Patient and physician radiation exposure during minimally invasive lumbar decompression: A prospective assessment of X-ray exposure risks.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild®) is becoming a popular procedure for treating lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum (LF). The mild® procedure is commonly performed under live fluoroscopic guidance and carries a risk of radiation exposure to the patient and healthcare. METHODS: One physician performed mild® on 41 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Pain Management from October 2019 to December 2021, while wearing a radiation exposure monitor (Mirion Technologies). Mean fluoroscopy time, mean exposure per case, and mean exposure per unilateral level decompressed were the primary outcomes measured. The secondary outcome was to provide a comparison of radiation exposure during similar fluoroscopically guided procedures. RESULTS: Mean patient fluoroscopy exposure time was 2.1 min ±0.9 (range: 1.1-5.6) fluoroscopy time per unilateral level decompressed. The mean patient radiation skin exposure from mild® was 1.1 ± 0.9 mGym2, and the mean total dose was 142.3 ± 108.6 mGy per procedure. On average, the physician was exposed to an average deep tissue exposure of 4.1 ± 3.2 mRem, 2.9 ± 2.2 mRem estimated eye exposure, and 14.7 ± 11.0 mRem shallow tissue exposure per unilateral level decompressed. An individual physician would exceed the annual exposure limit of 5 Rem after approximately 610 mild® procedures per year. CONCLUSIONS: This study is an attempt to quantify the radiation exposure to the physician and patient during the mild® procedure. Compared with other fluoroscopically guided pain management procedures, patient and physician radiation exposure during mild® was low.

Defining the Patient with Lumbar Discogenic Pain: Real-World Implications for Diagnosis and Effective Clinical Management.

There is an enormous body of literature that has identified the intervertebral disc as a potent pain generator. However, with regard to lumbar degenerative disc disease, the specific diagnostic criteria lack clarity and fail to capture the primary components which include axial midline low back pain with or without non-radicular/non-sciatic referred leg pain in a sclerotomal distribution. In fact, there is no specific ICD-10-CM diagnostic code to classify and define discogenic pain as a unique source of pain distinct from other recognized sources of chronic low back pain including facetogenic, neurocompressive including herniation and/or stenosis, sacroiliac, vertebrogenic, and psychogenic. All of these other sources have well-defined ICD-10-CM codes. Corresponding codes for discogenic pain remain absent from the diagnostic coding vernacular. The International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery (ISASS) has proposed a modernization of ICD-10-CM codes to specifically define pain associated with lumbar and lumbosacral degenerative disc disease. The proposed codes would also allow the pain to be characterized by location: lumbar region only, leg only, or both. Successful implementation of these codes would benefit both physicians and payers in distinguishing, tracking, and improving algorithms and treatments for discogenic pain associated with intervertebral disc degeneration.

The Choice of Spinal Cord Stimulation Versus Targeted Drug Delivery in the Management of Chronic Pain: Validation of an Outcomes Predictive Formula.

OBJECTIVE: In 2020, Mekhail et al published a formula that predicted the likelihood of a successful outcome for those who undergo spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for long-term pain management, based on retrospectively collected clinical and demographic data from one major medical center. The aim of this study is to validate such a predictive formula, prospectively, in a cohort of patients from multiple medical practices that are more representative of real-life clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the study, 939 patients who underwent successful SCS or targeted drug delivery (TDD) trials at multiple independent medical centers in the USA were enrolled into the Medtronic product surveillance registry data base before they underwent SCS or TDD device implantation, from 2018 to 2020. The registry data were collected prospectively but not specifically for this study. The data examined included demographic information, pain diagnosis, pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS]), Oswestry Disability Index scores, and quality-of-life scores at baseline and six months after implant. Because our goal is to validate the previously published predictive formula, in addition to the outcomes data previously mentioned, we collected the variables necessary for such a task: sex, age, depression, the presence of neuropathic pain, spine-related pain diagnosis, and persistent spinal pain syndrome "post laminectomy syndrome." Spine-related pain diagnosis included subjects with chronic spine pain who never had back surgery and whose pain was not radicular nor neuropathic. RESULTS: Of 619 patients with SCS, 138 (22%) achieved ≥ 50% reductions of the baseline VAS at six months. The logistic model predicts SCS success with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 80% in the current validation data set. Of 320 patients with TDD, 147 (46%) achieved ≥ 50% reduction of the baseline VAS at six months. The logistic model predicts TDD success with an AUC of 78% in the current validation data set. CONCLUSION: The study provides real life validation of the previously published predictive formula(4).

