The Association of Psychiatric Comorbidities With Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement

Reoperation Rates and Risk Factors after Spinal Cord Stimulation Revision Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for patients with refractory chronic pain. Despite its efficacy, rates of reoperation after initial implantation of SCS remain high. While revision rates after index SCS surgeries are well reported, less is known about rates and risk factors associated with repeat reoperations. We sought to evaluate patient, clinical, and surgical characteristics associated with repeat reoperation among patients who underwent an initial SCS revision procedure.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent SCS revision surgery performed at a single institution between 2008 and 2022. Patients were stratified by whether they underwent a single revision (SR) or multiple revision (MR) surgeries. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors associated with repeat SCS revision. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare rates of devices requiring revision across groups.

RESULTS

A total of 54 patients underwent an initial SCS revision. Of these, 15 (28%) underwent a second revision. The most common indication for revision surgery was lead migration (65%). No significant differences were observed in age, body mass index, comorbidities, lead type, and revision indication among the SR and MR groups. On multivariate adjusted analysis, only cervical lead position was significantly associated with repeat reoperation (OR 7.10, 95% CI [1.14, 44.3], p = 0.036). Time to reoperation after a single and MR SCS surgeries did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who undergo SCS reoperation, a substantial portion requires additional revisions. Cervical lead placement may be associated with a higher risk of repeat revision surgery compared to thoracic lead positioning. Consideration of lead positioning in the decision to perform and undergo reoperation may therefore result in lower revision rates and improved clinical outcomes among SCS patients with MRs.

Determining the Impact of Preoperative Psychiatric Comorbidities on Readmission After Resection of Vestibular Schwannoma

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of comorbid depression on readmission after vestibular schwannoma resection.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database analysis.

SETTING

National database of readmitted patients.

PATIENTS

The Nationwide Readmission Database (NRD) was retrospectively reviewed for patients with history of vestibular schwannoma, identified by International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code 225.1 and ICD-10 code D33.3, who underwent surgical resection (ICD-9 04.01, ICD-10-PCS 00BN0ZZ) in 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Therapeutic.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Need for rehabilitation, need for procedures, length of stay, cost of readmission, and insurance status.

RESULTS

A total of 1997 patients were readmitted after resection of vestibular schwannoma in 2020. Of these patients, 290 had history of a comorbid depressive disorder.A significantly higher proportion of patients with history of comorbid depression were transferred to a rehabilitation facility after readmission (11.30% versus 4.30%, p < 0.001). Length of stay (p = 0.227) and total readmission cost (p = 0.723) did not differ significantly, but a significantly lower proportion had private insurance (55.40% versus 64.40%, p = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Depression is associated with higher utilization of postoperative rehabilitation services and higher rates of medical comorbidities, and should be considered during preoperative evaluation.

A Review of the Factors and Outcomes of Institutional Interdisciplinary Neuromodulation Committees: A Multicenter Experience

INTRODUCTION

Neuromodulation represents one of the more advanced tools in the armamentarium of pain physicians. To optimize neuromodulation patient selection and management, an institutional interdisciplinary neuromodulation committee was created at each of two academic medical centers (University of California Davis [UCD] and Stanford University). The committee aims to collaboratively optimize neuromodulation candidates, to assess and minimize medical and psychologic risks, and to select the best device given a patient's pain condition. In this study, we present the methods and outcome data of the Neuromodulation Committee at the two institutions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After institutional review board approval, we included all adult patients who were evaluated by the Neuromodulation Committee between 2017 and 2020 at two academic pain clinics. Patients with insufficient data were excluded from the study. A retrospective chart review was completed on 385 UCD and Stanford University patient committee reviews. Data collected from the chart review included demographics (age, sex), committee meeting results (proceed with trial/implant or decline), trial success, and implant rate.

