Search

Dawood Sayed,1 Timothy R Deer,2,3 Vinicius Tieppo Francio,1 Christopher M Lam,1 Kamil Sochacki,4 Nasir Hussain,5 Tristan E Weaver,5 Jay Karri,6,7 Vwaire Orhurhu,8,9 Natalie Holmes Strand,10 Jacqueline Soicher Weisbein,11 Jonathan M Hagedorn,12 Ryan S D’Souza,12 Ryan R Budwany,2 Ahish Chitneni,13 Kasra Amirdelfan,14 Michael J Dorsi,15 Dan TD Nguyen,16 Christopher Bovinet,17 Alaa Abd-Elsayed18 1Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 2Pain Services, Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 3Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Charleston, WV, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 5Anesthesiology, the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA; 6Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Williamsport, PA, USA; 9Pain Medicine, MVM Health, East Stroudsburg, PA, USA; 10Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 11Interventional Pain Management, Napa Valley Orthopaedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 12Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 13Department of Rehabilitation & Regenerative Medicine, New York Presbyterian – Columbia & Cornell, New York, NY, USA; 14Director of Clinical Research, Boomerang Healthcare, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 15Neurosurgery, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 16Neuroradiology & Pain Solutions of Oklahoma, Edmond, OK, USA; 17The Spine Center of SE Georgia, Brunswick, GA, USA; 18Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USACorrespondence: Dawood Sayed, Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA, Tel +1 785-550-5800, Email dsayed@kumc.eduAbstract: Clinical management of sacroiliac disease has proven challenging from both diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. Although it is widely regarded as a common source of low back pain, little consensus exists on the appropriate clinical management of sacroiliac joint pain and dysfunction. Understanding the biomechanics, innervation, and function of this complex load bearing joint is critical to formulating appropriate treatment algorithms for SI joint disorders. ASPN has developed this comprehensive practice guideline to serve as a foundational reference on the appropriate management of SI joint disorders utilizing the best available evidence and serve as a foundational guide for the treatment of adult patients in the United States and globally.Keywords: sacroiliac joint, sacroiliitis, chronic pain, best practices, radiofrequency ablation, sacroiliac joint fusion

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS), including the percutaneous placement of epidural stimulation leads, has been increasingly utilized to treat chronic pain. Although lead migration is a well-characterized complication, few studies have reported on malpositioned leads in the intrathecal space. Here, the authors discuss two cases of intrathecal lead placement necessitating surgical revision., Observations: This report is a two-case series on the inadvertent placement of percutaneous SCS leads in the intrathecal space. The authors describe the identification of malpositioned leads, describe the clinical presentation, characterize stimulation parameters, and report improvement following neurosurgical revision for each case. Two patients originally presenting with chronic low-back pain underwent percutaneous SCS lead implantation. Both patients presented with atypical pain symptoms in the acute to subacute postprocedural period, raising suspicion for malpositioned leads. Imaging was consistent with intrathecal malpositioning. Both patients underwent revision surgery resulting in symptomatic improvement., Lessons: Indicators of malpositioned thoracic SCS leads in the intrathecal space include thoracoabdominal or flank pain exacerbated by movement, insufficient pain relief versus that in the SCS trial, very low electrode impedances, direct visualization on imaging, and lack of epidural lead visualization following laminectomy. Revision options include removal of the intrathecal leads and the surgical placement of a paddle electrode in the epidural space. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24275.

Introduction: Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments., Methods: The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria., Results: The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis., Conclusions: There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: This prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving outpatient percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild ® procedure to patients undergoing outpatient laminectomy. All patients were diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC)., Methods: All medical claims for 100 % of Medicare beneficiaries were reviewed, with study subjects identified using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Research Identifiable Files. Baseline data were extracted individually to allow for longitudinal analysis through two-year follow-up. The index procedure was defined as the first mild or outpatient laminectomy during the enrollment period. The rate of subsequent surgical procedures and incidence of harms were used as study outcomes., Results: Cohorts included 2197 mild and 7416 laminectomy patients. mild patients were significantly older (76.7 years versus 73.4 years, respectively; p < 0.0001), and 57.4 % of mild were female, compared to 43.3 % of laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild patients presented with significantly more baseline comorbidities compared to laminectomy patients (mean of 5.7 versus 4.8, respectively; p < 0.0001). Subsequent surgical procedure rate of 9.0 % for mild was significantly higher than 5.5 % for laminectomy (p < 0.0001). mild experienced harms at a significantly lower rate than laminectomy (1.9 % versus 5.8 %, respectively; p < 0.0001). The composite rate of subsequent surgical procedures and harms was similar between groups at 10.8 % for mild and 11.0 % for laminectomy., Conclusions: mild can be considered a viable option for treatment of LSS with NC as evidenced by real-world data in this study. At two-years, mild patients experienced fewer harms and underwent more subsequent surgical procedures than laminectomy patients. The higher rate of subsequent surgical procedures for mild may be attributable to its position earlier in the LSS treatment algorithm. The overall rate of harms and subsequent surgical procedures was similar between groups, suggesting that mild should be considered as a treatment option, particularly for older patients with multiple comorbidities., Competing Interests: PS reports consulting or research grants from Medtronic, Saluda Medical, Biotronik, AIS Healthcare, Nalu, SPR Therapeutics and funded research from Vertos Medical. MD is a consultant for Abbott, Biotronik, Camber Spine, Globus, Nevro and LifeSpine. DR and NS report no conflicts. LP is a consultant for Medtronic and Saluda Medical, and holds stock options for Nalu and Saluda. JH reports no conflicts., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: The authors describe a rare case of transient postoperative wrist and finger drop following a prone position minimally invasive surgery (MIS) lateral microdiscectomy., Observations: Hand and wrist drop is an unusual complication following spine surgery, especially in prone positioning. The authors' multidisciplinary team assessed a patient with this complication following MIS lateral microdiscectomy. The broad differential diagnosis included radial nerve palsy, C7 radiculopathy, stroke, and spinal cord injury. Given the patient's supinator weakness, intact pronation and wrist flexion, and transient recovery within 4 weeks, the most likely diagnosis was radial nerve neuropraxia secondary to ischemic compression. After careful consideration of the operative environment and anatomical constraints, the patient's blood pressure cuff was found to be the most probable source of compression., Lessons: Blood pressure cuff-induced peripheral nerve injury may be a source of postoperative radial nerve neuropraxia in patients undergoing spine surgery. Careful considerations must be given to the blood pressure cuff location, which should not be placed at the distal end of the humerus due to higher susceptibility of peripheral nerve compression. Spine surgeons should be aware of and appropriately localize postoperative deficits along the neuroaxis, including central versus proximal or distal peripheral injuries, in order to guide appropriate postoperative management.

Wrong-site surgery (WSS) is a rare occurrence that can have devastating consequences for patient care. There are several factors inherent to spine surgery that increase the risk of WSS compared with other types of surgery. Not only can a surgeon potentially operate on the wrong side of the spine or the wrong level, but there are unique issues related to spinal localization that can be challenging for even the most experienced clinicians. The following review discusses important issues that can help prevent WSS during spinal procedures.