Search

Dawood Sayed,1 Timothy Ray Deer,2 Jonathan M Hagedorn,3 Asim Sayed,4 Ryan S D’Souza,3 Christopher M Lam,1 Nasir Khatri,5 Zohra Hussaini,1 Scott G Pritzlaff,6 Newaj Mohammad Abdullah,7 Vinicius Tieppo Francio,1 Steven Michael Falowski,8 Yussr M Ibrahim,9 Mark N Malinowski,10 Ryan R Budwany,2 Natalie Holmes Strand,11 Kamil M Sochacki,12 Anuj Shah,13 Tyler M Dunn,11 Morad Nasseri,14 David W Lee,15 Leonardo Kapural,16 Marshall David Bedder,17,18 Erika A Petersen,19 Kasra Amirdelfan,20 Michael E Schatman,21,22 Jay Samuel Grider23 1Department of Anesthesiology 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; 3Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 4Podiatry/Surgery, Susan B. Allen Memorial Hospital, El Dorado, KS, USA; 5Interventional Pain Medicine, Novant Spine Specialists, Charlotte, NC, USA; 6Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 8Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA; 9Pain Medicine, Northern Light Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, ME, USA; 10OhioHealth Neurological Physicians, OhioHealth, Columbus, OH, USA; 11Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 12Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; 13Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA; 14Interventional Pain Medicine / Neurology, Boomerang Healthcare, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 15Pain Management Specialist, Fullerton Orthopedic, Fullerton, CA, USA; 16Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston Salem, NC, USA; 17Chief of Pain Medicine Service, Augusta VAMC, Augusta, GA, USA; 18Associate Professor and Director, Addiction Medicine Fellowship Program, Department Psychiatry and Health Behavior, Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA; 19Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA; 20Director of Clinical Research, Boomerang Healthcare, Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 21Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care & Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 22Department of Population Health – Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA; 23Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, 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.eduIntroduction: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a leading cause of pain and disability globally with a lack of consensus on the appropriate treatment of those suffering from this condition. Recent advancements in both pharmacotherapy and interventional approaches have broadened the treatment options for PDN. There exists a need for a comprehensive guideline for the safe and effective treatment of patients suffering from PDN.Objective: The SWEET Guideline was developed to provide clinicians with the most comprehensive guideline for the safe and appropriate treatment of patients suffering from PDN.Methods: The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations for PDN. A multidisciplinary group of international experts developed the SWEET guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Meeting 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.Keywords: diabetes, painful diabetic neuropathy, neuropathy, spinal cord stimulation, chronic pain, diabetic neuropathy

Scott G Pritzlaff,1 Johnathan H Goree,2 Jonathan M Hagedorn,3 David W Lee,4 Kenneth B Chapman,5 Sandy Christiansen,6 Andrew Dudas,7 Alexander Escobar,8 Christopher J Gilligan,9 Maged Guirguis,10 Amitabh Gulati,11 Jessica Jameson,12 Christopher J Mallard,13 Melissa Murphy,14 Kiran V Patel,15 Raj G Patel,16 Samir J Sheth,17 Stephanie Vanterpool,18 Vinita Singh,19 Gregory Smith,2 Natalie H Strand,20 Chau M Vu,21 Tolga Suvar,22 Krishnan Chakravarthy,23 Leonardo Kapural,24 Michael S Leong,25 Timothy R Lubenow,22 Alaa Abd-Elsayed,26 Jason E Pope,21 Dawood Sayed,27 Timothy R Deer28 1Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 4Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group, Fullerton, CA, USA; 5The Spine & Pain Institute of New York, New York, NY, USA; 6Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; 7Mays & Schnapp Neurospine and Pain, Memphis, TN, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA; 9Division of Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 10Division of Pain Management, Ochsner Health, New Orleans, LA, USA; 11Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; 12Axis Spine Center, Coeur D’Alene, ID, USA; 13Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; 14North Texas Orthopedics and Spine Center, Grapevine, TX, USA; 15Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health, Hempstead, NY, USA; 16Capitol Pain Institute, Austin, TX, USA; 17Interventional Pain Management, Sutter Health, Roseville, CA, USA; 18Department of Anesthesiology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA; 19Department of Anesthesiology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; 20Interventional Pain Management, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA; 21Evolve Restorative Center, Santa Rosa, CA, USA; 22Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA; 23Coastal Pain and Spinal Diagnostics Medical Group, San Diego, CA, USA; 24Carolinas Pain Institute, Winston-Salem, NC, USA; 25Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; 26Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 27Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA; 28The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USACorrespondence: Scott G Pritzlaff, University of California, Davis, 4860 Y Street, Suite 3020, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA, Tel +1 916 734-6824, Fax +1 916 734-6827, Email spritzlaff@ucdavis.eduAbstract: The need to be competent in neuromodulation is and should be a prerequisite prior to completing a fellowship in interventional pain medicine. Unfortunately, many programs lack acceptable candidates for these advanced therapies, and fellows may not receive adequate exposure to neuromodulation procedures. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) desires to create a consensus of experts to set a minimum standard of competence for neurostimulation procedures, including spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), and peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). The executive board of ASPN accepted nominations for colleagues with excellence in the subject matter of neuromodulation and physician education. This diverse group used peer-reviewed literature and, based on grading of evidence and expert opinion, developed critical consensus guides for training that all accredited fellowship programs should adopt. For each consensus point, transparency and recusal were used to eliminate bias, and an author was nominated for evidence grading oversight and bias control. Pain Education and Knowledge (PEAK) Consensus Guidelines for Neuromodulation sets a standard for neuromodulation training in pain fellowship training programs. The consensus panel has determined several recommendations to improve care in the United States for patients undergoing neuromodulation. As neuromodulation training in the United States has evolved dramatically, these therapies have become ubiquitous in pain medicine. Unfortunately, fellowship programs and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) pain program requirements have not progressed training to match the demands of modern advancements. PEAK sets a new standard for fellowship training and presents thirteen practice areas vital for physician competence in neuromodulation.Keywords: neuromodulation, pain education, spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, fellowship training

