Mild Procedure: Single-site Prospective IRB Study

Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review

Background

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common pain condition that causes lumbar back pain, radiating leg pain, and possible functional impairment. MILD is an emerging minimally invasive treatment for LSS. It is an image-guided percutaneous procedure designed to debulk hypertrophied ligamentum flavum. However, the exact short- and long-term efficacy, safety profile, indication criteria, and certain procedure details reported in medical literature vary.

Objective

This narrative review was to elucidate efficacy, safety profile, certain procedure details, advantages, and limitations of MILD.

Study Design

This is a narrative review.

Setting

All included articles are clinic trials including analytic studies and descriptive studies.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched. Only clinical trials of MILD procedure were included. Information of indications, contraindications, VAS scores, ODI scores, effective rate, efficacy durations, and certain procedure details was focused on.

Results

According to the literature, for the MILD procedure, the VAS score could be reduced from a pre-treatment level of 6.3-9.6 to a post-treatment level of 2.3-5.8. The ODI score could be reduced from a pre-treatment level of 38.8-55.3 to a post-treatment level of 27.4-39.8. The effective rate of the MILD procedure was reported to be 57.1%-88%. A 2-year postoperative stability of efficacy was also supported. One RCT study testified superior efficacy of MILD over epidural steroid injection.

Limitations

There is few high-quality literature in the review. Moreover, the long-term efficacy of MILD cannot be revealed according to the current literature.

Conclusion

Based on the reviewed literature, MILD is an effective and safe procedure. MILD can reduce pain intensity and improve functional status significantly. Therefore, it is a preferable option for LSS patients who failed conservative treatments, but not for those who require immediate invasive decompression surgery.

Validity of outcome measures used in randomized clinical trials and observational studies in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis

It is unclear whether outcome measures used in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) have been validated for this condition. Cross-sectional analysis of studies for DLSS included in systematic reviews (SA) and meta-analyses (MA) indexed in the Cochrane Library. We extracted all outcome measures for pain and disability. We assessed whether the studies provided external references for the validity of the outcome measures and the quality of the validation studies. Out of 20 SA/MA, 95 primary studies used 242 outcome measures for pain and/or disability. Most commonly used were the VAS (n = 69), the Oswestry Disability Index (n = 53) and the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (n = 22). Although validation references were provided in 45 (47.3%) primary studies, only 14 validation studies for 9 measures (disability n = 7, pain and disability combined n = 2) were specifically validated in a DLSS population. The quality of the validation studies was mainly poor. The Zurich Claudication Questionnaire was the only disease specific tool with adequate validation for assessing treatment response in DLSS. To compare results from clinical studies, outcome measures need to be validated in a disease specific population. The quality of validation studies need to be improved and the validity in studies adequately cited.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain

Introduction

Painful lumbar spinal disorders represent a leading cause of disability in the US and worldwide. Interventional treatments for lumbar disorders are an effective treatment for the pain and disability from low back pain. Although many established and emerging interventional procedures are currently available, there exists a need for a defined guideline for their appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety.

Objective

The ASPN Back Guideline was developed to provide clinicians the most comprehensive review of interventional treatments for lower back disorders. Clinicians should utilize the ASPN Back Guideline to evaluate the quality of the literature, safety, and efficacy of interventional treatments for lower back disorders.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified an educational need for a comprehensive clinical guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations. Experts from the fields of Anesthesiology, Physiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery, Radiology, and Pain Psychology developed the ASPN Back Guideline. The world literature in English was searched using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, Current Contents Connect, Scopus, and meeting abstracts to identify and compile the evidence (per section) for back-related pain. Search words were selected based upon the section represented. Identified peer-reviewed literature was critiqued using United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria and consensus points are presented.

Results

After a comprehensive review and analysis of the available evidence, the ASPN Back Guideline group was able to rate the literature and provide therapy grades to each of the most commonly available interventional treatments for low back pain.

Conclusion

The ASPN Back Guideline represents the first comprehensive analysis and grading of the existing and emerging interventional treatments available for low back pain. This will be a living document which will be periodically updated to the current standard of care based on the available evidence within peer-reviewed literature.

Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN)

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Minimally invasive direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: impact of multiple prior epidural steroid injections

Background: A modified algorithm for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum using minimally-invasive lumbar decompression (mild^®)was assessed, with a focus on earlier intervention. Patients & methods: Records of 145 patients treated with mild after receiving 0-1 epidural steroid injections (ESIs) or 2+ ESIs were retrospectively reviewed. Pain assessments as measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at baseline and 1-week and 3-month follow-ups. Results: Improvements in VAS scores at follow-ups compared with baseline were significant in both groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups. Conclusion: Multiple ESIs prior to mild showed no benefit. A modified algorithm to perform mild immediately upon diagnosis or after the failure of the first ESI is recommended.

Minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a review of indications, techniques, efficacy and safety

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common degenerative spine condition. In properly selected patients, minimally invasive lumbar decompression ( mild®) may be an option to improve outcomes. This review provides an in-depth description of the mild procedure and a comprehensive examination of safety and efficacy. Two randomized controlled trials, together with 11 other controlled clinical studies, have established the efficacy of mild, which is a minimally invasive procedure that does not involve implants and has demonstrated excellent efficacy and safety. With an established safety profile equivalent to epidural steroid injections, and efficacy that has been shown to be superior to such injections, mild can reasonably be positioned early in the treatment algorithm for these patients. Based on extensive review of the literature, robust safety and efficacy through 2 years, and in accordance with minimally invasive spine treatment guidelines, mild is recommended as the first intervention after failure of conservative measures for lumbar spinal stenosis patients with neurogenic claudication and ligamentum flavum hypertrophy.

