Accessibility and Ease of Use in Neuromodulation Devices.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of neuromodulation therapy continues to grow as therapeutic indications expand. These conditions often present with comorbid physical, visual, and auditory impairments. Patients with disabilities in these categories may have difficulty operating their devices. Thus, reviewing the accessibility and inclusive design of neuromodulation devices is imperative to ensure equal access for patients of all ability levels. To date, the literature provides little insight into this topic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Manufacturers of Food and Drug Administration-approved neuromodulation devices in the United States completed our electronic survey to assess neuromodulation device features, universal/inclusive design guidelines, and methods used to make the device accessible to patients with disabilities. RESULTS: We assessed 11 devices from seven manufacturers. Of those, there were six spinal cord, two peripheral nerve, and three deep brain stimulators. Of all respondents, 91% used universal inclusive design guidelines. Of the studied devices, 91% have an interface that uses visual feedback, and 82% have an interface that uses auditory feedback. All surveyed devices were reported to have an interface that requires physical handling. DISCUSSION: Our study found that most devices incorporate auditory signals, buttons with raised indentations, speech commands, or other useful features to assist those with visual disabilities. Visual interfaces may be sufficient for a patient with hearing impairment to use all the surveyed devices. However, dual sensory impairment presents a significant limitation in all devices surveyed. Furthermore, the biggest barrier to using neuromodulation devices was physical impairment because all surveyed devices require physical handling. CONCLUSIONS: Manufacturers have awareness of universal inclusive design principles. However, our study was unable to find a device that is accessible to all users regardless of ability. As such, it is critical to involve universal design principles to ensure that inclusive devices are available to improve patient adherence, treatment efficacy, and outcomes.

Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: A 2-year Medicare Claims Benchmark Study.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries receiving percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure and a control group of patients receiving interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC). METHODS: Patients diagnosed with LSS with NC and treated with either the mild procedure or a spacer were identified in the Medicare claims database. The incidence of harms, the rate of subsequent interventions, and the overall combined rate of harms and subsequent interventions during 2-year follow-up after the index procedure were compared between the two groups and assessed for statistical significance with p = 0.05. RESULTS: The study included 2229 patients in the mild group and 3401 patients who were implanted with interspinous spacers. The rate of harms for those treated with the mild procedure was less than half that of patients implanted with a spacer (5.6% vs. 12.1%, respectively; p < 0.0001) during 2-year follow-up. The rate of subsequent interventions was not significantly different between the two groups (24.9% and 26.1% for the mild and spacer groups, respectively; p = 0.7679). The total rate of harms and subsequent interventions for mild was found to be noninferior to spacers (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive study of real-world Medicare claims data demonstrated a significantly lower rate of harms for the mild procedure compared to interspinous spacers for patients diagnosed with LSS with NC, and a similar rate of subsequent interventions during 2-year follow-up.

Mechanism of Action of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The number of applications for peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in the pain management field is ever-growing. With the increasing number of clinical applications for peripheral nerve stimulation, the purpose of this article is to review the mechanism of action surrounding PNS, the recent literature from January 2018 to January 2021, and pertinent clinical outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: The authors searched articles identified from PubMed (January 2018-January 2021), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases (January 2018-January 2021), and Scopus (January 2018-January 2021) databases, and manually searched references of identified publications. Broad MeSH terms and Boolean operators were queried in each search, including the following terms and their respective synonyms: peripheral nerve stimulation, mechanism of action, biochemical pathway, and pain pathway. 15 consensus articles were selected for in-depth review and inclusion for qualitative analysis. PNS may activate and modulate higher central nervous system (CNS) centers, including the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex, somatosensory cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and parahippocampal areas. Neuromodulatory effects from PNS may also extend into the spinal columns. Also, PNS may lead to changes in endogenous neurotransmitters and affect the plasticity of NMDA pathways.

Parental leave policy information during residency interviews.

