Citations

Abstract Introduction Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG‐S), has demonstrated superiority in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia. Lead migration and fracture impact DRG‐S therapeutic stability. Lead anchoring reduces DRG‐S lead migration without increasing lead fracture. Lead fracture may be related to lead entrapment in the superficial fascial plane. A novel medialized approach for lead placement and anchoring is presented to address these issues. Methods We suggest an alternative technique for implanting percutaneous DRG‐S leads at the T10‐L5 levels. Results A novel medialized ipsilateral technique for lead placement and anchoring for single, bilateral, and adjacent segment placement is presented. The Tuohy needle puncture site is medial to the pedicle and adjacent to the spinous process, two vertebral levels caudad to the target foramen. Trajectory is maintained in the sagittal plane, to access the caudad interlaminar space near the midline. This technique allows for ipsilateral or contralateral lead placement. After epidural access, the introducer sheath is rotated toward the targeted foramen and advanced. The guidewire followed by the lead is passed, and once lead position is confirmed, tension “S” loops are created, followed by anchoring to the deep fascia. Conclusion We describe a new paramedian technique for DRG‐S lead placement. We propose it will decrease DRG‐S complication rates through anchoring to reduce migration and by avoiding the fascial planes thought to be responsible for fracture. Long‐term outcomes applying our proposed techniques are required for determining the true impact, however, early anecdotal results suggest that these new techniques are favorable.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for DRG stimulation.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsDRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies.ConclusionsModerate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for PNS.MethodsAn international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsPeripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain.ConclusionPeripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

AbstractObjectiveTo conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain.DesignGrade the evidence for SCS.MethodsAn international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year’s duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria.ResultsSCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT).ConclusionsHigh-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become increasingly popular in pain medicine with hopes of becoming a safe, effective alternative to routine treatments. However, given its autologous nature, PRP injectate may differ depending on the specific manufacturer and protocol. Currently, there is no standardization of reporting protocol. This systematic review compiles and standardizes values on PRP preparation and final product composition of platelets, white cell count, and growth factors for ease of comparison. On review of 876 studies, 13 studies were selected according to our inclusion criteria. Data from 33 PRP systems and protocols were extracted and standardized. Overall, PRP final product concentrations as well as PRP preparation protocols varied widely between systems. However, platelet concentration was directly correlated with both volume of blood collected and device centrifugal force. In conclusion, there is a large heterogeneity between PRP separation systems that must be resolved for proper study of this promising treatment.

Abstract Background Lumbar spinal stenosis ( LSS ) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. Methods The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer‐reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment ( MIST ) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [ RCT s]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. Results The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image‐guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. Conclusions MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS , based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer‐reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence‐based decision algorithm.