A systematic review and bayesian meta-analysis of medical devices used in chronic pain management.

Whilst. pharmacological therapies remain the cornerstone of pain management in chronic pain, factors including the current opioid epidemic have led to non-pharmacological techniques becoming a more attractive proposition. We explored the prevalence of medical device use and their treatment efficacy in non-cancer pain management. A systematic methodology was developed, peer reviewed and published in PROSPERO (CRD42021235384). Key words of medical device, pain management devices, chronic pain, lower back pain, back pain, leg pain and chronic pelvic pain using Science direct, PubMed, Web of Science, PROSPERO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PorQuest and ClinicalTrials.gov. All clinical trials, epidemiology and mixed methods studies that reported the use of medical devices for non-cancer chronic pain management published between the 1st of January 1990 and the 30th of April 2022 were included. 13 studies were included in systematic review, of these 6 were used in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis for pain reduction showed that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation combined with instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization treatment and pulsed electromagnetic therapy produced significant treatment on chronic lower back pain patients. Pooled evidence revealed the use of medical device related interventions resulted in 0.7 degree of pain reduction under a 0-10 scale. Significant improvement in disability scores, with a 7.44 degree reduction in disability level compared to a placebo using a 50 score range was also seen. Our analysis has shown that the optimal use of medical devices in a sustainable manner requires further research, needing larger cohort studies, greater gender parity, in a more diverse range of geographical locations.

Relationship between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries and outcomes following spinal cord stimulator implantation: A multisite, retrospective pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for treating disabling spine-related pain. In recent decades, both the number and cost of spine surgeries have increased despite technological advances and modification in surgical technique. For those patients that have continued uncontrolled back and/or lower extremity pain following lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a viable treatment option. However, the impact of lumbar spine surgical history remains largely unstudied. Specifically, the current study considers the impact of number of prior lumbar spine surgeries on pain relief outcomes following SCS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the electronic medical record of five separate pain practices for all patients who have undergone a SCS implant between January 1, 2017, and March 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of any patients with an SCS implant who underwent a prior lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome was the mean calculated percentage pain relief in patients based on number of prior lumbar spine surgeries. RESULTS: There was a total of 1974 total SCS implant cases identified across five separate pain clinics. There was no difference in mean calculated pain relief in patients with one prior spine surgery versus those with two or more prior spine surgeries (28.2% vs. 25.8%, adjusted ß-coefficient -3.1, 95% CI -8.9 to 2.7, p = 0.290). Similarly, when analyzing number of spine surgeries as a continuous variable, there was no association between number of spine surgeries and calculated pain relief (adjusted ß-coefficient -1.5, 95% CI -4.0 to 1.1, p = 0.257). Additionally, after patients were stratified based on waveform, there was no association between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries (analyzed both as a categorical and continuous variable) and calculated percentage pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentered retrospective study found that there was no significant difference in pain scores in individuals who received SCS following one or more lumbar spine surgeries. Additionally, the waveform of the SCS device had no statistically significant impact on post-operative pain scores following one or more lumbar spine surgeries.

