A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of a two-week course of dexamethasone for adult patients with a symptomatic Chronic Subdural Haematoma (Dex-CSDH trial).

Background: Chronic subdural haematoma is a collection of 'old blood' and its breakdown products in the subdural space and predominantly affects older people. Surgical evacuation remains the mainstay in the management of symptomatic cases. Objective: The Dex-CSDH (DEXamethasone in Chronic SubDural Haematoma) randomised trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone in patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma. Design: This was a parallel, superiority, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Assigned treatment was administered in a double-blind fashion. Outcome assessors were also blinded to treatment allocation. Setting: Neurosurgical units in the UK. Participants: Eligible participants included adults (aged ≥ 18 years) admitted to a neurosurgical unit with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma confirmed on cranial imaging. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1 : 1 allocation to a 2-week tapering course of dexamethasone or placebo alongside standard care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Modified Rankin Scale score at 6 months dichotomised to a favourable (score of 0-3) or an unfavourable (score of 4-6) outcome. Secondary outcomes included the Modified Rankin Scale score at discharge and 3 months; number of chronic subdural haematoma-related surgical interventions undertaken during the index and subsequent admissions; Barthel Index and EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level utility index score reported at discharge, 3 months and 6 months; Glasgow Coma Scale score reported at discharge and 6 months; mortality at 30 days and 6 months; length of stay; discharge destination; and adverse events. An economic evaluation was also undertaken, during which the net monetary benefit was estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Results: A total of 748 patients were included after randomisation: 375 were assigned to dexamethasone and 373 were assigned to placebo. The mean age of the patients was 74 years and 94% underwent evacuation of their chronic subdural haematoma during the trial period. A total of 680 patients (91%) had 6-month primary outcome data available for analysis: 339 in the placebo arm and 341 in the dexamethasone arm. On a modified intention-to-treat analysis of the full study population, there was an absolute reduction in the proportion of favourable outcomes of 6.4% (95% confidence interval 11.4% to 1.4%; p = 0.01) in the dexamethasone arm compared with the control arm at 6 months. At 3 months, the between-group difference was also in favour of placebo (-8.2%, 95% confidence interval -13.3% to -3.1%). Serious adverse events occurred in 60 out of 375 (16.0%) in the dexamethasone arm and 24 out of 373 (6.4%) in the placebo arm. The net monetary benefit of dexamethasone compared with placebo was estimated to be -£97.19. Conclusions: This trial reports a higher rate of unfavourable outcomes at 6 months, and a higher rate of serious adverse events, in the dexamethasone arm than in the placebo arm. Dexamethasone was also not estimated to be cost-effective. Therefore, dexamethasone cannot be recommended for the treatment of chronic subdural haematoma in this population group. Future work and limitations: A total of 94% of individuals underwent surgery, meaning that this trial does not fully define the role of dexamethasone in conservatively managed haematomas, which is a potential area for future study. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN80782810. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/15/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 12. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Chronic subdural haematoma is one of the most common conditions managed in adult neurosurgery and mainly affects older people. It is an 'old' collection of blood and blood breakdown products found on the surface of the brain. Surgery to drain the liquid collection is effective, with most patients improving. Given that inflammation is involved in the disease process, a commonly used steroid, dexamethasone, has been used alongside surgery or instead of surgery since the 1970s. However, there is no consensus or high-quality studies confirming the effectiveness of dexamethasone for the treatment of chronic subdural haematoma. This study was designed to determine the effectiveness of adding dexamethasone to the normal treatment for patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma. The benefit of adding dexamethasone was measured using a disability score called the Modified Rankin Scale, which can be divided into favourable and unfavourable outcomes. This was assessed at 6 months after entry into the study. In total, 748 adults with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma treated in neurosurgical units in the UK participated. Each participant had an equal chance of receiving either dexamethasone or a placebo because they were assigned randomly. Neither the patients nor the investigators knew who received dexamethasone and who received placebo. Most patients in both groups had an operation to drain the haematoma and experienced significant functional improvement at 6 months compared with their initial admission to hospital. However, patients who received dexamethasone had a lower chance than patients who received placebo of favourable recovery at 6 months. Specifically, 84% of patients who received dexamethasone had recovered well at 6 months, compared with 90% of patients who received placebo. There were more complications in the group that received dexamethasone. This trial demonstrates that adding dexamethasone to standard treatment reduced the chance of a favourable outcome compared with standard treatment alone. Therefore, this study does not support the use of dexamethasone in treating patients with a symptomatic chronic subdural haematoma.

