D'Souza, Ryan S

AbstractBackgroundLumbar medial branch nerve radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) is an interventional procedure used to treat chronic lumbar facet joint pain. Because the medial branch nerves also innervate the multifidus muscle, it has been proposed that LRFA may pose a risk of multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction. However, the quality and level of evidence to answer this clinical question have not been established. Therefore, this review aimed to systematically appraise the literature to discern whether the prevailing evidence substantiates the hypothesis in question.MethodsA systematic review compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines was performed to evaluate the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting functional and/or structural changes in the multifidus muscle following LRFA.ResultsOnly five cohort studies met inclusion criteria. Two studies assessed changes in multifidus function following LRFA with confirmed denervation at electromyography and significant reduction in multifidus shear modulus with ultrasound shear wave elastography. Of the four studies that evaluated changes in multifidus structure with magnetic resonance imaging following LRFA, two demonstrated a decrease in cross‐sectional area or an increase in fat infiltration, one demonstrated no change, and one revealed an apparent increase. Given the destructive nature attributed to LRFA, some degree of multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction may be plausible, albeit with a very low certainty that relies on a restricted body of literature of modest quality and with a presence of high bias.ConclusionThere is a paucity of studies discussing the potential association between LRFA and multifidus atrophy and/or dysfunction. In light of the shortage of high‐quality studies and the absence of standardized protocols to assess both changes in the structure and function of the multifidus subsequent to LRFA, there is a pressing need for more prospective studies with a high methodological rigor to comprehensively address and answer this enduring debate in clinical practice.

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.

Summary Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are one of the mainstays of multimodal pain management. While effective for acute pain control, recent pre‐clinical evidence has raised concerns regarding an association between NSAIDs and chronic pain and potential opioid use. Our objective was to explore the association between peri‐operative use of prescription NSAIDs and the need for continued opioid prescriptions lasting 90–180 days in previously opioid‐naïve patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. A database of health claims in the USA was used to identify all opioid‐naïve adult patients who underwent primary knee arthroplasty between January 2010 and October 2021. We evaluated the magnitude of association between peri‐operative prescription NSAID claims and claims for opioids at 90 days postoperatively using multivariable logistic regression models. Secondary outcomes included: the magnitude of association between peri‐operative NSAID prescription and claims for opioids at 180 days postoperatively; and identifying other potential factors associated with opioid claims at 90 days postoperatively. After risk adjustment using multivariable logistic regression models in the 789,736‐patient cohort, the adjusted odds ratio (95%CI) for a continuous claim of opioids at 90 and 180 days postoperatively among patients with a peri‐operative NSAID prescription within 30 days was 1.32 (1.30–1.35), p < 0.001; and 1.12 (1.10–1.15), p < 0.001, respectively. This estimate of effect remained robust at 90 days after accounting for known potential confounders, including pre‐existing knee pain and acute postoperative pain severity. Similar analysis of other pain medications (e.g. paracetamol) did not detect such an association. This population‐based cohort study suggests that peri‐operative prescription NSAID use may be associated with continued opioid prescription claims at 90 and 180 days after knee arthroplasty, even after adjusting for other observed covariates for continuous opioid claims. These novel findings can inform clinical decision‐making for post‐surgical pain management, risk–benefit discussions with patients and future research.

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.