Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: It is essential to have validated and reliable pain measurement tools that cover a wide range of areas and are tailored to individual patients to ensure effective pain management. The main objective of this review is to provide comprehensive information on commonly used pain scales and questionnaires, including their usefulness, intended purpose, applicability to different patient populations, and associated advantages and disadvantages. RECENT FINDINGS: Acute pain questionnaires typically focus on measuring the severity of pain and the extent of relief achieved through interventions. Chronic pain questionnaires evaluate additional aspects such as pain-related functional limitations, psychological distress, and psychological well-being. The selection of an appropriate pain scale depends on the specific assessment objectives. Additionally, each pain scale has its strengths and limitations. Understanding the differences among these pain scales is essential for selecting the most appropriate tool tailored to individual patient needs in different settings. CONCLUSION: Medical professionals encounter challenges in accurately assessing pain. Physicians must be familiar with the different pain scales and their applicability to specific patient population.

Incidence of subsequent surgical decompression following minimally invasive approaches to treat lumbar spinal stenosis: A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression. PURPOSE: To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image-guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery. METHODS: Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver-Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors. RESULTS: A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Discrepancy Between Reported and Calculated Pain Reduction in Patients With Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy and Lack of Agreement Between Patient Satisfaction and Degree of Pain Relief.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine agreement between reported percentage pain reduction (RPPR) and calculated percentage pain reduction (CPPR) in patients with percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implants, and to correlate RPPR and CPPR with patient satisfaction. We also sought to determine which patient-reported outcome measures are most improved in patients with SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with percutaneous spinal cord stimulator implants with a mean follow-up of 51.1 months were interviewed and surveyed to assess their pain level, impression of degree of pain relief, satisfaction with the therapy, and desire to have the device again. Baseline pain level was obtained from their preimplant records. RESULTS: Overall, RPPR was found to be 53.3%, whereas CPPR was 44.4%. Of all patients, 21 reported <50% pain reduction; however, most of these (12/21, 57%) were satisfied with the outcome of therapy. In terms of individual improvement in outcomes, activities of daily life was the most improved measure at 82%, followed by mood, sleep, medication use, and health care utilization at 74%, 62%, 50%, and 48%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RPPR appears to be a complex outcome measure that may not agree with CPPR. Overall RPPR is greater than the CPPR. On the basis of our data, these independently valid measures should not be used interchangeably. A 50% pain reduction threshold is not a requisite for patient satisfaction and desire to have the device again. Activities of daily living was the most improved measure in this cohort, followed by mood, sleep, medication usage, and decrease in health care utilization.

Comparative Descriptive Analysis of Physician Versus Patient-Directed Gabapentin Usage In Chronic Pain - A Preliminary Report.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is one of the most common medications employed in Pain Medicine, specifically targeting the management of neuropathic pain. We are most familiar with the incremental dosing strategy where a ceiling dose is eventually attained guided by efficacy and patient tolerance, after which a fixed dosing regimen is prescribed. We propose that autonomous short-term dose variations per patient could have rapid clinically significant effects in the management of chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the frequency at which patients take gabapentin on a fixed vs variable schedule and how the pattern of gabapentin use correlates with efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Single institution, cross-sectional observational survey study with data collection performed over 2 phases as a pilot for proof of concept. SETTING: Remote contact via telephone with researchers calling from a quiet, private location within the hospital complex conducive for confidential conversation. METHODS: Patients recently prescribed gabapentin were queried on the patterns of use and self-perceived efficacy, satisfaction, and side effects in accordance to a standardized oral script. Patients selected met the criteria of being new patients freshly prescribed gabapentin who have been consistently on the medication for at least a month, while having chronic pain symptoms for over 3 months. Responses were collected in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients, 92 patients agreed to participate in the survey for a response rate of 41.4. Of these, 51% had terminated the medication for various reasons. Of the patients still taking gabapentin, 73% were on a fixed schedule, while 27% were on a variable dosing schedule. Variable dosing cohort reported better efficacy (P = 0.027) and satisfaction (P = 0.036), while the side-effect profile between the 2 groups was similar. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by its nature of being a pilot, single-institution study performed on a relatively small sample size. None of the patients we surveyed had been given the autonomy to adjust gabapentin doses by their providers and this could significantly reduce the proportion of patients who would be encouraged to run a variable dosing regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that a significant portion of patients choose to administer variable doses of gabapentin and associate this with better efficacy and satisfaction. A larger study is needed to confirm this supposition. Based upon this pilot study, the variable dosing option may be an option for improved therapeutic efficacy or as an alternative to those whose lifestyles do not allow for fixed dosing regimens. Discussion of the risks of gabapentin, including respiratory depression, and clear dosage parameters of use, would need to be outlined when considering a variable dose regimen.