Application of restorative neurostimulation for chronic mechanical low back pain in an older population with 2-year follow up.

INTRODUCTION: Data on the Medicare-aged population show that older patients are major consumers of low back pain (LBP) interventions. An effective approach for patients with mechanical LBP that has been refractory to conservative management is restorative neurostimulation. The efficacy of restorative neurostimulation has been demonstrated in multiple prospective studies, with published follow-up over 4 years, showing a consistent durable effect. METHODS: To further examine the effect of restorative neurostimulation in an older demographic, data from three clinical studies were aggregated: ReActiv8-B prospectively followed 204 patients, ReActiv8-C study prospectively followed 87 patients and ReActiv8-PMCF prospectively followed 42 patients.Two hundred and sixty-one patients were identified with complete 2-year follow-up and divided into cohorts of equal size based of age quartiles.At 2 years from device activation, patients in either cohort were classified by change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) or change in pain score(NRS/VAS) and assessed as proportion of patients per group at each time point. Additionally, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ5D-5L) was longitudinally compared with baseline. Differences in proportions were assessed using χ2 and continuous variables by repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: The oldest quartile (n=65) had a median age of 60 (56-82) years compared with the entire population (n=261) who had a median age of 49 (22-82) years. The completer analysis on patients with 2 years of continuous data showed improvement of a 50% in pain was achieved by 62% and 65% and a 15-point ODI improvement in 48% and 60% in the oldest quartile and entire population, respectively. HRQoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension) improved from baselines of 0.568 and 0.544 to 0.763 and 0.769 in the oldest quartile and entire population respectively. All age quartiles improved statistically and clinically over baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This aggregate analysis of three independent studies provides insight into the performance of restorative neurostimulation in an older population. Patients derived significant and clinically meaningful benefit in disability, pain and HRQoL. When compared with a similarly indicated cohort of younger patients, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences.

Regulatory Framework for Implantable Neurostimulation Devices: Comparison of Systems in the US and European Union.

BACKGROUND: Implantable neurostimulation devices must be authorized before they are placed on the market. For this purpose, requirements, and processes for assessing their fulfillment, have been defined in different jurisdictions. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to address differences between the US and European Union (EU) regulatory systems and their relationship to innovation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review and analysis were conducted using legal texts and guidance documents. RESULTS: The US system has one central body, the Food and Drug Administration, whereas the EU system has several bodies with different responsibilities. The devices themselves are divided into risk classes, which are based on the vulnerability of the human body. This risk class determines the intensity of the review by the market authorization body. In addition to the requirements for development, manufacture, and distribution, the device itself must meet technical and clinical requirements. Compliance with technical requirements is indicated by nonclinical laboratory studies. Proof of efficacy is provided by means of clinical investigations. Procedures are defined for reviewing these elements. Once the market authorization process has been completed, the devices can be placed on the market. In the postmarketing phase, the devices must continue to be monitored, and measures must be initiated, if necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Both US and EU systems are intended to ensure that only safe and effective devices find their way to and remain on the market. The basic approaches of the two systems are comparable. In detail, however, there are differences in ways these goals are achieved.