Impact of biological sex on the outcomes of spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) continues to gain increasing popularity in the pain management field for the treatment of different painful conditions; however, to-date, the correlation between the SCS effectiveness and biological sex has not been fully established. We aimed to investigate the correlation between the biological sex and SCS outcomes. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective cohort study was performed by collecting data for patients treated with SCS at a tertiary academic center between the years 2002 and 2019. Data was assessed with multivariable linear regression to investigate the association between biological sex and pain scores at baseline, 6-, and 12- months following SCS implantation. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on a set of covariates including age, duration of pain, time since implant, BMI, opioid medications use, smoking, depression and history of alcohol, or substance abuse. RESULTS: Of the patients treated with SCS implants, 418 patients fit the inclusion and exclusion criteria, out of which the majority were females (272, 65%). The pre-matching data reported a significant difference in history of diabetes and depression and was also significant for greater opioid use in male patients at baseline, 6-, and 12-months post-SCS implant. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed based on the above mentioned covariant. After matching, no statistical difference was found among the variables, in both groups. Furthermore, after matching no significant differences in the pain scores at baseline, 6-, and 12-months post-SCS implant were observed. CONCLUSION: No biological sex-based differences in the analgesic response to SCS therapy was detected at 6- and 12-months post-SCS implant between groups with similar demographics, biomedical, and psychological values.

The durability of minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure in patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: Long-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild® ) has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis patients with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum as a contributing factor. This study examines the long-term durability of the mild procedure through 5-year follow-up. Pain relief and opioid medications utilization during 12-month follow-up were also assessed. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis secondary to ligamentum flavum hypertrophy who underwent mild from 2010 through 2015 at the Cleveland Clinic Department of Pain Management were included in this retrospective longitudinal observational cohort study. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of open lumbar decompression surgery at the same level(s) as the mild intervention during 5-year follow-up. Secondary outcome measures were the change in pain levels using the Numeric Rating Scale and opioid medications utilization using Morphine Milligram Equivalent dose per day from baseline to 3, 6, and 12 months post-mild procedure. Postprocedural complications (minor or major) were also collected. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients received mild during the protocol-defined time period and were included in the study. Only 9 out of 75 patients required lumbar surgical decompression during the 5-year follow-up period. Subjects experienced statistically significant pain relief and reduction of opioid medications utilization at 3, 6, and 12 months compared to baseline. CONCLUSION: Based on our analysis, the mild procedure is durable over 5 years and may allow elderly patients with symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis to avoid lumbar decompression surgery while providing significant symptomatic relief.

A Systematic Literature Review of Spine Neurostimulation Therapies for the Treatment of Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