BACKGROUND: During interviews, medical students may feel uncomfortable asking questions that might be important to them, such as parental leave. Parental leave policies may be difficult for applicants to access without asking the program director or other interviewers. The goal of this study is to evaluate whether parental leave information is presented to prospective residents and whether medical students want this information. METHODS: Fifty-two program directors (PD's) at 3 sites of a single institution received a survey in 2019 to identify whether parental leave information is presented at residency interviews. Medical students received a separate survey in 2020 to identify their preferences. Fisher exact tests, Pearson χ2 tests and Cochran-Armitage tests were used where appropriate to assess for differences in responses. RESULTS: Of the 52 PD's, 27 responded (52%) and 19 (70%) indicated that information on parental leave was not provided to candidates. The most common reason cited was the belief that the information was not relevant (n = 7; 37%). Of the 373 medical students, 179 responded (48%). Most respondents (92%) wanted parental leave information formally presented, and many anticipated they would feel extremely or somewhat uncomfortable (68%) asking about parental leave. The majority (61%) felt that these policies would impact ranking of programs "somewhat" or "very much." CONCLUSIONS: Parental leave policies may not be readily available to interviewees despite strong interest and their impact on ranking of programs by prospective residents.

Correction: Documenting Social Media Engagement as Scholarship: A New Model for Assessing Academic Accomplishment for the Health Professions.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/25070.].

Documenting Social Media Engagement as Scholarship: A New Model for Assessing Academic Accomplishment for the Health Professions.

BACKGROUND: The traditional model of promotion and tenure in the health professions relies heavily on formal scholarship through teaching, research, and service. Institutions consider how much weight to give activities in each of these areas and determine a threshold for advancement. With the emergence of social media, scholars can engage wider audiences in creative ways and have a broader impact. Conventional metrics like the h-index do not account for social media impact. Social media engagement is poorly represented in most curricula vitae (CV) and therefore is undervalued in promotion and tenure reviews. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop crowdsourced guidelines for documenting social media scholarship. These guidelines aimed to provide a structure for documenting a scholar's general impact on social media, as well as methods of documenting individual social media contributions exemplifying innovation, education, mentorship, advocacy, and dissemination. METHODS: To create unifying guidelines, we created a crowdsourced process that capitalized on the strengths of social media and generated a case example of successful use of the medium for academic collaboration. The primary author created a draft of the guidelines and then sought input from users on Twitter via a publicly accessible Google Document. There was no limitation on who could provide input and the work was done in a democratic, collaborative fashion. Contributors edited the draft over a period of 1 week (September 12-18, 2020). The primary and secondary authors then revised the draft to make it more concise. The guidelines and manuscript were then distributed to the contributors for edits and adopted by the group. All contributors were given the opportunity to serve as coauthors on the publication and were told upfront that authorship would depend on whether they were able to document the ways in which they met the 4 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. RESULTS: We developed 2 sets of guidelines: Guidelines for Listing All Social Media Scholarship Under Public Scholarship (in Research/Scholarship Section of CV) and Guidelines for Listing Social Media Scholarship Under Research, Teaching, and Service Sections of CV. Institutions can choose which set fits their existing CV format. CONCLUSIONS: With more uniformity, scholars can better represent the full scope and impact of their work. These guidelines are not intended to dictate how individual institutions should weigh social media contributions within promotion and tenure cases. Instead, by providing an initial set of guidelines, we hope to provide scholars and their institutions with a common format and language to document social media scholarship.

Percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression and outpatient laminectomy for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a 2-year Medicare claims benchmark study.

