1
|
Dorsi MJ, Buchanan P, Vu C, Bhandal HS, Lee DW, Sheth S, Shumsky PM, Brown NJ, Himstead A, Mattie R, Falowski SM, Naidu R, Pope JE. Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review. Pain Ther 2024; 13:349-390. [PMID: 38520658 PMCID: PMC11111626 DOI: 10.1007/s40122-024-00588-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2023] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/25/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments. METHODS The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria. RESULTS The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis. CONCLUSIONS There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Patrick Buchanan
- Spanish Hills Interventional Pain Specialists, Camarillo, CA, USA
| | - Chau Vu
- Evolve Restorative Center, Santa Rosa, CA, USA
| | | | - David W Lee
- Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group, Fullerton, CA, USA.
| | | | | | - Nolan J Brown
- Department of Neurosurgery, UC Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Ramana Naidu
- California Orthopedics and Spine, Novato, CA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Annapureddy D, Venkatesh P, Azam F, Olivier T, Thakur B, Sloan E, Wingfield S, Bagley C, Lopez M. Predictors of Admission to Post-Acute Rehabilitation Following Multi-Level Spinal Decompression and Fusion Surgery and Its Associated Outcomes. World Neurosurg 2024; 186:e593-e599. [PMID: 38599376 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2024.04.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2024] [Revised: 04/01/2024] [Accepted: 04/02/2024] [Indexed: 04/12/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To investigate predictive factors and outcomes in those admitted to post-acute rehabilitation (PAR) versus those that discharged home following multi-level spinal decompression and fusion surgery. METHODS Retrospective case review study of adults that underwent multi-level spinal decompression and fusion surgery between 2016 and 2022 at an academic institution. Preoperative, perioperative, postoperative, and outcomes variables were compared between those discharged home versus PAR. Finally, multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors contributing to PAR admission. RESULTS Of 241 total patients, 89 (37%) discharged home and 152 (63%) discharged to PAR. Among home discharge patients, 45.9% used an assistive device, while among PAR patients, 61.5% used 1 (P = 0.041). Mean pre-operative Oswestry Disability Index score was significantly lower in the home discharge group compared to the PAR discharge group (40.3 vs. 45.3 respectively, P = 0.044). Females were 2.43 times more likely to be discharged to PAR compared to males (95% CI: 1.06, 5.54, P = 0.04). Patients with a mood disorder had 2.81 times higher odds of being discharged to PAR compared to those without (95% CI: 1.20, 6.60, P = 0.02). Other variables evaluated were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS Female sex and presence of a mood disorder increase the likelihood to PAR discharge following multi-level spinal decompression surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Pooja Venkatesh
- The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas, USA.
| | - Faraaz Azam
- The University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Timothy Olivier
- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Bhaskar Thakur
- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Department of Emergency Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA; Department of Family and Community Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Ellen Sloan
- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Sarah Wingfield
- Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Carlos Bagley
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Saint Luke's Neurological & Spine Surgery, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
| | - Marielisa Lopez
- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Jacob KC, Patel MR, Nie JW, Hartman TJ, Vanjani NN, Pawlowski H, Prabhu MC, Singh K. Impact of American Society of Anesthesiologists' Classification on Postoperative Satisfaction and Clinical Outcomes Following Lumbar Decompression: Cohort-Matched Analysis. Clin Spine Surg 2024; 37:E89-E96. [PMID: 37941112 DOI: 10.1097/bsd.0000000000001553] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 11/10/2023]
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE The aim was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement, and postoperative satisfaction following minimally invasive lumbar decompression in patients stratified by American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Some guidelines recommend against performing elective procedures for patients with an ASA score of 3 or greater; however, long-term postoperative outcomes are not well described. METHODS Primary, single-level, minimally invasive lumbar decompression procedures were identified. PROMs were administered at preoperative, 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year timepoints and included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function, visual analog scale (VAS) back/leg, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and 12-item short form physical component score. Satisfaction scores were collected postoperatively for VAS back/leg, ODI, and individual ODI subcategories. Patients were grouped (ASA<3, ASA≥3), and propensity scores were matched to control for significant differences. Demographic and perioperative characteristics were compared using χ 2 and the Student's t test. Mean PROMs and postoperative satisfaction were compared at each time point by a 2-sample t test. Postoperative PROM improvement from the preoperative baseline within