Twelve-Month results from multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and traditional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic intractable back pain and leg pain.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established treatment for chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs; however, low back pain (LBP) is difficult to treat using traditional SCS. Differential Target Multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) is an advanced approach inspired from animal studies demonstrating improved pain-related behavior and pain-relevant biological processes. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of DTM SCS and traditional SCS in treating chronic LBP and leg pain (LP). METHODS: This prospective, postmarket randomized controlled trial compared DTM SCS to traditional SCS in patients with chronic LBP and LP. Primary end point was LBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥ 50% relief) at 3 months. Noninferiority and superiority were assessed. Other outcomes included mean change in back and leg pain, responder rates, disability, global health, satisfaction, and safety profile throughout the 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight subjects were randomized across 12 centers (67 DTM SCS and 61 traditional SCS). Of the 94 patients implanted, 46 subjects in each group completed the 3-month assessment. LBP responder rate of 80.1% with DTM SCS was superior to 51.2% with traditional SCS (p = 0.0010). Mean LBP reduction (5.36 cm) with DTM SCS was greater than reduction (3.37 cm) with traditional SCS (p < 0.0001). These results were sustained at 6 months and 12 months. Safety profiles were similar between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Superiority of DTM SCS compared with traditional SCS for chronic LBP was demonstrated. Clinical improvements provided by DTM SCS were sustained over 12 months and are expected to significantly impact the management of chronic LBP.

Success Using Neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) Study: Results From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Novel Burst Waveform.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the multicenter, randomized, unblinded, crossover Success Using Neuromodulation with BURST (SUNBURST) study was to determine the safety and efficacy of a device delivering both traditional tonic stimulation and burst stimulation to patients with chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs. METHODS: Following a successful tonic trial, 100 subjects were randomized to receive one stimulation mode for the first 12 weeks, and then the other stimulation mode for the next 12 weeks. The primary endpoint assessed the noninferiority of the within-subject difference between tonic and burst for the mean daily overall VAS score. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted using data at the 12- and 24-week visits. Subjects then used the stimulation mode of their choice and were followed for one year. Descriptive statistics were used analyze additional endpoints and to characterize the safety profile of the device. RESULTS: The SUNBURST study demonstrated that burst stimulation is noninferior to tonic stimulation (p < 0.001). Superiority of burst was also achieved (p < 0.017). Significantly more subjects (70.8%) preferred burst stimulation over tonic stimulation (p < 0.001). Preference was sustained through one year: 68.2% of subjects preferred burst stimulation, 23.9% of subjects preferred tonic, and 8.0% of subjects had no preference. No unanticipated adverse events were reported and the safety profile was similar to other spinal cord stimulation studies. CONCLUSIONS: The SUNBURST study demonstrated that burst spinal cord stimulation is safe and effective. Burst stimulation was not only noninferior but also superior to tonic stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain. A multimodal stimulation device has advantages.

A case series review of spinal cord stimulation migration rates with a novel fixation device.

INTRODUCTION: A retrospective review of a consecutive case series of 66 permanent spinal cord stimulation implants utilizing a novel tissue fixation device was performed. The purpose of this case series review is to examine the impact of a novel lead anchor to tissue fixation system and determine if it is a viable alternative to standard tissue fixation methods. CASE SERIES REPORT: Sixty-six cases were performed utilizing a novel method of lead anchor tissue fixation. Cases performed included cervical and thoracolumbar. For the majority of the 66 cases, two spinal cord stimulator leads and two SwiftLock lead anchors in conjunction with the novel method of tissue fixation were utilized. RESULTS: A retrospective review indicated no reports of lead migration during this case series, the mean follow-up time being 38 weeks (range 10-68 weeks). In addition, there were zero reported complications or untoward effects due to use of the novel device and technique. DISCUSSION: Overall complication rates for SCS have been reported in the range of 30-40%, with hardware-related complications contributing a significant percentage to the overall complication rate. Lead anchoring techniques still rely heavily on the experience and skill of the implanting physician. The novel device and method utilized in this case series to aid in anchoring leads demonstrated good results with no observed postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: These data suggest this novel method of tissue fixation may be a viable alternative for fixation of spinal cord stimulator leads to soft tissue. In this case series there were no reported incidents of migration or complications related to the novel device.