Background: This prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving outpatient percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure to patients undergoing outpatient laminectomy. All patients were diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC). Methods: All medical claims for 100 % of Medicare beneficiaries were reviewed, with study subjects identified using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Research Identifiable Files. Baseline data were extracted individually to allow for longitudinal analysis through two-year follow-up. The index procedure was defined as the first mild or outpatient laminectomy during the enrollment period. The rate of subsequent surgical procedures and incidence of harms were used as study outcomes. Results: Cohorts included 2197 mild and 7416 laminectomy patients. mild patients were significantly older (76.7 years versus 73.4 years, respectively; p < 0.0001), and 57.4 % of mild were female, compared to 43.3 % of laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild patients presented with significantly more baseline comorbidities compared to laminectomy patients (mean of 5.7 versus 4.8, respectively; p < 0.0001). Subsequent surgical procedure rate of 9.0 % for mild was significantly higher than 5.5 % for laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild experienced harms at a significantly lower rate than laminectomy (1.9 % versus 5.8 %, respectively; p < 0.0001). The composite rate of subsequent surgical procedures and harms was similar between groups at 10.8 % for mild and 11.0 % for laminectomy. Conclusions: mild can be considered a viable option for treatment of LSS with NC as evidenced by real-world data in this study. At two-years, mild patients experienced fewer harms and underwent more subsequent surgical procedures than laminectomy patients. The higher rate of subsequent surgical procedures for mild may be attributable to its position earlier in the LSS treatment algorithm. The overall rate of harms and subsequent surgical procedures was similar between groups, suggesting that mild should be considered as a treatment option, particularly for older patients with multiple comorbidities.

Advances in radiofrequency ablation: mechanism of action and technology.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a minimally invasive treatment modality that utilizes high-frequency alternating current to destroy targeted tissues through thermal ablation. This manuscript provides an overview of the advancements in RFA, focusing on its mechanism of action and technological innovations. RFA technology was first introduced in the early 1900's, and its use has expanded and evolved, especially in its current utility in the treatment of painful conditions. As the technology has evolved, new techniques, applications and modalities have expanded its use and improved its efficacy. RFA works by applying radiofrequency energy through specialized electrodes, leading to resistive heating and coagulation necrosis. Its advantages include precise tissue targeting, minimal invasiveness, reduced complications, and faster recovery compared to traditional surgical interventions. Technological advancements in RFA have led to improved treatment outcomes. Multi-electrode systems allow for larger ablation zones. Image-guided RFA improves treatment planning and minimizes damage to healthy tissues. Cooled-tip and perfusion electrodes address limitations such as heat sink effects, enhancing RFA's efficacy in challenging anatomical regions. These developments have expanded RFA's applications to liver tumors, lung tumors, renal tumors, cardiac arrhythmias, and chronic pain syndromes. In conclusion, RFA has emerged as a safe and effective thermal ablation technique. Understanding its mechanism of action and integrating advanced technologies have significantly enhanced treatment outcomes. Continued research and innovation in RFA hold immense potential for further improving patient care and outcomes.

Job Satisfaction Among Pain Medicine Physicians in the US.

Purpose: Data are lacking on the factors that contribute to job satisfaction among pain medicine physicians. We sought to determine how sociodemographic and professional characteristics relate to job satisfaction among pain medicine physicians. Methods: In this nationwide, multicenter, cross-sectional observational study, an electronic questionnaire related to job satisfaction was emailed in 2021 to pain medicine physicians who were members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists or the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience. The 28-item questionnaire asked physicians about sociodemographic and professional factors. Eight questions related to job satisfaction were based on a 10-point Likert scale, and 1 question was a binary (yes/no) variable. Differences in responses based on sociodemographic and professional factors were assessed with the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test for Likert scale questions and with the Pearson χ2 test for yes/no questions. Results: We determined that several variables, including gender, parental status, geographic location, specialty, years of practice, and volume of patients, are associated with pain medicine physicians' outlook on job satisfaction. Overall, 74.9% of respondents surveyed would choose pain medicine as a specialty again. Conclusion: High rates of poor job satisfaction persist among pain medicine physicians. This survey study identified several sociodemographic and professional factors that are associated with job satisfaction among pain medicine physicians. By identifying physicians at high risk for poor job satisfaction, healthcare leadership and occupational health agencies can aim to protect physicians' well-being, enhance working conditions, and raise awareness about burnout.

Cannabis for the Treatment of Fibromyalgia: A Systematic Review.

