Search

Introduction: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved the first pain medicine fellowship programs over three decades ago, designed around a pharmacological philosophy. Following that, there has been a rise in the transition of pain medicine education toward a multidisciplinary interventional model based on a tremendous surge of contemporaneous literature in these areas. This trend has created variability in clinical experience and education amongst accredited pain medicine programs with minimal literature evaluating the differences and commonalities in education and experience of different pain medicine fellowships through Program Director (PD) experiences. This study aims to gather insight from pain medicine fellowship program directors across the country to assess clinical and interventional training, providing valuable perspectives on the future of pain medicine education., Methods: This study involved 56 PDs of ACGME-accredited pain fellowship programs in the United States. The recruitment process included three phases: advanced notification, invitation, and follow-up to maximize response rate. Participants completed a standard online questionnaire, covering various topics such as subcategory fields, online platforms for supplemental education, clinical experience, postgraduate practice success, and training adequacy., Results: Surveys were completed by 39/56 (69%) standing members of the Association of Pain Program Directors (APPD). All PDs allowed fellows to participate in industry-related and professional society-related procedural workshops, with 59% encouraging these workshops. PDs emphasized the importance of integrity, professionalism, and diligence for long-term success. Fifty-four percent of PDs expressed the need for extension of fellowship training to avoid supplemental education by industry or pain/spine societies., Conclusion: This study highlights the challenge of providing adequate training in all Pain Medicine subtopics within a 12-month pain medicine fellowship. PDs suggest the need for additional training for fellows and discuss the importance of curriculum standardization., (© 2024 World Institute of Pain.)

Importance: Many patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy experience chronic pain and inadequate relief despite best available medical treatments., Objective: To determine whether 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) improves outcomes for patients with refractory painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN)., Design, Setting, and Participants: The prospective, multicenter, open-label SENZA-PDN randomized clinical trial compared conventional medical management (CMM) with 10-kHz SCS plus CMM. Participants with PDN for 1 year or more refractory to gabapentinoids and at least 1 other analgesic class, lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS), body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 45 or less, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 10% or less, daily morphine equivalents of 120 mg or less, and medically appropriate for the procedure were recruited from clinic patient populations and digital advertising. Participants were enrolled from multiple sites across the US, including academic centers and community pain clinics, between August 2017 and August 2019 with 6-month follow-up and optional crossover at 6 months. Screening 430 patients resulted in 214 who were excluded or declined participation and 216 who were randomized. At 6-month follow-up, 187 patients were evaluated., Interventions: Implanted medical device delivering 10-kHz SCS., Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was percentage of participants with 50% pain relief or more on VAS without worsening of baseline neurological deficits at 3 months. Secondary end points were tested hierarchically, as prespecified in the analysis plan. Measures included pain VAS, neurological examination, health-related quality of life (EuroQol Five-Dimension questionnaire), and HbA1c over 6 months., Results: Of 216 randomized patients, 136 (63.0%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 60.8 (10.7) years. Additionally, the median (interquartile range) duration of diabetes and peripheral neuropathy were 10.9 (6.3-16.4) years and 5.6 (3.0-10.1) years, respectively. The primary end point assessed in the intention-to-treat population was met by 5 of 94 patients in the CMM group (5%) and 75 of 95 patients in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (79%; difference, 73.6%; 95% CI, 64.2-83.0; P < .001). Infections requiring device explant occurred in 2 patients in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (2%). For the CMM group, the mean pain VAS score was 7.0 cm (95% CI, 6.7-7.3) at baseline and 6.9 cm (95% CI, 6.5-7.3) at 6 months. For the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group, the mean pain VAS score was 7.6 cm (95% CI, 7.3-7.9) at baseline and 1.7 cm (95% CI, 1.3-2.1) at 6 months. Investigators observed neurological examination improvements for 3 of 92 patients in the CMM group (3%) and 52 of 84 in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (62%) at 6 months (difference, 58.6%; 95% CI, 47.6-69.6; P < .001)., Conclusions and Relevance: Substantial pain relief and improved health-related quality of life sustained over 6 months demonstrates 10-kHz SCS can safely and effectively treat patients with refractory PDN., Trial Registration: ClincalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03228420.