RESULTS

Of the 385 patients screened, the committees recommended proceeding with an implantable device (peripheral and neuraxial) in 337 patients (87.5%). Of the 278 patients recommended for neuraxial neuromodulation, 131 underwent trials with percutaneous leads (47.1%). Trials were successful (causing a ≥50% reduction in self-reported pain or improved function) in 108 patients (82.4%). The institutions completed 87 implants of 131 trials, representing a trial-to-permanent ratio of 66.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

The Neuromodulation Committee aims to identify optimal patients for neuromodulation, address procedural challenges, decrease adverse events, provide educational context for trainees, and improve patient-related outcomes. Patients who were recommended for neuromodulation and subsequently underwent intervention had high trial success rates for dorsal root ganglion stimulation and spinal cord stimulation. The findings indicate that such an approach can lead to neuromodulation success, especially at academic centers, by combining the expertise of both medical and psychologic professionals.

Variables associated with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation

INTRODUCTION

The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy to treat chronic pain continues to rise. Optimal patient selection remains one of the most important factors for SCS success. However, despite increased utilization and the existence of general indications, predicting which patients will benefit from neuromodulation remains one of the main challenges for this therapy. Therefore, this study aims to identify the variables that may correlate with nonresponders to high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS to distinguish the subset of patients less likely to benefit from this intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center observational study of patients who underwent 10 kHz SCS implant. Patients were divided into nonresponders and responders groups. Demographic data and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and statistical analysis was performed for all continuous and categorical variables between the two groups to calculate statistically significant differences.

RESULTS

The study population comprised of 237 patients, of which 67.51% were responders and 32.49% were nonresponders. There was a statistically significant difference of high levels of kinesiophobia, high self-perceived disability, greater pain intensity, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders compared to the responders. A few variables deemed potentially relevant, such as age, gender, history of spinal surgery, diabetes, alcohol use, tobacco use, psychiatric illness, and opioid utilization at baseline were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Our study is the first in the neuromodulation literature to raise awareness to the association of high levels of kinesiophobia preoperatively in nonresponders to 10 kHz SCS therapy. We also found statistically significant differences with greater pain intensity, higher self-perceived disability, and clinically relevant pain catastrophizing at baseline in the nonresponders relative to responders. It may be appropriate to screen for these factors preoperatively to identify patients who are less likely to respond to SCS. If these modifiable risk factors are present, it might be prudent to consider a pre-rehabilitation program with pain neuroscience education to address these factors prior to SCS therapy, to enhance successful outcomes in neuromodulation.

Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulators-A Comprehensive Review Article

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Spinal cord stimulation has been increasing in influence as an option to regulate pain, especially in the chronic pain patient population. However, even with the numerous changes made to this technology since its inception, it is still prone to various complications such as hardware issues, neurological injury/epidural hematoma, infections, and other biological concerns. The purpose of this article is to thoroughly review and evaluate literature pertaining to the complications associated with percutaneous spinal cord stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Lead migration is generally the most common complication of percutaneous spinal cord stimulation; however, recent utilization of various anchoring techniques has been discussed and experienced clinical success in decreasing the prevalence of lead migration and lead fractures. With newer high-frequency systems gaining traction to improve pain management and decrease complications as compared to traditional systems, rechargeable implantable pulse generators have been the preferred power source. However, recent findings may suggest that these rechargeable implantable pulse generators do not significantly increase battery life as much as was proposed. Intraoperative neuromonitoring has seen success in mitigating neurological injury postoperatively and may see more usage in the future through more testing. Though the occurrence of infection and biological complications, including dural puncture and skin erosion, has been less frequent over time, they should still be treated in accordance with established protocols. While many complications can arise following percutaneous spinal cord stimulator implantation, the procedure is less invasive than open implantation and has seen largely positive patient feedback. Hardware complications, the more common issues that can occur, rarely indicate a serious risk and can generally be remedied through reoperation. However, less common cases such as neurological injury, infections, and biological complications require prompt diagnosis to improve the condition of the patient and prevent significant damage.