each cohort was calculated with a paired t test. MCID achievement was determined by comparing ΔPROMs to established thresholds and comparing between groups using simple logistic regression. RESULTS One hundred and twenty-nine propensity-matched patients were included: 99 ASA<3 and 30 ASA≥3. No significant demographic differences were observed between groups. ASA≥3 patients experienced significantly increased length of stay and postoperative narcotic consumption on surgery day ( P <0.048, all). Mean PROMs and MCID achievement did not differ. The ASA<3 cohort significantly improved from the preoperative baseline for all PROMs at all postoperative time points. ASA<3 patients demonstrated higher levels of postoperative satisfaction at 6 weeks for VAS leg, VAS back, ODI, sleeping, lifting, walking, standing, sex, travel, and at 6 months for VAS back ( P <0.045, all). CONCLUSION ASA≥3 patients may achieve similar long-term clinical outcomes to ASA<3 patients, though they may show poorer short-term satisfaction for disability, leg pain, and back pain, which could be related to differing preoperative expectations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin C Jacob
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Deer TR, Chafin TB, Costandi SJ, Qu H, Kim C, Jassal N, Patel K, Calodney A. The MOTION study: Two-year results of a real-world randomized controlled trial of the mild® procedure for treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. Pain Pract 2024; 24:109-119. [PMID: 37661347 DOI: 10.1111/papr.13293] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The MOTION study is designed to measure the impact of percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as a first-line therapy on patients otherwise receiving real-world conventional medical management for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial uses objective and patient-reported outcome measures to compare the combination of the mild® percutaneous treatment and nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) to CMM-Alone. METHODS Test group patients received the mild procedure after study enrollment. Test and control groups were allowed conventional conservative therapies and low-risk interventional therapies as recommended by their physicians. Subjective outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Objective outcomes included a validated Walking Tolerance Test, the rate of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and safety data. RESULTS Two-year follow-up included 64 mild + CMM and 67 CMM-Alone patients. All outcome measures showed significant improvement from baseline for mild + CMM, whereas the majority of CMM-Alone patients had elected to receive mild treatment or other lumbar spine interventions by 2 years, precluding valid 2-year between-group comparisons. Neither group reported any device- or procedure-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS The durability of mild + CMM for this patient population was demonstrated for all efficacy outcomes through 2 years. Improvements in walking time from baseline to 2 years for patients treated with mild + CMM were significant and substantial. The lack of reported device or procedure-related adverse events reinforces the strong safety profile of the mild procedure. These results provide support for early interventional treatment of symptomatic LSS with the mild procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy R Deer
- The Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, West Virginia, USA
| | | | | | - Huaguang Qu
- Pennsylvania Pain& Spine Institute, Chalfont, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Christopher Kim
- The Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, West Virginia, USA
| | | | - Kiran Patel
- The Spine & Pain Institute of New York, New Hyde Park, New York, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Canós-Verdecho Á, Robledo R, Izquierdo RM, Bermejo A, Gallach E, Abejón D, Argente-Navarro MP, Peraita-Costa I, Morales-Suárez-Varela M. Quantum Molecular Resonance Radiofrequency Disc Decompression and Percutaneous Microdiscectomy for Lumbar Radiculopathy. J Clin Med 2023; 13:234. [PMID: 38202241 PMCID: PMC10779544 DOI: 10.3390/jcm13010234] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Revised: 12/21/2023] [Accepted: 12/29/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
Within the practice of pain management, one of the most commonly encountered events is low back pain. Lumbar radiculopathy (LR) is a pain syndrome caused by the compression or irritation of the nerve roots in the lower back due to lumbar disc herniation, vertebra degeneration, or foramen narrowing. Symptoms of LR include low back pain that propagates toward the legs, numbness, weakness, and loss of reflexes. The aim of this study is to assess the long-term effectiveness of quantum molecular resonance disc decompression and its combination with a percutaneous microdiscectomy using Grasper© forceps (QMRG) in patients with persistent lumbar radiculopathy (LR) in relation to patient physical stress status. The main outcome measures of this prospective observational study were DN4, NRS, ODI, SF12, PGI, CGI, and MOS Sleep Scale. An improvement 12 months post-intervention was observed in patients without physical stress, presenting better overall results. The mean change was over the minimal clinically important difference in 64.3% of outcome measures studied for the whole sample. QMRG appears to be an effective treatment option for LR, but a reduction in physical stress is needed to ensure long-term effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ángeles Canós-Verdecho
- Multidisciplinary Pain Management Unit, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain (R.R.)
