Potential Cost Savings with 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Treatment in Chronic Axial Low Back Pain.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic axial low back pain (CLBP) that is not responsive to medication management or physical therapy often requires significant clinical intervention. Several interventional pain management options exist, including a 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment. This economic evaluation investigated the potential for projected cost savings associated with prioritizing 60-day PNS treatment relative to a 'standard of care' (SOC) approach (where patients do not have access to 60-day PNS). METHODS: A decision tree (supervised machine learning) model tracked treatment progression across two hypothetical cohorts of US patients with CLBP in whom non-interventional options were ineffective (Cohort A: treatment starting with 60-day PNS followed by any additional interventional and surgical treatments versus Cohort B: standard of care interventional and surgical treatments without access to 60-day PNS). Treatment efficacy estimates were based on published success rates. Conditional on treatment failure, up to two additional interventions were considered within the 12-month time frame in both cohorts. SOC treatment options included epidural injection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), basivertebral nerve ablation (BVNA), PNS permanent implant (PNS-PI), spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial/implant, and spinal fusion surgery. Treatment choice probabilities in both cohort algorithms were based on clinician interviews. Costs were based on national Medicare reimbursement levels in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) setting. Savings reflected the difference in projected costs between cohorts. A Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted to generate confidence intervals and identify important inputs. RESULTS: The treatment algorithm which prioritized initial 60-day PNS treatment was projected to save $8056 (95% CI $6112-$9981) per patient during the first year of interventional treatment relative to the SOC approach. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the 60-day PNS treatment as an initial interventional treatment in patients with CLBP may result in significant savings for Medicare. Projected savings may be even larger for commercial payers covering non-Medicare patients.

A Retrospective Review of Real-world Outcomes Following 60-day Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data can provide important insights into treatment effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Studies have demonstrated that in multiple different pain indications temporary (60-day) percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment can produce significant relief, but few real-world studies have been published. The present study is the first real-world, retrospective review of a large database depicting outcomes at the end of a 60-day PNS treatment period. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate outcomes during a 60-day PNS treatment in routine clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary retrospective review. METHODS: Anonymized records of 6,160 patients who were implanted with a SPRINT PNS System from August 2019 through August 2022 were retrospectively reviewed from a national real-world database. The percentage of patients with ? 50% pain relief and/or improvement in quality of life was evaluated and stratified by nerve target. Additional outcomes included average and worst pain score, patient-reported percentage of pain relief, and patient global impression of change. RESULTS: Overall, 71% of patients (4,348/6,160) were responders with >= 50% pain relief and/or improvement in quality of life; pain relief among responders averaged 63%. The responder rate was largely consistent across nerve targets throughout the back and trunk, upper and lower extremities, and posterior head and neck. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature and reliance on a device manufacturer's database. Additionally, detailed demographic information and measures for pain medication usage and physical function were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis supports recent prospective studies demonstrating that 60-day percutaneous PNS can provide significant relief across a wide range of nerve targets. These data serve an important role in complementing the findings of published prospective clinical trials.

Is preoperative genicular radiofrequency ablation effective for reducing pain following total knee arthroplasty? A pilot randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for severe knee osteoarthritis (OA), a subset of patients experience significant postoperative pain and dissatisfaction. Several clinical trials support the analgesic benefits of genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation (GN-RFA) for non-operative knee OA, but only one prior trial has examined the effects of this intervention given preoperatively on postoperative outcomes following TKA, showing no analgesic benefit of cooled GN-RFA. The current study evaluated whether conventional thermal GN-RFA performed preoperatively resulted in significant improvements in pain and function following TKA. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded pilot trial in which patients received either conventional GN-RFA (n=30) or sham (n=30) between 2 and 4 weeks prior to their TKA. Baseline measures were obtained preprocedurally on the day of intervention, with follow-up outcomes obtained preoperatively on the day of surgery, and at 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients receiving GN-RFA showed no significant improvements relative to sham controls in the primary outcome, pain intensity at rest at 6-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes, including pain with ambulation and physical function, also showed no significant differences between groups at any follow-up assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional GN-RFA of the superior lateral, superior medial, and inferior medial genicular nerves when performed prior to TKA did not provide clinically significant pain relief or improvement in functional status at 2 or 6 weeks postoperatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02947321.

Neuromodulation for chronic pain.

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

Peripherally Induced Reconditioning of the Central Nervous System: A Proposed Mechanistic Theory for Sustained Relief of Chronic Pain with Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an effective tool for the treatment of chronic pain, although its efficacy and utilization have previously been significantly limited by technology. In recent years, purpose-built percutaneous PNS devices have been developed to overcome the limitations of conventional permanently implanted neurostimulation devices. Recent clinical evidence suggests clinically significant and sustained reductions in pain can persist well beyond the PNS treatment period, outcomes that have not previously been observed with conventional permanently implanted neurostimulation devices. This narrative review summarizes mechanistic processes that contribute to chronic pain, and the potential mechanisms by which selective large diameter afferent fiber activation may reverse these changes to induce a prolonged reduction in pain. The interplay of these mechanisms, supported by data in chronic pain states that have been effectively treated with percutaneous PNS, will also be discussed in support of a new theory of pain management in neuromodulation: Peripherally Induced Reconditioning of the Central Nervous System (CNS).

The Use of Contrast Agents in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multispecialty and Multisociety Practice Advisory on Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis, Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain, Encephalopathy After Unintentional Intrathecal Gadolinium Injection, and Hypersensitivity Reactions.

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.

Social media for the regional anesthesiologist: can we use it in place of medical journals?