Background: The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a significant disruption in the care of pain from chronic and subacute conditions. The impact of this cessation of pain treatment may have unintended consequences of increased pain, reduced function, increased reliance on opioid medications, and potential increased morbidity, due to the systemic impact of untreated disease burden. This may include decreased mobility, reduction in overall health status, and increase of opioid use with the associated risks., Methods: The article is the study of the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) COVID-19 task force to evaluate the policies set forth by federal, state, and local agencies to reduce or eliminate elective procedures for those patients with pain from spine, nerve, and joint disease. The impact of these decisions, which were needed to reduce the spread of the pandemic, led to a delay in care for many patients. We hence review an emergence plan to reinitiate this pain-related care. The goal is to outline a path to work with federal, state, and local authorities to combat the spread of the pandemic and minimize the deleterious impact of pain and suffering on our chronic pain patients., Results: The article sets forth a strategy for the interventional pain centers to reemerge from the current pandemic and to set a course for future events., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic represents an overwhelming challenge to interventional pain physicians and their patients. In addition to urgent actions needed for disease mitigation, the ASPN recommends a staged return to pain management professionals' workflow.

Objective: Chronic pain is a prevalent condition which has a significant effect on the lives of those it impacts. High-frequency 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation (10 kHz SCS) has been shown to provide paresthesia-free pain relief for a wide variety of pain indications. This article summarizes the current and emerging data as they relate to the clinical use of the therapy in various pain syndromes., Methods: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed electronic database using keywords related to 10 kHz SCS. The database was queried from 2013 to May 2019. Articles reporting clinical studies that included human subjects permanently treated with 10 kHz SCS (Senza® system) were included in the review. Recent and relevant conference proceedings known to the authors were also included., Results: The selected literature demonstrated significant evidence for the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS in treating chronic back and leg pain (CBLP), including a randomized, controlled trial as well as prospective and retrospective studies. One-year follow-up responder rates (pain relief ≥50%) ranged from 60% to 80%. Other studies and case series showed promising outcomes in specific conditions, including nonsurgical refractory back pain, neuropathic limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, chronic widespread pain, chronic pelvic pain, and intractable headache. Subgroup analyses also pointed toward the potential of 10 kHz SCS being successful when low-frequency SCS has failed. The vast majority of these studies reported improved quality of life (QOL) metrics and/or reduced opioid consumption., Conclusions: Level I evidence already exists for the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS in treating CBLP, supported by real-world clinical experience. Other studies demonstrate the potential of the therapy across a range of chronic pain etiologies, although larger confirmatory studies are recommended. Overall, the literature suggests that the therapy is associated with improved QOL as well as reduced opioid consumption., (© 2019 Nevro Corp. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is the leading cause of disability in the United States and is associated with a steadily increasing burden of healthcare expenditures. Given this trend, it is essential to evaluate interventions aimed at reducing disability and optimizing healthcare utilization (HCU) in affected populations. This study investigates the impact of prior spinal surgery on functional outcomes and HCU patterns following high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 160 subjects who underwent implantation of a 10 kHz SCS device. Participants were divided into surgical and non-surgical cohorts for comparative analysis. Pain relief was assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), while disability levels were evaluated using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). HCU was examined through the frequency of emergency department (ED) visits, outpatient visits for interventional pain procedures, and opioid consumption measured in morphine milliequivalents (MME). Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the surgical and non-surgical groups regarding pain relief and disability outcomes. Additionally, ED visits and outpatient visits for interventional pain procedures did not show significant differences between the two cohorts. Discussion: This study represents the first comparative analysis of pain, disability, and HCU trends between surgical and non-surgical populations following 10 kHz SCS therapy. The results suggest that prior spinal surgery may not substantially affect the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS therapy in terms of pain relief, disability reduction, or HCU patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for treating disabling spine‐related pain. In recent decades, both the number and cost of spine surgeries have increased despite technological advances and modification in surgical technique. For those patients that have continued uncontrolled back and/or lower extremity pain following lumbar spine surgery, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a viable treatment option. However, the impact of lumbar spine surgical history remains largely unstudied. Specifically, the current study considers the impact of number of prior lumbar spine surgeries on pain relief outcomes following SCS implantation. Materials and Methods: We queried the electronic medical record of five separate pain practices for all patients who have undergone a SCS implant between January 1, 2017, and March 1, 2020. Inclusion criteria consisted of any patients with an SCS implant who underwent a prior lumbar spine surgery. The primary outcome was the mean calculated percentage pain relief in patients based on number of prior lumbar spine surgeries. Results: There was a total of 1974 total SCS implant cases identified across five separate pain clinics. There was no difference in mean calculated pain relief in patients with one prior spine surgery versus those with two or more prior spine surgeries (28.2% vs. 25.8%, adjusted β‐coefficient –3.1, 95% CI –8.9 to 2.7, p = 0.290). Similarly, when analyzing number of spine surgeries as a continuous variable, there was no association between number of spine surgeries and calculated pain relief (adjusted β‐coefficient –1.5, 95% CI –4.0 to 1.1, p = 0.257). Additionally, after patients were stratified based on waveform, there was no association between number of prior lumbar spine surgeries (analyzed both as a categorical and continuous variable) and calculated percentage pain relief. Conclusions: This multicentered retrospective study found that there was no significant difference in pain scores in individuals who received SCS following one or more lumbar spine surgeries. Additionally, the waveform of the SCS device had no statistically significant impact on post‐operative pain scores following one or more lumbar spine surgeries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstracts, and Scopus to identify and compile the evidence for diabetic neuropathy pain treatments (per section as listed in the manuscript) for the treatment of pain. Manuscripts from 2000-present were included in the search process. Results: After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN SWEET guideline was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades for most available treatments for PDN utilizing the United States Preventive Services Task Force criteria. Conclusion: The ASPN SWEET Guideline represents the most comprehensive review of the available treatments for PDN and their appropriate and safe utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuromodulation, specifically spinal cord stimulation (SCS), has become a staple of chronic pain management for various conditions including failed back syndrome, chronic regional pain syndrome, refractory radiculopathy, and chronic post operative pain. Since its conceptualization, it has undergone several advances to increase safety and convenience for patients and implanting physicians. Current research and efforts are aimed towards novel programming modalities and modifications of existing hardware. Here we review the recent advances and future directions in spinal cord stimulation including a brief review of the history of SCS, SCS waveforms, new materials for SCS electrodes (including artificial skins, new materials, and injectable electrodes), closed loop systems, and neurorestorative devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety. Objective: The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented. Results: After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain. Conclusion: The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chronic low back pain is a worldwide leading cause of pain and disability. Degenerative disc disease has been the presumptive etiology in the majority of cases of chronic low back pain (CLBP). More recent study and treatments have discovered that the vertebral endplates play a large role in CLBP in a term defined as vertebrogenic back pain. As the vertebral endplates are highly innervated via the basivertebral nerve (BVN), this has resulted in a reliable target in treating patients suffering from vertebrogenic low back pain (VLBP). The application of BVN ablation for patients suffering from VLBP is still in its early stages of adoption and integration into spine care pathways. BVN ablation is grounded in a solid foundation of both pre-clinical and clinical evidence. With the emergence of this therapeutic option, the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified the need for formal evidence-based guidelines for the proper identification and selection of patients for BVN ablation in patients with VLBP. ASPN formed a multidisciplinary work group tasked to examine the available literature and form best practice guidelines on this subject. Based on the United States Preventative Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for grading evidence, gives BVN ablation Level A grade evidence with high certainty that the net benefit is substantial in appropriately selected individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this peripheral nerve stimulation consensus guideline is to add to the current family of consensus practice guidelines and incorporate a systematic review process. The published literature was searched from relevant electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from database inception to March 29, 2021. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies that described peripheral nerve stimulation in patients in terms of clinical outcomes for various pain conditions, physiological mechanism of action, surgical technique, technique of placement, and adverse events. Twenty randomized controlled trials and 33 prospective observational studies were included in the systematic review process. There is Level I evidence supporting the efficacy of PNS for treatment of chronic migraine headaches via occipital nerve stimulation; chronic hemiplegic shoulder pain via stimulation of nerves innervating the trapezius, supraspinatus, and deltoid muscles; failed back surgery syndrome via subcutaneous peripheral field stimulation; and lower extremity neuropathic and lower extremity post-amputation pain. Evidence from current Level I studies combined with newer technologies facilitating less invasive and easier electrode placement make peripheral nerve stimulation an attractive alternative for managing patients with complex pain disorders. Peripheral nerve stimulation should be used judiciously as an adjunct for chronic and acute postoperative pain following adequate patient screening and positive diagnostic nerve block or stimulation trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Studies have found that up to one-third of patients with LBP have sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction as a contributing cause. Historically, the management of SIJ dysfunction has been plagued by ineffectiveness or significant morbidity. In 2008, minimally invasive lateral SIJ fusion was developed. While this procedure is a safe and effective treatment, there is still a significant proportion of patients who will not experience therapeutic success. There is a paucity of data in the literature regarding the management of these patients. Recently, a novel posterior sacroiliac joint fusion device has been developed which minimizes complications compared to lateral approaches and may serve to salvage therapeutic failures in this patient population. Objective: Determine the efficacy and feasibility of a posterior SIJ fusion device as a salvage technique in patients who have not experienced therapeutic success following lateral SIJ fusion. Design: Multi-center retrospective observational study. Methods: Patients who had previously undergone lateral SIJ fusion and had persistent LBP were evaluated and diagnosed to have persistent primary SIJ pathology. All patients underwent posterior SIJ fusion utilizing a machined allograft transfixing sacroiliac fusion device. Demographic data and patient reported pain scores were collected. Results: A total of 7 patients who had undergone lateral SIJ fusion were included in the study and underwent posterior SIJ fusion. The mean patient reported pain improvement following posterior fusion was 80% with an average follow-up time of 10 months. Median morphine milliequivalents were 20 pre-procedure and 0 post-procedure. Conclusion: We were able to show significant reductions in pain scores and opioid consumption, which suggests that minimally invasive posterior SIJ utilizing a novel implant and technique may be a viable treatment option to salvage pain relief in this patient population. Further, the favorable safety profile of this posterior technique uniquely positions it to be an appropriate first-line surgical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of intrathecal drug delivery for chronic and cancer pain medicine has been established for decades. However, optimization and utilization of this technique still lag behind other modalities for pain control. Some of this may be due to variability of surgical technique, medication usage and education. It is currently unclear on whether or not practitioners follow available algorithms for the use of intrathecal drug delivery systems. Methods: A survey developed by the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) was sent to its members via email using the cloud-based SurveyMonkey. After 30 days of being available, 159 different providers responded to the survey that consisted of 31 various multiple choice and free response questions. Each question was not required and the number of responses to each varied from 128 to 159. Results: Approximately 9% of those who successfully received and opened the email containing the survey responded, likely due to a small number of providers working with intrathecal drug delivery systems. Eighty-six of respondents practice medicine in the United States, and 87% of the respondents were attending physicians. A