Diagnosis of Sacroiliac Joint Pain: Predictive Value of Three Diagnostic Clinical Tests.

INTRODUCTION: To date, there have been no acceptable and accurate diagnostic criteria or standards of care for the management of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain. Several studies have yielded different contributions of clinical presentation, history, and physical examination in the diagnosis of SIJ pain. Our goal in this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic clinical tests and their predictive value in accurately diagnosing SIJ pain. METHODOLOGY: Upon enrolling 200 eligible patients with SIJ pain as their primary diagnosis, they were re-evaluated and their verbal rating scale (VRS) pain scores and demographic data were obtained. Thereafter, three SIJ diagnostic tests were performed: the thigh thrust test, the Patrick test, and a modified version of the Gaenslen test that is referred to as the Mekhail test. Subsequently, the patients were taken to the procedure room to undergo SIJ injection, for which a confirmative result was ≥50% pain relief. The physicians performing the procedure were blinded of the results of the 3 tests performed. Results from the 3 tests were incorporated with the procedure results, from which we drew statistical and medical conclusions determining their predictive value and degree of aid to physicians in diagnosing SIJ pain. RESULTS: We found that the cumulative effect of adding simultaneous tests increased the sensitivity of the testing but decreased the specificity, which generates a powerful screening tool. The combination of the Patrick and Mekhail tests demonstrated the best accuracy, with 94% sensitivity, 17% specificity, 81% positive predictive value, and 44% negative predictive value. The Patrick test was better than other tests for differentiating patients with SIJ pain from those with non-SIJ pain. No combination yielded both significant sensitivity and specificity. Generally, the overall predictive value of any of the tests on their own or their combination did not vary significantly from the predictive value of baseline demographics, including pre-injection pain score and pain referral diagram. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our study results were similar to those of previous investigators who found that physical examination plays a limited role in diagnosing SIJ pain. Specifically, we found that the clinical tests and/or their combinations added no significant predictive capacity compared to patients' baseline characteristics in predicting the response to diagnostic SIJ injection, albeit the combination of the Mekhail and Patrick tests yielded high sensitivity (94%), making them viable for consecutive screening, possibly reducing the unnecessary costs of diagnostic SIJ injection procedures.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation or Spinal Cord Stimulation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: ACCURATE, a randomized controlled trial, compared safety and effectiveness of stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) vs. conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS-I and II) of the lower extremities. This analysis compares cost-effectiveness of three modalities of treatment for CRPS, namely DRG stimulation, SCS, and comprehensive medical management (CMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective cost-utility analysis combined ACCURATE study data with claims data to compare cost-effectiveness between DRG stimulation, SCS, and CMM. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using a Markov cohort model with ten-year time horizon from the U.S. payer perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was reported as cost in 2017 U.S. dollars per gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY were used to define highly cost-effective and cost-effective therapies. RESULTS: Both DRG and SCS provided an increase in QALYs (4.96 ± 1.54 and 4.58 ± 1.35 QALYs, respectively) and an increase in costs ($153,992 ± $36,651 and $128,269 ± $27,771, respectively) compared to CMM (3.58 ± 0.91 QALYs, $106,173 ± $27,005) over the ten-year model lifetime. Both DRG stimulation ($34,695 per QALY) and SCS ($22,084 per QALY) were cost-effective compared to CMM. In the base case, ICER for DRG v SCS was $68,095/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: DRG and SCS are cost-effective treatments for chronic pain secondary to CRPS-I and II compared to CMM. DRG accrued higher cost due to higher conversion from trial to permanent implant and shorter battery life, but DRG was the most beneficial therapy due to more patients receiving permanent implants and experiencing higher quality of life compared to SCS. New DRG technology has improved battery life, which we expect to make DRG more cost-effective compared to both CMM and SCS in the future.

Longevity and Utilization Cost of Rechargeable and Non-Rechargeable Spinal Cord Stimulation Implants: A Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite major advancements in features and capabilities of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), real-life longevity and cost-effectiveness studies to guide pain specialists to make the appropriate choice between rechargeable and non-rechargeable IPG are limited. Our study aimed to compare the longevity and cost effectiveness of rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable IPG and SCS systems. METHODS: Data were collected for all SCS implantations performed between 1994 and 2018. The primary goal was to determine IPG longevity, defined as the time interval between IPG implantation and elective replacement due to IPG end of life (EOL). On the other hand, SCS system longevity was defined as the time between SCS implantation and its removal or revision for any reason other than IPG EOL. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess IPG and SCS system longevities. Cost analysis was performed for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The median IPG longevity was significantly higher for rechargeable SCS devices than for non-rechargeable SCS devices (7.20 years and 3.68 years, respectively). The median cost per day was similar for both IPGs, $13.90 and $13.81 for non-rechargeable and rechargeable, respectively. The median cost for SCS systems was higher for the rechargeable group ($60.70) compared with the non-rechargeable group ($31.38). CONCLUSIONS: Rechargeable IPG had increased longevity compared to their non-rechargeable counterparts, yet there was no significant difference in the actual longevity due to premature revisions or explantations between both SCS systems. Furthermore, non-rechargeable SCS systems were found to be the more cost-effective option when compared with rechargeable SCS systems.

