Device-Related Complications Associated with Cylindrical Lead Spinal Cord Stimulator Implants: A Comprehensive Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an increasingly utilized therapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions. Though minimally invasive and reversable, there are several important device-related complications that physicians should be aware of before offering this therapy to patients. The aim of this review is to synthesize recent studies in device-related SCS complications pertaining to cylindrical lead implantation and to discuss etiologies, symptoms and presentations, diagnostic evaluation, clinical implications, and treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: Device-related complications are more common than biologic complications. Device-related complications covered in this review include lead migration, lead fracture, lead disconnection, generator failure, loss of charge, generator flipping, hardware related pain, and paresthesia intolerance. The use of SCS continues to be an effective option for neuropathic pain conditions. Consideration of complications prior to moving forward with SCS trials and implantation is a vital part of patient management and device selection. Knowledge of these complications can provide physicians and other healthcare professionals the ability to maximize patient outcomes.

Pain Scales: What Are They and What Do They Mean.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: It is essential to have validated and reliable pain measurement tools that cover a wide range of areas and are tailored to individual patients to ensure effective pain management. The main objective of this review is to provide comprehensive information on commonly used pain scales and questionnaires, including their usefulness, intended purpose, applicability to different patient populations, and associated advantages and disadvantages. RECENT FINDINGS: Acute pain questionnaires typically focus on measuring the severity of pain and the extent of relief achieved through interventions. Chronic pain questionnaires evaluate additional aspects such as pain-related functional limitations, psychological distress, and psychological well-being. The selection of an appropriate pain scale depends on the specific assessment objectives. Additionally, each pain scale has its strengths and limitations. Understanding the differences among these pain scales is essential for selecting the most appropriate tool tailored to individual patient needs in different settings. CONCLUSION: Medical professionals encounter challenges in accurately assessing pain. Physicians must be familiar with the different pain scales and their applicability to specific patient population.

Discrepancy Between Reported and Calculated Pain Reduction in Patients With Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy and Lack of Agreement Between Patient Satisfaction and Degree of Pain Relief.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine agreement between reported percentage pain reduction (RPPR) and calculated percentage pain reduction (CPPR) in patients with percutaneous spinal cord stimulation (SCS) implants, and to correlate RPPR and CPPR with patient satisfaction. We also sought to determine which patient-reported outcome measures are most improved in patients with SCS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with percutaneous spinal cord stimulator implants with a mean follow-up of 51.1 months were interviewed and surveyed to assess their pain level, impression of degree of pain relief, satisfaction with the therapy, and desire to have the device again. Baseline pain level was obtained from their preimplant records. RESULTS: Overall, RPPR was found to be 53.3%, whereas CPPR was 44.4%. Of all patients, 21 reported <50% pain reduction; however, most of these (12/21, 57%) were satisfied with the outcome of therapy. In terms of individual improvement in outcomes, activities of daily life was the most improved measure at 82%, followed by mood, sleep, medication use, and health care utilization at 74%, 62%, 50%, and 48%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RPPR appears to be a complex outcome measure that may not agree with CPPR. Overall RPPR is greater than the CPPR. On the basis of our data, these independently valid measures should not be used interchangeably. A 50% pain reduction threshold is not a requisite for patient satisfaction and desire to have the device again. Activities of daily living was the most improved measure in this cohort, followed by mood, sleep, medication usage, and decrease in health care utilization.