majority of respondents, approximately 74%, were board certified in pain medicine with 69% of respondents being train in anesthesiology. The first and second most used medications for intrathecal pump trial were morphine and fentanyl, respectively. Most respondents, approximately 96%, provide pre-operative/intra-operative antibiotics. The most common first-choice medication for implanted intrathecal pumps was also morphine with the most common implanted location being the abdomen. Conclusion: Interestingly, there is currently fairly substantial variation in the way providers utilize intrathecal pump delivery for both chronic and cancer pain. There is variation from the training background of the providers providing care, to the pre-implantation trial medications, to where the pump is implanted for each patient, to if the patient has the option to give themselves boluses once implanted. Further research is needed to elucidate current and best practices for intrathecal drug delivery system trials, implantations, and utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain is a common cause of low back pain, a problem experienced by two-thirds of adults in the United States population. Traditionally, the management of persistent SIJ-related pain has involved conservative therapies (physical therapy, topical medications, oral anti-inflammatory medications), interventional therapies (SIJ steroid injections or ablation), and surgery (SIJ fusion; open and lateral approach). Recent advancements in technology have paved the way for SIJ fusion via a posterior approach, which aims to minimize complications and enhance recovery. Objective: The purpose of this study is to introduce the concept of the posterior approach to SIJ fusion as a feasible adjunct and salvage technique for patients with inadequate pain relief from other minimally invasive surgical procedures, and to validate its efficacy through a retrospective multicenter data analysis. Design: Multicenter retrospective observational study. Methods: Patients with refractory SIJ pain were treated by interventional pain physicians at one of the eight different pain management centers. All patients underwent posterior SIJ fusion via the LinQTM sacroiliac fusion procedure. Demographical data were collected, in addition to patient-reported pain relief. Results: A total of 111 patients were included in the study and underwent posterior SIJ fusion for refractory SIJ-related pain following the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), interspinous spacer (ISS), intrathecal drug delivery (IDDS), and/or minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). Overall, the mean patient reported pain relief following posterior SIJ fusion was 67.6%. In patients with a history of failed back surgery syndrome, the mean patient reported pain relief was 76.5%. Conclusion: In this retrospective case series of patients with continued intolerable pain following SCS, ISS, IDDS, or MILD, a novel posterior SIJ fusion device provided significant pain relief in a salvage manner. These early results suggest that this intervention may be a therapeutic option to consider in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The discipline of interventional pain management has changed significantly over the past decade with an expected greater evolution in the next decade. Not only have the number of procedures increased, some of the procedures that were created for spine surgeons are becoming more facile in the hands of the interventional pain physician. Such change has outpaced academic institutions, societies, and boards. When a pain physician is in the credentialing process for novel procedure privileges, it can leave the healthcare system in a challenging situation with little to base their decision upon. Methods: This paper was developed by a consensus working group from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience from various disciplines. The goal was to develop processes and resources to aid in the credentialing process. Results: These guidelines from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience provide background information to help facilities create a process to appropriately credential physicians on novel procedures. They are not intended to serve as a standard or legal precedent. Conclusion: This paper serves as a guide for facilities to credential physicians on novel procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moderate to severe pain occurs in many cancer patients during their clinical course and may stem from the primary pathology, metastasis, or as treatment side effects. Uncontrolled pain using conservative medical therapy can often lead to patient distress, loss of productivity, shorter life expectancy, longer hospital stays, and increase in healthcare utilization. Various publications shed light on strategies for conservative medical management for cancer pain and a few international publications have reviewed limited interventional data. Our multi-institutional working group was assembled to review and highlight the body of evidence that exists for opioid utilization for cancer pain, adjunct medication such as ketamine and methadone and interventional therapies. We discuss neurolysis via injections, neuromodulation including