Fibromyalgia is a common disease syndrome characterized by chronic pain and fatigue in conjunction with cognitive dysfunction such as memory difficulties. Patients currently face a difficult prognosis with limited treatment options and a diminished quality of life. Given its widespread use and potential efficacy in treating other types of pain, cannabis may prove to be an effective treatment for fibromyalgia. This review aims to examine and discuss current clinical evidence regarding the use of cannabis for the treatment of fibromyalgia. An electronic search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms on all literature published up to October 2022. A follow-up manual search included a complete verification of relevant studies. The results of four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five observational studies (a total of 564 patients) that investigated the effects of cannabis on fibromyalgia symptoms were included in this review. Of the RCTs, only one demonstrated that cannabinoids did not have a different effect than placebo on pain responses. Overall, this analysis shows low-quality evidence supporting short-term pain reduction in people with fibromyalgia treated with cannabinoid therapeutics. Although current evidence is limited, medical cannabis appears to be a safe alternative for treating fibromyalgia.

Women Authorship Trends in the Highest-Impact Anesthesiology Journals from 2005 to 2021.

Background: Although women and men have matriculated into medical schools in similar proportions since the 1980s, recent data indicate that anesthesiology is lagging in gender equity, especially in academic leadership roles.1,2 As promotion in academic medicine is strongly influenced by publications, understanding whether a lack of women authorship is contributing to this gender gap is crucial.3,4 This article aims to assess how woman authorship trends have changed in the last 16 years, including during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: The five highest impact journals in anesthesia were identified as Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, PAIN, and Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine. Number of total authors, including women, men, and unknown gender authors as well as incidence of woman first and/or last author, was documented from articles published in 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020, and 2021. Results: This analysis shows that women are gaining representation in anesthesia publications. Overall, there was a statistically significant increase in the total number of women authors and women first and last authorship. However, as of 2021, women still only represented ∼40% of total and first authors and ∼24% of last authors. In addition, increase in first/last woman authorship was not present in all journals when stratified. Conclusion: These journal differences may suggest the editorial evaluation process as a potential source of gender bias. There was a statistically significant relationship between women senior authors and articles with 50% or more women authors, indicating that woman mentorship is contributing to closing equity gap. These data present a starting point for further investigations into gender disparities within anesthesia to continue the forward progression for women in academic medicine.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Guidelines for Radiofrequency Ablative Procedures in Patients with Implanted Devices.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a treatment modality used in interventional pain management to treat several conditions including chronic neck or back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, major joint pain, and pain from sites that can be isolated to a sensory nerve amenable to RFA. The goals of such procedures are to reduce pain, improve function, delay need for surgical intervention, and reduce pain medication consumption. As applications for RFA expand through novel techniques and nerve targets, there is concern with how RFA may impact patients with implanted medical devices. Specifically, the electrical currents used in RFA produce electromagnetic interference, which can result in unintentional energy transfer to implanted devices. This may also interfere with device function or cause damage to the device itself. As the number of patients with implanted devices increases, it is imperative to establish guidelines for the management of implanted devices during RFA procedures. This review aims to establish guidelines to assist physicians in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management of implanted devices in patients undergoing procedures using radiofrequency energy. Here, we provide physicians with background knowledge and a summary of current evidence to allow safe utilization of RFA treatment in patients with implanted devices such as cardiac implantable electronic devices, spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal pumps, and deep brain stimulators. While these guidelines are intended to be comprehensive, each patient should be assessed on an individual basis to optimize outcomes.

Best Practices from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) for Clinical Research During a Pandemic or Emergency.

The COVID-19 pandemic caught many areas of medicine in a state of unpreparedness for conducting research and completing ongoing projects during a global crisis, including the field of pain medicine. Waves of infection led to a disjointed ability to provide care and conduct clinical research. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Research Group has created guidance for pragmatic and ethical considerations for research during future emergency or disaster situations. This analysis uses governmental guidance, scientific best practices, and expert opinion to address procedure-based or device-based clinical trials during such times. Current literature offers limited recommendations on this important issue, and the findings of this group fill a void for protocols to improve patient safety and efficacy, especially as we anticipate the impact of future disasters and spreading global infectious diseases. We recommend local adaptations to best practices and innovations to enable continued research while respecting the stressors to the research subjects, investigator teams, health-care systems, and to local infrastructure.

Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation: A Proposal for Standardization in Fellowship and Training Programs.

The need to be competent in neuromodulation is and should be a prerequisite prior to completing a fellowship in interventional pain medicine. Unfortunately, many programs lack acceptable candidates for these advanced therapies, and fellows may not receive adequate exposure to neuromodulation procedures. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) desires to create a consensus of experts to set a minimum standard of competence for neurostimulation procedures, including spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). The executive board of ASPN accepted nominations for colleagues with excellence in the subject matter of neuromodulation and physician education. This diverse group used peer-reviewed literature and, based on grading of evidence and expert opinion, developed critical consensus guides for training that all accredited fellowship programs should adopt. For each consensus point, transparency and recusal were used to eliminate bias, and an author was nominated for evidence grading oversight and bias control. Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation sets a standard for neuromodulation training in pain fellowship training programs. The consensus panel has determined several recommendations to improve care in the United States for patients undergoing neuromodulation. As neuromodulation training in the United States has evolved dramatically, these therapies have become ubiquitous in pain medicine. Unfortunately, fellowship programs and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pain program requirements have not progressed training to match the demands of modern advancements. PEAK sets a new standard for fellowship training and presents thirteen practice areas vital for physician competence in neuromodulation.

Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Review of Evidence for Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathies, the most common complication of diabetes, manifest in various forms, including entrapments, mononeuropathies or, most frequently, a distal symmetric polyneuropathy. Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) in the classic "stocking" distribution is a disease of increasing prevalence worldwide and a condition for which standard medical treatment only provides modest relief. Neuromodulation offers a potential alternative to pharmacotherapies given its demonstrated efficacy in other refractory chronic neuropathic pain syndromes. High-quality evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is available in these other settings for two approaches to spinal cord stimulation (SCS): (1) conventional low-frequency SCS (LF-SCS), which modulates axonal activity in the dorsal column and is paresthesia-dependent, and (2) high-frequency SCS delivered at 10 kilohertz (10 kHz SCS), which targets neurons in the superficial dorsal horn and is paresthesia-independent. METHOD: This review examines the evidence for SCS from published RCTs as well as prospective studies exploring the safety and effectiveness of treating PDN with neuromodulation. RESULTS: Two RCTs enrolling 60 and 36 participants with PDN showed treatment with LF-SCS reduced daytime pain by 45% to 55% for up to two years. An RCT testing 10 kHz SCS versus conventional medical management (CMM) in 216 participants with PDN revealed 76% mean pain relief after six months of stimulation. None of the studies revealed unexpected safety issues in the use of neuromodulation in this patient population. CONCLUSION: These well-designed RCTs address the unmet need for improved PDN therapies and provide data on the safety, effectiveness, and durability of SCS therapy.

Best Practices for Postoperative Management of Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Fusion.

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is a common cause of low back pain. Traditionally, treatment for SIJ joint pain and dysfunction has consisted of physical therapy, medication management, SIJ injections, and SIJ ablations. Improved recognition of the SIJ as an etiology for back pain has led to advances in treatment options. Radiofrequency of the lateral sacral branches has been shown to be effective, though evidence is fraught with inconsistent patient selection, study design and procedural technique. It also does not directly address the mechanical dysfunction of the SIJ. In order to create a more enduring approach SIJ fusion has become an attractive option to reduce pain and to improve function. This method of SI joint treatment requires guidance in the perioperative phase of care from both the physicians and advanced practice providers (APP). In order to improve care and outcomes of those undergoing posterior SI joint fusion the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience appointed an expert panel of physicians and advanced practice providers to create a best practice for the post operative care of this approach. As with any best practice, the panel considered current peer reviewed literature and clinical expertise to create guidance today. This is intended to be a living document with modifications as additional evidence comes to light in data publication. The goals of this paper are to focus on (1) wound care, (2) medication use, (3) physical activity and (4) therapeutic exercises.