Defining and describing treatment heterogeneity in new-onset idiopathic lower back and extremity pain through reconstruction of longitudinal care sequences.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite established guidelines, long-term management of surgically-treated low back pain (LBP) and lower extremity pain (LEP) remains heterogeneous. Understanding care heterogeneity could inform future approaches for standardization of practices. PURPOSE: To describe treatment heterogeneity in surgically-managed LBP and LEP. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective study of a nationwide commercial database spanning inpatient and outpatient encounters for enrollees of eligible employer-supplied healthcare plans (2007-2016). PATIENT SAMPLE: A population-based sample of opioid-naïve adult patients with newly-diagnosed LBP or LEP were identified. Inclusion required at least 12-months of pre-diagnosis and post-diagnosis continuous follow-up. EXPOSURE: Included treatments/evaluations include conservative management (chiropractic manipulative therapy, physical therapy, epidural steroid injections), imaging (x-ray, MRI, CT), pharmaceuticals (opioids, benzodiazepines), and spine surgery (decompression, fusion). OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes-of-interest were 12-month net healthcare expenditures (inpatient and outpatient) and 12-month opioid usage. METHODS: Analyses include interrogation of care sequence heterogeneity and temporal trends in sequence-initiating services. Comparisons were conducted in the framework of sequence-specific treatment sequences, which reflect the personalized order of healthcare services pursued by each patient. Outlier sequences characterized by high opioid use and costs were identified from frequently observed surgical treatment sequences using Mahalanobis distance. RESULTS: A total of 2,496,908 opioid-naïve adult patients with newly-diagnosed LBP or LEP were included (29,519 surgical). In the matched setting, increased care sequence heterogeneity was observed in surgical patients (0.51 vs. 0.12 previously-unused interventions/studies pursued per month). Early opioid and MRI use has decreased between 2008 and 2015 but is matched by increases in early benzodiazepine and x-ray use. Outlier sequences, characterized by increased opioid use and costs, were found in 5.8% of surgical patients. Use of imaging prior to conservative management was common in patients pursuing outlier sequences compared to non-outlier sequences (96.5% vs. 63.8%, p<.001). Non-outlier sequences were more frequently characterized by early conservative interventions (31.9% vs. 7.4%, p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Surgically-managed LBP and LEP care sequences demonstrate high heterogeneity despite established practice guidelines. Outlier sequences associated with high opioid usage and costs can be identified and are characterized by increased early imaging and decreased early conservative management. Elements that may portend suboptimal longitudinal management could provide opportunities for standardization of patient care.

Contemporaneous evaluation of patient experience, surgical strategy, and seizure outcomes in patients undergoing stereoelectroencephalography or subdural electrode monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: Intracranial electrographic localization of the seizure onset zone (SOZ) can guide surgical approaches for medically refractory epilepsy patients, especially when the presurgical workup is discordant or functional cortical mapping is required. Minimally invasive stereotactic placement of depth electrodes, stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG), has garnered increasing use, but limited data exist to evaluate its postoperative outcomes in the context of the contemporaneous availability of both SEEG and subdural electrode (SDE) monitoring. We aimed to assess the patient experience, surgical intervention, and seizure outcomes associated with these two epileptic focus mapping techniques during a period of rapid adoption of neuromodulatory and ablative epilepsy treatments. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 66 consecutive adult intracranial electrode monitoring cases at our institution between 2014 and 2017. Monitoring was performed with either SEEG (n = 47) or SDEs (n = 19). RESULTS: Both groups had high rates of SOZ identification (SEEG 91.5%, SDE 88.2%, P = .69). The majority of patients achieved Engel class I (SEEG 29.3%, SDE 35.3%) or II outcomes (SEEG 31.7%, SDE 29.4%) after epilepsy surgery, with no significant difference between groups (P = .79). SEEG patients reported lower median pain scores (P = .03) and required less narcotic pain medication (median = 94.5 vs 594.6 milligram morphine equivalents, P = .0003). Both groups had low rates of symptomatic hemorrhage (SEEG 0%, SDE 5.3%, P = .11). On multivariate logistic regression, undergoing resection or ablation (vs responsive neurostimulation/vagus nerve stimulation) was the only significant independent predictor of a favorable outcome (adjusted odds ratio = 25.4, 95% confidence interval = 3.48-185.7, P = .001). SIGNIFICANCE: Although both SEEG and SDE monitoring result in favorable seizure control, SEEG has the advantage of superior pain control, decreased narcotic usage, and lack of routine need for intensive care unit stay. Despite a heterogenous collection of epileptic semiologies, seizure outcome was associated with the therapeutic surgical modality and not the intracranial monitoring technique. The potential for an improved postoperative experience makes SEEG a promising method for intracranial electrode monitoring.