Long-term safety and efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation to treat chronic back and leg pain (Evoke): a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation has been an established treatment for chronic back and leg pain for more than 50 years; however, outcomes are variable and unpredictable, and objective evidence of the mechanism of action is needed. A novel spinal cord stimulation system provides the first in vivo, real-time, continuous objective measure of spinal cord activation in response to therapy via recorded evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) in patients during daily use. These ECAPs are also used to optimise programming and deliver closed-loop spinal cord stimulation by adjusting the stimulation current to maintain activation within patients' therapeutic window. We aimed to examine pain relief and the extent of spinal cord activation with ECAP-controlled closed-loop versus fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain. METHODS: This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomised controlled trial was done at 13 specialist clinics, academic centres, and hospitals in the USA. Patients with chronic, intractable pain of the back and legs (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] pain score ≥60 mm; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score 41-80) who were refractory to conservative therapy, on stable pain medications, had no previous experience with spinal cord stimulation, and were appropriate candidates for a spinal cord stimulation trial were screened. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ECAP-controlled closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (investigational group) or fixed-output, open-loop spinal cord stimulation (control group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with permuted blocks of size 4 and 6 and stratified by site. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to the treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a reduction of 50% or more in overall back and leg pain with no increase in pain medications. Non-inferiority (δ=10%) followed by superiority were tested in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months (primary analysis) and 12 months (additional prespecified analysis) after the permanent implant. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02924129, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 21, 2017, and Feb 20, 2018, 134 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (67 to each treatment group). The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 125 patients at 3 months (62 in the closed-loop group and 63 in the open-loop group) and 118 patients at 12 months (59 in the closed-loop group and 59 in the open-loop group). The primary outcome was achieved in a greater proportion of patients in the closed-loop group than in the open-loop group at 3 months (51 [82·3%] of 62 patients vs 38 [60·3%] of 63 patients; difference 21·9%, 95% CI 6·6-37·3; p=0·0052) and at 12 months (49 [83·1%] of 59 patients vs 36 [61·0%] of 59 patients; difference 22·0%, 6·3-37·7; p=0·0060). We observed no differences in safety profiles between the two groups. The most frequently reported study-related adverse events in both groups were lead migration (nine [7%] patients), implantable pulse generator pocket pain (five [4%]), and muscle spasm or cramp (three [2%]). INTERPRETATION: ECAP-controlled closed-loop stimulation provided significantly greater and more clinically meaningful pain relief up to 12 months than open-loop spinal cord stimulation. Greater spinal cord activation seen in the closed-loop group suggests a mechanistic explanation for the superior results, which aligns with the putative mechanism of action for spinal cord stimulation and warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Saluda Medical.

The Impact of Tobacco Smoking on Spinal Cord Stimulation Effectiveness in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Patients.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to investigate the correlation of smoking and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) effectiveness for pain relief in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) patients while controlling for possible confounding factors including opioid intake. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective cohort study was performed by collecting data for all CRPS patients treated with SCS at Cleveland Clinic between 1998 and 2013. We divided patients into three groups based on their smoking status at the time of SCS device implant: Current smokers, former smokers, or nonsmokers. We used a linear mixed modeling to assess the association between smoking status and pain score at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. We then used pairwise t-tests for post hoc comparisons of pain scores. RESULTS: Of the 420 CRPS patients treated with SCS implants, the reduction in pain score was highest among nonsmokers. Nonsmokers demonstrated a consistent and steady decrease in pain scores over time, whereas the current and former smoker cohorts showed an initial reduction in pain at three months compared to baseline which was not sustained to the 12-months benchmark. Nonetheless, former smokers continued to report slightly lower pain scores than current smokers, although not statistically significant. The baseline opioid consumption was least among nonsmokers (30 [0, 62] oral mg morphine sulfate equivalent). We also found a statistically significant association between time postimplant and reported pain score (χ2 = 508.88, p < 0.001). The overall mean pain score for all three cohorts was highest at baseline (7.6 ± 1.7) and showed a decrease at the 3, 6, and 12 months postimplant time points with mean score of 5.7 ± 2.0, 5.6 ± 2.3, and 5.4 ± 2.5, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tobacco cigarette smoking was associated with reduced SCS effectiveness for pain relief.

