Pingree, Matthew J.

AbstractBackgroundChronic headaches are the second most prevalent disease and second most common cause for years lived with disability worldwide. Occipital neuralgia can cause headaches or be present in addition to other more prevalent causes of headache. If these headaches fail to respond to conservative and pharmacological therapy, physicians proceed to more invasive treatments, starting with infiltration of the greater occipital nerve with local anesthetic with or without corticosteroids, followed by nerve ablation or stimulation. Occipital nerve stimulation gained more popularity as the technology improved and more pain physicians received training on interventional procedures.MethodsIn this manuscript, we are presenting our experience with ultrasound-guided implant of occipital nerve stimulators using peripheral nerve stimulator systems. After confirming appropriateness of treatment by a successful occipital nerve block (i.e., resulting in >50% relief in patients’ pain intensity), we implanted five stimulator systems in three patients (two bilateral).ResultsWe followed these patients for an average of eight months, and the average pain reduction was ∼50%. We did not observe any adverse events during or immediately after surgery. One patient developed an adverse reaction to the adhesive of the battery transmitter, but it was not severe enough to stop her from using the stimulator.ConclusionsConsidering the ease of implant and minimal side effects, implant of peripheral nerve stimulators to stimulate the occipital nerve is a promising treatment modality for patients with chronic headache who present with features of occipital neuralgia. However, wider use of this treatment modality is subject to further studies.

Abstract IntroductionRadiofrequency ablation (RFA) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are 2 common modalities used in management of various pain conditions. RFA generates heat and an electromagnetic field that can theoretically interfere with the functionality and longevity of the SCS device. This is problematic for patients who need RFA and have previously undergone implantation of an SCS device.Case DescriptionWe present a case highlighting the safe use of bipolar RFA in a patient who had previously undergone implantation of a cervical SCS device.DiscussionWe also present device‐specific industry guidelines and recommendations for performing RFA in patients following SCS device implantation.

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.

Acute postoperative pain in patients with opioid tolerance creates a significant management challenge for anesthesiologists and pain medicine physicians. A multimodal approach is key; however other factors can complicate management such as opioid induced hyperalgesia. We present the case of a patient on large amounts of intrathecal opioids for chronic pain syndrome with opioid induced hyperalgesia after an exploratory laparotomy. Dexmedetomidine was utilized successfully as part of a controlled multimodal analgesic plan and should be a consideration for opioid tolerant patients experiencing opioid induced hyperalgesia.

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.

Abstract Background. Transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI) have demonstrated efficacy and effectiveness in treatment of radicular pain. Despite little evidence of efficacy/effectiveness, interlaminar epidural steroid injections (ILESI) are advocated by some as primary therapy for radicular pain due to purported greater safety. Objective. To assess immediate and delayed adverse event rates of TFESI and ILESI injections at three academic medical centers utilizing International Spine Intervention Society practice guidelines. Methods. Quality assurance databases from a Radiology and two physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) practices were interrogated. Medical records were reviewed, verifying immediate and delayed adverse events. Results. There were no immediate major adverse events of neurologic injury or hemorrhage in 16,638 consecutive procedures in all spine segments (14,956 TFESI; 1,682 ILESI). Vasovagal reactions occurred in 1.2% of procedures, more frequently ( P = 0.004) in TFESI (1.3%) than ILESI (0.5%). Dural punctures occurred in 0.06% of procedures, more commonly after ILESI (0.2% vs 0.04%, P = 0.006). Delayed follow up on PM&R patients (92.5% and 78.5, next business day) and radiology patients (63.1%, 2 weeks) identified no major adverse events of neurologic injury, hemorrhage, or infection. There were no significant differences in delayed minor adverse event rates. Central steroid response (sleeplessness, flushing, nonpositional headache) was seen in 2.6% of both TFESI and ILESI patients. 2.1% of TFESI and 1.8% of ILESI patients reported increased pain. No long-term sequelae were seen from any immediate or delayed minor adverse event. Conclusions. Both transforaminal and ILESI are safely performed with low immediate and delayed adverse event rates when informed by evidence-based procedural guidelines. By demonstrating comparable safety, this study suggests that the choice between ILESI and TFESIs can be based on documented efficacy and effectiveness and not driven by safety concerns.