Hagedorn, Jonathan M

Background The efficacy of EVOKE therapy, a closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system, has been demonstrated in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT). RCT evidence, however, may not be generalizable to clinical practice, while limitations of real-world evidence may affect its validity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of EVOKE therapy in routine clinical practice employing a rigorous data collection approach. Methods The ECAP study was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, pragmatic study that enrolled SCS candidates with chronic, intractable trunk and/or limb pain in 22 US investigational sites. PROMIS-29 questionnaire and objective neurophysiological metrics were collected, and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were used to characterize baseline dysfunction and response to EVOKE therapy both at trial end and maximal analgesic effect post-implant visit. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were conducted based on diagnosis. Results EVOKE therapy observed included a dose ratio of 1.3 and neural dose accuracy of 2.8 μV. Improvements of >1 MCID were observed for all domains and improvements of ≥2 MCIDs were observed for six of the seven domains. Improvements observed at trial end were maintained or improved at post-implant visit, with statistically significant improvement in holistic MCID (MD 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4, p=0.004), and a significantly greater proportion of patients considered holistic MCID responders (p=0.047). Subgroup analysis by diagnosis showed similar outcomes. Conclusions EVOKE therapy was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in a real-world chronic pain population across different subgroups and disease pathologies, with effects observed at trial end reproduced at post-implant visit.

Abstract 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.

AbstractBackgroundChronic pelvic pain is a burdensome condition that involves multiple medical sub‐specialties and is often difficult to treat. Sacral stimulation for functional bladder disease has been well established, but little large‐scale evidence exists regarding utilization of other neuromodulation techniques to treat chronic pelvic pain. Emerging evidence does suggest that neuromodulation is a promising treatment, and we aim to characterize the use and efficacy of such techniques for treating chronic pelvic pain syndromes.Materials and MethodsA systematic review of the literature demonstrating the treatment of chronic pelvic pain syndromes with neuromodulation. Abstracts were reviewed and selected for inclusion, including case series, prospective studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Case studies and publications in abstract only were not included. The reporting for this systematic review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA). The literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus.ResultsA total of 50 studies were included in this review, three of which were randomized controlled trials, and the remaining were prospective and retrospective case series. The range of pelvic pain conditions treated included interstitial cystitis, peripheral neuralgia, pudendal neuralgia, gastrointestinal pain, urogenital pain, sacroiliac joint pain, and visceral chronic pelvic pain. We reported on outcomes involving pain, functionality, psychosocial improvement, and medication reduction.ConclusionsNeuromodulation is a growing treatment for various chronic pain syndromes. Peripheral nerve stimulation was the least studied form of stimulation. Posterior tibial nerve stimulation appears to offer short‐term benefit, but long‐term results are challenging. Sacral nerve stimulation is established for use in functional bladder syndromes and appears to offer pain improvement in these patients as well. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation and spinal cord stimulation have been used for a variety of conditions with promising results. Further studies of homogeneous patient populations are necessary before strong recommendations can be made at this time, although pooled analysis may also be impactful.

AbstractObjectiveThis prospective longitudinal study compares outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries receiving percutaneous image‐guided lumbar decompression (PILD) using the mild® procedure and a control group of patients receiving interspinous spacers for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with neurogenic claudication (NC).MethodsPatients diagnosed with LSS with NC and treated with either the mild procedure or a spacer were identified in the Medicare claims database. The incidence of harms, the rate of subsequent interventions, and the overall combined rate of harms and subsequent interventions during 2‐year follow‐up after the index procedure were compared between the two groups and assessed for statistical significance with p = 0.05.ResultsThe study included 2229 patients in the mild group and 3401 patients who were implanted with interspinous spacers. The rate of harms for those treated with the mild procedure was less than half that of patients implanted with a spacer (5.6% vs. 12.1%, respectively; p < 0.0001) during 2‐year follow‐up. The rate of subsequent interventions was not significantly different between the two groups (24.9% and 26.1% for the mild and spacer groups, respectively; p = 0.7679). The total rate of harms and subsequent interventions for mild was found to be noninferior to spacers (p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis comprehensive study of real‐world Medicare claims data demonstrated a significantly lower rate of harms for the mild procedure compared to interspinous spacers for patients diagnosed with LSS with NC, and a similar rate of subsequent interventions during 2‐year follow‐up.