The impact of obesity on the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in chronic spine-related pain patients.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic pain and obesity are both on the rise. Spinal cord stimulation has gained increasing popularity in the pain management field for the treatment of spine-related chronic pain, however to-date, the correlation between the spinal cord stimulator effectiveness and increasing body mass index (BMI) has not been fully established. PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the correlation between patients' BMI and the percentage of pain relief as well as opioid utilization in chronic spine-related pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with chronic spine-related pain who were treated with a spinal cord stimulator. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eleven-point numeric rating scale for pain and opioid utilization. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, data from all eligible subjects who had undergone successful spinal cord stimulation (SCS)-trial defined as ≥50% decrease in pain followed by SCS implant were collected and statistically analyzed. Patients were divided into four groups according to BMI. Self-reported pain scores on the 11-point numerical rating scale were collected at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post SCS-implant visits. Opioid utilization, if any, was collected at baseline and 12 months post-SCS implant. RESULTS: In all, 181 patients were included. Thirty-three were under and/or normal weight (≤24.9 kg/m2), 72 overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), 63 obese (30.0-39.9 kg/m2), and 13 morbidly obese (≥40.0 kg/m2). The estimated coefficients from multivariable linear regression analysis were -1.91% (95% CI: -2.82% to -0.991%) and -1.48% (95% CI: -2.30% to -0.660%) reduction in pain improvement per unit increase of BMI for 6 months and 12 months scores, respectively. The estimated coefficient of disability status was -15.3% (95% CI: -22.1% to -8.48%). The estimated coefficient for 12 month opioid equivalence was -0.08% (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.021), per` 1 mg unit increase of morphine opioid equivalency. The data showed a statistically significant negative association between increasing BMI and SCS effectiveness at 6 and 12 months post-SCS therapy with a 2% reduction in efficacy for every unit increase of BMI after adjusting for confounding factors and a 20% better response in underweight and/or normal patients over the morbidly obese individuals which was not related to baseline pain score level. The significant difference in pain scores at 6 months (p = .0003) and 12 months (p = .04) post-SCS implant between obese and nonobese patients was not attributable to differences in baseline pain scores. There was no significant change in opioid utilization between baseline and 12 months post-SCS therapy. CONCLUSION: A negative association between SCS effectiveness and increasing BMI was found, whereas, no significant difference was noted amongst the various BMI cohorts and the daily opioid consumption.

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.

The Impact of Tobacco Cigarette Smoking on Spinal Cord Stimulation Effectiveness in Chronic Spine-Related Pain Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the observation that select nicotine receptor agonists have analgesic effects, smokers report higher pain scores and more functional impairments than lifelong nonsmokers, attributable to exaggerated stress responses, receptor desensitization, and altered pharmacokinetics compounded by accelerated structural damage resulting from impaired bone healing, osteoporosis, and advancement of disk disease. We hypothesized that smoking diminishes the analgesic response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with chronic spine-related pain conditions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at Cleveland Clinic by collecting and assessing data of 213 patients who had been implanted with SCS for spine-pain indications. History of tobacco smoking was subcategorized into 3 categories: past (former smoker), present (current smoker), or those who had never previously smoked (lifelong nonsmokers), and a multivariable linear regression was run to measure the correlation, if any, between smoking status and numerical rating scale pain score. In addition, opioid consumption at baseline and 12-month follow-up, expressed in milligram oral morphine equivalents, was collected and compared. RESULTS: Adjusted for differences, at 1-year follow-up, current smokers (n = 62) reported numerical rating scale pain score of 7.0, which is 1.93 (P < 0.001) and 1.32 (P = 0.001) points higher than those of lifelong nonsmokers (n = 77) and former smokers (n = 74), respectively. Opioid intake was 2.4 times higher (P = 0.004) in smokers than in lifelong nonsmokers. CONCLUSIONS: Among our SCS-implanted sample, a positive correlation was observed between tobacco use and degree of pain reduction as early as 12 months postimplant; this was evident by the reported higher pain scores and opioid use in current smokers in comparison with former smokers and lifelong nonsmokers.

Spinal Cord Stimulation 50 Years Later: Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation Based on Randomized Clinical Trials-A Systematic Review.

