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.

Approaches to neuropathic amputation-related pain: narrative review of surgical, interventional, and medical treatments.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Neuropathic amputation-related pain can consist of phantom limb pain (PLP), residual limb pain (RLP), or a combination of both pathologies. Estimated of lifetime prevalence of pain and after amputation ranges between 8% and 72%. OBJECTIVE: This narrative review aims to summarize the surgical and non-surgical treatment options for amputation-related neuropathic pain to aid in developing optimized multidisciplinary and multimodal treatment plans that leverage multidisciplinary care. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A search of the English literature using the following keywords was performed: PLP, amputation pain, RLP. Abstract and full-text articles were evaluated for surgical treatments, medical management, regional anesthesia, peripheral block, neuromodulation, spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglia, and peripheral nerve stimulation. FINDINGS: The evidence supporting most if not all interventions for PLP are inconclusive and lack high certainty. Targeted muscle reinnervation and regional peripheral nerve interface are the leading surgical treatment options for reducing neuroma formation and reducing PLP. Non-surgical options include pharmaceutical therapy, regional interventional techniques and behavioral therapies that can benefit certain patients. There is a growing evidence that neuromodulation at the spinal cord or the dorsal root ganglia and/or peripheral nerves can be an adjuvant therapy for PLP. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal approaches combining pharmacotherapy, surgery and invasive neuromodulation procedures would appear to be the most promising strategy for preventive and treating PLP and RLP. Future efforts should focus on cross-disciplinary education to increase awareness of treatment options exploring best practices for preventing pain at the time of amputation and enhancing treatment of chronic postamputation pain.

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.

The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. METHODS: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. RESULTS: The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. CONCLUSIONS: MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.

Uncomplicated removal of epidural catheters in 4365 patients with international normalized ratio greater than 1.4 during initiation of warfarin therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Current guidelines from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia state that an international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.4 is the upper limit of warfarin anticoagulation for safe removal of an epidural catheter. However, these guidelines are based primarily on expert consensus, and there is controversy regarding this recommendation as being "too conservative." METHODS: Prospective (3211) and retrospective (1154) patients undergoing total joint replacement followed by daily warfarin thromboprophylaxis were enrolled in this observational study. All nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and anticoagulants were held before surgery, and all patients had normal coagulation test results before surgery. Patients were followed twice a day by the acute pain service, no other anticoagulants except nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were administered, and epidural analgesia was discontinued per institutional protocol. Only patients with INR greater than 1.4 at the time of removal of epidural catheter were included. Neurologic checks were performed for 24 hrs after removal. RESULTS: A total of 4365 patients were included, and 79% underwent knee replacement and 18% hip replacement. Mean age was 68 yrs, and mean weight was 81 kg. Mean (SD) duration of epidural analgesia was 2.1 (0.6) days. Mean (SD) INR at the time of epidural removal was 1.9 (0.4), ranging from 1.5 to 7.1. No spinal hematomas were observed (0% incidence with 95% confidence interval, 0%-0.069%). CONCLUSIONS: Our series of 4365 patients had uncomplicated removal of epidural catheters despite INRs ranging from 1.5 to 5.9. Removal was only during initiation of warfarin therapy (up to approximately 50 hrs after warfarin intake) when several vitamin K factors are likely to still be adequate for hemostasis.

Efficacy of transverse tripolar spinal cord stimulator for the relief of chronic low back pain from failed back surgery.

BACKGROUND: Failed back surgery syndrome is a common clinical entity for which spinal cord stimulation has been found to be an effective mode of analgesia, but with variable success rates. OBJECTIVE: To determine if focal stimulation of the dorsal columns with a transverse tripolar lead might achieve deeper penetration of the electrical stimulus into the spinal cord and therefore provide greater analgesia to the back. DESIGN: Case report. METHODS: We describe a 42-year-old female with failed back surgery syndrome that had greater back pain than leg pain. The tripolar lead configuration was achieved by placing percutaneously an octapolar lead in the spinal midline followed by 2 adjacent quadripolar leads, advanced to the T7-T10 vertebral bodies. RESULTS: Tripolar stimulation pattern resulted in more than 70% pain relief in this patient during the screening trial, while stimulation of one or 2 electrodes only provided 20% pain relief. After implantation of a permanent tripolar electrode system with a single rechargeable battery, the pain relief was maintained for one year. CONCLUSION: This is case report describing a case of a patient with chronic low back pain with a diagnosis of failed back surgery syndrome in which transverse tripolar stimulation using an octapolar and 2 quadripolar leads appeared to be beneficial. The transverse tripolar system consists of a central cathode surrounded by anodes, using 3 leads. This arrangement may contribute to maximum dorsal column stimulation with minimal dorsal root stimulation and provide analgesia to the lower back.

Effects of perioperative administration of a selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor on pain management and recovery of function after knee replacement: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Controlling postoperative pain after knee replacement while reducing opioid-induced adverse effects and improving outcomes remains an important challenge. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of combined preoperative and postoperative administration of a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase 2 on opioid consumption and outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted June 2001 through September 2002, enrolling 70 patients aged 40 to 77 years and undergoing TKA at a university hospital in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 50 mg of oral rofecoxib at 24 hours and at 1 to 2 hours before TKA, 50 mg daily for 5 days postoperatively, and 25 mg daily for another 8 days, or matching placebo at the same times. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative outcomes including postsurgical analgesic consumption and pain scores achieved, nausea and vomiting, joint range of motion, sleep disturbance, patient satisfaction with analgesia, and hematologic and coagulation parameters. RESULTS: Total epidural analgesic consumption and in-hospital opioid consumption were less in the group receiving rofecoxib compared with the group receiving placebo (P<.05). Median pain score (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-10) achieved for the knee was lower in the rofecoxib group compared with the placebo group during hospital stay (2.2 [interquartile range [IQR], 1.4-3.2] vs 3.5 [IQR, 2.7-4.3], P<.001) and 1 week after discharge (2.6 [IQR, 1.4-3.5] vs 3.7 [IQR, 2.9-4.7], P =.03). There was less postoperative vomiting in the rofecoxib group (6%) compared with the placebo group (26%) (P =.047), as well as a decrease in sleep disturbance compared with the placebo group on the night of surgery (P =.006) and on the first (P =.047) and second (P<.001) days postoperatively. Knee flexion was increased in the rofecoxib group compared with the placebo group at discharge (active flexion: mean [SD], 84.2 degrees [11.1 degrees ] vs 73.2 degrees [13.6 degrees ], P =.03; passive flexion: 90.5 degrees [6.8 degrees ] vs 81.8 degrees [13.4 degrees ], P =.05) and at 1 month postoperatively (109.3 degrees [8.5 degrees ] vs 100.8 degrees [11.8 degrees ], P =.01), with shorter time in physical therapy to achieve effective joint range of motion. The rofecoxib group was more satisfied with analgesia and anesthesia at discharge compared with the placebo group (median satisfaction score, 4.3 [IQR, 3.0-4.7] vs 3.3 [IQR, 2.3-4.3], respectively; P =.03), and the differences persisted at 2-week and at 1-month follow-up. There was no intergroup difference in surgical blood loss (P>.05 for both intraoperative and postoperative blood loss). CONCLUSION: Perioperative use of an inhibitor of cyclooxygenase 2 is an effective component of multimodal analgesia that reduces opioid consumption, pain, vomiting, and sleep disturbance, with improved knee range of motion after TKA.