Use of a newly developed delivery device for percutaneous introduction of multiple lead configurations for spinal cord stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: The Epiducer lead delivery system is a novel lead delivery device that can be used to percutaneously implant S-Series paddle leads (St. Jude Medical, Plano, TX, USA) as well as multiple percutaneous leads obviating the need for laminectomy and/or multiple needle sticks, respectively. This study evaluates the safety and usage of the Epiducer lead delivery system. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board-approved observational data collection study was conducted to evaluate usage patterns of the Epiducer system. In addition to the number and frequency of different lead configurations, the following procedural aspects of the surgery were recorded during the evaluation: angle of entry, distance from entry to final lead placement, and physician feedback. Descriptive statistics on adverse events, procedural aspects, and patient outcomes were compiled. RESULTS: Data were collected from 163 patients across 25 investigational sites. Physicians successfully implanted patients using the Epiducer during 89% of the procedures. Seven possible lead configurations were implanted. There were 96% and 92% of physicians "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with accessing the epidural space and placing multiple leads with the Epiducer delivery system, respectfully. Eighty-nine percent of physicians were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with implanting an S-Series paddle lead using the Epiducer delivery system. Ninety-five percent of physicians were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the Epiducer delivery system overall. Ten patients (6%) experienced adverse events. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the Epiducer delivery system allows for the safe and successful percutaneous implantation of paddle leads and/or multiple lead configurations. Furthermore, physicians are satisfied with the Epiducer delivery system.

A Prospective, Observational, Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Multicenter Study Measuring Functional Outcomes in a Novel Interspinous Fusion Device in Subjects with Low Back Pain: REFINE Study.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar degenerative disease and the accompanying pain and dysfunction affect a significant number of patients in the USA and around the world. As surgery and innovation are moving towards minimally invasive treatments, this study looks to explore interspinous fixation as a standalone posterior approach to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease in the presence of neurogenic claudication and spinal stenosis. METHODS: This study was approved by an institutional review board (IRB) and is actively enrolling in a single-arm, multicenter, prospective, open-label fashion. Patients are followed with reporting at 3 months, and 12 months for primary endpoint analysis of efficacy and safety based on improved composite endpoints relative to baseline, with success defined as greater than 20 mm back pain reduction in Visual Analog Scale 100 mm (VAS) while standing or walking, greater than 20 mm leg pain reduction in VAS while standing or walking, Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ) improvement of 0.5 or greater in two or three domains, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improvement of a least 10 points and no reoperations or revisions at the index level(s). Secondary endpoints included a multidimensional assessment in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v2.1 and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). RESULTS: In this interim 3-month analysis, 82% of patients reported they were improved from the procedure, while 65% of patients demonstrated clinical meaningful improvement in their pain and function, as defined by the VAS, ODI, and ZCQ. There was only one adverse event and no complications were identified at last clinic research follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: This interim analysis of the first 20% of the enrolled patients out to 3 months was to determine safety of the procedure and report on adverse events, acknowledging the heterogeneity of surgical specialty. Further follow-up and greater numbers are needed as the study is ongoing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT05504499.

Early Functional Outcomes in Low Back Pain Subjects with a Novel Interspinous Fusion Device: REFINE Study 6-Month Results.