- Anaesthesiology Department, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Ruth Robledo
- Multidisciplinary Pain Management Unit, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain (R.R.)
- Anaesthesiology Department, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Rosa M. Izquierdo
- Multidisciplinary Pain Management Unit, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain (R.R.)
- Anaesthesiology Department, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Ara Bermejo
- Multidisciplinary Pain Management Unit, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain (R.R.)
| | - Elisa Gallach
- Multidisciplinary Pain Management Unit, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain (R.R.)
- Psychiatry Department, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - David Abejón
- Multidisciplinary Pain Management Unit, Hospital Universitario Quirónsalud, Calle Diego de Velázquez, 1, 28223 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain
| | - María Pilar Argente-Navarro
- Anaesthesiology Department, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain
- Surgical Specialties Department, Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe, Av. de Fernando Abril Martorell, 106, 46026 Valencia, Spain
| | - Isabel Peraita-Costa
- Research Group in Social and Nutritional Epidemiology, Pharmacoepidemiology and Public Health, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Food Sciences, Toxicology and Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitat de València, Av. Vicent Andrés Estellés s/n, 46100 Burjassot, Spain
- CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII), Av. Monforte de Lemos, 3-5, Pabellón 11, Planta 0, 28029 Madrid, Spain
| | - María Morales-Suárez-Varela
- Research Group in Social and Nutritional Epidemiology, Pharmacoepidemiology and Public Health, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Food Sciences, Toxicology and Forensic Medicine, Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitat de València, Av. Vicent Andrés Estellés s/n, 46100 Burjassot, Spain
- CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII), Av. Monforte de Lemos, 3-5, Pabellón 11, Planta 0, 28029 Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Tenhoeve SA, Karsy M. Lumbar Epidural Hematoma as a Rare Complication From Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression. Cureus 2023; 15:e51083. [PMID: 38274924 PMCID: PMC10808042 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 12/25/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2024] Open
Abstract
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common and debilitating pathology globally. Conservative and surgical treatment options exist for patients. Recently, minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) has been described as a less invasive technique for the treatment of early spinal stenosis ≥2.5mm ligamentum thickening or in patients at high risk for general anesthesia. Often, MILD is performed by interventional pain providers and shows low complication rates. We describe a 76-year-old woman who presented to the emergency department immediately after undergoing a MILD procedure at an outside surgery center with lower back/sacral pain resulting from an acute epidural hematoma extending from T12-L3. Early recognition and surgical evacuation resulted in a good outcome with no complications. Our goal is to increase awareness of this rare complication and encourage multidisciplinary approaches to managing LSS between spine surgeons and pain providers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel A Tenhoeve
- Neurosurgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA
- Neurosurgery, Global Neurosciences Institute, Philadelphia, USA
| | - Michael Karsy
- Neurosurgery, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, USA
- Neurosurgery, Global Neurosciences Institute, Philadelphia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Yuan H, Yi X. Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression: A Narrative Review. J Pain Res 2023; 16:3707-3724. [PMID: 37954472 PMCID: PMC10637222 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s428112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Accepted: 09/27/2023] [Indexed: 11/14/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hongjie Yuan
- Department of Pain Medicine, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People’s Republic of China
| | - Xiaobin Yi
- Pain Division, Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, MO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Malik KN, Giberson C, Ballard M, Camp N, Chan J. Pain Management Interventions in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Literature Review. Cureus 2023; 15:e44116. [PMID: 37753034 PMCID: PMC10518428 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 09/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) occurs due to the narrowing of the space within the vertebral canal and or intervertebral foramina. This results in the compression of the spinal cord and possibly the roots of the spinal nerves. Lower back pain and neurogenic claudication (NC) are major symptoms of spinal stenosis. This is a literature review that summarizes the important findings pertaining to pain management of spinal stenosis. Twenty-four original articles were assessed. Pain can be treated through non-invasive or surgical methods. Conservative techniques include physical exercises, epidural corticosteroid injection, local anesthetic injection therapy, and oral analgesics. Surgical intervention deals with the decompression of the affected spinal region, with or without vertebral fusion surgery. Other novel surgical techniques include implantation of specific equipment, known as interspinous spacer devices and minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD). Most studies offering a comparative analysis have demonstrated that surgical intervention is more efficacious than non-surgical interventions to manage pain associated with spinal stenosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kashif N Malik
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Casa Colina Hospital, Pomona, USA
| | - Curren Giberson
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Casa Colina Hospital, Pomona, USA
| | - Matthew Ballard