Review: Discogenic Back Pain: Update on Treatment.

Purpose of Review: Lower back pain (LBP) has a lifetime prevalence of 80% in the United States population. Discogenic back pain (DBP), a subcategory of LBP, occurs as a result of the interverbal disc degeneration without disc herniation. Diagnosis relies on history, physical exam, and imaging such as MRI, provocative discography, or CT discography. Recent Findings: Treatment of DBP involves a multifaceted approach with an emphasis on conservative measures including behavioral modification, pharmacologic management, and other non-pharmacologic interventions with invasive therapy reserved for select patients. Due to the paucity of data on the treatment of DBP, treatment also relies on data derived from treatment of chronic LBP (CLBP). Summary: Despite the scarcity of data for the treatment of DBP, treatments do exist with varying efficacy for DBP. Novel techniques such as the use of biologics may provide another avenue for treatment though further studies are needed to better evaluate the most efficacious regimen for both novel and existing treatments.

Clinical practice patterns of opioid prescribing by physicians -performing percutaneous spinal cord stimulation trials and implants.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for neuropathic pain. Outcomes of SCS may be influenced by peri-implant opioid management; however, to date, standard practices of opioid management in this scenario remain undefined and unreported. METHODS: A survey inquiring SCS management practices in the peri-implant period was sent to the members of the Spine Intervention Society and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia. The results of three questions pertaining to peri-implant opioid management are presented here. RESULTS: For each of the three questions examined, there were between 181 and 195 responses. Among respondents, 40 percent encouraged reduction of opioids prior to SCS trial, and 17 percent mandated reduction. After a SCS trial, 87 percent of respondents did not provide any additional opioids for periprocedure pain. After implant, the majority of respondents provided 1-7 days of opioids for post-operative pain. CONCLUSION: Based upon survey results and current literature, it is advisable to recommend or attempt opioid reduction before SCS and to not provide additional opioid for post-operative pain after trial lead insertion. Routine prescribing for the pain of the SCS implant beyond 7 days is not favored.

The contralateral oblique fluoroscopic view is associated with a lower incidence of postdural puncture headache in patients undergoing percutaneous spinal cord stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive therapy that is increasingly used to treat refractory neuropathic pain. Although this technique has a low incidence of serious long-term adverse sequelae, the risk of complications such as inadvertent dural puncture remains. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this article was to determine the impact of the contralateral oblique (CLO) fluoroscopic view incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) during spinal cord stimulator implantation as compared to lateral fluoroscopic view. METHODS: This was a single academic institution retrospective analysis of electronic medical records spanning an approximate 20-year time period. Operative and postoperative notes were reviewed for details on dural puncture, including technique and spinal level of access, the development of a PDPH, and subsequent management. RESULTS: Over nearly two decades, a total of 1637 leads inserted resulted in 5 PDPH that were refractory to conservative measures but responded to epidural blood patch without long-term complications. The incidence of PDPH per lead insertion utilizing loss of resistance and lateral fluoroscopic guidance was 0.8% (4/489). However, adoption of CLO guidance was associated with a lower rate of PDPH at 0.08% (1/1148), p < 0.02. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of the CLO view to guide epidural needle placement can decrease the odds of a PDPH during percutaneous SCS procedures. This study further provides real-world data supporting the potential enhanced accuracy of epidural needle placement in order to avoid unintentional puncture or trauma to deeper spinal anatomic structures.

