A Review of the Factors and Outcomes of Institutional Interdisciplinary Neuromodulation Committees: A Multicenter Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Neuromodulation represents one of the more advanced tools in the armamentarium of pain physicians. To optimize neuromodulation patient selection and management, an institutional interdisciplinary neuromodulation committee was created at each of two academic medical centers (University of California Davis [UCD] and Stanford University). The committee aims to collaboratively optimize neuromodulation candidates, to assess and minimize medical and psychologic risks, and to select the best device given a patient's pain condition. In this study, we present the methods and outcome data of the Neuromodulation Committee at the two institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we included all adult patients who were evaluated by the Neuromodulation Committee between 2017 and 2020 at two academic pain clinics. Patients with insufficient data were excluded from the study. A retrospective chart review was completed on 385 UCD and Stanford University patient committee reviews. Data collected from the chart review included demographics (age, sex), committee meeting results (proceed with trial/implant or decline), trial success, and implant rate. RESULTS: Of the 385 patients screened, the committees recommended proceeding with an implantable device (peripheral and neuraxial) in 337 patients (87.5%). Of the 278 patients recommended for neuraxial neuromodulation, 131 underwent trials with percutaneous leads (47.1%). Trials were successful (causing a ≥50% reduction in self-reported pain or improved function) in 108 patients (82.4%). The institutions completed 87 implants of 131 trials, representing a trial-to-permanent ratio of 66.4%. CONCLUSIONS: The Neuromodulation Committee aims to identify optimal patients for neuromodulation, address procedural challenges, decrease adverse events, provide educational context for trainees, and improve patient-related outcomes. Patients who were recommended for neuromodulation and subsequently underwent intervention had high trial success rates for dorsal root ganglion stimulation and spinal cord stimulation. The findings indicate that such an approach can lead to neuromodulation success, especially at academic centers, by combining the expertise of both medical and psychologic professionals.

Instrumented Posterior Arthrodesis of the Lumbar Spine: Prospective Study Evaluating Fusion Outcomes in Patients Receiving an Interspinous Fixation Device for the Treatment of Degenerative Spine Diseases.

Purpose: Prospective evaluation of radiographic fusion outcomes in patients receiving instrumented posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar spine using a minimally invasive interspinous fixation device. Patients and Methods: All patients (n = 110) from a single US physician's practice who received instrumented posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar spine with a minimally invasive interspinous fixation device in the calendar year 2020 were invited to return for a follow-up CT scan to radiographically assess fusion. Forty-three patients, representing 69 total treated levels, consented to participate and received a lumbar CT scan at a mean of 459 days post-surgery (177 to 652). The interspinous/interlaminar fusion was assessed by 3 independent radiologists using a novel grading scale. Spinous process fractures were also assessed. Results: 92.8% of the assessed levels were considered fused. There were no intraoperative spinous process fractures. There were 4 spinous process fractures (5.8%) identified on CT imaging, all of which were asymptomatic and healed without subsequent intervention. There were no instances of device mechanical failure or device-related reoperation. Conclusion: Instrumented posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar spine using a minimally invasive interspinous fixation device provides clinically meaningful fusion rates with no reoperations and a low risk of spinous process fracture or other device-related complications.