Endoscopic Rhizotomy for Facetogenic Back Pain: A Review of the History, Financial Considerations, Patient Selection Criteria, and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chronic back pain (CBP) is a condition that places a considerable burden on society, with several million people affected in the United States alone. Treatment options to address this problem and relieve CBP are constantly evolving, and one of the most promising treatment modalities for CBP that is refractory to conservative treatment options is endoscopic rhizotomy (ER). METHODS: A thorough search of the PubMed (MEDLINE) database was conducted to assess the full progression of ER from its earliest uses to present day in a historical narrative review of ER, with treatment of facetogenic pain as a model pathology. RESULTS: ER allows for direct visualization and ablation of sensory branches of the dorsal ramus to provide pain relief in up to 80% of patients faced with refractory CBP. This technique has been built upon since the early 20th century, and the novel endoscopic approach continues to gain popularity among physicians. Benefits of ER include superior postoperative median pain-free duration compared with traditional percutaneous radiofrequency ablation, as well as direct visualization of regional anatomy. Patient selection criteria for the procedure and a modest list of contraindications allow the use of ER as a viable treatment option for a significant population of patients suffering from CBP. Potential barriers to ER include high cost of the procedure, longer intraoperative time, and expensive proprietary equipment. CONCLUSIONS: ER is an effective treatment for refractory CBP with notable advantages. As the technology and popularity of this procedure progress, improvements in the cost, training, and intraoperative time may make it a favorable alternative to the current standard of care.

Demographic predictors of treatment and complications for adult spinal deformity: An analysis of the national inpatient sample.

PURPOSE: To examine the role of demographics on surgical management and inpatient complications in patients with spinal deformity between 2010 and 2014 via retrospective analysis. METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes were used to identify patients with a primary diagnosis of adult spinal deformity (ASD). Multivariable Poisson regression analyses were used to determine whether any individual demographic variables were predictive of surgical management, surgical complexity, postoperative complications and revision operations. RESULTS: 17,433 patients were identified for analysis. Surgical intervention was performed for 94.5% of patients with a primary diagnosis of ASD. Patients at urban teaching hospitals were the most likely to receive surgery (OR= 2.13; 95% CI 1.51-2.95; p < 0.001) relative to rural patients. Female patients were the majority undergoing surgery and were more likely to receive a complication or require a revision when controlling for surgical complexity. Medicare patients were the least likely to undergo surgery and the most likely to receive complex fusion when undergoing an operation. Medicare patients were the least likely to experience complications (OR=0.89; 95% CI 0.80-0.98; p = 0.022) after adjusting for surgical complexity. With regards to race and ethnicity, Hispanics had a decreased likelihood of receiving a revision surgery. CONCLUSION: There were substantial differences in rates of surgical management, postoperative complications, and revisions among individuals of different demographics including sex, insurance status, ethnicity and hospital teaching status. Further research evaluating the effect of demographics in spine surgery is warranted to fully understand their influence on patient outcomes.

Impact of Pelvic Radiation Therapy on Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Reoperation Rates.

INTRODUCTION: Considering that radiation therapy (RT) compromises soft tissue microvasculature, impairs wound healing, and causes cavernosal fibrosis, inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) outcomes may be adversely affected in men treated with RT. AIM: To compare IPP outcomes among those who had undergone prior RT vs a cohort who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) before insertion of IPP. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare Database was queried for men with prostate cancer (PCa) who underwent RT (n = 83,277) or RP (n = 32,608) with subsequent IPP insertion between 2002 and 2013. Men who had undergone both RT and RP were excluded from the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was reoperation, defined by removal, revision, or replacement of the IPP. RESULTS: We identified 350 men who received an IPP following RT and 653 who received an IPP following RP. Men who underwent RT were older (P < .01) and had more comorbidities (P < .01). There were no significant differences in overall reoperation rates at 90 days (P = .78), 1 year (P = .52), or 3 years (P = .48). Time-to-event analysis demonstrated that RT was not associated with an increased likelihood of overall reoperation (hazard ratio [HR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-2.29, P = .09). There was no association between time from RT to IPP and overall reoperation rates. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Prior RT for the treatment of PCa does not impact the revision or removal rates of IPPs as compared with a cohort of non-radiated patients who underwent RP. STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS: The strength includes the analysis of outcomes among a contemporary, nationwide cohort with robust follow-up. Using diagnosis and procedure codes, we were thoroughly able to capture reoperations. Limitations include the lack of specific indications for reoperation and inability to control for surgeon experience or technique. CONCLUSION: IPP is a safe and effective treatment of erectile dysfunction that should be offered to men with a history of pelvic radiation who have failed medical therapy. Golan R, Patel NA, Sun T, et al. Impact of pelvic radiation therapy on inflatable penile prosthesis reoperation rates. J Sex Med 2018;15:1653-1658.