Notalgia Paresthetica Review: Update on Presentation, Pathophysiology, and Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a chronic cutaneous neuropathy primarily characterized by localized pruritus and associated dysesthesias, including sensations of pain, numbness, and tingling. The sensory neuropathy characteristic of NP is thought to result from spinal nerve entrapment caused by degenerative changes in the spine or musculoskeletal compression. This review summarizes the current medical literature with a focus on the past five years regarding NP, its pathophysiology, presentation, and current treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: Though treatments exist with varying efficacy, to date, there exists no definitive treatment for NP. Treatment options for NP are varied and range from topical and oral agents to interventional procedures and physical therapy. Of the treatments evaluated, topical capsaicin remains the most efficacious treatment for NP. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of established treatment guidelines makes treating NP complicated as it dramatically affects patients' quality of life. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to evaluate better the most effective treatment and dosing regimen for patients afflicted with NP.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Neurotomy in Managing Chronic Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain. METHODS: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined. RESULTS: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions. LIMITATIONS: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Neurotomy in Managing Chronic Neck Pain.

Background: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis. Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain. Methods: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined. Results: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions. Limitations: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-022-00455-0.

A Survey on the Choice of Spinal Cord Stimulation Parameters and Implantable Pulse Generators and on Reasons for Explantation.

Objective: Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a vital treatment for chronic intractable pain. In the last few years, the field has undergone dramatic changes in new waveform and frequency introduction as well as device miniaturization. It is important to understand contemporary practice patterns regarding these parameters. Methods: We surveyed the active membership of Spine Intervention Society (SIS), and American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA) on their practices regarding various aspects of Spinal Cord Stimulation therapy. Here we report on SCS waveform usage, battery types, and causes of explant in this cohort of providers. Results: There was similar degree of usage of tonic, burst, and 10 kHz usage at 71.5%, 74.1% and 61.7% respectively. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation was used by 32.6% and other modes of stimulation by 13.5%. Rechargeable systems were often or always used by 67.2% whereas 10% never used a rechargeable system. Most common cause of explant was loss of effectiveness, reported by 53.7%. Conclusion: There has been significant adoption of new waveforms in daily practice of spinal cord stimulation therapy and there is robust mixed usage of new waveforms and frequencies. Rechargeable systems are the most commonly used but primary cell is also used in significant numbers. Loss of efficacy remains the most common cause of explant for the majority of practitioners. This survey establishes practice patterns of SCS usage regarding these important variables against which future changes can be gauged.

Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cochrane Review of Epidural Injections for Lumbar Radiculopathy or Sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed. STUDY DESIGN: The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis. METHODS: In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed. RESULTS: In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months. LIMITATIONS: The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed. CONCLUSION: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