Jonathan M Hagedorn,1 Jordan Tate,2 Manish Bharara3 1iSpine Pain Physicians, Maple Grove, MN, USA; 2Southern Pain and Spine, Jasper, GA, USA; 3Clinical Affairs Department, Nevro Corp, Redwood City, CA, USACorrespondence: Jonathan M Hagedorn, iSpine Pain Physicians, Maple Grove, MN, USA, Tel +1 763-201-8191, Fax +1 763-201-8192, Email jonhagedornmd@yahoo.comIntroduction: Chronic pain is a common clinical condition and is frequently treated with a variety of medications, but pharmacotherapy is oftentimes not the optimal long-term treatment option. Safe and effective long-term pain relief for trunk and limb pain is available using high-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz (10 kHz SCS), which is delivered using a rechargeable implantable pulse generator (IPG). Although rechargeable devices have been shown to reduce patient risk and overall cost by eliminating the need for periodic surgeries to replace depleted non-rechargeable IPGs, there is little published evidence that rechargeable technology is practical and convenient for patients, especially in the context of 10 kHz SCS.Objective: This analysis of real-world patients implanted with 10 kHz SCS devices was undertaken using patient data from an industry-maintained database to investigate whether there was a substantial burden associated with rechargeable SCS and the degree of patient satisfaction or dissatisfaction with 10 kHz SCS.Results: This study included 10,391 men and women who were implanted with 10 kHz SCS devices to treat chronic pain of the trunk and/or limbs. They received stimulation for a median of 361 days (180– 1550 days), and 65.48% had previous spine surgery. In this patient sample, most patients were satisfied with the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS, including 77% who would repeat the procedure and 71% who would recommend it to other patients with similar pain. In regards to IPG recharging, 70% were satisfied or very satisfied and 19% were neutral, and a majority of patients recharged their device daily for 30 to 60 minutes.Conclusion: These results indicate most patients do not find IPG recharging inconvenient or burdensome. In addition, IPG recharging is not a barrier to the majority of patients benefitting from 10 kHz SCS for long-term pain relief.Keywords: SCS, spinal cord stimulation, satisfaction, real-world

