Physical Therapy Considerations and Recommendations for Patients Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Implant Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established therapy option in interventional pain medicine. Recent advances in technology have allowed for greater compliance with treatment and improved efficacy in pain control. This article was proposed to fill the gap in the literature addressing this specific patient population and to facilitate further research. Even though there is a lack of consensus among societies and experts on exact parameters of physical therapy (PT) considerations and postoperative limitations in patients with SCS, we propose rehabilitative care for this population should be standardized. As the number of patients with SCS implants grow, it is vital to understand how to appropriately approach patients with implantable devices when additional treatments such as PT are prescribed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed on the use of PT following SCS implantation. Presently, there is no literature to date which addresses the use of PT in this patient population. The lack of data is the largest hurdle in the creation of formal SCS therapy guidelines. The authors therefore proposed recommendations for rehabilitation based upon a detailed understanding of SCS hardware alongside well-studied physiotherapy concepts. RESULTS: Considerations when initiating PT in the SCS patient population should include: 1) biomechanics and quality of SCS output; 2) therapeutic exercise and spinal manipulation in association with risk for lead migration and fracture; 3) the application of therapeutic modalities and risk for injury to the patient and/or damage to the SCS componentry; and 4) integration of a biopsychosocial, person-centered approach. CONCLUSIONS: PT treatment protocol in patients with a recently implanted SCS device should be person-centered addressing individual needs, values, and goals. Further research is needed to fully appreciate the impact of an interprofessional approach to management of SCS patients, particularly following stimulator implantation.

Encephalopathy after unintentional intrathecal gadolinium: A letter to the editor.

Objective: Raise awareness of gadolinium encephalopathy, a rare cause of neurological symptoms. Setting: An L5-S1 interlaminar epidural steroid injection (IL-ESI) was performed with a gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) due to the patient's history of allergic reaction to iodine-based contrast agents. Discussion: Several hours after administration of GBCA, the patient had nausea and vomiting with altered mental status. Patient was treated with dexamethasone IV, and was discharged on day 2. Patient had no residual deficits at follow-up two weeks later. Current literature shows that caution should be used to prevent inadvertent intrathecal GBCA, and doses >2.0 mmols are associated with serious adverse effects, including death. Conclusions: Intrathecal administration of GBCAs should be limited to less than 0.5 mmol. If adverse effects are experienced, IV steroids should be administered as soon as possible, and a CSF drain should be considered.

The Effectiveness and Risks of Fluoroscopically Guided Lumbar Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injections: A Systematic Review with Comprehensive Analysis of the Published Data.

Objective: To determine the effectiveness and risks of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. Design: Systematic review of the literature with comprehensive analysis of the published data. Interventions: Three reviewers with formal training in evidence-based medicine searched the literature on fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. A larger team consisting of five reviewers independently assessed the methodology of studies found and appraised the quality of the evidence presented. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome assessed was pain relief. Other outcomes such as functional improvement, reduction in surgery rate, decreased use of opioids/medications, and complications were noted, if reported. The evidence on each outcome was appraised in accordance with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system of evaluating evidence. Results: The search yielded 71 primary publications addressing fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections. There were no explanatory studies and all pragmatic studies identified were of low quality, yielding evidence comparable to observational studies. Conclusions: The body of evidence regarding effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided interlaminar epidural steroid injection is of low quality according to GRADE. Studies suggest a lack of effectiveness of fluoroscopically guided lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections in treating primarily axial pain regardless of etiology. Most studies on radicular pain due to lumbar disc herniation and stenosis do, however, report statistically significant short-term improvement in pain.