Five-Year Longitudinal Follow-Up of Restorative Neurostimulation Shows Durability of Effectiveness in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Associated With Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Adults with refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscle have few treatment options that provide long-term clinical benefit. This study hypothesized that restorative neurostimulation, a rehabilitative treatment that activates the lumbar multifidus muscles to overcome underlying dysfunction, is safe and provides relevant and durable clinical benefit to patients with this specific etiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective five-year longitudinal follow-up of the ReActiv8-B pivotal trial, participants (N = 204) had activity-limiting, moderate-to-severe, refractory, mechanical chronic low back pain, a positive prone instability test result indicating impaired multifidus muscle control, and no indications for spine surgery. Low back pain intensity (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index), and quality of life (EuroQol's "EQ-5D-5L" index) were compared with baseline and following the intent-to-treat principle, with a supporting mixed-effects model for repeated measures that accounted for missing data. RESULTS: At five years (n = 126), low back pain VAS had improved from 7.3 to 2.4 cm (-4.9; 95% CI, -5.3 to -4.5 cm; p < 0.0001), and 71.8% of participants had a reduction of ≥50%. The Oswestry Disability Index improved from 39.1 to 16.5 (-22.7; 95% CI, -25.4 to -20.8; p < 0.0001), and 61.1% of participants had reduction of ≥20 points. The EQ-5D-5L index improved from 0.585 to 0.807 (0.231; 95% CI, 0.195-0.267; p < 0.0001). Although the mixed-effects model attenuated completed-case results, conclusions and statistical significance were maintained. Of 52 subjects who were on opioids at baseline and had a five-year visit, 46% discontinued, and 23% decreased intake. The safety profile compared favorably with neurostimulator treatments for other types of back pain. No lead migrations were observed. CONCLUSION: Over a five-year period, restorative neurostimulation provided clinically substantial and durable benefits with a favorable safety profile in patients with refractory chronic low back pain associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354; registration date: October 15, 2016; principal investigator: Christopher Gilligan, MD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. The study was conducted in Australia (Broadmeadow, New South Wales; Noosa Heads, Queensland; Welland, South Australia; Clayton, Victoria), Belgium (Sint-Niklaas; Wilrijk), The Netherlands (Rotterdam), UK (Leeds, London, Middlesbrough), and USA (La Jolla, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Aurora, CO; Carmel, IN; Indianapolis, IN; Kansas City, KS; Boston, MA; Royal Oak, MI; Durham, NC; Winston-Salem, NC; Cleveland, OH; Providence, RI; Spartanburg, SC; Spokane, WA; Charleston, WV).

Novel Implantation Technique for Thoracoabdominal Peripheral Nerve Stimulation via a Transversus Abdominal Plane Approach for Treatment of Chronic Abdominal Pain.

Background: Chronic abdominal pain (CAP) is a common and challenging to treat condition with a global prevalence of up to 25%. Despite extensive evaluation, approximately 40% of patients with CAP have an unknown diagnosis. Medications may be ineffective, and surgery is rarely indicated. Interventional treatment including sympathetic blocks, sympathetic neurolysis, and transversus abdominal plane (TAP) blocks may be an option, but their efficacy can wane over time. Neuromodulation has emerged as an option for these patients, as there is evidence of success with dorsal column spinal cord and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) may be an alternative option, particularly in higher risk patients or in patients for whom neuraxial access may be unsafe or too technically challenging. Thoracoabdominal nerve peripheral nerve stimulation via a TAP approach may be more specifically targeted in comparison to dorsal column or DRG stimulation. In this short report, we detail a technique that the authors have successfully used for thoracoabdominal nerve PNS via a TAP approach for management of CAP. Methods: This article describes a novel medial to lateral ultrasound guided thoracoabdominal nerve PNS via a TAP approach technique for lead placement and implantation. Results: A medial to lateral ultrasound guided TAP approach as described to successfully implant percutaneous thoracoabdominal nerve PNS leads for management of CAP. Conclusion: The thoracoabdominal nerve PNS via a TAP approach lead placement technique noted in this report has been used as a means for management of CAP utilizing peripheral neuromodulation. Here, we present a short report detailing a potential technique for PNS utilization for management of CAP. Further studies are needed to validate the safety and efficacy of this therapy modality, although the authors have found it to be a viable management option for patients with medically refractory neuropathic CAP.

Safety, Efficacy, and Durability of Outcomes: Results from SECURE: A Single Arm, Multicenter, Prospective, Clinical Study on a Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Fusion Allograft Implant.