Dawood Sayed,1 Jay Grider,2 Natalie Strand,3 Jonathan M Hagedorn,4 Steven Falowski,5 Christopher M Lam,1 Vinicius Tieppo Francio,6 Douglas P Beall,7 Nestor D Tomycz,8 Justin R Davanzo,9 Rohit Aiyer,10 David W Lee,11 Hemant Kalia,12,13 Soun Sheen,13 Mark N Malinowski,14,15 Michael Verdolin,16 Shashank Vodapally,17 Alexios Carayannopoulos,18– 20 Sameer Jain,21 Nomen Azeem,22,23 Reda Tolba,24,25 George C Chang Chien,26,27 Priyanka Ghosh,28 Anthony J Mazzola,29 Kasra Amirdelfan,30 Krishnan Chakravarthy,31,32 Erika Petersen,33 Michael E Schatman,34,35 Timothy Deer36 1Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 2University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; 3Interventional Pain Management, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA; 4iSpine Pain Physicians, Maple Grove, MN, USA; 5Functional Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA; 6Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 7Comprehensive Specialty Care, Edmond, OK, USA; 8AHN Neurosurgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; 9AHN Neurosurgery, Forbes Hospital, Monroeville, PA, USA; 10Interventional Pain Management and Pain Psychiatry, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA; 11Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Pain Medicine, Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group, Fullerton, CA, USA; 12Rochester Regional Health System, Rochester, NY, USA; 13Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA; 14Adena Spine Center, Adena Health System, Chillicothe, OH, USA; 15Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Athens, OH, USA; 16Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Pain Consultants of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA; 17Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA; 18Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rhode Island Hospital, Newport Hospital, Lifespan Physician Group, Providence, RI, USA; 19Comprehensive Spine Center at Rhode Island Hospital, Newport Hospital, Providence, RI, USA; 20Neurosurgery, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; 21Interventional Pain Management, Pain Treatment Centers of America, Little Rock, AR, USA; 22Department of Neurology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA; 23Florida Spine & Pain Specialists, Riverview, FL, USA; 24Pain Management, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; 25Anesthesiology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA; 26Pain Management, Ventura County Medical Center, Ventura, CA, USA; 27Center for Regenerative Medicine, University Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 28Remedy Medical Group, San Francisco, CA, USA; 29Mount Sinai Health System, New York City, NY, USA; 30IPM Medical Group, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA, USA; 31Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA; 32Va San Diego Healthcare, San Diego, CA, USA; 33Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Science, Little Rock, AR, USA; 34Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 35Department of Population Health - Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; 36The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USACorrespondence: Dawood Sayed, The University of Kansas Health System, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA, Tel +1 913-588-5521, Email dsayed@kumc.eduIntroduction: 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.Keywords: back pain, intervention, clinical guideline, spinal cord stimulation, minimally invasive spine procedure, lumbar disorder, epidural steroid injection, radiofrequency ablation

Timothy R Deer,1 Adam Rupp,2 Ryan Budwany,3 Christopher J Bovinet,4 John W Chatas,5 Stephen T Pyles,6 Nomen Azeem,7 Sean Li,8 Ramana Naidu,9 Ajay Antony,10 Jonathan M Hagedorn,11 Dawood Sayed12 1The Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 2Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 3West Virginia University, Charleston, WV, USA; 4The Spine Center of Southeast Georgia, Brunswick, GA, USA; 5Michigan Pain Specialists, Ypsilanti, MI, USA; 6Pain Treatment Centers, Ocala, FL, USA; 7Florida Spine & Pain Specialists, Riverview, FL, USA; 8Premier Pain Centers, Shrewsbury, NJ, USA; 9California Orthopedics & Spine, Larkspur, CA, USA; 10The Orthopaedic Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA; 11Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 12Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USACorrespondence: Timothy R DeerThe Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, 25301, USATel +1 304-347-6120Email doctdeer@aol.comBackground: 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.Keywords: sacroiliac joint pain, posterior SIJ fusion, salvage, spinal cord stimulation, lumbar decompression

Mansoor M Aman,1 Ammar Mahmoud,2 Timothy Deer,3 Dawood Sayed,4 Jonathan M Hagedorn,5 Shane E Brogan,6 Vinita Singh,7 Amitabh Gulati,8 Natalie Strand,9 Jacqueline Weisbein,10 Johnathan H Goree,11 Fangfang Xing,12 Ali Valimahomed,13 Daniel J Pak,14 Antonios El Helou,15 Priyanka Ghosh,16 Krishna Shah,17 Vishal Patel,1 Alexander Escobar,18 Keith Schmidt,19 Jay Shah,20 Vishal Varshney,21 William Rosenberg,22 Sanjeet Narang23 1Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Advocate Aurora Health, Oshkosh, WI, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Northern Light Health Eastern Maine Medical Center, Bangor, ME, USA; 3The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 5Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 6Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA; 9Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 10Department of Anesthesiology, Chronic Pain Division, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA; 11Interventional Pain Medicine, Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, USA; 12Swedish Pain Services, Swedish Health Services, Seattle, WA, USA; 13Gramercy Pain Center, Holmdel, NJ, & Advanced Orthopedics Sports Medicine Institute, Freehold, NJ, USA; 14Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA; 15Department of Neurosciences, Division of Neurosurgery, The Moncton Hospital, Moncton, NB. Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada; 16Remedy Medical Group, San Francisco, CA, USA; 17Assistant Professor of Anesthesiology, Baylor St. Luke’s Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; 18Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA; 19AMITA Neurosciences Institute, Comprehensive Pain Management Program, St. Alexius Medical Center, Hoffman Estates, IL, USA; 20SamWell Institute for Pain Management, Colonia, NJ, USA; 21Department of Anesthesia, Providence Healthcare, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 22Center for the Relief of Pain, Midwest Neurosurgery Associates, Kansas City, Missouri, USA; 23Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USACorrespondence: Mansoor M AmanInterventional Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Advocate Aurora Health, Oshkosh, WI, 54904, USATel +1 920-456-7715Email aman.mansoorm@gmail.comAbstract: 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.Keywords: cancer pain, neurolysis, ketamine, pain pump, intrathecal drug delivery, neuromodulation, radiofrequency, spinal cord stimulation, vertebral augmentation