Choice of spinal cord stimulation versus targeted drug delivery in the management of chronic pain: a predictive formula for outcomes.

Contemporary nonmalignant pain treatment algorithms commence with conservative non-invasive strategies, later progressing from minimally invasive interventions to invasive techniques or implantable devices. The most commonly used implantable devices are spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems or targeted drug delivery (TDD) devices. Historically, SCS had been considered in advance of TDD, positioning TDD behind SCS failures. Following Institutional Review Board approval, data were extracted from electronic medical records of patients who underwent SCS trial in the Department of Pain Management at Cleveland Clinic from 1994 to 2013. The sample size was analyzed in two cohorts: those who succeeded with SCS and those who failed SCS and consequently proceeded to TDD. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and a predictive formula for successful outcomes was created. 945 patients were included in the cohort of which 119 (12.6%) subjects achieved adequate pain relief with TDD after failure of SCS. Gender, age, depression and primary pain diagnosis were significantly different in this subgroup. Males were 52% less likely to experience pain relief with SCS. The odds of SCS success decreased as age increased by 6% per year. Patients with comorbid depression, interestingly, were 63% more likely to succeed with SCS. A logistic model was created to predict SCS success which was used to create a predictive formula. Older male patients diagnosed with spine-related pain were more likely to benefit from TDD than SCS. This observation potentially identifies a subgroup in whom consideration for TDD in advance of SCS failure could prove more efficient and cost effective. These retrospective findings warrant prospective comparative studies to validate this derived predictive formula.

The Impact of Tobacco Smoking on Spinal Cord Stimulation Effectiveness in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Patients.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to investigate the correlation of smoking and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) effectiveness for pain relief in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) patients while controlling for possible confounding factors including opioid intake. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective cohort study was performed by collecting data for all CRPS patients treated with SCS at Cleveland Clinic between 1998 and 2013. We divided patients into three groups based on their smoking status at the time of SCS device implant: Current smokers, former smokers, or nonsmokers. We used a linear mixed modeling to assess the association between smoking status and pain score at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. We then used pairwise t-tests for post hoc comparisons of pain scores. RESULTS: Of the 420 CRPS patients treated with SCS implants, the reduction in pain score was highest among nonsmokers. Nonsmokers demonstrated a consistent and steady decrease in pain scores over time, whereas the current and former smoker cohorts showed an initial reduction in pain at three months compared to baseline which was not sustained to the 12-months benchmark. Nonetheless, former smokers continued to report slightly lower pain scores than current smokers, although not statistically significant. The baseline opioid consumption was least among nonsmokers (30 [0, 62] oral mg morphine sulfate equivalent). We also found a statistically significant association between time postimplant and reported pain score (χ2 = 508.88, p < 0.001). The overall mean pain score for all three cohorts was highest at baseline (7.6 ± 1.7) and showed a decrease at the 3, 6, and 12 months postimplant time points with mean score of 5.7 ± 2.0, 5.6 ± 2.3, and 5.4 ± 2.5, respectively. CONCLUSION: Tobacco cigarette smoking was associated with reduced SCS effectiveness for pain relief.