Dural Puncture During Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Insertion: Analysis of Practice Patterns.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an important modality for intractable pain not amenable to less conservative measures. During percutaneous SCS lead insertion, a critical step is safe access to the epidural space, which can be complicated by a dural puncture. Objectives: In this review, we present and analyze the practices patterns in the event of a dural puncture during a SCS trial or implantation. Methods: We conducted a survey of the practice patterns regarding spinal cord stimulation therapy. The survey was administered to members of the Spine Intervention Society and American Society of Regional Anesthesia specifically inquiring decision making in case of inadvertent dural puncture during spinal cord stimulator lead insertion. Results: A maximum of 193 responded to a question regarding dural punctures while performing a SCS trial and 180 responded to a question regarding dural punctures while performing a SCS implantation. If performing a SCS trial and a dural puncture occurs, a majority of physicians chose to continue the procedure at a different level (56.99%), followed by abandoning the procedure (27.98%), continuing at the same level (10.36%), or choosing another option (4.66%). Similarly, if performing a permanent implantation and a dural puncture occurs, most physicians chose to continue the procedure at a different level (61.67%), followed by abandoning the procedure (21.67%), continuing at the same level (10.56%), or choosing another option (6.11%). Conclusions: Whereas the goals of the procedure would support abandoning the trial but continuing with the permanent in case of inadvertent dural puncture, we found that decision choices were minimally influenced by whether the dural puncture occurred during the trial or the permanent implant. The majority chose to continue with the procedure at a different level while close to a quarter chose to abandon the procedure. This article sets a time stamp in practice patterns from March 20, 2020 to June 26, 2020. These results are based on contemporary SCS practices as demonstrated by this cohort, rendering the options of abandoning or continuing after dural puncture as reasonable methods. Though more data is needed to provide a consensus, providers can now see how others manage dural punctures during SCS procedures.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Post Total Knee Replacement Pain: A Case Series.

It is not uncommon for orthopedic patients to experience pain following a total knee replacement (TKR). Use of oral pain medications, nerve blocks, and periarticular injections are implemented to provide multimodal analgesia and to reduce postoperative chronic pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can also be used to control pain in patients who are refractory to conservative measures. Few studies have explored this possibility for patients with chronic pain status post TKR. We present three cases that demonstrate the effectiveness of SCS in this challenging patient population.

Incidence and Predictors of Inadvertent Dural Puncture After Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Retrospective Database Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Inadvertent dural puncture (IDP) is a known complication associated with traditional neuraxial procedures; however, its characterization after percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS) lead placement has yet to be clearly established in large population studies. This retrospective analysis aims to understand the incidence and associated characteristics of patients with IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PearlDiver Mariner database of national all-payer claims was used to identify patients who received percutaneous SCS leads and had a claim for IDP (intraoperative IDP or postdural puncture headache [PDPH] claim) within 45 days. The primary outcome was to determine the overall incidence of IDP. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of associated risk factors for IDP and treatments used in symptomatic management. RESULTS: A total of 90,952 patients who underwent percutaneous lead SCS placement were included. The incidence of IDP was 0.48% (436/90,952 patients). Older age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97; p < 0.0001) and male sex (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.53-0.81; p < 0.001) had a lower odds of having a claim for IDP, whereas a history of IDP was associated with a higher OR (95% CI) by 13.72 times (10.72-17.58) (p < 0.0001). Of the IDP patients, 64% (277/436 patients) had a claim for a therapeutic blood patch. Discrepancy in type of claim for IDP was observed, with most being for PDPH. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement is an uncommon event; however, certain factors are associated with its development. Overall, early recognition of IDP after percutaneous SCS lead placement is imperative to facilitate the delivery of targeted treatments and prevent further harmful consequences to the patient.

Impact Of COVID-19 Pandemic and Updated Utilization Patterns of Sacroiliac Joint Injections from 2000 to 2020 in The Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Among the multiple causes of low back and lower extremity pain, sacroiliac joint pain has shown to be prevalent in 10% to 25% of patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis. Over the years, multiple Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes have evolved with the inclusion of intraarticular injections, nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy, in addition to percutaneous sacroiliac joint fusions. Previous assessments of utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions only included sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections, since the data was not available prior to the introduction of new codes. A recent assessment revealed an increase of 11.3%, and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population from 2009 to 2018, showing a decline in growth patterns. During the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has also had significant effects on the utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions. STUDY DESIGN: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions (intraarticular injections, nerve blocks, radiofrequency neurotomy, arthrodesis and fusion) was evaluated from 2010 to 2019 and 2010 to 2020, with a comparative analysis from 2019 to 2020 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To update utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions with assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in the present analysis. RESULTS: The results of this evaluation demonstrated a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a 19.2% decrease of utilization of sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections from 2019 to 2020. There was a 23.3% increase in sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and a 5.3% decrease for sacroiliac joint fusions with small numbers from 2019 to 2020. However, data was not available for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks and sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy as these codes were incorporated in 2020. Overall, from 2010 to 2019, sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections showed an annual increase of 0.9% per 100,000 Medicare population. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and fusion showed an annual increase from 2010 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population of 29% for arthrodesis and 13.3% for fusion. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare Advantage patients constituting approximately 30% to 40% of the overall Medicare population. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are non-Medicare are not part of the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a significant decrease of intraarticular injections of 19.2% from 2019 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population. These decreases of intraarticular injections are accompanied by a 5.3% decrease of fusion, but a 23.3% increase of arthrodesis from 2019 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population. Overall, the results showed an annual increase of 0.9% per 100,000 Medicare population for intraarticular injections, a 35.4% annual increase for sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and an increase of 15.5% for sacroiliac joint fusion from 2010 to 2019.