Jonathan M Hagedorn, Nicholas Canzanello, Markus A Bendel, Thomas P Pittelkow, Tim J Lamer Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USACorrespondence: Jonathan M HagedornDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USAFax +1 507-266-7732Email jonhagedornmd@yahoo.comObjective: Surgical site infection in patients who undergo spinal cord stimulator implant surgery represents a significant concern in terms of increased health care costs and patient morbidity. The use of antibacterial envelopes in spinal cord stimulator implant surgeries has not been previously described. The aim of this retrospective review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the antibacterial envelope in reducing surgical site infection in spinal cord stimulator implant surgeries when used adjunctively to standard infection prevention measures.Materials and Methods: The study included 52 patients, all of whom were implanted with a spinal cord stimulator between January 2015 and November 2020. To be included, patients were required to have had an antibacterial envelope utilized at the time of surgery. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed. All patients who received an antibacterial envelope at the time of implant surgery were included.Results: Data was collected and analyzed on 52 permanent SCS implantations, including primary implantation (n=26) and revision surgery (n=26). All patients were at least three months post-operative from the implant surgery (average follow-up time period was 518.4 days). There were no surgical site infections reported in the 52 patient cohort.Conclusion: Antibiotic impregnated envelopes appear to be a safe and effective modality to decrease surgical site infection risk in spinal cord stimulation implant surgeries.Keywords: spinal cord stimulation, surgical site infection, outcomes, infection prevention

Sayed D, Grider J, Strand N, et al. J Pain Res. 2022;15:3729-3832. The authors have advised that there is an error in Table 32 on page 3797. Row six Gilligan et al 2021, fourth column level of evidence, the text “I-C” should read “I-A”. The correct Table 32 is as follows. Table 32 Evidence Summary for Multifidus Activation via Medial Branch Nerve Stimulation The authors apologize for this error.

Jonathan M Hagedorn, Thomas P Pittelkow, Christine L Hunt, Ryan S D’Souza, Tim J Lamer Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USACorrespondence: Tim J LamerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USATel +1-507-284-2511Email Lamer.Tim@mayo.eduAbstract: Cancer and cancer treatment-related chronic pain affect a significant number of patients. The etiology of this pain is diverse and may include nociceptive and/or neuropathic characteristics. Treatment is often multifactorial and may require advanced interventional techniques, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS). This narrative review provides a thorough overview of cancer-related pain mechanisms and the use of SCS for cancer-related pain. Additionally, a review of the precautions that should be considered when caring for this patient population is provided with recommendations for safe care when utilizing these techniques.Keywords: spinal cord stimulation, cancer pain, neuromodulation, radiation, chemotherapy, surgery

Jonathan M Hagedorn,1 Timothy R Deer,2 Steven M Falowski,3 Abhishek Yadav,4 Ashley Comer,2 Zayd Al-Asadi,5 Alyson M Engle2 1Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 2The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA; 3Argires-Marotti Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; 5University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USACorrespondence: Timothy R Deer Email doctdeer@aol.comIntroduction: Percutaneous neurostimulator device placement, specifically dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation and spinal cord stimulation (SCS), involves the placement of thin wires within the spinal canal at specific locations, the DRG or dorsal column of the spinal cord, respectively, to provide an electrical current that modifies the pain signal as it enters the central nervous system from the periphery. Placement of neurostimulator devices is generally safe overall, but not without risk of major and minor complications. In this study, we assess the use of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) as a tool to improve the safety of placing neurostimulator devices and subsequently minimizing postoperative complications.Methods: After IRB approval, an observational study was performed in 115 procedures to evaluate safety during placement of both temporary and permanent DRG and SCS systems and to document retrospectively any long-standing adverse events.Results: The rate of intraoperative neuromonitoring abnormal activity was 1.7% (n = 2), which allowed prompt recognition of nerve irritation and lead repositioning. Of the 115 consecutive implant cases performed with IONM, the postoperative minor adverse event rate was 1.7% (n = 2), which were transient and corrected with reprogramming. There were no long-standing neurological complications.Conclusion: In the largest observational study to date, we show that IONM creates a safe environment for patients undergoing SCS and DRG neurostimulator placement with the potential to decrease neurological complication rates. The use of IONM may be an alternative method to improve patient safety and outcomes as compared to monitor anesthesia care.Keywords: dorsal root ganglion, spinal cord stimulation, intraoperative neuromonitoring, safety, complications