To assess the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for each indication, one must critically assess each specific clinical outcome to identify outcomes that benefit from SCS therapy. To date, a comprehensive review of clinically relevant outcome-specific evidence regarding SCS has not been published. We aimed to assess all randomized controlled trials from the world literature for the purpose of evaluating the clinical outcome-specific efficacy of SCS for the following outcomes: perceived pain relief or change pain score, quality of life, functional status, psychological impact, analgesic medication utilization, patient satisfaction, and health care cost and utilization. Interventions were SCS, without limitation to the type of controls or the type of SCS in the active arms. For each study analyzed, a quality assessment was performed using a validated scale that assesses reporting, external validity, bias, confounding, and power. Each outcome was assessed specific to its indication, and the primary measure of each abovementioned outcome was a summary of the level of evidence. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were analyzed (7 for trunk and limb pain, inclusive of failed back surgery syndrome; 8 for refractory angina pectoris; 1 for cardiac X syndrome; 3 for critical limb ischemia; 2 for complex regional pain syndrome; and 2 for painful diabetic neuropathy). Evidence assessments for each outcome for each indication were depicted in tabular format. Outcome-specific evidence scores were established for each of the abovementioned indications, providing both physicians and patients with a summary of evidence to assist in choosing the optimal evidence-based intervention. The evidence presented herein has broad applicability as it encompasses a breadth of patient populations, variations of SCS therapy, and comparable controls that, together, reflect comprehensive clinical decision making.

Multicenter Retrospective Study of Neurostimulation With Exit of Therapy by Explant.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are cost effective and improve function as well as quality of life. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SCS, some patients have the device explanted. We are interested in exploring the patient characteristics of those explanted. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of neurostimulation patients who underwent explantation at 18 centers across the United States within the previous five years. RESULTS: Data from 352 patients were collected and compiled. Failed Back Surgery syndrome was the most common diagnosis (38.9%; n = 136/350) and over half of the patients reported numerical rating scale (NRS) scores ≥8 prior to implant (64.3%; n = 207/322). All patients reported changes in NRS scores across time, with an initial decrease after implant followed by a pre-explant increase (F (2, 961) = 121.7, p < 0.001). The most common reason for device explant was lack or loss of efficacy (43.9%; 152/346) followed by complications (20.2%; 70/346). Eighteen percent (18%; 62/343) of patients were explanted by a different physician than the implanting one. Rechargeable devices were explanted at a median of 15 months, whereas primary cell device explants occurred at a median of 36 months (CI 01.434, 2.373; median endpoint time ratio = 2.40). DISCUSSION: Loss or lack of efficacy and complications with therapy represent the most frequent reasons for neurostimulation explantation. Of the devices that were explanted, therapy was terminated earlier when devices were rechargeable, when complications occurred, or when pain relief was not achieved or maintained. Furthermore, in nearly 20% of the cases, a different provider than the implanting physician performed device removal. CONCLUSIONS: SCS is largely a safe and efficacious strategy for treating select chronic refractory pain syndromes. Further prospective data and innovation are needed to improve patient selection, maintain SCS therapeutic efficacy and reduce the reasons that lead to device explant.

