Epidural spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain: a neurosurgical multicentric Italian data collection and analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a technique used worldwide to treat several types of chronic neuropathic pain refractory to any conservative treatment. The aim of this data collection is to enforce evidence of SCS effectiveness on neuropathic chronic pain reported in the literature and to speculate on the usefulness of the trial period in determining the long-term efficacy. Moreover, the very low percentage of undesired side effects and complications reported in our case series suggests that all implants should be performed by similarly well-trained and experienced professionals. METHOD: A multicentric data collection on a common database from 11 Italian neurosurgical departments started 3 years ago. Two different types of electrodes (paddle or percutaneous leads) were used. Of 122 patients, 73 % (N = 89) were submitted to a trial period, while the remaining patients underwent the immediate permanent implant (N = 33). Statistical comparisons of continuous variables between groups were performed. RESULTS: Most of the patients (80 %) had predominant pain to their lower limbs, while only 17 % of patients had prevalent axial pain. Significant reduction in pain, as measured by variation in visual analogue scale (VAS) score, was observed at least 1 year after implantation in 63.8 % of the cases, 59.5 % of patients who underwent a test trial and 71.4 % of patients who underwent permanent implant at once. No statistical differences were found between the lower-limb pain group and the axial pain group. CONCLUSIONS: No relevant differences in long-term outcomes were observed in previously tested patients compared with patients implanted at once. Through this analysis we hope to recruit new centres, to give more scientific value to our results.

The 'nightmare' of wrong level in spine surgery: a critical appraisal.

The recent article published in the Journal by Lindley and colleagues (Patient Saf. Surg. 2011, 5:33) reported the successful surgical treatment of a persistent thoracic pain following a T7-8 microdiscectomy, truly performed at the 'level immediately above'. The wrong level in spine surgery is a multi-factorial matter and several strategies have been designed and adopted to try decreasing its occurrence. We think that three of these factors are crucial: global strategy, attention, precision in level identification; and the actors we identified are the surgeon, the assistant nurse and the (neuro)radiologist respectively. Basing upon our experience, the role of the radiologist pre- and intraoperatively and the importance of the assistant nurse are briefly described.

How to avoid wrong-level and wrong-side errors in lumbar microdiscectomy.

OBJECT: When performing a single-level lumbar decompressive procedure, the first of all errors to avoid is operating at the wrong level or on the wrong side. In this report the authors describe their method of trying to minimize this potential risk. METHODS: A 3-step procedure-the IRACE (intraoperative radiograph and confirming exclamation) method-was designed and adopted for single-level lumbar decompressive surgeries. Before skin incision, a wire is placed in the spinous process and lateral fluoroscopy is performed. Subsequently and also before skin incision, the assistant nurse provides oral confirmation of the level and side. Additional fluoroscopic control is provided before starting the laminotomy. The clinical records of 818 consecutive patients who had undergone lumbar microdiscectomy as an initial operation between 2001 and 2005 were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical charts as well as clinical and neuroimaging follow-up data were analyzed. RESULTS: No patient clinically and/or neuroradiologically demonstrated a level or side error. In 1 (0.12%) of 818 surgical procedures a wrong level was initially explored. The absence of frank disc herniation and the discrepancy with preoperative neuroimages led to fluoroscopic control in this case, and the correct level was then approached. No clinically apparent method-related complications were registered. CONCLUSIONS: The problem of an incorrect level or side in lumbar surgery remains unresolved. The authors propose a useful and easily applied procedure to reduce such a risk. Larger studies comparing different methods of avoiding such errors will probably lead to the definition and wide adoption of a surgical behavior aiming to reach a near-zero error rate.

Accuracy of pedicle screw placement in the lumbosacral spine using conventional technique: computed tomography postoperative assessment in 102 consecutive patients.

OBJECT: The goal of this study was to determine the incidence of screw misplacement and complications in a group of 102 patients who underwent transpedicle screw fixation in the lumbosacral spine with conventional open technique and intraoperative fluoroscopy. The results are compared with published data. METHODS: Cases involving 102 consecutive patients (424 inserted screws) were reviewed. Surgery was performed in all cases by the same surgeon's team, using the same implant, and all results were assessed by means of a specific CT protocol. The screw position was assessed by the authors and an independent observer. Screw position was classified as correct when the screw was completely surrounded by the pedicle cortex, as "cortical encroachment" (questionable violation) if the pedicle cortex could not be visualized, and as "frank penetration" when the screw was outside the pedicular boundaries. Frank penetration was further subdivided as minor (when the edge of the screw thread was up to 2.0 mm outside the pedicle cortex), moderate (2.1-4 mm), and severe (> 4 mm). The incidence of intra- and postoperative complications not related to screw position as well as hardware failures were also registered, with a minimum follow-up duration of 8 months. RESULTS: The rate of frank pedicle screw misplacement was 5%. The rate of minimal or questionable pedicle wall violation was 2.8%. Among the frank misplacements, 6 were classified as minor, 12 as moderate, and 3 as severe penetration. Two patients (2%) had radicular pain and neurological deficits (inferomedial and inferolateral minor misplacement at L-4 and L-5, respectively), and 5 patients (4.9%) complained only of radicular pain. At the follow-up examination all patients had completely recovered their neurological function and radicular pain was resolved in all cases. The complications not related to screw malposition were 2 pedicle fractures (2% of patients), 1 nerve root injury (1%), and 1 dural laceration (1%). Five patients (4.8%) had postoperative anemia and required transfusions. Superficial or deep wound infection was noted in 3 patients (2.9%). Late hardware failure occurred in 2 patients (2%). One patient developed adjacent segmental instability and required additional surgery to extend the fusion. CONCLUSIONS: Our rates of screw misplacement and complications compare favorably with the lowest rates of the series in which conventional technique was used and are close to the rates reported for image-guided methods. The risk of malpositioning may be reduced with careful preoperative surgical planning, accurate knowledge of the spinal anatomy, surgical experience, and correct indication for conventional surgery. The conventional technique still remains a practical, safe, and effective surgical method for lumbosacral fixation.