Durable multimodal and holistic response for physiologic closed-loop spinal cord stimulation supported by objective evidence from the EVOKE double-blind randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain patients may experience impairments in multiple health-related domains. The design and interpretation of clinical trials of chronic pain interventions, however, remains primarily focused on treatment effects on pain intensity. This study investigates a novel, multidimensional holistic treatment response to evoked compound action potential-controlled closed-loop versus open-loop spinal cord stimulation as well as the degree of neural activation that produced that treatment response. METHODS: Outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality and emotional function were derived from individual patient level data from the EVOKE multicenter, participant, investigator, and outcome assessor-blinded, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial with 24 month follow-up. Evaluation of holistic treatment response considered whether the baseline score was worse than normative values and whether minimal clinical important differences were reached in each of the domains that were impaired at baseline. A cumulative responder score was calculated to reflect the total minimal clinical important differences accumulated across all domains. Objective neurophysiological data, including spinal cord activation were measured. RESULTS: Patients were randomized to closed-loop (n=67) or open-loop (n=67). A greater proportion of patients with closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (49.3% vs 26.9%) were holistic responders at 24-month follow-up, with at least one minimal clinical important difference in all impaired domains (absolute risk difference: 22.4%, 95% CI 6.4% to 38.4%, p=0.012). The cumulative responder score was significantly greater for closed-loop patients at all time points and resulted in the achievement of more than three additional minimal clinical important differences at 24-month follow-up (mean difference 3.4, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.5, p=0.002). Neural activation was three times more accurate in closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (p<0.001 at all time points). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that closed-loop spinal cord stimulation can provide sustained clinically meaningful improvements in multiple domains and provide holistic improvement in the long-term for patients with chronic refractory pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02924129.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of PCF versus ACD in the treatment of cervical brachialgia (FORVAD trial).

BACKGROUND: Cervical radiculopathy occurs when a nerve root is compressed in the spine, if symptoms fail to resolve after 6 weeks surgery may be indicated. Anterior Cervical Discectomy (ACD) is the commonest procedure, Posterior Cervical Foraminotomy (PCF) is an alternative that avoids the risk of damage to anterior neck structures. This prospective, Phase III, UK multicentre, open, individually randomised controlled trial was performed to determine whether PCF is superior to ACD in terms of improving clinical outcome as measured by the Neck Disability Index (NDI) 52 weeks post-surgery. METHOD: Following consent to participate and collection of baseline data, subjects with cervical brachialgia were randomised to ACD or PCF in a 1:1 ratio on the day of surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed on day 1 and patient reported outcomes on day 1 and weeks 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 post-operation. A total of 252 participants were planned to be randomised. Statistical analysis was limited to descriptive statistics. Health economic outcomes were also described. RESULTS: The trial was closed early (n = 23). Compared to baseline, the median (interquartile range (IQR)) NDI score at 52 weeks reduced from 44.0 (36.0, 62.0) to 25.3 (20.0, 42.0) in the PCF group and increased from 35.6 (34.0, 44.0) to 45.0 (20.0, 57.0) in the ACD group. ACD may be associated with more swallowing, voice and other complications and was more expensive; neck and arm pain scores were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was closed early, therefore no definitive conclusions on clinical or cost-effectiveness could be made.

Awake craniotomy for high-grade gliomas - a prospective cohort study in a UK tertiary-centre.

