D’Souza, Ryan S.

Background A growing number of meta-analyses (MA) have investigated the use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) as a treatment modality for chronic pain. The quality of these MAs has not been assessed by validated appraisal tools. Objective To examine the methodological characteristics and quality of MAs related to the use of SCS for chronic pain syndromes. Evidence review An online literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000 through June 30, 2023) to identify MAs that investigated changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, and/or physical function after SCS for the treatment of chronic pain. MA quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) critical appraisal tool. Findings Twenty-five MAs were appraised in the final analysis. Three were considered “high” quality, three “low” quality, and 19 “critically low” quality, per the AMSTAR-2 criteria. There was no association between the publication year and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.043; 95% CI −0.008 to 0.095; p=0.097). There was an association between the impact factor and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β 0.108; 95% CI 0.044 to 0.172; p=0.002), such that studies published in journals with higher impact factors were associated with higher overall quality. There was no association between the effect size and AMSTAR-2 overall quality (β −0.168; 95% CI −0.518 to 0.183; p=0.320). According to our power analysis, three studies were adequately powered (>80%) to reject the null hypothesis, while the remaining studies were underpowered (<80%). Conclusions The study demonstrates a critically low AMSTAR-2 quality for most MAs published on the use of SCS for treating chronic pain. Future MAs should improve study quality by implementing the AMSTAR-2 checklist items. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023431155.

Abstract Background Context Surgical decompression is the definitive treatment for managing symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis; however, select patients are poor surgical candidates. Consequently, minimally invasive procedures have gained popularity, but there exists the potential for failure of therapy necessitating eventual surgical decompression. Purpose To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of patients who require surgical decompression following minimally invasive procedures to treat lumbar spinal stenosis. Study Design/Setting Retrospective review. Patient Sample Patients who underwent minimally invasive procedures for lumbar spinal stenosis (Percutaneous Image‐guided Lumbar Decompression [PILD] or interspinous spacer device [ISD]) and progressed to subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was the rate of surgical decompression within 5 years following the minimally invasive approach. Secondary outcomes included demographic and comorbid factors associated with increased odds of requiring subsequent surgery. Methods Patient data were collected using the PearlDiver‐Mariner database. The rate of subsequent decompression was described as a percentage while univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used for the analysis of predictors. Results A total of 5278 patients were included, of which 3222 (61.04%) underwent PILD, 1959 (37.12%) underwent ISD placement, and 97 (1.84%) had claims for both procedures. Overall, the incidence of subsequent surgical decompression within 5 years was 6.56% (346 of 5278 patients). Variables associated with a significantly greater odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] of requiring subsequent surgical decompression included male gender and a prior history of surgical decompression by 1.42 ([1.14, 1.77], p = 0.002) and 2.10 times ([1.39, 3.17], p < 0.001), respectively. In contrast, age 65 years and above, a diagnosis of obesity, and a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of three or greater were associated with a significantly reduced OR [95% CI] by 0.64 ([0.50, 0.81], p < 0.001), 0.62 ([0.48, 0.81], p < 0.001), and 0.71 times ([0.56, 0.91], p = 0.007), respectively. Conclusions Minimally invasive procedures may provide an additional option to treat symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis in patients who are poor surgical candidates or who do not desire open decompression; however, there still exists a subset of patients who will require subsequent surgical decompression. Factors such as gender and prior surgical decompression increase the likelihood of subsequent surgery, while older age, obesity, and a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score reduce it. These findings aid in selecting suitable surgical candidates for better outcomes in the elderly population with lumbar spinal stenosis.

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework—participants (P), interventions (I),comparators (C), outcomes (O)—and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia.

In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia .

Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of health care interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework—participants (P), interventions (I), comparators (C), outcomes (O)—and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.

Abstract Background Chronic intractable pain from peripheral neuropathy is a debilitating condition that might not respond to conventional medical management and pharmacotherapy. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess change (or reduction) in pain intensity in patients with length-dependent peripheral neuropathy after spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy. Methods This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcome was change (or reduction) in pain intensity after 12 months of SCS therapy compared with baseline in participants with length-dependent peripheral neuropathy. Secondary outcomes included change in pain intensity after 6 months and change in opioid consumption after 12 months. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines were used to appraise the quality of evidence. Results Nineteen studies consisting of 376 participants who underwent SCS implantation met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative synthesis revealed that all eligible studies reported a significant improvement in pain intensity after 12 months of SCS therapy as compared with baseline. Mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for 4 studies, all of which achieved the minimal clinically important difference for change in pain intensity at 12 months. The GRADE quality of evidence for this outcome was appraised as very low quality. Conclusion This systematic review highlights that SCS could lead to significant improvement in pain intensity for length-dependent peripheral neuropathy, although future well-powered randomized controlled trials are warranted to increase the certainty of evidence in this finding. Study registration PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) ID: CRD42022377572.

Background The analgesic effectiveness of contemporary motor-sparing nerve blocks used in combination for analgesia in total knee arthroplasty is unclear. This network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of adding single-injection or continuous adductor canal block (ACB) with or without infiltration of the interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee (iPACK) to intraoperative local infiltration analgesia (LIA), compared to LIA alone, after total knee arthroplasty. Methods Randomized trials examining the addition of single-injection or continuous ACB with or without single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA for total knee arthroplasty were considered. The two primary outcomes were area-under-the-curve pain scores over 24 to 48 h and postoperative function at greater than 24 h. Secondary outcomes included rest pain scores at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h; opioid consumption (from 0 to 24 h and from 25 to 48 h); and incidence of nausea/vomiting. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach. Results A total of 27 studies (2,317 patients) investigating the addition of (1) single-injection ACB, (2) continuous ACB, (3) single-injection ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK, and (4) continuous ACB and single-injection block at the iPACK to LIA, as compared to LIA alone, were included. For area-under-the-curve 24- to 48-h pain, the addition of continuous ACB with single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P -score probability (89%) of being most effective for pain control. The addition of continuous ACB without single-injection block at the iPACK displayed the highest P -score probability (87%) of being most effective for postoperative function. Conclusions The results suggest that continuous ACB, but not single-injection ACB and/or single-injection block at the iPACK, provides statistically superior analgesia when added to LIA for total knee arthroplasty compared to LIA alone. However, the magnitude of these additional analgesic benefits is clinically questionable. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New