The MIST Guidelines: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group Guidelines for Minimally Invasive Spine Treatment

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 [RCTs]; 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.

Spinal Cord Stimulation, MILD Procedure, and Regenerative Medicine, Novel Interventional Nonopioid Therapies in Chronic Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic pain is a highly prevalent condition affecting millions of individuals.

RECENT FINDINGS

In recent years, newer treatments have emerged that are changing the way clinicians treat pain pathogenesis, including novel nonopioid strategies. In this regard, spinal cord stimulation, the MILD procedure, and regenerative medicine have shown promise. This review summarizes recent literature on these three emerging treatment strategies. The results of this review suggest that under certain conditions, spinal cord stimulation, the MILD procedure, and regenerative medicine can be effective treatment modalities.

Minimally invasive lumbar decompression: a treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Percutaneous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on percutaneous lumbar decompression as well as review the safety and outcomes associated with the procedure.

RECENT FINDINGS

LSS is a significant cause of chronic pain and a common indication for invasive spine surgery. The recent literature shows that percutaneous lumbar decompression is a minimally invasive treatment option that affords a high level of safety, improved function, decreased pain scores, and is cost-effective.

SUMMARY

This minimally invasive procedure is an option for patients with central canal LSS who have continued pain-following conservative treatment such as physical therapy, oral medications, and lumbar spine injections. Percutaneous lumbar decompression is a procedure that bridges the gap between invasive surgery and more conservative treatment for LSS. This percutaneous technique provides increasing options to those patients with central canal lumbar stenosis who may not be candidates for an invasive decompression procedure. Overall, this procedure has been found to be well tolerated and effective in reducing pain while generally improving function.

Lumbar spinal stenosis: therapeutic options review

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) functionally impacts significant numbers of Americans per year. Current estimates place the number of Americans suffering from senescent lumbar spinal stenosis at 400,000. The prevalence of this disorder in patients ranging from 60 to 69 years of age is very high. Forty-seven percent of this age group have mild to moderate stenosis, and 19.7% have severe stenosis. As the baby boomer generation gets older, 10,000 individuals attain the age of 65 years every day in United States. LSS is becoming very common and will be a major healthcare issue as the population ages. Although LSS is not life threatening, it can cause substantial disability with limitations to performing daily activities, and thus, the associated negative impact on quality of life (QOL). This article reviews the pathophysiology and current treatment options for LSS, focusing on evidence-based treatment options.

The mild® procedure: a systematic review of the current literature

OBJECTIVES

This study's objective was to determine if the literature supports use of the Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (mild®) procedure (Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) to reduce pain and improve function in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

DESIGN/SETTINGS

The study was designed as an evidence-based review of available data. Studies were identified from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group system. Results were compiled assessing short- (4-6 weeks), medium- (3-6 months), and long-term (>1 year) outcomes. The primary outcomes evaluated were pain, measured by the visual analog scale (VAS), and function, measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes included pain and patient satisfaction, measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, adverse effects/complications, and changes in utilization of co-interventions.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 12 other studies (seven prospective cohort, four retrospective, and one case series) that provided information on the use of mild® in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. All studies showed statistically significant improvements in VAS and ODI scores at all time frames compared with preprocedure levels; the RCT showed improvement over controls. Categorical data were not provided; thus, the proportion of patients who experienced minimal clinically meaningful outcomes is unknown.

CONCLUSION

The current body of evidence addressing mild® is of low quality. High-quality studies that are independent of industry funding and provide categorical data are needed to clarify the proportions of patients who benefit from mild® and the degree to which these patients benefit. Additional data at up to 2 years are needed to determine the overall utility of the procedure.

Minimally invasive lumbar decompression for the treatment of spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine

SUMMARY Lumbar spinal stenosis is one of the most common degenerative diseases of the elderly population, and a major cause of debilitating pain and decreased function. Lumbar spinal stenosis is almost always associated with neurogenic claudication characterized as pain worsened by standing or walking and relieved by lumbar flexion or sitting. While initial treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis may involve conservative therapies, as patients become more symptomatic the traditional treatment path has generally led to open laminectomy and other invasive, potentially destabilizing, procedures. More recently, less invasive alternatives to wide laminectomy have been developed. This article describes a new method of percutaneous lumbar decompression for treatment of neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis, the minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedure. We review the steps of successfully decompressing the hypertrophic ligamentum flavum and lamina, thereby alleviating pressure on neural structures. This is a major innovation in patient care and a step to reduce risks while minimizing costs.

Mild procedure for lumbar decompression: a review

Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is characterized by narrowing of the spinal canal with impingement of the spinal cord by surrounding tissues of bones. Current management options for LSS include rest, medications, physical therapy, epidural steroid injections, alternative medicine, and surgical decompression. Because each modality of treatment has its own set of limitations, there is a need for a safe, effective, and cost-saving treatment for LSS. mild is a minimally invasive procedure for treatment of degenerative LSS with ligamentum flavum hypertrophy through percutaneous decompression of the hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. The effect is debulking of tissue that is a contributor to lumbar canal narrowing with minimal trauma to surrounding tissue. This literature review presents a brief review of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and current treatment options for LSS and reviews the current literature regarding the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of the mild procedure.