targeted drug delivery and spinal cord stimulation, vertebral tumor ablation and augmentation, radiotherapy and surgical techniques. In the United States, there is a significant variance in the interventional treatment of cancer pain based on fellowship training. As a first of its kind, this best practices and interventional guideline will offer evidenced-based recommendations for reducing pain and suffering associated with malignancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, intervertebral disc degeneration has been the etiological target of chronic low back pain; however, disc degeneration is not necessarily directly associated with pain, and many other anatomical structures are potential etiologies. The vertebral endplates have been postulated to be a source of vertebral pain, where these endplates become particularly susceptible to increased expression of nociceptors and inflammatory proliferation carried by the basivertebral nerve (BVN), expressed on diagnostic imaging as Modic changes. This is useful diagnostic information that can help physicians to phenotype a subset of low back pain, which is known as vertebral pain, in order to directly target interventions, such as BVN ablation, to this significant pain generator. Therefore, this review describes the safety, efficacy, and the rationale behind the use of BVN ablation, a minimally invasive spinal intervention, for the treatment of vertebral pain. Our current literature review of available up-to-date publications utilizing BVN ablation in the treatment of vertebral pain suggests that there is limited, but moderate-quality evidence that this is an effective intervention for reduction of disability and improvement in function, at short- and long-term follow-up, in addition to limited moderate-quality evidence that BVN RFA is superior to conservative care for pain reduction, at least at 3-month follow-up. Our review concluded that there is a highly clinical and statistically significant treatment effect of BVN ablation for vertebral pain with clinically meaningful benefits in pain reduction, functional improvements, opioid dose reduction, and improved quality of life. There were no reported device-related patient deaths or serious AEs based on the available literature. BVN ablation is a safe, well-tolerated and clinically beneficial intervention for vertebral pain, when proper patient selection and surgical/procedural techniques are applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, COVID-19 has spread to more than 108 million people globally, with a death toll surpassing 2 1/2 million. With the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of two highly effective COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer-BioNtech and Moderna, we now have a novel approach to contain COVID-19 related morbidity and mortality. Chronic pain care has faced unprecedented challenges for patients and providers in this ever-changing climate. With the approval of COVID-19 vaccines, we now face questions relating to the potential effects of pain treatments utilizing steroids on vaccine efficacy. In this analysis, we address these issues and provide guidance for steroid therapies based on available data and expert recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain. Design Grade the evidence for DRG stimulation. Methods An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. Results DRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies. Conclusions Moderate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain. Design Grade the evidence for PNS. Methods An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. Results Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain. Conclusion Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Postlaminectomy syndrome diagnoses secondary to adjacent segment degeneration are a substantial and rising cause of morbidity in the United States. Emerging spinal cord neuromodulation technologies have produced successful outcomes for postlaminectomy neuropathic pain but are less effective in treating neurogenic claudication secondary to recurrent lumbar stenosis. Percutaneous interspinous process decompression systems can be used as a salvage treatment modality for persistent structural neurogenic claudication in postlaminectomy syndrome or after spinal cord stimulator implantation. Methods This paper is a review of emerging evidence for efficacious utilization of percutaneous interspinous process decompression. Results A recent pragmatic trial of subjects who underwent percutaneous interspinous process decompression for lumbar stenosis with intermittent neurogenic claudication reported that 63% (26/41) maintained minimal clinically important improvement in visual analog scale (VAS) leg pain, 61% (25/41) in VAS back pain, 78% (32/41) in function objective values, and 88% (36/41) reported satisfaction with treatment at 12 months postop. All subjects in a small case series of seven individuals with postlaminectomy adjacent-segment disease reported postoperative satisfaction scores of 3 or 4 on a 0–4 scale and were also able to decrease or wean completely off controlled pain medications. In another study, there was a significant decrease in average leg pain (60% improvement, P  < 0.0001, N = 25) and axial low