Physical Therapy Considerations and Recommendations for Patients Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Implant Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established therapy option in interventional pain medicine. Recent advances in technology have allowed for greater compliance with treatment and improved efficacy in pain control. This article was proposed to fill the gap in the literature addressing this specific patient population and to facilitate further research. Even though there is a lack of consensus among societies and experts on exact parameters of physical therapy (PT) considerations and postoperative limitations in patients with SCS, we propose rehabilitative care for this population should be standardized. As the number of patients with SCS implants grow, it is vital to understand how to appropriately approach patients with implantable devices when additional treatments such as PT are prescribed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed on the use of PT following SCS implantation. Presently, there is no literature to date which addresses the use of PT in this patient population. The lack of data is the largest hurdle in the creation of formal SCS therapy guidelines. The authors therefore proposed recommendations for rehabilitation based upon a detailed understanding of SCS hardware alongside well-studied physiotherapy concepts. RESULTS: Considerations when initiating PT in the SCS patient population should include: 1) biomechanics and quality of SCS output; 2) therapeutic exercise and spinal manipulation in association with risk for lead migration and fracture; 3) the application of therapeutic modalities and risk for injury to the patient and/or damage to the SCS componentry; and 4) integration of a biopsychosocial, person-centered approach. CONCLUSIONS: PT treatment protocol in patients with a recently implanted SCS device should be person-centered addressing individual needs, values, and goals. Further research is needed to fully appreciate the impact of an interprofessional approach to management of SCS patients, particularly following stimulator implantation.

Telehealth in PM&R: Past, present, and future in clinical practice and opportunities for translational research.

Telehealth refers to the use of telecommunication devices and other forms of technology to provide services outside of the traditional in-person health care delivery system. Growth in the use of telehealth creates new challenges and opportunities for implementation in clinical practice. The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) assembled an expert group to develop a white paper to examine telehealth innovation in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R). The resultant white paper summarizes how telehealth is best used in the field of PM&R while highlighting current knowledge deficits and technological limitations. The report identifies new and transformative opportunities for PM&R to advance translational research related to telehealth and enhance patient care.

Team Approach: Management of an Acute L4-L5 Disc Herniation.

¼: Lumbar disc herniation is one of the most common spinal pathologies, often occurring at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels. The highest incidence has been reported in patients between the fourth and sixth decades of life. ¼: The severity of symptoms is influenced by the patient's risk factors, the location, and the extent and type of disc herniation. ¼: Lumbar disc herniation can be effectively treated with multiple treatment protocols. In most cases, first-line treatment includes oral analgesic medication, activity modification, and physical therapy. When nonoperative treatments do not provide adequate relief, patients may elect to undergo a fluoroscopically guided contrast-enhanced epidural steroid injection. A subgroup of patients whose condition is refractory to any type of nonoperative modalities will proceed to surgery, most commonly an open or minimally invasive discectomy. ¼: The treatment algorithm for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation often is a stepwise approach: failure of initial nonoperative measures leads to more aggressive treatment when symptoms mandate and, as such, necessitates the use of a multidisciplinary team approach. The core team should consist of an interventional physiatrist, an orthopaedic surgeon, a physician assistant, and a physical therapist. Additional team members may include nurses, radiologists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, spine fellows, psychologists, and case managers. ¼: This review article describes a case scenario that uses a multidisciplinary team approach for the treatment of an acute L4-L5 disc herniation in a 31-year-old patient without any major comorbidities.

Interspinous Process Decompression With The Superion® Spacer For Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Real-World Experience From A Device Registry.

BACKGROUND: Interspinous process decompression (IPD) with stand-alone spacers has demonstrated excellent long-term clinical benefit for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). METHODS: IPD used the Superion® Indirect Decompression System (Vertiflex, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Perioperative and clinical data were captured via a registry for patients treated with IPD for LSS with intermittent neurogenic claudication. Three-hundred sixteen physicians at 86 clinical sites in the US participated. Patient data were captured from in-person interviews and a phone survey. Outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, procedural time, leg and back pain severity (100 mm VAS), patient satisfaction and treatment approval at 3 weeks, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: The mean age of registry patients was 73.0 ± 9.1 years of which 54% were female. Mean leg pain severity decreased from 76.6 ± 22.4 mm preoperatively to 30.4 ± 34.6 mm at 12 months, reflecting an overall 60% improvement. Corresponding responder rates were 64% (484 of 751), 72% (1,097 of 1,523) and 75% (317 of 423) at 3 weeks, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Back pain severity improved from 76.8 ± 22.2 mm preoperatively to 39.9 ± 32.3 mm at 12 months (48% improvement); 12-month responder rate of 67% (297 of 441). For patient satisfaction at 3 weeks, 6 and 12 months, 89%, 80%, and 80% were satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their treatment and 90%, 75%, and 75% would definitely or probably undergo the same treatment again. In the phone survey, the rate of revision was 3.6% (51 of 1,426). CONCLUSION: These registry findings support the clinical adoption of minimally invasive IPD in patients with neurogenic claudication associated with LSS.