Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulators-A Comprehensive Review Article.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Spinal cord stimulation has been increasing in influence as an option to regulate pain, especially in the chronic pain patient population. However, even with the numerous changes made to this technology since its inception, it is still prone to various complications such as hardware issues, neurological injury/epidural hematoma, infections, and other biological concerns. The purpose of this article is to thoroughly review and evaluate literature pertaining to the complications associated with percutaneous spinal cord stimulation. RECENT FINDINGS: Lead migration is generally the most common complication of percutaneous spinal cord stimulation; however, recent utilization of various anchoring techniques has been discussed and experienced clinical success in decreasing the prevalence of lead migration and lead fractures. With newer high-frequency systems gaining traction to improve pain management and decrease complications as compared to traditional systems, rechargeable implantable pulse generators have been the preferred power source. However, recent findings may suggest that these rechargeable implantable pulse generators do not significantly increase battery life as much as was proposed. Intraoperative neuromonitoring has seen success in mitigating neurological injury postoperatively and may see more usage in the future through more testing. Though the occurrence of infection and biological complications, including dural puncture and skin erosion, has been less frequent over time, they should still be treated in accordance with established protocols. While many complications can arise following percutaneous spinal cord stimulator implantation, the procedure is less invasive than open implantation and has seen largely positive patient feedback. Hardware complications, the more common issues that can occur, rarely indicate a serious risk and can generally be remedied through reoperation. However, less common cases such as neurological injury, infections, and biological complications require prompt diagnosis to improve the condition of the patient and prevent significant damage.

Analgesic Techniques for Rib Fractures-A Comprehensive Review Article.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Rib fractures are a common traumatic injury that has been traditionally treated with systemic opioids and non-opioid analgesics. Due to the adverse effects of opioid analgesics, regional anesthesia techniques have become an increasingly promising alternative. This review article aims to explore the efficacy, safety, and constraints of medical management and regional anesthesia techniques in alleviating pain related to rib fractures. RECENT FINDINGS: Recently, opioid analgesia, thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), and paravertebral block (PVB) have been favored options in the pain management of rib fractures. TEA has positive analgesic effects, and many studies vouch for its efficacy; however, it is contraindicated for many patients. PVB is a viable alternative to those with contraindications to TEA and exhibits promising outcomes compared to other regional anesthesia techniques; however, a failure rate of up to 10% and adverse complications challenge its administration in trauma settings. Serratus anterior plane blocks (SAPB) and erector spinae blocks (ESPB) serve as practical alternatives to TEA or PVB with lower incidences of adverse effects while exhibiting similar levels of analgesia. ESPB can be performed by trained emergency physicians, making it a feasible procedure to perform that is low-risk and efficient in pain management. Compared to the other techniques, intercostal nerve block (ICNB) had less analgesic impact and required concurrent intravenous medication to achieve comparable outcomes to the other blocks. The regional anesthesia techniques showed great success in improving pain scores and expediting recovery in many patients. However, choosing the optimal technique may not be so clear and will depend on the patient's case and the team's preferences. The peripheral nerve blocks have impressive potential in the future and may very well surpass neuraxial techniques; however, further research is needed to prove their efficacy and weaknesses.