Posterior Lateral Arthrodesis as a Treatment Option for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Safety and Early Clinical Outcomes.

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common condition caused by degenerative changes in the lumbar spine with age. LSS is caused by a variety of factors, including degenerative spondylosis and spondylolisthesis. People suffering with LSS experience neurogenic claudication, which causes severe physical limitations, discomfort, and a decrease in quality of life. Less invasive procedures are now being researched to improve the prognosis, success rate, and safety of LSS treatments. Posterior lateral spinal arthrodesis (PLSA) is a new surgical treatment for LSS. This study looks at the procedural and patient safety of PLSA. Materials and methods: This study is a multicenter retrospective analysis of the safety of PLSA who met the clinical indications for PLSA and underwent the procedure at eight interventional spine practices. Data was collected on demographical information, pre-procedural numeric rating scale score (NRS), post-procedural NRS, and complication reporting. Patients who were included had LSS with or without spondylolisthesis and had failed conservative treatments. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed to report the outcomes. Results were reported as mean and standard deviations for continuous outcomes, and frequency (%) for categorical outcomes. Results: This retrospective analysis involved 191 patients and 202 PLSA implants. The majority of patients were male Caucasians with a mean age of 69.2 years and a BMI of 31.1. A large majority of implants were placed at the L4-5 level, and the average pre-procedural NRS was 6.3 while the average post-procedural NRS was 3.1, indicating a 50.8% reduction in pain (p < 0.0001). Two patients reported complications, but they were unrelated to the device or surgical procedure; no infections, device malfunctions, or migrations were reported in the patient cohort. Conclusion: Preliminary results with PLSA implants indicate that it is a safe treatment option for patients with moderate LSS who do not respond to conservative management.

Informed Consent for Spine Procedures: Best Practice Guideline from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN).

Introduction: The evolution of treatment options for painful spinal disorders in diverse settings has produced a variety of approaches to patient care among clinicians from multiple professional backgrounds. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practice group identified a need for a multidisciplinary guideline regarding appropriate and effective informed consent processes for spine procedures. Objective: The ASPN Informed Consent Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with a comprehensive evaluation of patient consent practices during the treatment of spine pathology. Methods: After a needs assessment, ASPN determined that best practice regarding proper informed consent for spinal procedures was needed and a process of selecting faculty was developed based on expertise, diversity, and knowledge of the subject matter. A comprehensive literature search was conducted and when appropriate, evidence grading was performed. Recommendations were based on evidence when available, and when limited, based on consensus opinion. Results: Following a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Informed Consent Guideline group rated the literature to assist with specification of best practice regarding patient consent during the management of spine disorders. Conclusion: Careful attention to informed consent is critical in achieving an optimal outcome and properly educating patients. This process involves a discussion of risks, advantages, and alternatives to treatment. As the field of interventional pain and spine continues to grow, it is imperative that clinicians effectively educate patients and obtain comprehensive informed consent for invasive procedures. This consent should be tailored to the patient's specific needs to ensure an essential recognition of patient autonomy and reasonable expectations of treatment.

Concept of the Number Needed to Treat for the Analysis of Pain Relief Outcomes in Patients Treated with Spinal Cord Stimulation.

In the rapidly evolving field of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), measures of treatment effects are needed to help understand the benefits of new therapies. The present article elaborates the number needed to treat (NNT) concept and applies it to the SCS field. We reviewed the basic theory of the NNT, its calculation method, and its application to historical controlled trials of SCS. We searched the literature for controlled studies with ≥20 implanted SCS patients with chronic axial back and/or leg pain followed for ≥3 months and a reported responder rate defined as ≥50% pain relief. Relevant data necessary to estimate the NNT were extracted from the included articles. In total, 12 of 1616 records were eligible for inclusion. The records reported 10 clinical studies, including 7 randomized controlled trials, 2 randomized crossover trials, and 1 controlled cohort study. The studies investigated traditional SCS and more recently developed SCS modalities, including 10 kHz SCS. In conclusion, the NNT estimate may help SCS stakeholders better understand the effect size difference between compared treatments; however, interpretation of any NNT should take into account its full context. In addition, comparisons across trials of different therapies should be avoided since they are prone to interpretation biases.

Overview of HF10 spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain and an introduction to the Senza Omnia™ system.

Chronic intractable pain affects a significant percentage of the worldwide population, and it is one of the most disabling and expensive health conditions across the globe. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used to treat chronic pain for a number of years, but high-frequency SCS was not the US FDA approved until 2015. In this review, we describe the history and development of high-frequency SCS and discuss the benefits of the Omnia™ implantable pulse generator. We also provide a thorough literature review of the published work, highlighting the efficacy and safety profiles of high-frequency SCS for the treatment of multiple chronic pain conditions. Lastly, we offer our outlook on future developments with the Omnia SCS system.

Stability of admixture containing morphine sulfate, bupivacaine hydrochloride, and clonidine hydrochloride in an implantable infusion system.

Intrathecal infusion is often performed using drug combinations. This study was conducted to evaluate the stability of the admixture of morphine sulfate, bupivacaine hydrochloride, and clonidine hydrochloride when used in an implantable pump under simulated clinical use conditions. SynchroMed implantable pumps were filled with an admixture and incubated at 37 degrees C for a period of 90 days. Drug admixture stored in glass vials at 4 degrees C and at 37 degrees C served as controls. Samples which included pump reservoir and catheter delivered aliquots were collected every 30 days and analyzed for drug concentrations using a stability-indicating HPLC method. All drugs contained in the admixture were stable and the original concentrations remained greater than 96%. Over 90 days, and with the pump at the simulated body temperature of 37 degrees C, there were no evident heat catalyzed or device catalyzed reactions.

Intrathecal drug delivery for treatment of chronic low back pain: report from the National Outcomes Registry for Low Back Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain data on patient demographics, clinical practices, and long-term outcomes for patients with chronic low back pain treated with implantable drug-delivery systems. DESIGN: The National Outcomes Registry for Low Back Pain collected data at baseline, trialing, implant (or decision not to implant), and at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Data were collected at all time points, regardless of implant status. OUTCOME MEASURES: Numeric pain ratings and Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability scores from implanted patients were compared among baseline and 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Patients were also asked to rate their quality of life and satisfaction with the therapy. RESULTS: Thirty-six physicians enrolled 166 patients to be trialed for drug-delivery systems. The trialing success rate was 93% (154 patients). In all, 136 patients (82%) were implanted. In the implant group, numeric pain ratings dropped by more than 47% for back pain and more than 31% for leg pain at the 12-month follow-up. More than 65% of implanted patients reduced their Oswestry scores by at least one level at their 12-month follow-ups compared with baseline. At 12-month follow-ups, 80% of implanted patients were satisfied with their therapy and 87% said they would undergo the procedure again. CONCLUSIONS: Current clinical practices related to trialing of drug-delivery systems resulted in the majority of patients successfully trialed. At 12-month follow-ups, implanted patients experienced reductions in numeric back and leg pain ratings, improved Oswestry scores, and high satisfaction with the therapy.