Spinal Cord Stimulator Related Infections: Findings From a Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of 2737 Implants.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection is a potential complication of spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation. Current understanding of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of these infections is based largely on small clinical studies, many of which are outdated. Evidence-based guidelines for management of SCS-related infections thus rely instead on expert opinion, case reports, and case series. In this study, we aim to provide a large scale retrospective study of infection management techniques specifically for SCS implantation. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study of SCS implants performed over a seven-year period at 11 unique academic and non-academic institutions in the United States. All infections and related complications in this cohort were analyzed. RESULTS: Within our study of 2737 SCS implant procedures, we identified all procedures complicated by infection (2.45%). Localized incisional pain and wound erythema were the most common presenting signs. Laboratory studies were performed in the majority of patients, but an imaging study was performed in less than half of these patients. The most common causative organism was Staphylococcus aureus and the IPG pocket was the most common site of an SCS-related infection. Explantation was ultimately performed in 52 of the 67 patients (77.6%). Non-explantation salvage therapy was attempted in 24 patients and was successful in resolving the infection in 15 patients without removal of SCS hardware components. DISCUSSION: This study provides current data regarding SCS related infections, including incidence, diagnosis, and treatment.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Implant Infection Rates and Risk Factors: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation is an evidence-based treatment for a number of chronic pain conditions. While this therapy offers improvement in pain and function it is not without potential complications. These complications include device failure, migration, loss of therapeutic paresthesia, and infection. This article looked to establish a modern infection rate for spinal cord stimulators, assess the impact of known risk factors for surgical site infections and to determine the impact of certain preventative measures on the rate of infection. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a multisite, retrospective review was conducted on 2737 unique implants or revisions of SCS systems. Patient demographics, risk factors including diabetes, tobacco use, obesity, revision surgery, trial length, implant location, implant type, surgeon background, prophylactic antibiotic use, utilization of a occlusive dressing, and post-operative antibiotic use were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The overall infection rate was 2.45% (n = 67). Diabetes, tobacco use, and obesity did not independently increase the rate of infection. Revision surgeries had a trend toward higher infection rate; however, this did not meet statistical significance. There was no difference in the rate of infection between implants performed by physicians of different base specialties, cylinder leads vs. paddle leads, or between different prophylactic antibiotics. Implants performed at academic centers had a higher rate of infection when compared to implants performed in nonacademic settings. When patients received an occlusive dressing or post-operative antibiotics they had a lower rate of infection. CONCLUSIONS: The infection rate (2.45%) reported in this study is lower than the previously reported rates (3-6%) and are on par with other surgical specialties. This study did not show an increased rate of infection for patients that used tobacco, had diabetes or were obese. It's possible that given the low overall infection rate a larger study is needed to establish the true impact of these factors on infection. In addition, this study did not address the impact of poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (elevated hemoglobin A1c) vs. well-controlled diabetes. It can be concluded from this study that utilizing an occlusive dressing over the incision in the post-operative period decreases the rate of infection and should become the standard of care. This study also demonstrated the positive impact of post-operative antibiotics in decreasing the rate of infection. Studies in other surgical specialties have not shown this impact which would suggest that further research is needed.

Treatment of Refractory Postdural Puncture Headache after Intrathecal Drug Delivery System Implantation with Epidural Blood Patch Procedures: A 20-Year Experience.

A recent publication reported the incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) in conjunction with intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) implantation to be nearly 23 percent. Many patients responded to conservative measures but a percentage needed invasive treatment with an epidural blood patch (EBP). There is limited data to describe the technical details, success rates, and complications associated with EBP in this population. This study aims to provide a retrospective report of EBP for patients suffering from PDPH related to IDDS implantation. A chart review established a cohort of patients that required EBP in relation to a PDPH after IDDS implantation. This cohort was evaluated for demographic data as well as details of the EBP including technical procedural data, success rates, and complications. All patients received a trial of conservative therapy. Standard sterile technique and skin preparation were utilized with no infectious complications. The EBP was placed below the level of the IDDS catheter in 94% of procedures. Fluoroscopy was utilized in each case. The mean EBP volume was 18.6 cc and median time of EBP was day 7 after implant. There were no complications associated with EBP. EBP appears to be an effective intervention in this subset of PDPH patients.

Post dural puncture headache following intrathecal drug delivery system placement.

