Factors Associated With Implantable Pulse Generator Site Pain: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVES: Implantable pulse generator (IPG) site pain following neuromodulation procedures is a recognized complication. The site of the IPG placement varies depending on the neuromodulation type and physician preference. The incidence of IPG site pain as a function of the site of IPG implantation has not been studied systematically. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter cross-sectional survey of the incidence, severity, and quality of IPG site pain, location of the IPG, the pain management needs, functional impairment, and cosmetic appearance related to the IPG placement. Contingency table analysis was conducted for categorical variables, and logistic regression analysis and linear regression model was used. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 60.5% (n = 510). Overall, 31.0% of patients reported pain at the IPG site in the last 72 hours with 31.4% reporting moderate to severe pain and 7.6% reporting severe pain. Older age was inversely associated with IPG-related pain (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.99, p = 0.001). IPG implantation site did not have a statistically significant interaction with IPG site pain (p > 0.05). The most important factor for IPG site-associated pain was having a spinal cord stimulator implanted as compared to a deep brain stimulator, or sacral nerve stimulator. Most subjects reported no functional impairment related to IPG site pain (91%), found the IPG site pain as expected (80%), and found IPG site cosmetic appearance as expected (96%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of IPG site pain is an important complication of invasive neuromodulation. The anatomic location of the IPG placement does not appear to affect the incidence or severity of IPG site pain. However, the presence of a pre-implant chronic pain disorder does appear to affect the frequency and severity of IPG site pain.

Immediate Adverse Events in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multi-Institutional Study.

SETTING: Interventional procedures directed toward sources of pain in the axial and appendicular musculoskeletal system are performed with increasing frequency. Despite the presence of evidence-based guidelines for such procedures, there are wide variations in practice. Case reports of serious complications such as spinal cord infarction or infection from spine injections lack appropriate context and create a misleading view of the risks of appropriately performed interventional pain procedures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate adverse event rate for interventional spine procedures performed at three academic interventional spine practices. METHODS: Quality assurance databases at three academic interventional pain management practices that utilize evidence-based guidelines [1] were interrogated for immediate complications from interventional pain procedures. Review of the electronic medical record verified or refuted the occurrence of a complication. Same-day emergency department transfers or visits were also identified by a records search. RESULTS: Immediate complication data were available for 26,061 consecutive procedures. A radiology practice performed 19,170 epidural steroid (primarily transforaminal), facet, sacroiliac, and trigger point injections (2006-2013). A physiatry practice performed 6,190 spine interventions (2004-2009). A second physiatry practice performed 701 spine procedures (2009-2010). There were no major complications (permanent neurologic deficit or clinically significant bleeding [e.g., epidural hematoma]) with any procedure. Overall complication rate was 1.9% (493/26,061). Vasovagal reactions were the most frequent event (1.1%). Nineteen patients (<0.1%) were transferred to emergency departments for: allergic reactions, chest pain, symptomatic hypertension, and a vasovagal reaction. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that interventional pain procedures are safely performed with extremely low immediate adverse event rates when evidence-based guidelines are observed.

Local, national, and service component cost variations in the management of low back pain: Considerations for the clinician.

In the past two decades, the cost associated with managing low back pain has increased significantly. Improved consciousness of how clinicians utilize resources when managing low back pain is necessary in the current economic climate. The goal of this review is to examine the component costs associated with managing low back pain and provide practical solutions for reducing healthcare costs. This is accomplished by utilizing examples from a major metropolitan area with several major academic institutions and private health care centers. It is clear that there is considerable local and national variation in the component costs of managing low back pain, including physician visits, imaging studies, medications, and therapy services. By being well informed about these variations in one's environment, clinicians and patients alike can make strides towards reducing the financial impact of low back pain. Investigation of the cost discrepancies for services within one's community of practice is important. Improved public access to both cost and outcomes data is needed.