BACKGROUND: Studies from the UK reporting on awake craniotomy (AC) include a heterogenous group of patients which limit the evaluation of the true impact of AC in high-grade glioma (HGG) patients. This study aims to report solely the experience and outcomes of AC for HGG surgery from our centre. METHODS: A prospective review of all patients who underwent AC for HGG from 2013 to 2019 were performed. Data on patient characteristics including but not limited to demographics, pre- and post-operative Karnofsky performance status (KPS), tumour location and volume, type of surgery, extent of resection (EOR), tumour histopathology, intra- and post-operative complications, morbidity, mortality, disease recurrence, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from the time of surgery were collected. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (6 males; 9 females; 17 surgeries) underwent AC for HGG (median age = 55 years). Two patients underwent repeat surgeries due to disease recurrence. Median pre- and post-operative KPS score was 90 (range:80-100) and 90 (range:60-100), respectively. The EOR ranges from 60 to 100 % with a minimum of 80 % achieved in 81.3 % cases. Post-operative complications include focal seizures (17.6 %), transient aphasia/dysphasia (17.6 %), permanent motor deficit (11.8 %), transient motor deficit (5.9 %) and transient sensory disturbance (5.9 %). There were no surgery-related mortality or post-operative infection. The median PFS and OS were 13 (95%CI 5-78) and 30 (95%CI 21-78) months, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the first study in the UK to solely report outcomes of AC for HGG surgery. Our data demonstrates that AC for HGG in eloquent region is safe, feasible and provides comparable outcomes to those reported in the literature.

Restorative neurostimulation for chronic mechanical low back pain - Three year results from the United Kingdom post market clinical follow-up registry.

Introduction: Mechanical chronic low back pain is often associated with impaired neuromuscular control of the lumbar multifidus muscles, the most important stabilizers of the lumbar spine. Restorative neurostimulation is a modality for the treatment for this specific subset of patients aimed to facilitate restoration of neuromuscular control by bilateral stimulation of the L2 medial branches. Evidence from both prospective and randomised clinical trials to date has demonstrated substantial improvements in clinical outcomes such as pain, disability and health-related quality of life. Methods: This study is an open label prospective follow-up for the treatment of chronic mechanical low back pain of nociceptive origin with restorative neurostimulation. Patients completed assessments for pain, disability and health-related quality of life. Outcomes were collected at 45, 90 and 180 days, and 1, 2 and 3 years after the activation visit. Results: Forty-two patients were implanted with the device and 33 (79%) were available at the 3-year appointment. Patients in this cohort presented with severe chronic low back pain (NRS = 7.0 ± 0.2) and severe disability (ODI 46.6 ± 12.0). The health-related quality of life was also severely impacted at baseline (EQ-5D 0.426 ± 0.061). Changes in pain, disability and quality of life at three-year follow-up demonstrated a statistically significant improvement between baseline and 1, 2 and 3 years. After 3 years of therapy, average NRS scores had reduced to 2.7± 0.3 and mean ODI score to 26.0 ± 3.1 while EQ-5D-5L index improved to 0.707 ± 0.036. Conclusions: The ongoing follow-up of this post market cohort continues to demonstrate that restorative neurostimulation provides a statistically significant, clinically meaningful and durable response across pain, disability and quality-of life scores for patients suffering chronic mechanical low back pain that has been refractory to conventional management. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01985230.

Consistency of Radiological Grading of Cervical Foraminal Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: The degree of cervical foraminal stenosis on MRI scans may be measured and categorised using the Kim or modified Kim methods. These grading scales have not previously been validated in a cohort of patients awaiting surgery. OBJECTIVES: To establish the normal foraminal and root diameters as well as the consistency of inter and intra-rater grading using the Kim and modified Kim grading systems in pre-operative surgical patients. METHODS: Asymptomatic cervical nerve roots and foramina demonstrated on the pre-operative MRI scans of adult surgical patients with cervical radiculopathy were measured and categorised by six raters using the Kim and modified Kim grading methods. Repeat "second pass" measurements were made by the same assessors on the same images a minimum of one month later. RESULTS: Foraminal diameters (mm) in asymptomatic foramina were C2/C3 (mean±SD): 4.18±1.44, C3/C4 2.96±1.23, C4/C5 3.02±1.19, C5/C6 3.15±1.33, C6/C7 3.53±1.36, C7/T1 3.93±1.34. Nerve root diameters were C3 3.11±0.87, C4 2.95±0.77, C5 2.56±0.73, C6 2.26±0.76, C7 2.56±0.82, C8 3.83±0.86. Inter-rater consistency was kappa [95% CI]: Kim 0.01 [0.00, 0.03], modified Kim 0.08 [0.05, 0.10]. Intra-rater consistency was kappa [95% CI]: Kim 0.81 [0.77, 0.86], modified Kim 0.69 [0.62, 0.76]. CONCLUSION: There was poor inter-rater consistency but good intra-rater consistency when assessing the severity of foraminal stenosis on axial T2 MRI scans. Foraminal diameter was narrowest at C3/C4 and C4/C5, whereas the smallest root diameter was C5/C6. Volumetric or oblique MR may improve consistency.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT.

