Citations

Background/importance Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an established therapy for chronic pain conditions when conventional treatments fail. However, global research implementation varies significantly due to patient demographics, healthcare infrastructure, and economic factors, creating disparities in access that directly impact patient care and public health outcomes. Objective To evaluate the global landscape of SCS research by analyzing patient demographics, geographic distribution, funding sources, and pain conditions treated across chronic pain populations aged 18 years and older, with primary focus on associations between geographic regions and patient age demographics. Evidence review We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching five major databases through October 2024. Studies from 2000 onward reporting SCS in adults with chronic pain lasting 3 months or longer were included. We included randomized trials, comparative studies, and case series with at least 10 patients, excluding commentaries, reviews, and insurance databases. Findings Analysis of 187 studies revealed heterogeneity in age distributions across geographic regions, with Asian studies showing higher mean ages compared to North America, while European showed lower mean ages. Research concentration was predominantly in high-income regions, with 57% of studies receiving industry funding and significant associations between funding source and geographic origin. Post-surgical pain syndrome-thoracolumbar emerged as the most prevalent condition globally, representing 44.9% of cases. Conclusions Significant associations exist between geographic regions and patient demographics in SCS research, with notable disparities in research concentration highlighting the need for broader investigation in underrepresented areas to optimize global application of this chronic pain management therapy. PROSPERO registration number CRD42025635147.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Embolization is part of multidisciplinary brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) treatment, yet safety data for novel liquid embolization agents (LEAs) such as Squid and PHIL remain limited. This study reports complications and outcomes from curative embolization using Onyx, Squid, PHIL, and Glue. METHODS: Adult patients with brain AVMs treated with LEAs from July 2015 to December 2022 were reviewed for intraprocedural technical issues, postoperative hemorrhagic, and ischemic complications. Minor (modified Rankin Scale ≤2) and major complication rate (morbidity/modified Rankin Scale >2), mortality, and 6-month angiographic cure rate were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 135 patients (62.2% male, mean age 41.7 ± 15.1 years) with 206 embolizations (34% Onyx, 18.9% Squid, 17.5% PHIL, 28.2% Glue) were included. Overall, 87.4% procedures were in ruptured AVMs and 84% treated by the transarterial technique (84%). The 6-month angiographic cure rate was 53.3%, higher when nonadhesive LEAs were used than Glue (65.3% vs 17.6%, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, only eloquent location (odds ratio [OR] = 4.4; P = .007) and Glue (OR = 9.1; 95% CI 2.9-28.9, P < .001) were predictors of lower angiographic occlusion rate, whereas size had an inverse correlation (OR = 0.67; P = .019). Technical procedural complications, hemorrhagic, and ischemic rates were 10.2% (2.2% morbidity), 13.1% (3.7% morbidity and 2.2% mortality), and 9.2% (2.2% morbidity, 0% mortality), respectively, regardless of the preferred LEA. Minor, major complications, and mortality rates were 3.7%, 4.4%, and 2.2%, respectively. Hemorrhage was the major contributor to morbidity and mortality, whereas deep venous drainage was an independent predictor of hemorrhage and mortality. CONCLUSION: PHIL and Squid demonstrated complication and angiographic cure rates comparable with Onyx. However, curative embolization of brain AVMs resulted in only moderate angiographic occlusion. Larger multicenter studies with standardized operator protocols, cost-effectiveness assessments, and extended follow-up are warranted to validate these findings.

In the published publication [...]

Purpose: To assess the prevalence, associated conditions, diagnostic and treatment modalities, and provider education regarding the diagnosis and management of keratoconus (KCN) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) based on the currently available body of literature. Methods: Peer-reviewed publications from any year and any language were included. The databases included Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, and Ovid. A separate search of African Journals Online was conducted using the same Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms as the database search. Additional publications were identified in the references during full-text extraction. The abstracts of all publications were evaluated by two reviewers. The full text was then examined by one reviewer for inclusion. A data extraction tool was used by a single reviewer to document the findings. Results: Sixty-two publications were included in data extraction. Fourteen countries in SSA were represented. Prevalence was reported in eight SSA countries and ranged from 0% to 2.8%. The highest prevalence of 1.2% was found in a cross-sectional study in Banjul, Gambia. Diagnosis in urban areas is often made using slit lamps, although some sites had access to keratometry and/or topography, whereas rural areas use penlight exams alone. Penetrating keratoplasty was reported as an available treatment in 14 manuscripts, glasses and hard contact lenses in 10, and corneal cross-linking in two. Publications discussing provider education reported a knowledge gap. Conclusions: There is a need for increased data on KCN in SSA to better inform public health policy to improve KCN patients’ access to care and quality of life.

