Mauck, W David

Abstract The primary aim of this randomized clinical trial is to investigate the effects of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) vs ultrasound-guided trigger point injections (TPIs) on numerical rating scale pain scores at month 3 follow-up in patients with a chronic abdominal wall pain. The primary outcome measure was the difference in mean numeric rating scale pain scores between the TAP and TPI groups at month 3 in an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. A total of 60 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive an ultrasound-guided TAP block (n = 30) or an ultrasound-guided TPI (n = 30). No significant group differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics were observed. The mean baseline pain score for the TAP and TPI groups was 5.5 and 4.7, respectively. In the ITT analysis at month 3, the between-group difference in pain scores was 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 0.3-3.0) favoring the TPI group. In a secondary per-protocol analysis, the between-group difference in pain scores was 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 0.4-3.2) favoring the TPI group. For the ITT and per-protocol analyses, the group differences in pain scores were consistent with a medium effect size. The main finding of this randomized clinical trial is that adults with chronic abdominal wall pain who received a TPI reported significantly lower pain scores at month 3 follow-up compared with patients who received a TAP block.

Objective Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an evidence-based therapy for the treatment of refractory pain. Current American College of Graduate Medical Education requirements for pain medicine fellowship graduation include observation of five neuromodulation cases. Matriculating fellows have varying degrees of technical skill, training, and experience. The purpose of this study was to use an innovative skill-based assessment tool using the validated Zwisch scale to evaluate fellow surgical performance during SCS cases. Design Cross-sectional survey Setting Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Subjects Consultant faculty (10) in the Division of Pain Medicine and pain medicine fellows (5). Methods A list of faculty-driven neuromodulation surgical objectives was formed and a rubric was created that focused on technical approach, imaging, epidural access and wound closure. Consultants who perform surgical cases were instructed to use the Zwisch scale as a guide to evaluate fellow surgical performance during a neuromodulation case. Faculty and fellows were surveyed before and after implementation of the tool to determine their satisfaction with use of the skill assessment tool. Results The consultants reported they were more satisfied, consistent, and efficient with feedback provided to the trainee on every aspect of neuromodulation surgical cases. The improvement was most significant during the fellows’ intraoperative skill assessment. The fellows indicated increased satisfaction, improved communication, and increased efficiency of feedback when the tool was utilized. The fellows reported greater intraoperative skill assessment and consistency of feedback provided. Conclusions The diverse nature of primary specialty backgrounds observed in pain medicine fellowship training offers a unique opportunity to assess and improve fellow skill and surgical competence in the field of neuromodulation. Both faculty and fellows reported improved satisfaction, consistency and efficiency with feedback provided. Importantly, this pilot project observed that implementation of a skill assessment tool was beneficial for both the faculty and fellow as the feedback received was viewed as strongly beneficial to the educational experience.

AbstractObjectiveThe goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical indications associated with implantation of single vs. dual percutaneous lead spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems and to look further into how these leads are utilized for treatment.Materials and MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing SCS implantation between January 2001 and December 2013 with a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow‐up was performed. Number of trial leads and implanted leads was recorded. For patients with dual‐lead systems, it was noted if and when the second lead was used, along with the clinical indication for lead activation.ResultsIn the 259‐patient cohort, 15.8% (n = 41) patients underwent placement of a single‐lead system, 83.0% (n = 215) underwent placement of a dual‐lead system, and 1.2% (n = 3) underwent placement of 3‐lead systems. Placement of dual‐lead systems was similar among all indication groups. Of those patients with a dual‐lead system in place, 88.1% utilized both leads and average time to programming of the second lead was 2.3 months. The most common reason to activate the second lead was inadequate stimulation coverage. Five of the 41 patients with single‐lead systems underwent an additional surgery to implant a second lead due to inadequate stimulation with 1 lead.ConclusionsTo our knowledge this is the first descriptive analysis of the frequency of single‐ and dual‐lead SCS systems. This report indicates that dual‐lead systems are most often placed and both leads are required for optimal patient therapy.