Purpose: Lumbar interlaminar decompression with interspinous fixation is an established safe and effective treatment for spinal stenosis. Early maintenance of improvements in pain intensity and function are critical for durability of symptom relief. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of minimally invasive treatments for low back pain during the early period after treatment and their utility in setting the course for longer term success. Patients and Methods: This study utilized patient evaluations at 3- and 6-months following treatment and is part of an actively enrolling, institutional review board (IRB) approved, single-arm, multicenter, prospective, open-label 12-month study. Clinical efficacy was assessed primarily using the change from baseline in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the back and leg pain during walking and standing, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and secondarily using the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) 29 v2.1. The safety endpoints were the adverse events and reoperations or revisions at the index level(s). Results: At 6-month post-op, 76%, 62%-64%, and 64% of patients demonstrated clinical meaningful, and statistically significant improvement in their pain as defined by ZCQ, VAS (back and leg), and ODI, respectively. In addition, 78% of patients noted improvement in PGIC. Two procedure-related adverse events were noted which fully resolved without surgical intervention. Conclusion: This 6-month interim analysis at 42% enrollment of patients was conducted to determine prolonged safety and efficacy of the interspinous fusion device. Our analysis showed a sustained improvement in clinical efficacy, and safety endpoints, when compared to the 3-months evaluations, across both interventional pain and neurosurgery specialties.

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.

Chronic female pelvic pain--part 1: clinical pathoanatomy and examination of the pelvic region.

Chronic pelvic pain is defined as the presence of pain in the pelvic girdle region for over a 6-month period and can arise from the gynecologic, urologic, gastrointestinal, and musculoskeletal systems. As 15% of women experience pelvic pain at some time in their lives with yearly direct medical costs estimated at $2.8 billion, effective evaluation and management strategies of this condition are necessary. This merits a thorough discussion of a systematic approach to the evaluation of chronic pelvic pain conditions, including a careful history-taking and clinical examination. The challenge of accurately diagnosing chronic pelvic pain resides in the degree of peripheral and central sensitization of the nervous system associated with the chronicity of the symptoms, as well as the potential influence of the affective and biopsychosocial factors on symptom development as persistence. Once the musculoskeletal origin of the symptoms is identified, a clinical examination schema that is based on the location of primary onset of symptoms (lumbosacral, coccygeal, sacroiliac, pelvic floor, groin or abdominal region) can be followed to establish a basis for managing the specific pain generator(s) and manage tissue dysfunction.

Chronic female pelvic pain--part 2: differential diagnosis and management.

Pelvic pain is a common condition. Treatment interventions have traditionally targeted biomedical conditions with variable success. Utilizing a systematic approach to examination of the pelvic girdle and related organ systems contained within the pelvis will aid the clinician in identifying the painful structure(s) as well as the associated impairments limiting functional recovery. From this, a complete management program can be instituted. The following description of gynecologic, urologic, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, and neurologic conditions that can cause or are associated with chronic pelvic pain leads to conservative management proposals based on the available evidence. Finally, nonoperative interventional strategies are described, which target the pain system from a cognitive behavioral perspective, address movement dysfunctions, and address interventional pain technique possibilities.

Neurogenic bladder: a complication after endoscopic adhesiolysis with return of bladder function while using nitrofurantoin.

We describe the case of a 73-year-old woman with a history of chronic low back pain and 2 previous lumbar fusions who presented with complaints of worsening back and leg pain. Having previously undergone multiple interventions, physical therapy, and oral analgesics with limited pain relief, the patient opted for endoscopic lysis of adhesions for severe scarring of the epidural space. Subsequently, the patient developed a neurogenic bladder with urinary retention. Three years later, she experienced resolution of the neurogenic bladder symptoms that coincided with the use of the antibiotic nitrofurantoin. Upon discontinuation of the antibiotic, the patient noted that she was unable to void spontaneously. With reinstitution of nitrofurantoin, the patient was once again able to void effectively and has been maintained on nitrofurantoin for >3 years.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."