Introduction: Research suggests that sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction is responsible for 15% to 30% of reported low back pain cases. Recently, there has been an increasing interest in SIJ fusion using minimally invasive surgery (MIS) due to safety. Initially, devices designed for MIS were intended for lateral approaches. A minimally invasive sacroiliac fusion implant for use with a posterior approach has been developed and is regulated for clinical use under the regulatory framework required for human cells, tissues, or cellular or tissue-based products (HCT/Ps). Methods: A multi-center, prospective, single-arm study was launched after initial studies provided preliminary data to support safety, efficacy, and durability of this minimally invasive sacroiliac posterior fusion LinQ allograft implant (NCT04423120). Preliminary results were reported previously. Final results for the full participant cohort are presented here. Results: One-hundred and fifty-nine (159) participants were enrolled across 16 investigational sites in the US between January 2020 and March 2022. One-hundred and twenty-two (122) participants were implanted. At the 1-month follow-up, 82 participants satisfied all criteria for the composite responder endpoint, representing 73.2% of the study cohort. These results stayed consistent across the remaining study timepoints with 66.0%, 74.4%, and 73.5% of participants classified as responders at the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up visits, respectively. VAS scores were significantly reduced (p < 0.0001) and ODI scores were significantly improved (p < 0.0001). All domains of the PROMIS-29 were also significantly improved (all p's <0.0001). Only one procedure-related serious AE was reported in the study. Conclusion: These results suggest that the posterior approach LinQ Implant System is a safe and effective treatment for sacroiliac joint dysfunction at 12 months, with results that are favorable compared to outcomes reported for an FDA-cleared lateral approach.

Neuromodulation for the management of chronic pelvic pain syndromes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain is a burdensome condition that involves multiple medical sub-specialties and is often difficult to treat. Sacral stimulation for functional bladder disease has been well established, but little large-scale evidence exists regarding utilization of other neuromodulation techniques to treat chronic pelvic pain. Emerging evidence does suggest that neuromodulation is a promising treatment, and we aim to characterize the use and efficacy of such techniques for treating chronic pelvic pain syndromes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature demonstrating the treatment of chronic pelvic pain syndromes with neuromodulation. Abstracts were reviewed and selected for inclusion, including case series, prospective studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Case studies and publications in abstract only were not included. The reporting for this systematic review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus. RESULTS: A total of 50 studies were included in this review, three of which were randomized controlled trials, and the remaining were prospective and retrospective case series. The range of pelvic pain conditions treated included interstitial cystitis, peripheral neuralgia, pudendal neuralgia, gastrointestinal pain, urogenital pain, sacroiliac joint pain, and visceral chronic pelvic pain. We reported on outcomes involving pain, functionality, psychosocial improvement, and medication reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Neuromodulation is a growing treatment for various chronic pain syndromes. Peripheral nerve stimulation was the least studied form of stimulation. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation appears to offer short-term benefit, but long-term results are challenging. Sacral nerve stimulation is established for use in functional bladder syndromes and appears to offer pain improvement in these patients as well. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation and spinal cord stimulation have been used for a variety of conditions with promising results. Further studies of homogeneous patient populations are necessary before strong recommendations can be made at this time, although pooled analysis may also be impactful.

Medical Cannabis: A Review from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

Cannabinoids have recently gained a renewed interest due to their potential applicability to various medical conditions, specifically the management of chronic pain conditions. Unlike many other medications, medical cannabis is not associated with serious adverse events, and no overdose deaths have been reported. However, both safety and efficacy data for medical cannabis treatment of chronic, nonmalignant pain conditions are lacking. Therefore, representatives from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience summarize the evidence, according to level and grade, for medical cannabis treatment of several different pain conditions. Treatment of cancer-related pain has prospective evidentiary support for the use of medical cannabis. Although 3 large and well-designed randomized controlled trials investigated cannabis treatment of cancer-related pain, the evidence yielded only a grade D recommendation. Neuropathic pain has been investigated in prospective studies, but a lack of high-quality evidence renders cannabis treatment for this indication a grade C recommendation. Both safety and efficacy data are lacking for use of medical cannabis to treat chronic nonmalignant pain conditions.