back pain (58% improvement, P  < 0.0001, N = 25) in patients who underwent one- or two-level percutaneous interspinous process decompression as a rescue treatment for reemerging neurogenic claudication after spinal cord stimulator implantation. Conclusions The spine often is a focus of progressive disease. Furthermore, mechanical changes associated with spinal instrumentation can lead to additional disease at adjacent levels. Many individuals will present with symptomatic neurogenic claudication recalcitrant to multimodal management strategies, including even the most sophisticated neuromodulation technologies. Implementation of salvage percutaneous interspinus process decompression implantation in cases of adjacent segment degeneration or incomplete spinal cord stimulation can decompress structural causes of neurogenic claudication while sparing the patient from more invasive surgical reoperation techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective There are several treatment options for patients suffering from lumbar spinal stenosis, including surgical and conservative care. Interspinous spacer decompression using the Superion device offers a less invasive procedure for patients who fail conservative treatment before traditional decompression surgery. This review assesses the current cost-effectiveness, safety, and performance of lumbar spinal stenosis treatment modalities compared with the Superion interspinous spacer procedure. Methods EMBASE and PubMed were searched to find studies reporting on the cost-effectiveness, safety, and performance of conservative treatment, including medicinal treatments, epidural injections, physical therapy, and alternative methods, as well as surgical treatment, including laminectomy, laminectomy with fusion, and interspinous spacer decompression. Results were supplemented with manual searches. Results Despite substantial costs, persistent conservative treatment (>12 weeks) of lumbar spinal stenosis showed only minimal improvement in pain and functionality. When conservative treatment fails, surgery is more effective than continuing conservative treatment. Lumbar laminectomy with fusion has considerably greater cost than laminectomy alone, as the length of hospital stay increases, the costs for implants are substantial, and complications increase. Although laminectomy and the Superion have comparable outcomes, the Superion implant is positioned percutaneously. This approach may minimize the direct and indirect costs of outpatient rehabilitation and absenteeism, respectively. Conclusions Superion interspinous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive procedure for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who have failed conservative treatment. Compared with extending conservative treatment or traditional spinal surgery, interspinous lumbar decompression reduces the direct and indirect costs associated with lumbar spinal stenosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the inception of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in 1967, the technology has evolved dramatically with important advancements in waveforms and frequencies. One such advancement is Nevro's Senza® SCS System for HF10, which received Food and Drug and Administration (FDA) approval in 2015. Low-frequency SCS works by activating large-diameter Aβ fibers in the lateral discriminatory pathway (pain location, intensity, quality) at the dorsal column (DC), creating paresthesia-based stimulation at lower-frequencies (30–120 Hz), high-amplitude (3.5–8.5 mA), and longer-duration/pulse-width (100–500 μs). In contrast, high-frequency 10 kHz SCS works with a proposed different mechanism of action that is paresthesia-free with programming at a frequency of 10,000 Hz, low amplitude (1–5 mA), and short-duration/pulse-width (30 μS). This stimulation pattern selectively activates inhibitory interneurons in the dorsal horn (DH) at low stimulation intensities, which do not activate the dorsal column fibers. This ostensibly leads to suppression of hyperexcitable wide dynamic range neurons (WDR), which are sensitized and hyperactive in chronic pain states. It has also been reported to act on the medial pathway (drives attention and pain perception), in addition to the lateral pathways. Other theories include a reversible depolarization blockade, desynchronization of neural signals, membrane integration, glial–neuronal interaction, and induced temporal summation. The body of clinical evidence regarding 10 kHz SCS treatment for chronic back pain and neuropathic pain continues to grow. There is high-quality evidence supporting its use in patients with persistent back and radicular pain, particularly after spinal surgery. High-frequency 10 kHz SCS studies have demonstrated robust statistically and clinically significant superiority in pain control, compared to paresthesia-based SCS, supported by level I clinical evidence. Yet, as the field continues to grow with the technological advancements of multiple waveforms and programming stimulation algorithms, we encourage further research to focus on the ability to modulate pain with precision and efficacy, as the field of neuromodulation continues to adapt to the modern healthcare era. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]