Search

BackgroundSeveral pain management guidelines recommend regular urine drug testing (UDT) in patients who are being treated with chronic opioid analgesic therapy (COAT) to monitor compliance and improve safety. Guidelines also recommend more frequent testing in patients who are at high risk of adverse events related to COAT; however, there is no consensus on how to identify high-risk patients or on the testing frequency that should be used. Using previously described clinical risk factors for UDT results that are inconsistent with the prescribed COAT, we developed a web-based tool to adjust drug testing frequency in patients treated with COAT. ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to evaluate a risk stratification tool, the UDT Randomizer, to adjust UDT frequency in patients treated with COAT. MethodsPatients were stratified using an algorithm based on readily available clinical risk factors into categories of presumed low, moderate, high, and high+ risk of presenting with UDT results inconsistent with the prescribed COAT. The algorithm was integrated in a website to facilitate adoption across practice sites. To test the performance of this algorithm, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients treated with COAT between June 2016 and June 2017. The primary outcome was compliance with the prescribed COAT as defined by UDT results consistent with the prescribed COAT. Results979 drug tests (867 UDT, 88.6%; 112 oral fluid testing, 11.4%) were performed in 320 patients. An inconsistent drug test result was registered in 76/979 tests (7.8%). The incidences of inconsistent test results across the risk tool categories were 7/160 (4.4%) in the low risk category, 32/349 (9.2%) in the moderate risk category, 28/338 (8.3%) in the high risk category, and 9/132 (6.8%) in the high+ risk category. Generalized estimating equation analysis demonstrated that the moderate risk (odds ratio (OR) 2.1, 95% CI 0.9-5.0; P=.10), high risk (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.8-5.0; P=.14), and high risk+ (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.7-5.6; P=.20) categories were associated with a nonsignificantly increased risk of inconsistency vs the low risk category. ConclusionsThe developed tool stratified patients during individual visits into risk categories of presenting with drug testing results inconsistent with the prescribed COAT; the higher risk categories showed nonsignificantly higher risk compared to the low risk category. Further development of the tool with additional risk factors in a larger cohort may further clarify and enhance its performance.

Background: Optimization of perioperative pain interventions in lumbar spine surgery could reduce the incidence of acute and persistent postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Standardization in early outcome measurement provides a solid foundation for future clinical and research practices and should be integrated in core outcome sets for long-term treatment outcome evaluations. This scoping review provides an overview of outcomes used when evaluating early perioperative pain interventions after lumbar spine surgery.Objectives: To create an overview of outcome domains and measurement instruments previously used in research on perioperative pain management for degenerative lumbar spine surgery.Evidence Review: A scoping review was performed to identify articles comprising outcome evaluations in adult patients who undergo degenerative lumbar spine surgery, mentioning perioperative pain interventions. 75 articles were included for review. Data on study characteristics, outcome domains and measurement instruments were extracted and structured using the three-tiered hierarchy of Porter.Findings: 12 outcome domains were identified: pain intensity (93.3%), adverse events (76%), analgesic consumption (70.7%), length of stay (52%), patient satisfaction (24%), daily functioning (22.7%), (early) mobilization (22.7%), quality of life (12%), mortality (9.3%), quality of recovery (6.7%), physical function (4%), and quality of sleep (2.7%). 63 corresponding measurement instruments were found.Conclusions: This review portrays an extensive overview of outcome measurements used in perioperative pain management in lumbar spine surgery. A lack of consensus on the set of indicators exists. This scoping review is a call for action to create consensus on how to evaluate perioperative pain interventions in degenerative lumbar spine surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG‐S) has recently emerged as a novel therapy in neuromodulation that demonstrated a higher rate of success than spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a prospective, head‐to‐head randomized comparative trial to treat complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and causalgia. In contrast to SCS, DRG‐S also shows promise in treating conditions that are not purely neuropathic such as axial low back pain, which has a prominent nociplastic pain component. It is not known to what extent the effectiveness of DRG‐S for such indications is due to effective treatment of the neuropathic pain component versus the effects of DRG‐S on mechanical pain. Although rarely studied, reporting outcomes of DRG‐S to treat predominantly mechanical/nociceptive pain may help point toward expanding the utility of this therapy. Here, we present five cases of refractory mechanical pain treated with DRG‐S. Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent a successful DRG‐S trial and implant between September 2017 and September 2021 at our institute was performed. Patients who had intractable joint pain without strong evidence of neuropathic pain were included in this case series. The Budapest criteria for CRPS, the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questions (DN4) survey, or a definable nerve injury were used to determine the presence of neuropathic pain. Baseline assessments for pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]), function (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), quality of life (EuroQol‐5 Dimension [EQ‐5D]), and other applicable joint surveys were extracted from pre‐trial baseline and follow‐up appointments. Results: Five patients were identified and included. Patient diagnoses consisted of refractory joint pain of the hip, knee, or ankle. Mean NRS pain scores improved by 74% from 9.2 at baseline to 2.4 at the last follow‐up (mean = 28 months post‐implant). From baseline to the last follow‐up, mean ODI scores improved by 65% from 66 to 23 and EQ‐5D scores more than doubled from an average of 0.371 to 0.797. Conclusion: This clinical report illustrates the potential utility DRG‐S has in treating pain that clinically presents as predominantly refractory mechanical joint pain without a significant neuropathic component. The physiological reasons for our observations may be that DRG‐S is able to directly influence the conduction of nociceptive signaling at the DRG and within the spinal cord. Further investigations are warranted to determine if DRG‐S is a potential treatment option for chronic mechanical pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective A heightened and organized understanding of sacral anatomy could potentially lead to a more effective and safe method of dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) lead placement. The aim of this technical note is to describe a standardized access method for S1 DRG-S lead placement. Design Technical note. Methods The described approach utilizes alignment of the lumbosacral prominence and is measurement-based, allowing for standardized sacral access, even when visualization is suboptimal. The medial-to-lateral needle trajectory is designed to limit interaction with the sensitive neural structures and allows for a more parallel orientation of the lead to the DRG and nerve root. Conclusions The described technique potentially improves the safety of S1 DRG-S lead placement. The parallel lead orientation to the DRG may also increase efficacy while lowering energy requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]