Informed Consent for Spine Procedures: Best Practice Guideline from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

Introduction: The evolution of treatment options for painful spinal disorders in diverse settings has produced a variety of approaches to patient care among clinicians from multiple professional backgrounds. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practice group identified a need for a multidisciplinary guideline regarding appropriate and effective informed consent processes for spine procedures. Objective: The ASPN Informed Consent Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with a comprehensive evaluation of patient consent practices during the treatment of spine pathology. Methods: After a needs assessment, ASPN determined that best practice regarding proper informed consent for spinal procedures was needed and a process of selecting faculty was developed based on expertise, diversity, and knowledge of the subject matter. A comprehensive literature search was conducted and when appropriate, evidence grading was performed. Recommendations were based on evidence when available, and when limited, based on consensus opinion. Results: Following a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Informed Consent Guideline group rated the literature to assist with specification of best practice regarding patient consent during the management of spine disorders. Conclusion: Careful attention to informed consent is critical in achieving an optimal outcome and properly educating patients. This process involves a discussion of risks, advantages, and alternatives to treatment. As the field of interventional pain and spine continues to grow, it is imperative that clinicians effectively educate patients and obtain comprehensive informed consent for invasive procedures. This consent should be tailored to the patient's specific needs to ensure an essential recognition of patient autonomy and reasonable expectations of treatment.

Treatment of Refractory Low Back Pain Using Passive Recharge Burst in Patients Without Options for Corrective Surgery: Findings and Results From the DISTINCT Study, a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for relieving chronic intractable pain conditions. The Dorsal spInal cord STImulatioN vs mediCal management for the Treatment of low back pain study evaluates the effectiveness of SCS compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who had not undergone and were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were randomized to passive recharge burst therapy (n = 162) or CMM (n = 107). They reported severe pain and disability for more than a decade and had failed a multitude of therapies. Common diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, stenosis, and scoliosis-yet not to a degree amenable to surgery. The six-month primary end point compared responder rates, defined by a 50% reduction in pain. Hierarchical analyses of seven secondary end points were performed in the following order: composite responder rate (numerical rating scale [NRS] or Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), NRS, ODI, Pain Catastrophizing Scale responder rate, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responder rate, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 in pain interference and physical function. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant difference in pain responders on NRS between SCS (72.6%) and CMM (7.1%) arms (p < 0.0001). Of note, 85.2% of those who received six months of therapy responded on NRS compared with 6.2% of those with CMM (p < 0.0001). All secondary end points indicated the superiority of burst therapy over CMM. A composite measure on function or pain relief showed 91% of subjects with SCS improved, compared with 16% of subjects with CMM. A substantial improvement of 30 points was observed on ODI compared with a

Interventional Pain Physician Burnout During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The study sought to assess the prevalence of physician burnout among interventional pain physicians in 2022. RECENT FINDINGS: Physician burnout is major psychosocial and occupational health issue. Prior to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, over 60% of physicians reported emotional exhaustion and burnout. Physician burnout was reported to become more prevalent in multiple medical specialties during the COVID-19 pandemic. An 18-question survey was distributed electronically to all ASPN members (n = 7809) in the summer of 2022 to assess demographics, burnout characteristics (e.g., Have you felt burned out due to COVID?), and strategies to cope with burnout and stress (e.g., reached out for mental health assistance). Members were able to complete the survey once and were unable to make changes to their responses once submitted. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the prevalence and severity of physician burnout within the ASPN community. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in burnout by provider characteristics (age, gender, years practicing, and practice type) with p-values less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. There were 7809 ASPN members that received the survey email, 164 of those members completed the survey, a response rate of 2.1%. The majority of respondents were male (74.1%, n = 120), 94% were attending physicians (n = 152), and 26% (n = 43) have been in practice for twenty years or longer. Most respondents expressed having experienced burnout during the COVID pandemic (73.5%, n = 119), 21.6% of the sample reported reduced hours and responsibilities during the pandemic, and 6.2% of surveyed physicians quit or retired due to burnout. Nearly half of responders reported negative impacts to their family and social lives as well as personal physical and mental health. A variety of negative (e.g., changes in diet, smoking/vaping) and positive coping strategies (e.g., exercise and training, spiritual enrichment) were employed in response to stress and burnout; 33.5% felt they should or had reached out for mental health assistance and suicidal ideations were expressed in 6.2% due to burnout. A high percentage of interventional pain physicians continue to experience mental symptoms that may lead to risk for significant issues going forward. Our findings should be interpreted with caution based on the low response rate. Evaluation of burnout should be incorporated into annual assessments given issues of survey fatigue and low survey response rates. Interventions and strategies to address burnout are warranted.