Background: Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective: The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design: This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting: National Health Service trusts. Participants: Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions: Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results: The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions: The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cervical brachialgia is pain that starts in the neck and passes down into the arm. Although most people with cervical brachialgia recover quickly, in some patients pain persists, and in 15% of patients pain is so severe that they are unable to work. In the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial, we investigated two neck surgeries used to treat this problem: posterior cervical foraminotomy (surgery from the back of the neck) and anterior cervical discectomy (surgery from the front of the neck). This trial aimed to find out if one of them is better than the other at relieving pain and more cost-effective for the National Health Service. We assessed patients' quality of life 1 year after their surgery and how their pain changed over the course of the year. We also measured the number of complications patients had in the first 6 weeks after their operation. Recruitment was slow and so the trial was stopped early, after only 23 patients from 11 hospitals had been randomly allocated to the two surgery groups. We had planned to recruit 252 participants to the trial; the number of participants we were able to recruit in practice was too small to enable us to determine which surgery is better at relieving pain. To find out why the trial had struggled to recruit, we asked hospital staff and participants about their experiences. We found that hospital staff sometimes struggled to organise everything needed to randomise patients on the day of surgery. Some staff also found it difficult to randomise patients as they had an opinion on which surgery they thought the patient should receive. The data collected in the trial will still be useful to help design future research. Finding out which surgery is better at relieving pain remains important, and the data we have collected will support answering this question in future.

Decompressive Craniectomy versus Craniotomy for Acute Subdural Hematoma.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic acute subdural hematomas frequently warrant surgical evacuation by means of a craniotomy (bone flap replaced) or decompressive craniectomy (bone flap not replaced). Craniectomy may prevent intracranial hypertension, but whether it is associated with better outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a trial in which patients undergoing surgery for traumatic acute subdural hematoma were randomly assigned to undergo craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy. An inclusion criterion was a bone flap with an anteroposterior diameter of 11 cm or more. The primary outcome was the rating on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (an 8-point scale, ranging from death to "upper good recovery" [no injury-related problems]) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the GOSE rating at 6 months and quality of life as assessed by the EuroQol Group 5-Dimension 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: A total of 228 patients were assigned to the craniotomy group and 222 to the decompressive craniectomy group. The median diameter of the bone flap was 13 cm (interquartile range, 12 to 14) in both groups. The common odds ratio for the differences across GOSE ratings at 12 months was 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.18; P = 0.32). Results were similar at 6 months. At 12 months, death had occurred in 30.2% of the patients in the craniotomy group and in 32.2% of those in the craniectomy group; a vegetative state occurred in 2.3% and 2.8%, respectively, and a lower or upper good recovery occurred in 25.6% and 19.9%. EQ-5D-5L scores were similar in the two groups at 12 months. Additional cranial surgery within 2 weeks after randomization was performed in 14.6% of the craniotomy group and in 6.9% of the craniectomy group. Wound complications occurred in 3.9% of the craniotomy group and in 12.2% of the craniectomy group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with traumatic acute subdural hematoma who underwent craniotomy or decompressive craniectomy, disability and quality-of-life outcomes were similar with the two approaches. Additional surgery was performed in a higher proportion of the craniotomy group, but more wound complications occurred in the craniectomy group. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research; RESCUE-ASDH ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN87370545.).