The regional anesthesia community regularly uses social media for advocacy and education. Well-known leaders in the field are willing to share their opinions with colleagues in a public forum. Some visionaries predict that the influence of social media will soon transcend that of the traditional academic journal. While physicians support the use of social media, an trend may exist toward anecdotal information. Does a lack of online regulation along with a bias towards self-promotion cloud meaningful discussion? In order to avoid the pitfalls of social media, thoughtful communication will help regional anesthesiologists promote their subspecialty. Mindful dialog, promotion of academic journals, and professional etiquette will help maintain a collegial environment.

Impact of perioperative pain management on cancer recurrence: an ASRA/ESRA special article.

Cancer causes considerable suffering and 80% of advanced cancer patients experience moderate to severe pain. Surgical tumor excision remains a cornerstone of primary cancer treatment, but is also recognized as one of the greatest risk factors for metastatic spread. The perioperative period, characterized by the surgical stress response, pharmacologic-induced angiogenesis, and immunomodulation results in a physiologic environment that supports tumor spread and distant reimplantation.In the perioperative period, anesthesiologists may have a brief and uniquewindow of opportunity to modulate the unwanted consequences of the stressresponse on the immune system and minimize residual disease. This reviewdiscusses the current research on analgesic therapies and their impact ondisease progression, followed by an evidence-based evaluation of perioperativepain interventions and medications.

Interventional Spine and Pain Procedures in Patients on Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Medications (Second Edition): Guidelines From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the International Neuromodulation Society, the North American Neuromodulation Society, and the World Institute of Pain.

The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) 2012 survey of meeting attendees showed that existing ASRA anticoagulation guidelines for regional anesthesia were insufficient for their needs. Those surveyed agreed that procedure-specific and patient-specific factors required separate guidelines for pain and spine procedures. In response, a guidelines committee was formed. After preliminary review of published complications reports and studies, the committee stratified interventional spine and pain procedures according to potential bleeding risk: low-, intermediate-, and high-risk procedures. The ASRA regional anesthesia anticoagulation guidelines were largely deemed appropriate for the low- and intermediate-risk categories, but the high-risk category required further investigation. The first guidelines specific to interventional spine and pain procedures were published in 2015. Recent reviews evaluating bleeding complications in patients undergoing specific interventional pain procedures, the development of new regional anesthesia and acute pain guidelines, and the development of new anticoagulants and antiplatelet medications necessitate complementary updated guidelines. The authors desired coordination with the authors of the recently updated regional and acute pain anticoagulation guidelines. The latest evidence was sought through extensive database search strategies and the recommendations were evidence based when available and pharmacology driven otherwise. We could not provide strength and grading of these recommendations because there are not enough well-designed large studies concerning interventional pain procedures to support such grading. Although the guidelines could not always be based on randomized studies or on large numbers of patients from pooled databases, it is hoped that they will provide sound recommendations and the evidentiary basis for such recommendations. This publication is intended as a living document to be updated periodically with consideration of new evidence.

The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC): Recommendations on Intrathecal Drug Infusion Systems Best Practices and Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Pain treatment is best performed when a patient-centric, safety-based philosophy is used to determine an algorithmic process to guide care. Since 2007, the International Neuromodulation Society has organized a group of experts to evaluate evidence and create a Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) to guide practice. METHODS: The current PACC update was designed to address the deficiencies and innovations emerging since the previous PACC publication of 2012. An extensive literature search identified publications between January 15, 2007 and November 22, 2015 and authors contributed additional relevant sources. After reviewing the literature, the panel convened to determine evidence levels and degrees of recommendations for intrathecal therapy. This meeting served as the basis for consensus development, which was ranked as strong, moderate or weak. Algorithms were developed for intrathecal medication choices to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain for patients with cancer, terminal illness, and noncancer pain, with either localized or diffuse pain. RESULTS: The PACC has developed an algorithmic process for several aspects of intrathecal drug delivery to promote safe and efficacious evidence-based care. Consensus opinion, based on expertise, was used to fill gaps in evidence. Thirty-one consensus points emerged from the panel considerations. CONCLUSION: New algorithms and guidance have been established to improve care with the use of intrathecal drug delivery.

Real-Time Detection of Periforaminal Vessels in the Cervical Spine: An Ultrasound Survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Compared with the thoracic and lumbar spine, transforaminal epidural injections and medial branch blocks in the cervical spine are associated with a higher incidence of neurological complications. Accidental breach of small periforaminal arteries has been implicated in many instances. In this observational study, using ultrasonography, we surveyed the incidence of periforaminal bloods vessels in the cervical spine. METHODS: Patients undergoing ultrasound-guided cervical medial branch blocks were scanned using color power and pulsed wave Doppler. Five levels from C2/C3 to C6/C7 were studied. Incidental blood vessels located between the anterior tubercles of the transverses process and the posterior borders of the articular pillars were included for analysis. We recorded the diameter and position of arteries relative to contiguous bony landmarks as well the number of veins. RESULTS: In 102 patients, we performed a total 201 scans (1005 cervical levels). Of the 363 incidental vessels identified, 238 were arteries (mean diameter, 1.25 ± 0.45 mm). The latter were most commonly found at the posterior foraminal aspects of C5, C6, and C7 (13%, 11%, and 16% of scans, respectively); the transverse processes of C5 and C6 (10% and 16% of scans, respectively); and the articular pillars of C6 and C7 (19% and 16% of scans, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Small periforaminal arteries are prevalent along the lateral aspect of the cervical spine, adjacent to areas commonly targeted by nerve block procedures. Further trials are required to determine if ultrasound guidance can reduce the incidence of complications related to accidental vascular breach.