Comparative Descriptive Analysis of Physician Versus Patient-Directed Gabapentin Usage In Chronic Pain - A Preliminary Report.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentin is one of the most common medications employed in Pain Medicine, specifically targeting the management of neuropathic pain. We are most familiar with the incremental dosing strategy where a ceiling dose is eventually attained guided by efficacy and patient tolerance, after which a fixed dosing regimen is prescribed. We propose that autonomous short-term dose variations per patient could have rapid clinically significant effects in the management of chronic pain. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the frequency at which patients take gabapentin on a fixed vs variable schedule and how the pattern of gabapentin use correlates with efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Single institution, cross-sectional observational survey study with data collection performed over 2 phases as a pilot for proof of concept. SETTING: Remote contact via telephone with researchers calling from a quiet, private location within the hospital complex conducive for confidential conversation. METHODS: Patients recently prescribed gabapentin were queried on the patterns of use and self-perceived efficacy, satisfaction, and side effects in accordance to a standardized oral script. Patients selected met the criteria of being new patients freshly prescribed gabapentin who have been consistently on the medication for at least a month, while having chronic pain symptoms for over 3 months. Responses were collected in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism. RESULTS: Of the 222 patients, 92 patients agreed to participate in the survey for a response rate of 41.4. Of these, 51% had terminated the medication for various reasons. Of the patients still taking gabapentin, 73% were on a fixed schedule, while 27% were on a variable dosing schedule. Variable dosing cohort reported better efficacy (P = 0.027) and satisfaction (P = 0.036), while the side-effect profile between the 2 groups was similar. LIMITATIONS: The study is limited by its nature of being a pilot, single-institution study performed on a relatively small sample size. None of the patients we surveyed had been given the autonomy to adjust gabapentin doses by their providers and this could significantly reduce the proportion of patients who would be encouraged to run a variable dosing regimen. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that a significant portion of patients choose to administer variable doses of gabapentin and associate this with better efficacy and satisfaction. A larger study is needed to confirm this supposition. Based upon this pilot study, the variable dosing option may be an option for improved therapeutic efficacy or as an alternative to those whose lifestyles do not allow for fixed dosing regimens. Discussion of the risks of gabapentin, including respiratory depression, and clear dosage parameters of use, would need to be outlined when considering a variable dose regimen.

Clinical practice patterns of opioid prescribing by physicians -performing percutaneous spinal cord stimulation trials and implants.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for neuropathic pain. Outcomes of SCS may be influenced by peri-implant opioid management; however, to date, standard practices of opioid management in this scenario remain undefined and unreported. METHODS: A survey inquiring SCS management practices in the peri-implant period was sent to the members of the Spine Intervention Society and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia. The results of three questions pertaining to peri-implant opioid management are presented here. RESULTS: For each of the three questions examined, there were between 181 and 195 responses. Among respondents, 40 percent encouraged reduction of opioids prior to SCS trial, and 17 percent mandated reduction. After a SCS trial, 87 percent of respondents did not provide any additional opioids for periprocedure pain. After implant, the majority of respondents provided 1-7 days of opioids for post-operative pain. CONCLUSION: Based upon survey results and current literature, it is advisable to recommend or attempt opioid reduction before SCS and to not provide additional opioid for post-operative pain after trial lead insertion. Routine prescribing for the pain of the SCS implant beyond 7 days is not favored.

The contralateral oblique fluoroscopic view is associated with a lower incidence of postdural puncture headache in patients undergoing percutaneous spinal cord stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive therapy that is increasingly used to treat refractory neuropathic pain. Although this technique has a low incidence of serious long-term adverse sequelae, the risk of complications such as inadvertent dural puncture remains. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this article was to determine the impact of the contralateral oblique (CLO) fluoroscopic view incidence of postdural puncture headache (PDPH) during spinal cord stimulator implantation as compared to lateral fluoroscopic view. METHODS: This was a single academic institution retrospective analysis of electronic medical records spanning an approximate 20-year time period. Operative and postoperative notes were reviewed for details on dural puncture, including technique and spinal level of access, the development of a PDPH, and subsequent management. RESULTS: Over nearly two decades, a total of 1637 leads inserted resulted in 5 PDPH that were refractory to conservative measures but responded to epidural blood patch without long-term complications. The incidence of PDPH per lead insertion utilizing loss of resistance and lateral fluoroscopic guidance was 0.8% (4/489). However, adoption of CLO guidance was associated with a lower rate of PDPH at 0.08% (1/1148), p < 0.02. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of the CLO view to guide epidural needle placement can decrease the odds of a PDPH during percutaneous SCS procedures. This study further provides real-world data supporting the potential enhanced accuracy of epidural needle placement in order to avoid unintentional puncture or trauma to deeper spinal anatomic structures.