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Casa Colina Hospital, Pomona, USA
| | - Nathan Camp
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Casa Colina Hospital, Pomona, USA
| | - Justin Chan
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Whitaker CD, Stone BK, Gregorczyk JA, Alsoof D, Hardacker K, Diebo BG, Daniels A, Basques B. Nonsurgical Interventional Spine Pain Procedures: Outcomes and Complications. JBJS Rev 2023; 11:01874474-202304000-00003. [PMID: 37058581 DOI: 10.2106/jbjs.rvw.22.00235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
» Nonsurgical interventional spine pain procedures provide an additional treatment option for lower back pain at the traditional bifurcation of conversative vs. operative management. » Transforaminal epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablations, intrathecal drug delivery, and spinal cord stimulation were found to be effective and safe techniques when applied to their specific indication. » Thermal annuloplasty and minimally invasive lumbar decompression showed mixed support. » Discography, sacroiliac joint injections, and spinous process spacers lacked sufficient evidence to support efficacy. » Medial branch blocks and facet joint injections were found to be useful diagnostic tools.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Colin D Whitaker
- The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Benjamin K Stone
- The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | | | - Daniel Alsoof
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Kyle Hardacker
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Bassel G Diebo
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Alan Daniels
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| | - Bryce Basques
- Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Nie JW, Hartman TJ, Oyetayo OO, Zheng E, MacGregor KR, Singh K. Impact of Sleep Disturbance on Clinical Outcomes in Lumbar Decompression. World Neurosurg 2023; 172:e304-e311. [PMID: 36632896 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.01.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/11/2022] [Revised: 01/03/2023] [Accepted: 01/04/2023] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To examine the impact of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Sleep Disturbance (PROMIS-SD) on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar decompression. METHODS Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with preoperative PROMIS-SD scores were retrospectively included. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts: none to slight sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD <55) and mild to severe sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD ≥55). Patient-reported outcome measures including PROMIS Physical Function, PROMIS Anxiety, PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS SD, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, visual analog scale back/leg, and Oswestry Disability Index were collected preoperatively and up to 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS Of 87 patients identified, 48 patients had PROMIS-SD scores ≥55. Regardless of preoperative PROMIS-SD score, patients reported significant improvement in physical function, anxiety, pain interference, depression, pain, and disability outcomes in at least 1 time point. Patients in the PROMIS-SD ≥55 cohort reported postoperative improvement in sleep disturbance. Patients in the PROMIS-SD <55 cohort reported superior preoperative patient-reported outcome measures in all domains and superior postoperative improvement in pain interference and sleep disturbance. Minimum clinically important difference attainment rates were higher in the PROMIS-SD ≥55 cohort in physical function, anxiety, pain interference, sleep disturbance, and pain. CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing lumbar decompression demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in most clinical outcomes regardless of preoperative sleep disturbance. Patients with mild to severe sleep disturbance had higher minimum clinically important difference attainment rates for physical function, mental function, and pain. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression with greater preoperative sleep disturbance may experience more clinically noticeable improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James W Nie
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Timothy J Hartman
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Omolabake O Oyetayo
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Eileen Zheng
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Keith R MacGregor
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Kern Singh
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Sayed D, Grider J, Strand N, Hagedorn JM, Falowski S, Lam CM, Tieppo Francio V, Beall DP, Tomycz ND, Davanzo JR, Aiyer R, Lee DW, Kalia H, Sheen S, Malinowski MN, Verdolin M, Vodapally S, Carayannopoulos A, Jain S, Azeem N, Tolba R, Chang Chien GC, Ghosh P, Mazzola AJ, Amirdelfan K, Chakravarthy K, Petersen E, Schatman ME, Deer T. The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline of Interventional Treatments for Low Back Pain. J Pain Res 2022; 15:3729-3832. [PMID: 36510616 PMCID: PMC9739111 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s386879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2022] [Accepted: 11/17/2022] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dawood Sayed
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA,Correspondence: Dawood Sayed, The University of Kansas Health System, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA, Tel +1 913-588-5521, Email
| | - Jay Grider
- University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Natalie Strand
- Interventional Pain Management, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
| | | | - Steven Falowski
- Functional Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA
| | - Christopher M Lam
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | - Vinicius Tieppo Francio
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | | | - Nestor D Tomycz
- AHN Neurosurgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | - Rohit Aiyer
- Interventional Pain Management and Pain Psychiatry, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA
| | - David W Lee
- Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Pain Medicine, Fullerton Orthopedic Surgery Medical Group, Fullerton, CA, USA
| | - Hemant Kalia
- Rochester Regional Health System, Rochester, NY, USA,Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Soun Sheen
- Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
| | - Mark N Malinowski
- Adena Spine Center, Adena Health System, Chillicothe, OH, USA,Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Athens, OH, USA
| | - Michael Verdolin
- Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Pain Consultants of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Shashank Vodapally
- Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
| | - Alexios Carayannopoulos
- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rhode Island Hospital, Newport Hospital, Lifespan Physician Group, Providence, RI, USA,Comprehensive Spine Center at Rhode Island Hospital, Newport Hospital, Providence, RI, USA,Neurosurgery, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Sameer Jain
- Interventional Pain Management, Pain Treatment Centers of America, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Nomen Azeem
- Department of Neurology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA,Florida Spine & Pain Specialists, Riverview, FL, USA
| | - Reda Tolba
- Pain Management, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates,Anesthesiology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - George C Chang Chien
- Pain Management, Ventura County Medical Center, Ventura, CA, USA,Center for Regenerative Medicine, University Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | | | | | | | - Krishnan Chakravarthy
- Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA,Va San Diego Healthcare, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - Erika Petersen
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Science, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Michael E Schatman
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA,Department of Population Health - Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA
| | - Timothy Deer
- The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Jacob KC, Patel MR, Collins AP, Park GJ, Vanjani NN, Prabhu MC, Pawlowski H, Parsons AW, Singh K. Meeting Patient Expectations and Achieving a Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Back Disability, Back Pain, and Leg Pain May Provide Predictive Utility for Achieving Patient Satisfaction Among Lumbar Decompression Patients. World Neurosurg 2022; 162:e328-e335. [PMID: 35259504 DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.03.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/17/2021] [Revised: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Our study evaluates minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement for back pain/leg pain/disability and meeting preoperative expectations as predictors of patient satisfaction after minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MIS-LD) surgery. METHODS Single/multilevel MIS-LD procedures were identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (preoperative/postoperative), expectations (preoperative), and satisfaction (postoperative) were collected for visual analog scale (VAS) back/VAS leg/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Student's t-test assessed patient-reported outcome measure improvement from preoperative baseline. Correlations between outcome and satisfaction scores were evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient and categorized according to strength of relationship. MCID achievement and meeting expectations were evaluated as predictors of postoperative patient satisfaction with simple linear regression. Comparison of meeting expectations or achieving MCID as predictors of satisfaction scores was performed using a post hoc Suest test comparison of standardized β-coefficients. RESULTS A total of 329 patients were included. All outcomes improved from baselines (P < 0.001, all) at all postoperative time points and demonstrated strong and negative correlations with satisfaction scores (P < 0.001, all). Majority of patients had their expectations met for ODI/VAS back/VAS leg and achieved MCID for ODI/VAS back/VAS leg at all time points and overall. Both MCID achievement and meeting preoperative expectations demonstrated significant associations with satisfaction scores at all time points for ODI/VAS back/VAS leg. Post hoc analysis of predictors of patient satisfaction in pain and disability demonstrated that MCID achievement was an equivalent predictor to meeting patient preoperative expectations at all postoperative time points. CONCLUSION Pain/disability improved after MIS-LD; improvement was strongly correlated with postoperative satisfaction. Meeting expectations/MCID achievement is associated with satisfaction. MCID achievement was equivalent to meeting expectations in predicting satisfaction at all postoperative time points for pain/disability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin C Jacob
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Madhav R Patel
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Andrew P Collins
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Grant J Park
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Nisheka N Vanjani
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Michael C Prabhu
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Hanna Pawlowski
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Alexander W Parsons
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Kern Singh
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hussain N, Schatman ME, Abd-Elsayed A. Knowledge Dissemination in Pain Medicine: Searching for Signal Within the Noise. J Pain Res 2022; 15:1563-1565. [PMID: 35651881 PMCID: PMC9150757 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s372196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2022] [Accepted: 05/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Nasir Hussain
- Department of Anesthesiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard, Boston, MA, USA
- Department of Anesthesiology, The Ohio State University, Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Michael E Schatman