The impact of obesity on the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in chronic spine-related pain patients.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Chronic pain and obesity are both on the rise. Spinal cord stimulation has gained increasing popularity in the pain management field for the treatment of spine-related chronic pain, however to-date, the correlation between the spinal cord stimulator effectiveness and increasing body mass index (BMI) has not been fully established. PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the correlation between patients' BMI and the percentage of pain relief as well as opioid utilization in chronic spine-related pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with chronic spine-related pain who were treated with a spinal cord stimulator. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eleven-point numeric rating scale for pain and opioid utilization. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, data from all eligible subjects who had undergone successful spinal cord stimulation (SCS)-trial defined as ≥50% decrease in pain followed by SCS implant were collected and statistically analyzed. Patients were divided into four groups according to BMI. Self-reported pain scores on the 11-point numerical rating scale were collected at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post SCS-implant visits. Opioid utilization, if any, was collected at baseline and 12 months post-SCS implant. RESULTS: In all, 181 patients were included. Thirty-three were under and/or normal weight (≤24.9 kg/m2), 72 overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m2), 63 obese (30.0-39.9 kg/m2), and 13 morbidly obese (≥40.0 kg/m2). The estimated coefficients from multivariable linear regression analysis were -1.91% (95% CI: -2.82% to -0.991%) and -1.48% (95% CI: -2.30% to -0.660%) reduction in pain improvement per unit increase of BMI for 6 months and 12 months scores, respectively. The estimated coefficient of disability status was -15.3% (95% CI: -22.1% to -8.48%). The estimated coefficient for 12 month opioid equivalence was -0.08% (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.021), per` 1 mg unit increase of morphine opioid equivalency. The data showed a statistically significant negative association between increasing BMI and SCS effectiveness at 6 and 12 months post-SCS therapy with a 2% reduction in efficacy for every unit increase of BMI after adjusting for confounding factors and a 20% better response in underweight and/or normal patients over the morbidly obese individuals which was not related to baseline pain score level. The significant difference in pain scores at 6 months (p = .0003) and 12 months (p = .04) post-SCS implant between obese and nonobese patients was not attributable to differences in baseline pain scores. There was no significant change in opioid utilization between baseline and 12 months post-SCS therapy. CONCLUSION: A negative association between SCS effectiveness and increasing BMI was found, whereas, no significant difference was noted amongst the various BMI cohorts and the daily opioid consumption.

The Impact of Tobacco Cigarette Smoking on Spinal Cord Stimulation Effectiveness in Chronic Spine-Related Pain Patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the observation that select nicotine receptor agonists have analgesic effects, smokers report higher pain scores and more functional impairments than lifelong nonsmokers, attributable to exaggerated stress responses, receptor desensitization, and altered pharmacokinetics compounded by accelerated structural damage resulting from impaired bone healing, osteoporosis, and advancement of disk disease. We hypothesized that smoking diminishes the analgesic response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with chronic spine-related pain conditions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at Cleveland Clinic by collecting and assessing data of 213 patients who had been implanted with SCS for spine-pain indications. History of tobacco smoking was subcategorized into 3 categories: past (former smoker), present (current smoker), or those who had never previously smoked (lifelong nonsmokers), and a multivariable linear regression was run to measure the correlation, if any, between smoking status and numerical rating scale pain score. In addition, opioid consumption at baseline and 12-month follow-up, expressed in milligram oral morphine equivalents, was collected and compared. RESULTS: Adjusted for differences, at 1-year follow-up, current smokers (n = 62) reported numerical rating scale pain score of 7.0, which is 1.93 (P < 0.001) and 1.32 (P = 0.001) points higher than those of lifelong nonsmokers (n = 77) and former smokers (n = 74), respectively. Opioid intake was 2.4 times higher (P = 0.004) in smokers than in lifelong nonsmokers. CONCLUSIONS: Among our SCS-implanted sample, a positive correlation was observed between tobacco use and degree of pain reduction as early as 12 months postimplant; this was evident by the reported higher pain scores and opioid use in current smokers in comparison with former smokers and lifelong nonsmokers.

Spinal Cord Stimulation 50 Years Later: Clinical Outcomes of Spinal Cord Stimulation Based on Randomized Clinical Trials-A Systematic Review.

To assess the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for each indication, one must critically assess each specific clinical outcome to identify outcomes that benefit from SCS therapy. To date, a comprehensive review of clinically relevant outcome-specific evidence regarding SCS has not been published. We aimed to assess all randomized controlled trials from the world literature for the purpose of evaluating the clinical outcome-specific efficacy of SCS for the following outcomes: perceived pain relief or change pain score, quality of life, functional status, psychological impact, analgesic medication utilization, patient satisfaction, and health care cost and utilization. Interventions were SCS, without limitation to the type of controls or the type of SCS in the active arms. For each study analyzed, a quality assessment was performed using a validated scale that assesses reporting, external validity, bias, confounding, and power. Each outcome was assessed specific to its indication, and the primary measure of each abovementioned outcome was a summary of the level of evidence. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were analyzed (7 for trunk and limb pain, inclusive of failed back surgery syndrome; 8 for refractory angina pectoris; 1 for cardiac X syndrome; 3 for critical limb ischemia; 2 for complex regional pain syndrome; and 2 for painful diabetic neuropathy). Evidence assessments for each outcome for each indication were depicted in tabular format. Outcome-specific evidence scores were established for each of the abovementioned indications, providing both physicians and patients with a summary of evidence to assist in choosing the optimal evidence-based intervention. The evidence presented herein has broad applicability as it encompasses a breadth of patient populations, variations of SCS therapy, and comparable controls that, together, reflect comprehensive clinical decision making.