Percutaneous and Endoscopic Adhesiolysis in Managing Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain is frustrating to treat. Percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopy are techniques which can treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain.Percutaneous adhesiolysis is performed by placing the catheter into the tissue plane at the ventrolateral aspect of the foramen so that medications can be injected. Adhesiolysis is used both for pain caused by scarring which is not resistant to catheter placement and other sources of pain, including inflammation in the absence of scarring.Mechanical lysis of scars with a catheter may or may not be necessary for percutaneous adhesiolysis to be effective. Spinal endoscopy allows direct visualization of the epidural space and has the possibility to use laser energy to treat pathology. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis to treat chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. METHODS: The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis and spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in treating persistent low back and leg pain was reviewed. The quality of each article used in this analysis was assessed. The level of evidence was classified on a 5-point scale from strong, based upon multiple randomized controlled trials to weak, based upon consensus, as developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and modified by ASIPP. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief of at least 50% and functional improvement of at least 40% were the primary outcome measures. Short-term efficacy was defined as improvement of 6 months or less; whereas, long-term efficacy was defined more than 6 months. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 45 studies were identified. Of these, for percutaneous adhesiolysis there were 7 randomized controlled trials and 3 observational studies which met the inclusion criteria. For spinal endoscopy, there was one randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. Based upon 7 randomized controlled trials showing efficacy, with no negative trials, there is Level I or strong evidence of the efficacy of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Based upon one high-quality randomized controlled trial, there is Level II to III evidence supporting the use of spinal endoscopy in treating chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. CONCLUSION: The evidence is Level I or strong that percutaneous adhesiolysis is efficacious in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. Percutaneous adhesiolysis may be considered as a first-line treatment for chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. The evidence is Level II to III that spinal endoscopy is effective in the treatment of chronic refractory low back and lower extremity pain. KEY WORDS: Spinal pain, chronic low back pain, post lumbar surgery syndrome, epidural scarring, adhesiolysis, endoscopy, radicular pain.

Effectiveness of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain has been recognized as contributing to a significant proportion of chronic pain globally. Among these, spinal pain is of significance with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), generating considerable expense for the health care systems with increasing prevalence and health impact. OBJECTIVE: To assess the role and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: The available literature on SCS was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were Cochrane review criteria to assess sources of risk of bias and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM - QRB) criteria for randomized trials.The level of evidence was based on a best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V.Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through March 2015 that were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and all other sources. OUTCOME MEASURES: RCTs of efficacy with a minimum 12-month follow-up were considered for inclusion. For trials of adaptive stimulation, high frequency stimulation, and burst stimulation, shorter follow-up periods were considered. RESULTS: Results showed 6 RCTs with 3 efficacy trials and 3 stimulation trials. There were also 2 cost effectiveness studies available. Based on a best evidence synthesis with 3 high quality RCTs, the evidence of efficacy for SCS in lumbar FBSS is Level I to II. The evidence for high frequency stimulation based on one high quality RCT is Level II to III. Based on a lack of high quality studies demonstrating the efficacy of adaptive stimulation or burst stimulation, evidence is limited for these 2 modalities. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review continue to require future studies illustrating effectiveness and also the superiority of high frequency stimulation and potentially burst stimulation. CONCLUSION: There is significant (Level I to II) evidence of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in lumbar FBSS; whereas, there is moderate (Level II to III) evidence for high frequency stimulation; there is limited evidence for adaptive stimulation and burst stimulation.

Pulmonary artery pseudoaneurysm after Swan-Ganz catheterization: a case presentation and review of literature.

INTRODUCTION: The Swan-Ganz catheter for pulmonary artery (PA) cannulation was introduced in 1970 and has been utilized in the management of critically ill and cardiac patients. Although the routine use of this catheter has not been associated with better patient outcomes in prospective randomized trials, their ability to provide crucial hemodynamic measurements and the ease of bedside insertion makes them valuable in certain complex clinical scenarios. However, Swan-Ganz catheter insertion is not without complications. PA injury is the most serious complication suspected by the occurrence of hemoptysis after the procedure. We present a case of PA injury with pseudoaneurysm formation after Swan-Ganz catheterization along with a comprehensive review of literature. METHODS: We reviewed all PubMed/Medline indexed articles published between 1993-2013, reporting the development of PA pseudoaneurysm after Swan-Ganz catheter use. Cases were analyzed with specific reference to patient demographics, indication for Swan-Ganz insertion, initial presenting symptom, duration between insertion and first evidence of PA injury, inciting event, site of pseudoaneurysm, treatment and outcome. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were identified from 27 papers. In the reviewed population, 87.8% were older than 60 years of age and 82.9% were females. Fifty-one percent of the patients had an episode of hemoptysis on the day of Swan-Ganz catheter insertion. Ninety-seven percent of the patients had PA pseudoaneurysm in the right pulmonary circulation. The admission-to-discharge mortality rate in the reviewed cohort was 15%. Cause of death in 22% of the cases was hemoptysis, while non-catheter related complications were responsible for the remaining deaths. CONCLUSION: PA injury is a feared complication after Swan-Ganz catheterization and can be fatal. In patients who develop massive or recurrent hemoptysis after Swan-Ganz catheter use, PA injury must be considered and airway protection should be employed along with appropriate catheter based or surgical interventions.

Spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in post lumbar surgery syndrome: an update of assessment of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Post lumbar surgery syndrome refers to pain occurring or present after lumbar surgery. While the causes of pain after lumbar surgery are multi-factorial, scarring is a significant source of that pain. Low back and/or leg pain after lumbar surgery can persist despite appropriate conservative therapy. Spinal endoscopy allows direct visual evaluation of the epidural space, along with mechanical lysis of any adhesions present. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the effectiveness of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in post lumbar surgery syndrome. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the effectiveness of spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in treating post lumbar surgery syndrome. METHODS:   The available literature on spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis in treating post lumbar surgery syndrome was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies.The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief and functional improvement were the primary outcome measures. Other outcome measures were improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return to work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as improvement of 12 months or less; whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined 12 months or longer. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 21 studies were identified. Of these, one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 5 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Two of the observational studies were excluded because of other methodological issues, despite showing positive outcomes.Using current criteria for successful outcomes, these studies indicate that there is fair evidence for the effectiveness of spinal endoscopy in the treatment of persistent low back and/or leg pain in post lumbar surgery syndrome. LIMITATIONS:   The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is fair that spinal endoscopy is effective in the treatment of post lumbar surgery syndrome.

An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. METHODOLOGY: Systematic assessment of the literature. EVIDENCE: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. • There is fair evidence with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. DISCLAIMER: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

Percutaneous adhesiolysis in the management of chronic low back pain in post lumbar surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain after either post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis in the absence of surgery is a vexing problem. Post lumbar surgery syndrome can occur in any age group, while low back and radicular pain from spinal stenosis is a disease of aging. As the population ages, the incidence of symptomatic spinal stenosis will increase. There are currently limited treatment options for either group. Further surgery is not uniformly effective in relieving pain after previous surgery. While therapies are being developed to treat pain due to spinal stenosis, no therapy other than adhesiolysis will treat pain due to scarring. Adhesiolysis was developed as a means of removing epidural scarring leading directly or indirectly to compression, inflammation, swelling, or a decreased nutritional supply of nerve roots. Adhesiolysis utilizes a number of modalities in the effort to break up epidural scarring, including the use of a wire-bound catheter for mechanical adhesiolysis, placement of the catheter in the ventro-lateral aspect of the epidural space at the site of the exiting nerve root, and the use of high volumes of injectate, including local anesthetics and saline, either hypertonic or isotonic, along with steroids. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous adhesiolysis in the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis. The severity of risks and adverse advents associated with percutaneous adhesiolysis were also evaluated. METHODS: The available literature on percutaneous adhesiolysis for the treatment of refractory low back and leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain relief of at least 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, change in psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid use or interventions. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 15 studies were identified and selected for review. Of these, 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Applying the USPSTF criteria, these studies indicate that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain caused by post lumbar surgery syndrome and that there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain caused by spinal stenosis.The incidence of complications from percutaneous adhesiolysis is low and the complications are generally minimal and self-limited. The procedure should be considered to be low risk for serious adverse events when performed by well-trained physicians. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review include the paucity of literature. CONCLUSION: In summary, there is fair evidence that percutaneous adhesiolysis is effective in relieving low back and/or leg pain due to post lumbar surgery syndrome or spinal stenosis.