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care, and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Population Health - Division of Medical Ethics, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
- School of Social Work, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
- Correspondence: Michael E Schatman, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative Care and Pain Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA, Email
| | - Alaa Abd-Elsayed
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Eshraghi Y, Shah JD, Guirguis M. Novel Technologies in Interventional Pain Management. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2022; 33:533-552. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pmr.2022.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
15
|
Deer TR, Grider JS, Pope JE, Lamer TJ, Wahezi SE, Hagedorn JM, Falowski S, Tolba R, Shah JM, Strand N, Escobar A, Malinowski M, Bux A, Jassal N, Hah J, Weisbein J, Tomycz ND, Jameson J, Petersen EA, Sayed D. Best Practices for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Treatment 2.0 (MIST): Consensus Guidance from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN). J Pain Res 2022; 15:1325-1354. [PMID: 35546905 PMCID: PMC9084394 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s355285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2021] [Accepted: 04/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy R Deer
- Centers for Pain Relief, Charleston, WV, USA
- Correspondence: Timothy R Deer, The Spine and Nerve Centers of the Virginias, 400 Court Street, Suite 100, Charleston, WV, 25301, USA, Tel +1 304 347-6141, Email
| | - Jay S Grider
- UK HealthCare Pain Services, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY, USA
| | | | - Tim J Lamer
- Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Sayed E Wahezi
- Montefiore Medical Center, SUNY-Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
| | - Jonathan M Hagedorn
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Steven Falowski
- Director Functional Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Lancaster, PA, USA
| | - Reda Tolba
- Pain Management Department, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE
| | - Jay M Shah
- SamWell Institute for Pain Management, Colonia, NJ, USA
| | - Natalie Strand
- Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - Alex Escobar
- Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA
| | | | - Anjum Bux
- Bux Pain Management, Lexington, KY, USA
| | | | - Jennifer Hah
- Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | | | - Nestor D Tomycz
- Department of Neurological Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | - Erika A Petersen
- Department of Neurosurgery, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Dawood Sayed
- Pain Medicine, Multidisciplinary Pain Fellowship, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, KS, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Deer TR, Costandi SJ, Washabaugh E, Chafin TB, Wahezi SE, Jassal N, Sayed D. The MOTION Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Objective Real-World Outcomes for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients Treated with the mild® Procedure: One-Year Results. PAIN MEDICINE (MALDEN, MASS.) 2022; 23:625-634. [PMID: 35167700 PMCID: PMC8992575 DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnac028] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2021] [Revised: 12/15/2021] [Accepted: 01/06/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to provide Level-1 objective, real-world outcome data for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. DESIGN The MOTION Study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing the mild® Procedure (minimally invasive lumbar decompression; Vertos Medical, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA) as a first-line therapy in combination with nonsurgical conventional medical management (CMM) vs CMM alone as the active control. METHODS Patients in the test group received the mild Procedure at baseline. Both the mild+CMM group and the control group were allowed unrestricted access to conventional real-world therapies. Patient-reported outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index, the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. A validated Walking Tolerance Test, the incidence of subsequent lumbar spine interventions, and the occurrence of adverse events were used to measure objective outcomes. RESULTS Sixty-nine patients in each group were analyzed at 1-year follow-up. No device- or procedure-related adverse events were reported in either group. Results from all primary and secondary outcome measures showed statistical significance in favor of mild+CMM. CONCLUSIONS One-year results of this Level-1 study demonstrated superiority of mild+CMM over CMM alone for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who were suffering from neurogenic claudication secondary to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. Use of the validated Walking Tolerance Test to objectively measure increased ability to walk without severe symptoms provided evidence of statistically significantly better outcomes for mild+CMM than for CMM alone. With no reported device or procedure-related adverse events, the long-standing safety profile of the mild Procedure was reaffirmed. mild is a safe, durable, minimally invasive procedure that has been shown to be effective as an early interventional therapy for patients suffering from symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy R Deer
- The Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, West Virginia
| | - Shrif J Costandi
- Department of Pain Management, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | | | | | | | | | - Dawood Sayed
- The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Nolte MT, Cha EDK, Lynch CP, Jacob KC, Patel MR, Geoghegan CE, Jadczak CN, Mohan S, Singh K. Change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as Predictors of Revision Lumbar Decompression Procedures. Neurospine 2022; 18:863-870. [PMID: 35000342 PMCID: PMC8752697 DOI: 10.14245/ns.2142230.115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective To assess change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) as predictors for revision lumbar decompression (LD).
