health care expenditure. Taken together, back pain and discogenic leg pain result in more days lost than any other combined illnesses and injuries. Annular breakdown and tears are common discogenic sources that produce pain, and are usually treated with microdiscectomy by orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons. Open discectomy has been considered to be the gold standard for relieving pressure on nerve roots. By decompressing the nerve root from the disc, neurologic function is usually restored and pain is relieved. Recurrent disc herniations may and typically do occur because of the annular violation that results from the surgical procedure.

Pharmaceuticals used in image-guided spine interventions.

As image-guided (nonvascular) spine interventions have become progressively more common in the interventional radiologic community, there is a growing need for physician expertise regarding the materials and pharmaceuticals that are used for these procedures. This article is intended to provide information to address these needs.

Spinal cord stimulation: uses and applications.

Spinal cord stimulation has been used successfully for more than 40 years. The application of an electrical impulse field on to the spinal cord is used with a battery generator source and a variety of either cylindrical or paddle/plate leads. Energy is delivered from either a conventional internal programmable generator or a rechargeable style battery. Many clinical conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome, failed back spinal syndrome, and extremity neuropathic pain involving the trunk and limbs are approved for its use. This device allows patients to live a successful life without pain.