Interventional Pain Procedures: A Narrative Review Focusing On Safety and Complications. PART 2 Interventional Procedures For Back Pain.

In patients where conservative approaches have failed to relieve from chronic pain, interventional procedures may be an option in well selected patients. In recent years there has been an increase in the use and development of invasive procedures. Concomitantly, there has also been an increase in the complications associated with these procedures. Taken this into consideration, it is important for healthcare providers to take a cautious and vigilant approach, with a focus on patient safety, in order to minimize the risk of adverse events and ensure the best possible outcome for the patient. This may include careful selection of patients for procedures, use of proper techniques and equipment, and close monitoring and follow-up after the procedure. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the primary complications associated with commonly performed image-guided (fluoroscopy or ultrasound-guided) interventional procedures and provide strategies to reduce the risk of these complications. We conclude that although complications from interventional pain procedures can be mitigated to a certain degree, they cannot be eliminated altogether. In order to avoid adverse events, patient safety should be given considerable attention and physicians should be constantly aware of the possibility of developing complications.

Long-term safety of spinal cord stimulation systems in a prospective, global registry of patients with chronic pain.

Aim: The availability of long-term (>2 years) safety outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. We evaluated safety in a global SCS registry for chronic pain. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled globally at 79 implanting centers and followed out to 3 years after device implantation. Results: Of 1881 participants enrolled, 1289 received a permanent SCS implant (1776 completed trial). The annualized rate of device explant was 3.5% (all causes), and 1.1% due to inadequate pain relief. Total incidence of device explantation >3 years was 7.6% (n = 98). Of these, 32 subjects (2.5%) indicated inadequate pain relief as cause for removal. Implant site infection (11 events) was the most common device-related serious adverse event (<1%). Conclusion: This prospective, global, real-world study demonstrates a high-level of safety for SCS with low rate of explant/serious adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01719055 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Holistic Treatment Response: An International Expert Panel Definition and Criteria for a New Paradigm in the Assessment of Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is focused on the magnitude of effects on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is a multidimensional condition that may affect individuals in different ways and as such it seems reductionist to evaluate treatment response based solely on a unidimensional measure such as pain intensity. AIM: The aim of this article is to add to a framework started by IMMPACT for assessing the wider health impact of treatment with SCS for people with chronic pain, a "holistic treatment response". DISCUSSION: Several aspects need consideration in the assessment of a holistic treatment response. SCS device data and how it relates to patient outcomes, is essential to improve the understanding of the different types of SCS, improve patient selection, long-term clinical outcomes, and reproducibility of findings. The outcomes to include in the evaluation of a holistic treatment response need to consider clinical relevance for patients and clinicians. Assessment of the holistic response combines two key concepts of patient assessment: (1) patients level of baseline (pre-treatment) unmet need across a range of health domains; (2) demonstration of patient-relevant improvements in these health domains with treatment. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) is an established approach to reflect changes after a clinical intervention that are meaningful for the patient and can be used to identify treatment response to each individual domain. A holistic treatment response needs to account for MCIDs in all domains of importance for which the patient presents dysfunctional scores pre-treatment. The number of domains included in a holistic treatment response may vary and should be considered on an individual basis. Physiologic confirmation of therapy delivery and utilisation should be included as part of the evaluation of a holistic treatment response and is essential to advance the field of SCS and increase transparency and reproducibility of the findings.

Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin Have Clinical Utility (TRIAL-STIM)? 36-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening trials before full implantation of a spinal cord stimulation device are recommended by clinical guidelines and regulators, although there is limited evidence for their use. The TRIAL-STIM study showed that a screening trial strategy does not provide superior patient pain outcome at 6-month follow-up compared with not doing a screening trial and that it was not cost-effective. OBJECTIVE: To report the long-term follow-up results of the TRIAL-STIM study. METHODS: The primary outcome of this pragmatic randomized controlled trial was pain intensity as measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) and secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients achieving at least 50% and 30% pain relief at 6 months, health-related quality of life, and complication rates. RESULTS: Thirty patients allocated to the "Trial Group" (TG) and 36 patients allocated to the "No Trial Group" (NTG) completed outcome assessment at 36-month follow-up. Although there was a reduction in NRS pain and improvements in utility scores from baseline to 36 months in both groups, there was no difference in the primary outcome of pain intensity NRS between TG and NTG (adjusted mean difference: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.83 to 0.63), EuroQol-5 Dimension utility values (adjusted mean difference: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.10), or proportion of pain responders (33% TG vs 31% NTG). No differences were observed between the groups for the likelihood of spinal cord stimulation device explant or reporting an adverse advent up to 36-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The long-term results show no patient outcome benefit in undertaking an SCS screening trial.

Literature Review of Automated Grading Systems Utilizing MRI for Neuroforaminal Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical neural foraminal stenosis is a common and debilitating condition affecting people between the ages 40-60. Although it is established that MRI is the best method of scanning the neural foramen, the question remains whether there is a role for three-dimensional MRIs and whether it is possible to develop a computer-aided automated grading system to establish the degree of clinically relevant cervical foraminal stenosis. OBJECTIVE: The study's objective is to conduct a literature review of existing or recently developed automated grading systems for the cervical neural foramen, including volumetric MRI evaluations of the foramen. METHODS: A systematic search of Cochrane Library, Cochrane Clinical Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ACM Digital Library and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and Web of Science was performed for reports examining automated systems and volumetric scanning foraminal stenosis published before 31.07.2021. RESULTS: 3971 articles were identified of which 8 were included in the study. The automated grading systems of the neural foramen focus largely on the lumbar spine with elements that may be applicable to the cervical spine. Although there are established studies on the automated grading of the lumbar spine, it is uncertain whether any of these are reproducible in the cervical spine. Visual grading systems for the cervical spine demonstrate good inter-reader reliability between radiologists and clinicians. CONCLUSION: The Park visual grading method shows strong inter-reader reliability across radiologists and clinicians despite the limited data on the correlation with neurological symptoms or surgical outcome. There is scope for further development of an automated grading system for cervical foraminal stenosis to improve the speed and consistency of image interpretation.

Applicability and Validity of an e-Health Tool for the Appropriate Referral and Selection of Patients With Chronic Pain for Spinal Cord Stimulation: Results From a European Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES: To support rational decision-making on spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a European expert panel developed an educational e-health tool using the RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. This retrospective study aimed to determine the applicability and validity of the tool using data from patients for whom SCS had been considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 12 European implant centers retrieved data from 25 to 50 consecutive patients for whom SCS was considered in 2018-2019. For each patient, data were captured on the clinical and psychosocial variables included in the e-health tool, center decisions on SCS, and patient outcomes. Patient outcomes included global perception of effect by the patient and observer, and pain reduction (numeric pain rating scale) at six-month follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 483 patients were included, of whom 133 received a direct implant, 258 received an implant after a positive trial, 32 had a negative trial, and 60 did not receive SCS for reasons other than a negative trial. The most frequent indication was persistent spinal pain syndrome type 1 and type 2 (74%), followed by neuropathic pain syndromes (13%), complex regional pain syndrome (12%), and ischemic pain syndromes (0.8%). Data on the clinical and psychosocial variables were complete for 95% and 93% of patients, respectively, and missing data did not have a significant impact on the study outcomes. In patients who had received SCS, panel recommendations were significantly associated with patient outcomes (p < 0.001 for all measures). Substantial improvement ranged from 25% if the e-health tool outcome was "not recommended" to 83% if SCS was "strongly recommended". In patients who underwent a trial (N = 290), there was 3% of trial failure when SCS was "strongly recommended" vs 46% when SCS was "not recommended". CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective application of the e-health tool on patient data showed a strong relationship between the panel recommendations and both SCS trial results and treatment outcomes.