Notalgia Paresthetica Review: Update on Presentation, Pathophysiology, and Treatment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a chronic cutaneous neuropathy primarily characterized by localized pruritus and associated dysesthesias, including sensations of pain, numbness, and tingling. The sensory neuropathy characteristic of NP is thought to result from spinal nerve entrapment caused by degenerative changes in the spine or musculoskeletal compression. This review summarizes the current medical literature with a focus on the past five years regarding NP, its pathophysiology, presentation, and current treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: Though treatments exist with varying efficacy, to date, there exists no definitive treatment for NP. Treatment options for NP are varied and range from topical and oral agents to interventional procedures and physical therapy. Of the treatments evaluated, topical capsaicin remains the most efficacious treatment for NP. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of established treatment guidelines makes treating NP complicated as it dramatically affects patients' quality of life. Further research with larger sample sizes is needed to evaluate better the most effective treatment and dosing regimen for patients afflicted with NP.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Neurotomy in Managing Chronic Neck Pain.

BACKGROUND: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain. METHODS: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined. RESULTS: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions. LIMITATIONS: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Neurotomy in Managing Chronic Neck Pain.

Background: Extensive research into potential sources of neck pain and referred pain into the upper extremities and head has shown that the cervical facet joints can be a potential pain source confirmed by precision, diagnostic blocks. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, quality assessment of the included studies, conventional and single-arm meta-analysis, and best evidence synthesis. Objective: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of radiofrequency neurotomy as a therapeutic cervical facet joint intervention in managing chronic neck pain. Methods: Available literature was included. Methodologic quality assessment of studies was performed from 1996 to September 2021. The level of evidence of effectiveness was determined. Results: Based on the qualitative and quantitative analysis with single-arm meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system of appraisal, with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 12 patients in the treatment group and eight positive observational studies with inclusion of 589 patients showing positive outcomes with moderate to high clinical applicability, the evidence is level II in managing neck pain with cervical radiofrequency neurotomy. The evidence for managing cervicogenic headache was level III to IV with qualitative analysis and single-arm meta-analysis and GRADE system of appraisal, with the inclusion of 15 patients in the treatment group in a positive RCT and 134 patients in observational studies. An overwhelming majority of the studies produced multiple lesions. Limitations: There was a paucity of literature and heterogeneity among the available studies. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows level II evidence with radiofrequency neurotomy on a long-term basis in managing chronic neck pain with level III to IV evidence in managing cervicogenic headaches. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-022-00455-0.

A Survey on the Choice of Spinal Cord Stimulation Parameters and Implantable Pulse Generators and on Reasons for Explantation.

Objective: Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a vital treatment for chronic intractable pain. In the last few years, the field has undergone dramatic changes in new waveform and frequency introduction as well as device miniaturization. It is important to understand contemporary practice patterns regarding these parameters. Methods: We surveyed the active membership of Spine Intervention Society (SIS), and American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA) on their practices regarding various aspects of Spinal Cord Stimulation therapy. Here we report on SCS waveform usage, battery types, and causes of explant in this cohort of providers. Results: There was similar degree of usage of tonic, burst, and 10 kHz usage at 71.5%, 74.1% and 61.7% respectively. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation was used by 32.6% and other modes of stimulation by 13.5%. Rechargeable systems were often or always used by 67.2% whereas 10% never used a rechargeable system. Most common cause of explant was loss of effectiveness, reported by 53.7%. Conclusion: There has been significant adoption of new waveforms in daily practice of spinal cord stimulation therapy and there is robust mixed usage of new waveforms and frequencies. Rechargeable systems are the most commonly used but primary cell is also used in significant numbers. Loss of efficacy remains the most common cause of explant for the majority of practitioners. This survey establishes practice patterns of SCS usage regarding these important variables against which future changes can be gauged.

Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cochrane Review of Epidural Injections for Lumbar Radiculopathy or Sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed. STUDY DESIGN: The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis. METHODS: In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed. RESULTS: In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months. LIMITATIONS: The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed. CONCLUSION: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

Dural Puncture During Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Insertion: Analysis of Practice Patterns.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an important modality for intractable pain not amenable to less conservative measures. During percutaneous SCS lead insertion, a critical step is safe access to the epidural space, which can be complicated by a dural puncture. Objectives: In this review, we present and analyze the practices patterns in the event of a dural puncture during a SCS trial or implantation. Methods: We conducted a survey of the practice patterns regarding spinal cord stimulation therapy. The survey was administered to members of the Spine Intervention Society and American Society of Regional Anesthesia specifically inquiring decision making in case of inadvertent dural puncture during spinal cord stimulator lead insertion. Results: A maximum of 193 responded to a question regarding dural punctures while performing a SCS trial and 180 responded to a question regarding dural punctures while performing a SCS implantation. If performing a SCS trial and a dural puncture occurs, a majority of physicians chose to continue the procedure at a different level (56.99%), followed by abandoning the procedure (27.98%), continuing at the same level (10.36%), or choosing another option (4.66%). Similarly, if performing a permanent implantation and a dural puncture occurs, most physicians chose to continue the procedure at a different level (61.67%), followed by abandoning the procedure (21.67%), continuing at the same level (10.56%), or choosing another option (6.11%). Conclusions: Whereas the goals of the procedure would support abandoning the trial but continuing with the permanent in case of inadvertent dural puncture, we found that decision choices were minimally influenced by whether the dural puncture occurred during the trial or the permanent implant. The majority chose to continue with the procedure at a different level while close to a quarter chose to abandon the procedure. This article sets a time stamp in practice patterns from March 20, 2020 to June 26, 2020. These results are based on contemporary SCS practices as demonstrated by this cohort, rendering the options of abandoning or continuing after dural puncture as reasonable methods. Though more data is needed to provide a consensus, providers can now see how others manage dural punctures during SCS procedures.

Impact Of COVID-19 Pandemic and Updated Utilization Patterns of Sacroiliac Joint Injections from 2000 to 2020 in The Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Among the multiple causes of low back and lower extremity pain, sacroiliac joint pain has shown to be prevalent in 10% to 25% of patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis. Over the years, multiple Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes have evolved with the inclusion of intraarticular injections, nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy, in addition to percutaneous sacroiliac joint fusions. Previous assessments of utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions only included sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections, since the data was not available prior to the introduction of new codes. A recent assessment revealed an increase of 11.3%, and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population from 2009 to 2018, showing a decline in growth patterns. During the past 2 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has also had significant effects on the utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions. STUDY DESIGN: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions (intraarticular injections, nerve blocks, radiofrequency neurotomy, arthrodesis and fusion) was evaluated from 2010 to 2019 and 2010 to 2020, with a comparative analysis from 2019 to 2020 to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To update utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint interventions with assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in the present analysis. RESULTS: The results of this evaluation demonstrated a significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a 19.2% decrease of utilization of sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections from 2019 to 2020. There was a 23.3% increase in sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and a 5.3% decrease for sacroiliac joint fusions with small numbers from 2019 to 2020. However, data was not available for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks and sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy as these codes were incorporated in 2020. Overall, from 2010 to 2019, sacroiliac joint intraarticular injections showed an annual increase of 0.9% per 100,000 Medicare population. Sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and fusion showed an annual increase from 2010 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population of 29% for arthrodesis and 13.3% for fusion. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include a lack of inclusion of Medicare Advantage patients constituting approximately 30% to 40% of the overall Medicare population. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are non-Medicare are not part of the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with a significant decrease of intraarticular injections of 19.2% from 2019 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population. These decreases of intraarticular injections are accompanied by a 5.3% decrease of fusion, but a 23.3% increase of arthrodesis from 2019 to 2020 per 100,000 Medicare population. Overall, the results showed an annual increase of 0.9% per 100,000 Medicare population for intraarticular injections, a 35.4% annual increase for sacroiliac joint arthrodesis and an increase of 15.5% for sacroiliac joint fusion from 2010 to 2019.

