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.

Longevity and Utilization Cost of Rechargeable and Non-Rechargeable Spinal Cord Stimulation Implants: A Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite major advancements in features and capabilities of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), real-life longevity and cost-effectiveness studies to guide pain specialists to make the appropriate choice between rechargeable and non-rechargeable IPG are limited. Our study aimed to compare the longevity and cost effectiveness of rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable IPG and SCS systems. METHODS: Data were collected for all SCS implantations performed between 1994 and 2018. The primary goal was to determine IPG longevity, defined as the time interval between IPG implantation and elective replacement due to IPG end of life (EOL). On the other hand, SCS system longevity was defined as the time between SCS implantation and its removal or revision for any reason other than IPG EOL. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess IPG and SCS system longevities. Cost analysis was performed for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The median IPG longevity was significantly higher for rechargeable SCS devices than for non-rechargeable SCS devices (7.20 years and 3.68 years, respectively). The median cost per day was similar for both IPGs, $13.90 and $13.81 for non-rechargeable and rechargeable, respectively. The median cost for SCS systems was higher for the rechargeable group ($60.70) compared with the non-rechargeable group ($31.38). CONCLUSIONS: Rechargeable IPG had increased longevity compared to their non-rechargeable counterparts, yet there was no significant difference in the actual longevity due to premature revisions or explantations between both SCS systems. Furthermore, non-rechargeable SCS systems were found to be the more cost-effective option when compared with rechargeable SCS systems.

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.

The 2-year cost-effectiveness of 3 options to treat lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) may result from degenerative changes of the spine, which lead to neural ischemia, neurogenic claudication, and a significant decrease in quality of life. Treatments for LSS range from conservative management including epidural steroid injections (ESI) to laminectomy surgery. Treatments vary greatly in cost and success. ESI is the least costly treatment may be successful for early stages of LSS but often must be repeated frequently. Laminectomy surgery is more costly and has higher complication rates. Minimally invasive lumbar decompression (mild(®) ) is an alternative. Using a decision-analytic model from the Medicare perspective, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed comparing mild(®) to ESI or laminectomy surgery. The analysis population included patients with LSS who have moderate to severe symptoms and have failed conservative therapy. Costs included initial procedure, complications, and repeat/revision or alternate procedure after failure. Effects measured as change in quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from preprocedure to 2 years postprocedure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined, and sensitivity analysis conducted. The mild(®) strategy appears to be the most cost-effective ($43,760/QALY), with ESI the next best alternative at an additional $37,758/QALY. Laminectomy surgery was the least cost-effective ($125,985/QALY).