Spinal Cord Stimulator Implant Infection Rates and Risk Factors: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation is an evidence-based treatment for a number of chronic pain conditions. While this therapy offers improvement in pain and function it is not without potential complications. These complications include device failure, migration, loss of therapeutic paresthesia, and infection. This article looked to establish a modern infection rate for spinal cord stimulators, assess the impact of known risk factors for surgical site infections and to determine the impact of certain preventative measures on the rate of infection. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a multisite, retrospective review was conducted on 2737 unique implants or revisions of SCS systems. Patient demographics, risk factors including diabetes, tobacco use, obesity, revision surgery, trial length, implant location, implant type, surgeon background, prophylactic antibiotic use, utilization of a occlusive dressing, and post-operative antibiotic use were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The overall infection rate was 2.45% (n = 67). Diabetes, tobacco use, and obesity did not independently increase the rate of infection. Revision surgeries had a trend toward higher infection rate; however, this did not meet statistical significance. There was no difference in the rate of infection between implants performed by physicians of different base specialties, cylinder leads vs. paddle leads, or between different prophylactic antibiotics. Implants performed at academic centers had a higher rate of infection when compared to implants performed in nonacademic settings. When patients received an occlusive dressing or post-operative antibiotics they had a lower rate of infection. CONCLUSIONS: The infection rate (2.45%) reported in this study is lower than the previously reported rates (3-6%) and are on par with other surgical specialties. This study did not show an increased rate of infection for patients that used tobacco, had diabetes or were obese. It's possible that given the low overall infection rate a larger study is needed to establish the true impact of these factors on infection. In addition, this study did not address the impact of poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (elevated hemoglobin A1c) vs. well-controlled diabetes. It can be concluded from this study that utilizing an occlusive dressing over the incision in the post-operative period decreases the rate of infection and should become the standard of care. This study also demonstrated the positive impact of post-operative antibiotics in decreasing the rate of infection. Studies in other surgical specialties have not shown this impact which would suggest that further research is needed.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations on Intrathecal Drug Infusion Systems Best Practices and Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pain treatment is best performed when a patient-centric, safety-based philosophy is used to determine an algorithmic process to guide care. Since 2007, the International Neuromodulation Society has organized a group of experts to evaluate evidence and create a Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) to guide practice. METHODS: The current PACC update was designed to address the deficiencies and innovations emerging since the previous PACC publication of 2012. An extensive literature search identified publications between January 15, 2007 and November 22, 2015 and authors contributed additional relevant sources. After reviewing the literature, the panel convened to determine evidence levels and degrees of recommendations for intrathecal therapy. This meeting served as the basis for consensus development, which was ranked as strong, moderate or weak. Algorithms were developed for intrathecal medication choices to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain for patients with cancer, terminal illness, and noncancer pain, with either localized or diffuse pain. RESULTS: The PACC has developed an algorithmic process for several aspects of intrathecal drug delivery to promote safe and efficacious evidence-based care. Consensus opinion, based on expertise, was used to fill gaps in evidence. Thirty-one consensus points emerged from the panel considerations. CONCLUSION: New algorithms and guidance have been established to improve care with the use of intrathecal drug delivery.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations for Trialing of Intrathecal Drug Delivery Infusion Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal (IT) drug infusion is an appropriate and necessary tool in the algorithm to treat refractory cancer and noncancer pain. The decision-making steps/methodology for selecting appropriate patients for implanted targeted drug delivery systems is controversial and complicated. Therefore, a consensus on best practices for determining appropriate use of IT drug infusion may involve testing/trialing this therapy before implantation. METHODS: This current Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) update was designed to address the deficiencies and emerging innovations since the previous PACC convened in 2012. A literature search identified publications available since the previous PACC publications in 2014, and relevant sources were contributed by the PACC members. After reviewing the literature, the panel determined the evidence levels and degrees of recommendations. The developed consensus was ranked as strong (>80%), moderate (50-79%), or weak (<49%). RESULTS: The trialing for IT drug delivery systems (IDDS) remains an area of continued controversy. The PACC recommendations for trialing are presented in 34 consensus points and cover trialing for morphine, ziconotide, and medication admixtures; starting doses and titration practices; measurements of success; trial settings and monitoring; management of systemic opioids during trialing; and the role of psychological evaluation. Finally, the PACC describes clinical scenarios in which IT trialing is required or not required. CONCLUSION: The PACC provides consensus guidance on best practices of trialing for IDDS implants. In addition, the PACC recommends that no trial may be required in certain patient populations.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations for Intrathecal Drug Delivery: Guidance for Improving Safety and Mitigating Risks.