Background/importance Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated. Objective We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials. Evidence review Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success. Findings Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively. Conclusions Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Introduction Applicants to chronic pain medicine fellowship programs often express confusion regarding the importance of various selection criteria. This study sought to elucidate program directors’ considerations in applicant selection for fellowship interviews and ranking and to correlate these criteria with match statistics to provide a guide for prospective candidates. Methods An electronic survey was sent to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited chronic pain fellowship directors. The importance of various applicant characteristics were evaluated and compared with recent match data. Results Fifty-seven program directors completed the survey. The most important factors involved in applicant interview selection were perceived commitment to the specialty, letters of recommendation from pain faculty, scholarly activities, and leadership experiences. Although completion of a pain rotation was valued highly, experience with procedures was of relatively low importance. There was no preference if rotations were completed within the responders’ department. Variability was noted when considering internal applicants or the applicant’s geographic location. When citing main factors in ranking applicants, interpersonal skills, interview impression and applicant’s fit within the institution were highly ranked by most responders. Discussion Assessment of an applicant’s commitment to chronic pain is challenging. Most responders prioritize the applicant’s commitment to chronic pain as a specialty, scholarly activity, participation in chronic pain rotations, pain-related conferences and letters of recommendation from pain faculty. Chronic pain medicine fellowship candidates should establish a progressive pattern of genuine interest and involvement within the specialty during residency training to optimize their fellowship match potential.

Abstract Aims The aim of our study was to review the surgical literature regarding the relationship between hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM), and risk of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI). Methods A librarian‐assisted literature search was performed with two goals: (1) identify surgical publications related to SSI and HbA1c values, and (2) identify publications reporting infection risk with DM in spinal cord stimulation (SCS), intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS), and cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation surgeries. Published guidelines on perioperative management of DM are reviewed. Results We identified 30 studies reporting SSI and HbA1c values. The literature review indicated that for many surgical procedures, elevated HbA1c is not correlated to rate of SSI. We identified 16 studies reporting infection rates within DM cohorts following SCS, IDDS, and CIED implantation surgeries. The data reviewed did not indicate DM as an independent risk factor for SSI. Conclusion Preoperative HbA1c levels in patients with a history of DM is not a singularly sufficient tool to estimate risk of perioperative infection in SCS implantation surgery. Published guidelines on perioperative management of DM do not suggest a specific HbA1c above which surgery should be delayed; intentional perioperative glycemic control is recommended.

Abstract Introduction Lumbar spinal stenosis affects more than 200,000 adults in the United States, resulting in approximately 38,000 operations among the Medicare population and greater than $1.5 billion in hospital bills alone. Fortunately, Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (MILD) and the Superion Indirect Decompression System have shown lasting benefit and cost savings compared to more aggressive surgical options. Objective Our primary objective was to retrospectively determine the rate of lumbar decompression surgery following the MILD and Superion procedures. Materials and Methods This was a pooled retrospective review of LSS patients who received MILD and/or Superion procedures between January 2011 and July 2019. Adult patients with CPT codes for MILD and Superion procedures were identified. Patients were included if they had a follow‐up visit at least 2 years from the procedure date, preprocedural MRI results, and surgical notes. Results A total of 199 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 57 patients (28.6%) underwent MILD procedure only, 124 patients (62.3%) underwent Superion only, and 18 patients (9.0%) underwent an MILD procedure initially followed by a Superion procedure. Two patients had an MILD procedure performed twice at the same level at separate encounters. A total of four patients in the entire cohort (2.0%; MILD 5.3%, Superion 0.8%) underwent subsequent lumbar spine surgery when followed for at least 2 years. It is notable that some of these patients may not have been surgical candidates and this may have skewed the results. Conclusions Patients undergoing minimally invasive decompression treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis have low rates of subsequent open surgery which potentially results in cost savings and a reduction in severe adverse events. The reason for low surgical rate may reflect improvement in their symptoms, a preference to avoid surgery, or being deemed not a surgical candidate.