Contralateral and Lateral Views: Analysis of the Technical Aspects of Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Insertion.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment modality for neuropathic pain. The critical part of this technique is safe access to the epidural space for lead placement. There have been innovations in radiological views, improving access to the epidural space. Objectives: This study analyzes the adoption of these technical advantages in daily practice. Methods: We conducted a survey of members in the Spine Intervention Society and American Society of Regional Anesthesia in regard to the practice patterns in SCS therapy. Here we present our findings regarding the use of contralateral oblique (CLO) and lateral views as well direct upper thoracic or cervicothoracic access for SCS lead insertion. Results: A total of 195 unique responses were received between March 20, 2020 and June 26, 2020. Forty-five percent of respondents "always used" the lateral view technique while 15% "always used" CLO view for SCS lead insertion. Overall, sixty-five percent of respondents used the CLO view with varying frequency. Cervical and upper thoracic approach for cervical SCS lead placement is always or often used by 66.8% of the respondents. Conclusions: A depth view (CLO or lateral) is always used by only 45 - 60% of the respondents and CLO view has been rapidly adopted in clinical practice for SCS lead insertion. Direct cervicothoracic and upper thoracic is the preferred approach for cervical lead placement by the majority.

Evaluating the incidence of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant: an updated retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION: While spinal cord stimulator implant is an increasingly safe procedure, one of the most feared complications is spinal cord injury. Still, literature regarding its incidence remains highly variable. This retrospective analysis aims to evaluate the incidence of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant using a large-scale claims database. METHODS: The PearlDiver-Mariner database of national all payer claims was used to identify patients who underwent spinal cord stimulator implant (percutaneous or paddle) and developed subsequent spinal cord injury within 45 days. The primary outcome was to determine the overall incidence of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of potential factors associated with developing spinal cord injury using univariable and multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 71,172 patients who underwent a spinal cord stimulator implant were included in the analysis, of which 52,070 underwent percutaneous and 19,102 underwent paddle spinal cord stimulator lead implant. The overall incidence of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant (any lead type) was found to be 0.42% (302 patients). The incidence of spinal cord injury after percutaneous and paddle lead implants did not differ at 0.45% (233 patients) and 0.36% (69 patients)(p=0.12), respectively. Overall, variables associated with a significantly increased OR (95% confidence interval) of developing spinal cord injury included male gender by 1.31 times (1.04 to 1.65)(p=0.02); having a claim for low molecular weight heparin within 30 days by 3.99 times (1.47 to 10.82)(p<0.01); a diagnosis for osteoporosis within 1 year by 1.75 times (1.15 to 2.66)(p<0.01); and a diagnosis of cervical or thoracic spinal canal stenosis within 1 year by 1.99 (1.37 to 2.90)(p<0.001) and 4.00 (2.63 to 6.09)(p<0.0001) times, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our results support the notion that spinal cord stimulator implant continues to be a safe procedure for chronic pain patients. However, risk factor mitigation strategies for the prevention of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant should be undertaken prior to performing the procedure.