Long-Term Outcomes of Restorative Neurostimulation in Patients With Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Secondary to Multifidus Dysfunction: Two-Year Results of the ReActiv8-B Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Impaired neuromuscular control and degeneration of the multifidus muscle have been linked to the development of refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP). An implantable restorative-neurostimulator system can override the underlying multifidus inhibition by eliciting episodic, isolated contractions. The ReActiv8-B randomized, active-sham-controlled trial provided effectiveness and safety evidence for this system, and all participants received therapeutic stimulation from four months onward. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the two-year effectiveness of this restorative neurostimulator in patients with disabling CLBP secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction and no indications for spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Open-label follow-up of 204 participants implanted with a restorative neurostimulation system (ReActiv8, Mainstay Medical, Dublin, Ireland) was performed. Pain intensity (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry disability index [ODI]), quality-of-life (EQ-5D-5L), and opioid intake were assessed at baseline, six months, one year, and two years after activation. RESULTS: At two years (n = 156), the proportion of participants with ≥50% CLBP relief was 71%, and 65% reported CLBP resolution (VAS ≤ 2.5 cm); 61% had a reduction in ODI of ≥20 points, 76% had improvements of ≥50% in VAS and/or ≥20 points in ODI, and 56% had these substantial improvements in both VAS and ODI. A total of 87% of participants had continued device use during the second year for a median of 43% of the maximum duration, and 60% (34 of 57) had voluntarily discontinued (39%) or reduced (21%) opioid intake. CONCLUSIONS: At two years, 76% of participants experienced substantial, clinically meaningful improvements in pain, disability, or both. These results provide evidence of long-term effectiveness and durability of restorative neurostimulation in patients with disabling CLBP, secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov with identifier NCT02577354.

Three-Year Durability of Restorative Neurostimulation Effectiveness in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Multifidus Muscle Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Restorative neurostimulation is a rehabilitative treatment for patients with refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP) associated with dysfunction of the lumbar multifidus muscle resulting in impaired neuromuscular control. The ReActiv8-B randomized, sham-controlled trial provided evidence of the effectiveness and safety of an implanted, restorative neurostimulator. The two-year analysis previously published in this journal demonstrated accrual of clinical benefits and long-term durability. OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of three-year effectiveness and safety in patients with refractory, disabling CLBP secondary to multifidus muscle dysfunction and no indications for spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, observational follow-up of the 204 implanted trial participants. Low back pain visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol quality of life survey, and opioid intake were assessed at baseline, six months, and one, two, and three years after activation. The mixed-effects model repeated measures approach was used to provide implicit imputations of missing data for continuous outcomes and multiple imputation for proportion estimates. RESULTS: Data were collected from 133 participants, and 16 patients missed their three-year follow-up because of coronavirus disease restrictions but remain available for future follow-up. A total of 62% of participants had a ≥ 70% VAS reduction, and 67% reported CLBP resolution (VAS ≤ 2.5cm); 63% had a reduction in ODI of ≥ 20 points; 83% had improvements of ≥ 50% in VAS and/or ≥ 20 points in ODI, and 56% had these substantial improvements in both VAS and ODI. A total of 71% (36/51) participants on opioids at baseline had voluntarily discontinued (49%) or reduced (22%) opioid intake. The attenuation of effectiveness in the imputed (N = 204) analyses was relatively small and did not affect the statistical significance and clinical relevance of these results. The safety profile remains favorable, and no lead migrations have been observed to date. CONCLUSION: At three years, 83% of participants experienced clinically substantial improvements in pain, disability, or both. The results confirm the long-term effectiveness, durability, and safety of restorative neurostimulation in patients with disabling CLBP associated with multifidus muscle dysfunction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02577354.

