Hunt, Christine L.

OBJECTIVE Conventional spinal cord stimulators (SCSs) have demonstrated efficacy in individuals with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). However, a subgroup of patients may become refractory to the effects of conventional waveforms over time. The objective of this study was to systematically review and evaluate the current literature on the use of novel waveform spinal cord stimulation for the management of FBSS refractory to conventional SCSs. METHODS A comprehensive electronic search of the literature published in electronic databases, including Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The outcomes of interest were reduction in back pain and/or leg pain after conversion from conventional to novel SCSs. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS A total of 6 studies with 137 patients with FBSS were identified. Studies were published between 2013 and 2021. The mean ± SD age of the pooled patient sample was 55 ± 10.5 years. All patients who underwent treatment with conventional SCSs were identified. Two studies evaluated the efficacy of high-density spinal cord stimulation, 3 studies evaluated burst spinal cord stimulation, and 1 study assessed multimodal waveforms. The mean difference in back pain scores after conversion from a standard SCS to a novel waveform SCS was 2.55 (95% CI 1.59–4.08), demonstrating a significant reduction in back pain after conversion to novel stimulation. The authors also performed a subgroup analysis to compare burst stimulation to tonic waveforms. In this analysis, the authors found no significant difference in the average reductions in back pain between the 2 groups (p = 0.534).The authors found an I2 statistic equivalent to 98.47% in the meta-regression model used to assess the effect of follow-up duration on study outcome; this value implied that the variability in the data can be attributed to the remaining between-study heterogeneity. The overall certainty was moderate, with a high risk of bias across studies. CONCLUSIONS Rescue therapy with novel waveform spinal cord stimulation is a potential option for pain reduction in patients who become refractory to conventional SCSs. Conversion to novel waveform SCSs may potentially mitigate expenses and complications.

Abstract There is great interest in expanding the use of ultrasound (US), but new challenges exist with its application to lumbar facet–targeted procedures. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the risk of incorrect needle placement associated with US–guided lumbar medial branch blocks (MBB) and facet joint injections (FJI) as confirmed by fluoroscopy or computerized tomography (CT). An a priori protocol was registered, and a database search was conducted. Inclusion criteria included all study types. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood tool for assessing risk bias for observational cohort studies. Pooled analysis of the risk difference (RD) of incorrect needle placement was calculated. Pooled analysis of 7 studies demonstrated an 11% RD (P < 0.0009) of incorrect needle placement for US-guided MBB confirmed using fluoroscopy with and without contrast. Pooled analysis of 3 studies demonstrated a 13% RD (P < 0.0001) of incorrect needle placement for US-guided FJI confirmed using CT. The time to complete a single-level MBB ranged from 2.6 to 5.0 minutes. The certainty of evidence was low to very low. Ultrasound-guided lumbar MBB and FJI are associated with a significant risk of incorrect needle placement when confirmed by fluoroscopy or CT. The technical limitations of US and individual patient factors could contribute to the risk of incorrect needle placement.

AbstractTotal knee arthroplasty is a common and successful treatment modality for knee arthritis that is refractory to conservative management strategies. Over 600,000 arthroplasties are performed per year in the United States, and this number is expected to increase in the coming years. Unfortunately, 8% to 34% of patients experience chronic pain after having a total knee arthroplasty. These patients should undergo an appropriate work‐up by the orthopedic surgeon, but many times a surgical problem is not uncovered. In these situations, a thorough and specific plan for pain management should be sought. In this article, we outline the work‐up of a painful total knee arthroplasty. Then we provide a thorough review of interventional pain management strategies and highlight the pertinent literature. Lastly, we hypothesize future developments in the field that may provide better outcomes for patients suffering from painful total knee arthroplasty.

Abstract Background/Objective Chronic pain is commonly reported in individuals with spinal cord injuries (SCIs), with recent prevalence reported as high as 80%. Uncontrolled pain is known to decrease quality of life, attenuate mood, and impact sleep. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of refractory pain was first used in the SCI population in 1972. To date there have been no randomized controlled trials examining the effect of SCS on neuropathic pain post‐SCI. A literature review in 2009 identified 27 studies, the majority prior to 2000, that included at least 1 patient with SCI. Given the significant advancements in the field of SCS, this review examines the updated evidence of SCS for the treatment of neuropathic pain in individuals with SCI and provides guidance on future investigations. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched. All published reports, case series, and clinical trials reviewing SCS for neuropathic pain that included at least 1 individual with SCI were included. Results The initial search identified 376 reports, of which 22 met inclusion criteria, for a total of 69 patients. All reports were of very low quality. A majority of the reported patients were male, underwent tonic stimulation, and reportedly experienced improvement in pain and spasticity, with decreased use of pain medication. Conclusions The synthesized findings from primarily case studies support the safety of SCS in SCI with the suggestion of potential pain relief benefit; however, data from low‐quality studies are insufficient for informing clinical practice. A well‐designed, prospective clinical trial is proposed to further investigate this indication.