Contralateral and Lateral Views: Analysis of the Technical Aspects of Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Insertion.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment modality for neuropathic pain. The critical part of this technique is safe access to the epidural space for lead placement. There have been innovations in radiological views, improving access to the epidural space. Objectives: This study analyzes the adoption of these technical advantages in daily practice. Methods: We conducted a survey of members in the Spine Intervention Society and American Society of Regional Anesthesia in regard to the practice patterns in SCS therapy. Here we present our findings regarding the use of contralateral oblique (CLO) and lateral views as well direct upper thoracic or cervicothoracic access for SCS lead insertion. Results: A total of 195 unique responses were received between March 20, 2020 and June 26, 2020. Forty-five percent of respondents "always used" the lateral view technique while 15% "always used" CLO view for SCS lead insertion. Overall, sixty-five percent of respondents used the CLO view with varying frequency. Cervical and upper thoracic approach for cervical SCS lead placement is always or often used by 66.8% of the respondents. Conclusions: A depth view (CLO or lateral) is always used by only 45 - 60% of the respondents and CLO view has been rapidly adopted in clinical practice for SCS lead insertion. Direct cervicothoracic and upper thoracic is the preferred approach for cervical lead placement by the majority.

Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead Placement Under Deep Sedation and General Anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a commonly utilized therapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions. The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) has recommended that the placement of percutaneous SCS leads be performed in an awake patient capable of providing feedback. It is not currently known how commonly this recommendation is adhered to by physicians in clinical practice. This article presents the findings of a survey designed to answer this important question. METHODS: We conducted a survey of the active membership of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and the Spine Intervention Society (SIS) regarding practice patterns with SCS therapy. We analyzed the percent of respondents who indicated that they use deep sedation and general anesthesia during SCS placement as well as any reported complications. RESULTS: Many practitioners frequently utilize deep sedation as well as general anesthesia when performing SCS implants. Our findings demonstrate that 77% of physicians reported that they utilize deep sedation for permanent SCS implants at times, and 45% of physicians reported the use of general anesthesia for 10 kHz implants. Additionally, 94% of physicians reported that they have never had a complication related to the use of general anesthesia for a spinal cord stimulator placement. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides initial data on SCS practices among a large cohort of clinicians who utilize SCS. SCS lead placement under deep sedation and general anesthesia appears to be common practice for many physicians who perform implants. This survey should stimulate further research on this topic, given that the current safety guidelines and the rate of physicians reporting the use of deep sedation and general anesthesia for spinal cord stimulator placement remain at odds.

Improved Pain Control with Combination Spinal Cord Stimulator Therapy Utilizing Sub-perception and Traditional Paresthesia Based Waveforms: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic back and neck pain affects 20% of Americans. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for otherwise refractory chronic pain. Traditional SCS relies on low-frequency stimulus in the 40 - 60 Hz range causing robust paresthesia in regions overlapping with painful dermatomes. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine the effect of superimposing sub-perception stimulation in patients who previously had good long-term relief with paresthesia. METHODS: This is a prospective observational trial examining patients who had previously been implanted with paresthesia based SCS for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). These patients presented for implantable pulse generator (IPG) replacement based on battery depletion with an IPG capable of combined sub-perception and paresthesia based SCS therapy. Patients were assessed immediately following the exchange and four weeks later using a telephone survey. Their pain was assessed on each follow up using a Numerical Rating scale (NRS); the primary outcome was the change in NRS after four weeks from the exchange day. Secondary outcomes included paresthesia changes, which included the subjective quality of sensation generated, the overall subjective coverage of the painful region, subjective variation of coverage with positional changes, and global perception of the percentage improvement in pain. RESULTS: Based on our clinic registry, 30 patients were eligible for IPG exchange, 16 were consented for follow up and underwent an exchange, and 15 were available for follow up four weeks following. The average NRS decreased from 7.47 with traditional SCS to 4.5 with combination therapy. 80% of patients reported an improvement in the quality of paresthesia over traditional SCS therapy, and in most patients, this translated to significantly improved pain control. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest improved pain relief in patients who had previously had good results with paresthesia based therapy and subsequently underwent IPG exchange to a device capable of delivering combined sub-perception stimulation. The mechanism of action is unclear though there may be an additive and/or synergistic effect of the two waveforms delivered. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to elucidate the durability of pain relief and the precise mechanism by which combined subperception and paresthesia based SCS may improve overall patient outcomes.

Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and  recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations.

Antibiotics for Spinal Cord Stimulation Trials and Implants: A Survey Analysis of Practice Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established treatment modality for neuropathic pain. Published guidelines exist to aid physicians in proper antibiotic use during and after spinal cord stimulation trials and implants. In this brief review, we present and analyze the current antibiotic practice patterns of clinicians. METHODS: The study protocol was reviewed and granted an exemption by an Institutional Review Board. The survey queried practice parameters in regards to spinal cord stimulation therapy. The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) and Society of Interventional Spine (SIS) distributed the survey to their active members by emails with a web link to the survey. RESULTS: Our results indicate that 82% and 69% of physicians do not utilize nasal swabs for methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), respectively, prior to SCS trial and implantation. During trials, 47% providers administer a single dose of antibiotics, 35% administer antibiotics for the duration of the trial, and 17% do not administer antibiotics. During implantation, 44% of physicians administer a single dose during the procedure, 11% administer antibiotics up to 24 hours, 24% administer antibiotics between 3-5 days, 14% administer antibiotics for more than 5 days, and 4% do not administer antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests a portion of pain physicians do not adhere to the Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) guidelines in regards to antibiotic administration for SCS trial and implantation. Further analysis and surveys would allow insight into common practices. More information and education would be beneficial to optimize peri-procedure antibiotic use to reduce infection risk and decrease antimicrobial resistance.

ASIPP Guidelines for Sedation and Fasting Status of Patients Undergoing Interventional Pain Management Procedures.

Many of the patients undergoing interventional procedures have daily regimens of medications including analgesics, muscle relaxants, and other drugs that can have significant additive/synergistic effects during the perioperative period. Further, many patients also present with comorbid states, including obesity, cardiovascular, and pulmonary disease. Consequently, in the perioperative period, a significant number of patients have suffered permanent neurologic injury, hypoxic brain injury, and even death as a result of over sedation, hypoventilation, and spinal cord injury. In addition, physicians are concerned about aspiration, subsequent complications, and as a result, they ask patients to fast for several hours prior to the procedures. Based on extensive literature and consensus, a minimum fasting period is established as 2 hours before a procedure for clear liquids and 4 hours before procedure for light meals, rather than having all patients fast for 8 hours or even fasting beginning at midnight the night before the procedure. Gastrointestinal stimulants, gastric acid secretion blockers, and antacids may be used, even though not routinely recommended. Due to the nature of chronic pain and anxiety, many patients undergoing interventional techniques may require mild to moderate sedation. Deep sedation and/or general anesthesia for most interventional procedures is considered as unsafe, since the patient cannot communicate acute changes in symptoms, thus, resulting in morbidity and mortality, as well as creating compliance issues. We are adapting the published standards of the American Society of Anesthesiologists for monitoring patients under sedation, regardless of the location of the procedure, either office-based, in a surgery center, or a hospital outpatient department. These standards include monitoring of blood pressure, cardiac rhythm, temperature, pulse oximetry, and continuous quantitative end tidal CO2 monitoring. Sedation must be provided either by qualified anesthesia or non-anesthesia providers, with appropriate understanding of the medications, drug interactions, and resuscitative protocols.KEY WORDS: Guidelines, sedation, fasting status, monitoring, neurological complications.