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal therapy is an important part of the pain treatment algorithm for chronic disease states. The use of this option is a viable treatment strategy, but it is inherent for pain physicians to understand risk assessment and mitigation. In this manuscript, we explore evidence and mitigating strategies to improve safety with intrathecal therapy. METHODS: A robust literature search was performed covering January 2011 to October 9, 2016, in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Biomed Central, Google Scholar, Current Contents Connect, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. The information was cross-referenced and compiled for evidence, analysis, and consensus review, with the intent to offer weighted recommendations and consensus statements on safety for targeted intrathecal therapy delivery. RESULTS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference has made several best practice recommendations to improve care and reduce morbidity and mortality associated with intrathecal therapy through all phases of management. The United States Prevention Service Task Force evidence level and consensus strength assessments are offered for each recommendation. CONCLUSION: Intrathecal therapy is a viable and relatively safe option for the treatment of cancer- and noncancer-related pain. Continued research and expert opinion are required to improve our current pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of intrathecal drug delivery, as this will undoubtedly improve safety and efficacy.

Management of Postherniorrhaphy Chronic Neuropathic Groin Pain: A Role for Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation.

Chronic neuropathic groin pain is a sequela of hernia surgery that occurs at unacceptably high rates, causing widespread impacts on quality of life. Although the medical community is beginning to recognize the role of surgical technique in the initiation and maintenance of postherniorrhaphy neuropathic pain, little information exists regarding pain management strategies for this condition. This review presents a summary of the pain condition state, its treatment options, and treatment recommendations. Both literature review and clinical experience were used to develop a proposed a treatment algorithm for the treatment of postherniorrhaphy pain. The development of chronic pain may be prevented via a number of perioperative measures. For pain that is already established, some surgical approaches including inguinal neurectomy can be effective, in addition to standard pharmacological treatments and local infiltrations. An unmet need may still exist with these options, however, leaving a role for neuromodulation for the treatment of intractable cases. A pain management algorithm for iterative interventions including stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) is described. It is expected that cross-disciplinary awareness of surgeons for nonsurgical pain management options in the treatment of chronic neuropathic postherniorrhaphy pain will contribute to better clinical outcomes.

Nitrous Oxide for the Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain.

BACKGROUND: Neuropathic back pain is mediated, at least partially, by N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is an NMDA receptor antagonist. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that patients receiving N2O have lower pain scores after epidural steroid injection than patients not receiving N2O. METHODS: Patients with recurrent low back pain scheduled for epidural steroid blocks were randomly assigned to receive either oxygen (O2, n = 39) or the combination of 50% O2 and 50% N2O during and after each block (N2O, n = 39). Before each injection and at a 3-month follow-up visit, patients completed questionnaires: Oswestry survey, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire, Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale, and Visual Analog Scale. Total opioid use per 24 hours was recorded. The serum samples for tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-6, interferon-γ, IL-10, IL-17A, and IL-1ß assays were collected at every visit and evaluated. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare the randomized groups on baseline variables. Any imbalanced covariates with an absolute standardized difference >0.44 were adjusted for in both primary and secondary analyses. Both modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were conducted for our outcomes. Our secondary analyses were per protocol. RESULTS: in patients given N2O (mean [SD], -1.6 [3.0] cm) and O2 (-1.2 [2.6] cm), with difference -0.13 (95% confidence interval: -1.43, 1.17), N2O - O2; P = 0.84. No difference was found between the 2 randomized groups on changes in Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain score, Oswestry score, or 12-Item Short Form Health Survey from baseline, or in satisfaction with the procedure, satisfaction with pain treatment, or use of opioid overtime. Overall, no significant differences on any cytokine were found between the 2 groups. The estimated odds ratios of taking opioid was 0.46 (0.12, 1.84) (N2O versus O2; P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: N2O administration did not improve pain or psychological or physical aspects of health-related quality of life. N2O does not appear to be an effective treatment for chronic neuropathic back pain.