Background Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is an emerging neuromodulation therapy for chronic pain, yet its use in clinical practice varies significantly. Although temporary PNS is widely incorporated, either as a screening trial or a treatment itself, the evidence supporting the use of temporary PNS prior to permanent implantation is limited. We aimed to compare pain relief, opioid consumption, and adverse events between an approach implementing temporary PNS before permanent implantation (temporary-to-permanent (TTP)) vs proceeding directly to permanent PNS implantation (direct-to-permanent (DTP)). Methods A multicenter retrospective study was undertaken at seven major academic institutions from January 1, 2014, to January 1, 2024. Adult patients who underwent permanent PNS implantation for the treatment of chronic pain conditions were included and were divided into TTP or DTP cohorts based on their clinical approach. The dual primary outcomes were pain relief and opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) at 6 months compared with baseline before any PNS therapy. Multivariable Tobit regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of pain relief at 6 months using a stepwise approach. Results A total of 130 patients were analyzed (54 in TTP approach, 76 in DTP approach). Patient-reported percentage pain relief was 56.7%±27.9% at 6 months compared with baseline (before PNS implantation) in the TTP cohort, and 45.1%±33.6% in the DTP cohort. The estimated mean percentage pain relief at 6 months was similar in the TTP and DTP cohorts (between-group difference 15.24%; 95% CI −0.32 to 30.80, p=0.052), with consistent findings after sensitivity analysis with multiple imputation. Opioid consumption declined similarly in the TTP (−3.1±9.9 mg) and DTP (−2.1±8.1 mg) cohorts at 6 months with no statistical difference between cohorts (mean between-group difference: −1.00, 95% CI −4.57 to 2.57, p=0.580), and with consistent findings after sensitivity analysis. Device explantation rates and adverse event profiles were comparable between cohorts. Conclusion Although temporary PNS is widely performed prior to permanent PNS implantation, there was no evidence that the TTP approach is associated with superior analgesic outcomes compared with the DTP approach. Further, patients in both approaches achieved clinically meaningful pain relief at 6 months compared with baseline status prior to PNS therapy.

Pediatric delirium (PD) is an acute neuropsychiatric syndrome marked by fluctuating disturbances in attention and cognition, frequently observed in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and long-term cognitive impairment. Despite its clinical significance, PD remains underdiagnosed due to challenges inherent in assessing consciousness and cognition in children at varying developmental stages. Several bedside tools have been developed and validated in recent years, including the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD), PreSchool Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (psCAM-ICU); Pediatric Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (pCAM-ICU), and Sophia Observation Withdrawal Symptoms—Pediatric Delirium Scale (SOS-PD), enhancing early recognition and management of PD in critically ill children. This narrative review explores the historical background, epidemiology, risk factors, pathophysiology, clinical subtypes, diagnostic tools, and current prevention and treatment strategies for PD from newborns to 21 years old. The screening tools available and the integration of non-pharmacological interventions, such as environmental modifications and family-centered care, as well as cautious and selective pharmacological management, are emphasized in this review. Early identification and targeted interventions are essential to mitigate the adverse outcomes associated with PD.

Introduction The field of neuromodulation has experienced substantial growth, accompanied by an increase in clinical practice guidelines aimed at supporting evidence-based practice. However, adherence to reporting standards remains critical in the development of a comprehensive and transparent clinical practice guideline. This study evaluated the reporting quality of guidelines on neurostimulation for chronic pain by assessing compliance with the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) checklist and explored predictors of reporting quality. Methods A search strategy was conducted from database inception to April 17, 2024 to identify guideline articles on neurostimulation treatment (spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation) for chronic pain. Primary outcomes included the percentage of completed RIGHT and AGREE checklist items. Secondary outcomes included the identification of under-reported checklist items, predictors of reporting quality, and agreement between the two checklists. Results A total of 24 guideline articles were included, with a mean percentage of completed items being 55.12%±12.68% for the RIGHT checklist and 52.16%±10.51% for the AGREE checklist. Items that were most frequently under-reported (<25% completion) included themes of population-specific considerations, cost/resource implications, guideline limitations, recommendation development process, magnitude of benefit versus magnitude of harm, and statement of competing interests and how they were managed. Secondary analysis revealed no significant associations between RIGHT/AGREE reporting quality and journal impact factor, year of publication, number of authors, or guideline themes. There was good inter-checklist agreement between the RIGHT and AGREE checklists (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90), suggesting overlapping but distinct evaluation criteria. Conclusions Current guidelines of neurostimulation for chronic pain exhibit significant variability in reporting items, with notable deficiencies in the description of key methodological areas. While adherence to established checklists such as RIGHT and AGREE remains poor and inconsistent, these tools provide a critical framework for enhancing comprehensiveness, transparency, and methodological rigor in future guideline development.

Introduction Patients hospitalized for headache treatment pose unique challenges to the healthcare system. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance on management. This practice advisory aims to fill this critical gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature and providing comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for managing headache patients during hospitalization. Methods In February 2023, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine approved this practice advisory proposal. The steering committee selected committee members based on clinical and research expertise in the field of headache medicine. Nine questions were formulated by the committee, and each question was assigned to a group composed of 3–4 members. A systematic literature search for each question was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science on June 21, 2023. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Additionally, relevant systematic reviews (SR) were screened. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with statements and recommendations based on the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) format for grading of evidence. While the USPSTF framework was used, including the language in the recommendations, the formal USPSTF methodology, including the SR with meta-analysis and summary tables with forest plots, was not followed because of low overall evidence quality. The interim draft was shared electronically with each collaborator, who was requested to vote anonymously using two rounds of the modified Delphi approach. A consensus recommendation required >75% agreement. Results The panel generated 12 statements and 17 recommendations, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. Following two rounds of Delphi voting, a high consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations. Most statements received a low-to-moderate level of certainty, and all but one recommendation received grade B or C, which was consistent with the lack of randomized controlled trials supporting most of the drugs in this document. Conclusions This evidence-based practice advisory provides a foundational step toward standardizing inpatient headache care and highlights existing gaps in the literature that should be addressed through rigorous prospective randomized studies.