The Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Axial Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of axial low back pain (LBP) with or without leg pain. DESIGN: Systematic review. SUBJECTS: Persons aged ≥18 with axial LBP with or without accompanying leg pain. INTERVENTION: Traditional low-frequency, burst, or high-frequency SCS. COMPARISON: Sham, active standard of care treatment, or none. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was ≥50% pain improvement, and the secondary outcome was functional improvement measured six or more months after treatment intervention. METHODS: Publications in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were reviewed through September 19, 2019. Randomized or nonrandomized comparative studies and nonrandomized studies without internal controls were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and GRADE system were used to assess individual study characteristics and overall quality. RESULTS: Query identified 262 publications; 17 were suitable for inclusion. For high-frequency SCS, the only level 1 study showed that 79% (95% confidence interval = 70-87%) of patients reported ≥50% pain improvement. For low-frequency SCS, the only level 1 study reported no categorical data for axial LBP-specific outcomes; axial LBP improved by a mean 14 mm on the visual analog scale at six months. Meta-analysis was not performed due to study heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: According to GRADE, there is low-quality evidence that high-frequency SCS compared with low-frequency SCS is effective in patients with axial LBP with concomitant leg pain. There is very low-quality evidence for low-frequency SCS for the treatment of axial LBP in patients with concomitant leg pain. There is insufficient evidence addressing the effectiveness of burst SCS to apply a GRADE rating.

IL-6 in spinal cord injury: could immunomodulation replace immunosuppression in the management of acute traumatic spinal cord injuries?

Traumatic spinal cord injuries (SCI) result in devastating impairment to an individual's functional ability. The pathophysiology of SCI is related to primary injury but further propagated by secondary reactions to injury, such as inflammation and oxidation. The inflammatory and oxidative cascades ultimately cause demyelination and Wallerian degeneration. Currently, no treatments are available to treat primary or secondary injury in SCI, but some studies have shown promising results by lessening secondary mechanisms of injury. Interleukins (ILs) have been described as key players in the inflammation cascade after neuronal injury; however, their role and possible inhibition in the context of acute traumatic SCIs have not been widely studied. Here, we review the relationship between SCI and IL-6 concentrations in the CSF and serum of individuals after traumatic SCIs. Furthermore, we explore the dual IL-6 signaling pathways and their relevance for future IL-6 targeted therapies in SCI.

The association of payer type and opioid use on functional improvement at short-term follow-up after lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection: Results of a large registry study.

Background: Lumbosacral transforaminal epidural steroid injection (LTFESI) is a commonly performed intervention for treating radicular pain. While factors that predict pain improvement after LTFESI have been evaluated, minimal literature exists regarding predictors of functional improvement. Purpose: To identify factors that are associated with functional improvement at short-term follow-up after LTFESI. Study design: Retrospective review of prospectively collected registry data. Patient sample: Patients undergoing LTFESI at an academic spine center who completed an Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire both pre-procedure and one to three weeks post-procedure. Outcome measures: The outcomes of interest were the proportions of patients who experienced a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in function defined as â€‹≥ â€‹30% improvement in ODI score, as well as â€‹≥ â€‹10-point and ≥15-point improvement in ODI score. Methods: Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the associations of predictor variables to the ODI responder/non-responder outcome variable. The predictor variables for the analysis included: age, baseline ODI score, Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), payer type, prior lumbosacral spine surgery, pre-injection opioid use, two-level injections, bilateral injections, repeat injection, trainee presence during injection, immediate numerical rating scale (NRS) change post-injection. An odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: A total of 606 patients were included in the analysis. More than half of the patients (56.8%) reported a ≥7.1% improvement in ODI score, and about 30% reported a ≥30% improvement in ODI score. Approximately 36% and 20% of the patients reported ≥10-point and ≥15-point reductions in ODI score, respectively. Medicaid and Medicare payer type and pre-injection opioid use were significantly associated with a lower likelihood of ≥30%, and ≥15-point improvements in ODI, after adjusting for the other factors (p â€‹< â€‹0.05). Conclusions: When using various common definitions of MCID for ODI score improvement, Medicaid, Medicare, and pre-injection opioid use were identified as factors that are negatively associated with functional improvement at short-term follow-up after LTFESIs.