BACKGROUND: Placement of an intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) may provide substantial benefit to certain patients. However, placement of these devices is not without complications, and minimal data exist describing the rates of these complications. Specifically, there is a paucity of data describing the incidence of post dural puncture headache (PDPH) following IDDS placement. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify the incidence and treatment course of PDPH following placement of an IDDS in a retrospective review. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective assessment of medical records. SETTING: Department of Pain Medicine and Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. METHODS: Following IRB approval, 319 IDDS surgical reports in 285 patients were identified retrospectively over a 20 year study time period. We report demographic information, number of dural punctures, techniques for sealing dural leak, details, and treatment course of PDPH in this population. RESULTS: Symptoms of PDPH were recognized in 73 individual cases (23% of total procedural volume). Younger patient age was the only statistically significant characteristic in predicting development of a PDPH. There were no statistically significant differences found in regards to other risk factors for PDPH development or treatment strategy employed. Seventy-nine percent of PDPH patients were successfully managed with conservative non-interventional therapies (bedrest, IV fluids, analgesics, antiemetics), while 21% required progression to epidural blood or fibrin glue patch procedures for full resolution of symptoms. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the retrospective design of the study as well as the potential for undocumented or improperly documented surgical techniques and/or events.  CONCLUSION: Though the development of PDPH after IDDS implantation was found to be fairly common (23% incidence), the majority of these patients had self-limited symptoms that resolved with conservative medical management. Epidural blood patch or application of epidural fibrin glue was therapeutically successful for the remainder of PDPH patients who were refractory to conservative measures. 

Atypical facial pain treated with upper thoracic dorsal column stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is the most commonly used implantable neurostimulation modality for management of pain syndromes. We present a patient with history of right facial pain successfully treated for refractory angina with SCS and had coincident near resolution of facial pain. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 45 year old male with documented coronary vasospasm presented for consideration of SCS for refractory angina. He underwent successful implantation with significant improvement in his intractable chest pain. Additionally, during trial and post-implantation, the patient described almost complete resolution of his chronic facial pain. Prior to implantation, the facial pain had been thoroughly evaluated without a discernible cause. He had been symptomatically treated for atypical facial pain (AFP) with gabapentin. Post-implantation, the patient was able to discontinue gabapentin and described near complete resolution of his AFP. DISCUSSION: SCS is one of the most promising treatment options for refractory angina. Numerous randomized, controlled trials have demonstrated efficacy in increasing exercise duration and time to angina, decreasing number of angina attacks, sublingual nitrate consumption, and number of ischemic episodes. Reductions in pain, sympathetic tone, and myocardial oxygen demand as well as improvement in coronary microcirculatory blood flow have all been proposed as beneficial outcomes of stimulation. AFP is a poorly understood condition, often without etiology, and most commonly treated symptomatically. The resolution of our patient's AFP is secondary to unclear mechanism(s). We propose SCS may have altered central processing or spinal trigeminal nucleus fibers; additionally, the pain may have been sympathetically mediated and altered by SCS.

Publication misrepresentation among anesthesiology residency applicants.

BACKGROUND: Publication misrepresentation has been documented among applicants for residency positions in several specialties. However, these data are not available for anesthesiology applicants. Our purpose in this study was to document the prevalence of publication misrepresentation among applicants to a single anesthesiology residency, to compare anesthesiology publication misrepresentation data with similar data in other specialties, and to determine how often publication misrepresentation leads to an unfair competitive advantage in the application process. METHODS: Applications to the Mayo School of Graduate Medical Education anesthesiology core residency in Rochester, Minnesota, were reviewed for publication misrepresentations using Medline and PubMed databases, Mayo Clinic library databases, and/or review by a qualified medical librarian. Misrepresented publications underwent further review to identify fraudulent publications and/or citation errors that provide an unfair competitive advantage. RESULTS: The authors found that 2.4% of the applications (13 of 532) included fraudulent publications, 6.6% of the applications with at least 1 publication (13 of 197) included ≥1 that was fraudulent, and 2.9% of all cited publications (15 of 522) were fraudulent. In addition, 0.9% of the applications (5 of 532) contained a citation error that, although not grossly fraudulent, could have favorably affected the applicant's competitiveness for a residency position. CONCLUSIONS: Misrepresented publications were fairly common among anesthesiology residency applicants. However, only a small percentage of applicants listed misrepresented publications that were clearly fraudulent or contained a citation error that conferred a competitive advantage. Identification of fraudulent publications on Electronic Residency Application Service applications is important to maintain the integrity of the application process.