Methods Patients who underwent primary, single or multilevel LD were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized according to whether or not they underwent revision LD within 2 years of the primary procedure. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 12-item Short Form Health Survey and 12-item Veterans RAND physical component score (SF-12 PCS and VR-12 PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF) were recorded. Delta PROM scores were evaluated for differences between groups and as a risk factor for a revision LD.
Results The study included 135 patients, 91 undergoing a primary procedure only and 44 undergoing a primary and revision procedure. Matched patients did not demonstrate any significant differences in demographics or perioperative characteristics. Patients who underwent a revision had a mean time to revision of 7.4 ± 5.7 months. Primary cohort significantly improved for all PROMs (all p < 0.05), while the primary plus revision cohort significantly improved for VAS back, ODI, and PROMIS-PF (all p < 0.05). However, cohorts differed in VAS back and PROMIS-PF (p < 0.05). Delta PROMs were not a significant risk factor for revision except at 6 months for PROMIS-PF (p = 0.024).
Conclusion LD has been associated with reliable outcomes, but early identification of patients at risk for revision is critical. This study suggests that tools such as PROMIS-PF may serve a role in predicting who is at risk and the 6-month follow-up period may be valuable for counseling patients who are not experiencing improvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael T Nolte
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Elliot D K Cha
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Conor P Lynch
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kevin C Jacob
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Madhav R Patel
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Cara E Geoghegan
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Caroline N Jadczak
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Shruthi Mohan
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kern Singh
- Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
The Influence of Self-Identified Gender on Clinical Outcomes and Post-operative Patient Satisfaction Following Lumbar Decompression: Cohort Matched Analysis. World Neurosurg 2022; 160:e616-e627. [DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.01.105] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Accepted: 01/24/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
19
|
OUP accepted manuscript. PAIN MEDICINE 2022; 23:1813-1814. [DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnac060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2022] [Accepted: 04/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
20
|
Pryzbylkowski P, Bux A, Chandwani K, Khemlani V, Puri S, Rosenberg J, Sukumaran H. Minimally invasive direct decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: impact of multiple prior epidural steroid injections. Pain Manag 2021; 12:149-158. [PMID: 34344197 DOI: 10.2217/pmt-2021-0056] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Pryzbylkowski
- Relievus Pain Management, 3100 Hingston Ave. Suite 104, Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234, USA
| | - Anjum Bux
- Ephraim McDowell Regional Medical Center, 230 West Main St., Danville, KY 40422, USA
| | - Kailash Chandwani
- UNC Health Southeastern, 4901 Dawn Dr. Suite 3300, Lumberton, NC 28358, USA
| | - Vishal Khemlani
- Columbia Pain Management, PC, 3601 Klindt Dr. Suite 200, The Dalles, OR 97058, USA
| | - Shawn Puri
- Relievus Pain Management, 9815 Roosevelt Blvd Suite J, Philadelphia, PA 19114, USA
| | - Jason Rosenberg
- SC Pain & Spine Specialists, 4731 Hwy 17 Bypass South, Murrells Inlet, SC 29576, USA
| | - Harry Sukumaran
- The Detroit Medical Center, 3990 John R, Box 162, Detroit, MI 48201, USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Pope JE, Deer TR, Falowski SM. A Retrospective, Single-Center, Quantitative Analysis of Adverse Events in Patients Undergoing Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication Using a Novel Percutaneous Direct Lumbar Decompression Strategy. J Pain Res 2021; 14:1909-1913. [PMID: 34194242 PMCID: PMC8238541 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s304997] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2021] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction Low-back pain with accompanying neurogenic claudication is a common diagnosis in pain and spine centers around the world, with an evolving algorithm of treatment. One option for the treatment of neurogenic claudication by decompressive strategies centers on percutaneous direct decompressive techniques. Although commonly employed in clinical practice, there have been no formal investigations looking at safety of percutaneous direct decompression without the use of an epidurogram and relying on osteal landmarks. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety of percutaneous direct decompression performed without the use of the epidurogram. Methods After an IRB exemption had been obtained from the Western Investigational Review Board, data were retrospectively analyzed from July 2018 to August 2020 on patients that had undergone percutaneous direct decompression using the Mild procedure in a single center by a single physician. Data were analyzed quantitatively for reported complications within 3 months of the procedure, including nerve injury, hematoma, infection, death, or allergic reaction to contrast use.– Results Chart review yielded 147 individual patients who had undergone percutaneous direct decompression from July 2018 to August 2020. In this data set, women outnumbered men, with an average age of 76 years, with L4–L5 followed by L3–L4 being the most common levels decompressed. Of the 147 patients was performed, utilizing an epidurogram versus no epidurogram for decompression, with no complications. These data are the first to describe the safety of percutaneous direct lumbar decompression without the use of contrast. Conclusion This study strongly suggests the use of an epidurogram is not necessary for the safe decompression of a patient with symptomatic spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication utilizing percutaneous direct decompression.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Timothy R Deer
- The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
22
|
Deer T, Kim C, Wahezi SE, Qu H, Sayed D. Objective Real-World Outcomes of Patients Suffering from Painful Neurogenic Claudication Treated with the mild® Procedure: Interim 6-Month Report of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Pain Res 2021; 14:1687-1697. [PMID: 34140805 PMCID: PMC8203201 DOI: 10.2147/jpr.s312573] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2021] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a serious degenerative condition of the spine that can cause significant functional disability. Therapies for these patients generally begin with conservative management, since more invasive interventions such as open surgery and spinal implants are associated with higher complication rates. Early in the treatment algorithm for LSS patients, multiple conventional medical management (CMM) therapies are often combined as an initial low-risk treatment strategy. This composite first-line treatment plan may include conservative care together with early interventional treatment options such as epidural steroid injections, radiofrequency ablation and the mild® Procedure. Methods This prospective randomized controlled trial evaluates patients aged 50 to 80 years treated with mild plus CMM, compared to those treated with CMM alone, as the active control. Walking tolerance test outcomes and incidence of subsequent disallowed procedures provided objective real-world outcome data. The incidence of device or procedure-related adverse events was analyzed. Follow-up includes 6-month, 1-year and 2-year assessments, with 1-year being primary. Patients in the mild+CMM group are followed at 3, 4, and 5 years. This is a report of interim 6-month outcomes. Results Of 155 patients enrolled at 19 US interventional pain management centers, 78 were allocated to CMM-Alone, and 77 to mild+CMM. At 6-months, the validated walking tolerance test demonstrated statistical superiority of mild+CMM versus CMM-Alone (p<0.001). The incidence of patients receiving a subsequent disallowed procedure, and thereby considered treatment failures in their study group, was statistically significantly higher in CMM-Alone versus mild+CMM (p<0.001). There were no device or procedure-related adverse events in either group. Conclusion At 6-months, the mild Procedure combined with CMM provided statistically superior objective real-world outcomes versus CMM-Alone. There were no device or procedure-related adverse events reported in either study group. With its excellent safety profile and superior efficacy, mild is uniquely positioned as early first-line therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy Deer
- The Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA
| | - Christopher Kim
- The Spine & Nerve Centers of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USA
| | | | - Huaguang Qu
- Pennsylvania Pain & Spine Institute, Chalfont, PA, USA
| | - Dawood Sayed
- The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Dormer L. Welcome to the 11 th Volume of Pain Management. Pain Manag 2020; 11:1-3. [PMID: 33234002 DOI: 10.2217/pmt-2020-0093] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
I would like to welcome our readers to volume 11 of Pain Management. Since the launch of the journal in 2011, the title has gone from strength to strength, and we are delighted to bring you a new year of content. We are starting off this issue with a look back on some of our article highlights from 2020, alongside some of this month's key content.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Dormer
- Editor - Pain Management, Future Medicine Ltd, Unitec House, London N3 1QB, UK
| |
Collapse
|