A post-market, randomized, controlled, prospective study evaluating intrathecal pain medication versus conventional medical management in the non-cancer, refractory, chronic pain population (PROSPER).

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal therapy has been limited by non-randomized prospective studies, particularly for those suffering from non-cancer. Further, no prospective, randomized studies investigating the efficacy, safety, and utilization of intrathecal polyanalgesic consensus guidelines exist. METHODS: After IRB approval, patients were enrolled in a 1:1 fashion for intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) or conventional management (CMM), employing standard of care, excluding intrathecal drug delivery, based on the principal investigator's discretion. They were followed 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Assessments included PROMIS 29, NPRS, and PriceMonkey. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were screened, 54 patients were enrolled: 26 to IDD and 28 to CMM. At 3 months, there was no measurable difference in pain improvement in either subgroups within the CMM for chronic pain-related syndromes (CPRS) or failed back and related spine disorders (FBRS). For the IDD, early and maintained benefit from the baseline was statistically achieved. Cost analysis of pump to CMM breakeven was 4.5 months. There were no adverse events related to compounded intrathecal medications. CONCLUSION: This is the first randomized prospective, multicenter study investigating the safety, cost, and efficacy of off-label medications for intrathecal therapy, as compared to conventional management, and suggests early detection of improvement, cost savings, safety of intrathecal compounded medication use, and safety and efficacy of employing the PACC guidance.

Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience for the Use of Implantable Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

The objective of this peripheral nerve stimulation consensus guideline is to add to the current family of consensus practice guidelines and incorporate a systematic review process. The published literature was searched from relevant electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from database inception to March 29, 2021. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies that described peripheral nerve stimulation in patients in terms of clinical outcomes for various pain conditions, physiological mechanism of action, surgical technique, technique of placement, and adverse events. Twenty randomized controlled trials and 33 prospective observational studies were included in the systematic review process. There is Level I evidence supporting the efficacy of PNS for treatment of chronic migraine headaches via occipital nerve stimulation; chronic hemiplegic shoulder pain via stimulation of nerves innervating the trapezius, supraspinatus, and deltoid muscles; failed back surgery syndrome via subcutaneous peripheral field stimulation; and lower extremity neuropathic and lower extremity post-amputation pain. Evidence from current Level I studies combined with newer technologies facilitating less invasive and easier electrode placement make peripheral nerve stimulation an attractive alternative for managing patients with complex pain disorders. Peripheral nerve stimulation should be used judiciously as an adjunct for chronic and acute postoperative pain following adequate patient screening and positive diagnostic nerve block or stimulation trial.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation as a Salvage Therapy Following Failed Spinal Cord Stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can provide long-term pain relief for various chronic pain conditions, but some patients have no relief with trial stimulation or lose efficacy over time. To "salvage" relief in patients who do not respond or have lost efficacy, alternative stimulation paradigms or anatomical targets can be considered. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) has a different mechanism of action and anatomical target than SCS. OBJECTIVES: We assessed DRG-S salvage therapy outcomes in patients who did not respond to SCS or had lost SCS efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively included consecutive patients from 2016 to 2020 who were salvaged with DRG-S after failed SCS trials (<50% pain reduction) or who had lost efficacy after permanent SCS. We compared numerical rating scale (NRS) pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), health-related quality of life (EuroQol five-dimensions five-level), and oral morphine equivalent (OME) opioid requirements before DRG-S salvage and at patients' last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients who had failed SCS were salvaged with DRG-S. The mean age was 56 ± 12 years, and the most common diagnoses were complex regional pain syndrome (n = 24) and failed back surgery syndrome (n = 24). The most common failed modalities included tonic (n = 32), Burst (n = 18), and high-frequency (n = 10) SCS. The median follow-up duration of salvage DRG-S was 34 months. With DRG-S, NRS decreased (8.7 ± 1.2 to 3.8 ± 2.1), and OME declined (median 23 mg to median 15 mg), whereas EuroQol 5D scores increased (0.40 ± 0.15 to 0.71 ± 0.15), and ODI improved (64 ± 14% to 31 ± 18%) (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DRG-S can be used in patients with chronic pain who have previously failed to receive persistent benefit from SCS.

Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal disease of aging with a growing patient population, paralleling population growth. Minimally invasive treatments are evolving, and the use of these techniques needs guidance to provide the optimal patient safety and efficacy outcomes. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for guidance on the prudent use of the innovative minimally invasive surgical therapies for the treatment of symptomatic LSS. The executive board nominated experts spanning anesthesiology, physiatry, orthopedic surgery, and neurosurgery based on expertise, publications, research, diversity and field of practice. Evidence was reviewed, graded using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence and recommendation strength and grade, and expert opinion was added to make consensus points for best practice. Results: The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for LSS-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using USPSTF criteria and consensus points are presented. Discussion: The algorithm for patient selection in the management of symptomatic spinal stenosis is evolving. Careful consideration of patient selection and anatomic architecture variance is critical for improved outcomes and patient safety. Conclusion: ASPN created a guidance for best practice for minimally invasive surgical treatment of symptomatic spinal stenosis.

Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems Survey: Trends in Utilization in Pain Practice.

Background: The use of intrathecal drug delivery for chronic and cancer pain medicine has been established for decades. However, optimization and utilization of this technique still lag behind other modalities for pain control. Some of this may be due to variability of surgical technique, medication usage and education. It is currently unclear on whether or not practitioners follow available algorithms for the use of intrathecal drug delivery systems. Methods: A survey developed by the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) was sent to its members via email using the cloud-based SurveyMonkey. After 30 days of being available, 159 different providers responded to the survey that consisted of 31 various multiple choice and free response questions. Each question was not required and the number of responses to each varied from 128 to 159. Results: Approximately 9% of those who successfully received and opened the email containing the survey responded, likely due to a small number of providers working with intrathecal drug delivery systems. Eighty-six of respondents practice medicine in the United States, and 87% of the respondents were attending physicians. A majority of respondents, approximately 74%, were board certified in pain medicine with 69% of respondents being train in anesthesiology. The first and second most used medications for intrathecal pump trial were morphine and fentanyl, respectively. Most respondents, approximately 96%, provide pre-operative/intra-operative antibiotics. The most common first-choice medication for implanted intrathecal pumps was also morphine with the most common implanted location being the abdomen. Conclusion: Interestingly, there is currently fairly substantial variation in the way providers utilize intrathecal pump delivery for both chronic and cancer pain. There is variation from the training background of the providers providing care, to the pre-implantation trial medications, to where the pump is implanted for each patient, to if the patient has the option to give themselves boluses once implanted. Further research is needed to elucidate current and best practices for intrathecal drug delivery system trials, implantations, and utilization.

The incidence of lumbar spine surgery following Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression and Superion Indirect Decompression System for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar spinal stenosis affects more than 200,000 adults in the United States, resulting in approximately 38,000 operations among the Medicare population and greater than $1.5 billion in hospital bills alone. Fortunately, Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (MILD) and the Superion Indirect Decompression System have shown lasting benefit and cost savings compared to more aggressive surgical options. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to retrospectively determine the rate of lumbar decompression surgery following the MILD and Superion procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a pooled retrospective review of LSS patients who received MILD and/or Superion procedures between January 2011 and July 2019. Adult patients with CPT codes for MILD and Superion procedures were identified. Patients were included if they had a follow-up visit at least 2 years from the procedure date, preprocedural MRI results, and surgical notes. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 57 patients (28.6%) underwent MILD procedure only, 124 patients (62.3%) underwent Superion only, and 18 patients (9.0%) underwent an MILD procedure initially followed by a Superion procedure. Two patients had an MILD procedure performed twice at the same level at separate encounters. A total of four patients in the entire cohort (2.0%; MILD 5.3%, Superion 0.8%) underwent subsequent lumbar spine surgery when followed for at least 2 years. It is notable that some of these patients may not have been surgical candidates and this may have skewed the results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing minimally invasive decompression treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis have low rates of subsequent open surgery which potentially results in cost savings and a reduction in severe adverse events. The reason for low surgical rate may reflect improvement in their symptoms, a preference to avoid surgery, or being deemed not a surgical candidate.

The MOTION Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Objective Real-World Outcomes for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients Treated with the mild® Procedure: One-Year Results.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to provide Level-1 objective, real-world outcome data for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. DESIGN: The MOTION Study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the mild® Procedure (minimally invasive lumbar decompression; Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) as a first-line therapy in combination with nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) vs CMM alone as the active control. METHODS: Patients in the test group received the mild Procedure at baseline. Both the mild+CMM group and the control group were allowed unrestricted access to conventional real-world therapies. Patient-reported outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A validated Walking Tolerance Test, the incidence of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and the occurrence of adverse events were used to measure objective outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients in each group were analyzed at 1-year follow-up. No device- or procedure-related adverse events were reported in either group. Results from all primary and secondary outcome measures showed statistical significance in favor of mild+CMM. CONCLUSIONS: One-year results of this Level-1 study demonstrated superiority of mild+CMM over CMM alone for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. Use of the validated Walking Tolerance Test to objectively measure increased ability to walk without severe symptoms provided evidence of statistically significantly better outcomes for mild+CMM than for CMM alone. With no reported device or procedure-related adverse events, the long-standing safety profile of the mild Procedure was reaffirmed. mild is a safe, durable, minimally invasive procedure that has been shown to be effective as an early interventional therapy for patients suffering from symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.

Pain Relief Salvage with a Novel Minimally Invasive Posterior Sacroiliac Joint Fusion Device in Patients with Previously Implanted Pain Devices and Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is a common cause of low back pain, a problem experienced by two-thirds of adults in the United States population. Traditionally, the management of persistent SIJ-related pain has involved conservative therapies (physical therapy, topical medications, oral anti-inflammatory medications), interventional therapies (SIJ steroid injections or ablation), and surgery (SIJ fusion; open and lateral approach). Recent advancements in technology have paved the way for SIJ fusion via a posterior approach, which aims to minimize complications and enhance recovery. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to introduce the concept of the posterior approach to SIJ fusion as a feasible adjunct and salvage technique for patients with inadequate pain relief from other minimally invasive surgical procedures, and to validate its efficacy through a retrospective multicenter data analysis. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective observational study. METHODS: Patients with refractory SIJ pain were treated by interventional pain physicians at one of the eight different pain management centers. All patients underwent posterior SIJ fusion via the LinQTM sacroiliac fusion procedure. Demographical data were collected, in addition to patient-reported pain relief. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included in the study and underwent posterior SIJ fusion for refractory SIJ-related pain following the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), interspinous spacer (ISS), intrathecal drug delivery (IDDS), and/or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). Overall, the mean patient reported pain relief following posterior SIJ fusion was 67.6%. In patients with a history of failed back surgery syndrome, the mean patient reported pain relief was 76.5%. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective case series of patients with continued intolerable pain following SCS, ISS, IDDS, or MILD, a novel posterior SIJ fusion device provided significant pain relief in a salvage manner. These early results suggest that this intervention may be a therapeutic option to consider in these patients.