Introduction of a Post-Anaesthesia Care Unit in a Teaching Hospital Is Associated with a Reduced Length of Hospital Stay in Noncardiac Surgery:A Single-Centre Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Background: A post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) may improve postoperative care compared with intermediate care units (IMCU) due to its dedication to operative care and an individualized duration of postoperative stay. The effects of transition from IMCU to PACU for postoperative care following intermediate to high-risk noncardiac surgery on length of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and postoperative complications were investigated. Methods: This single-centre interrupted time series analysis included patients undergoing eleven different noncardiac surgical procedures associated with frequent postoperative admissions to an IMCU or PACU between January 2018 and March 2019 (IMCU episode) and between October 2019 and December 2020 (PACU episode). Primary outcome was hospital length of stay, secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and ICU admissions. Results: In total, 3300 patients were included. The hospital length of stay was lower following PACU admission compared to IMCU admission (IMCU 7.2 days [4.2–12.0] vs. PACU 6.0 days [3.6–9.1]; p &lt; 0.001). Segmented regression analysis demonstrated that the introduction of the PACU was associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (GMR 0.77 [95% CI 0.66–0.91]; p = 0.002). No differences between episodes were detected in the number of postoperative complications or postoperative ICU admissions. Conclusions: The introduction of a PACU for postoperative care of patients undergoing intermediate to high-risk noncardiac surgery was associated with a reduction in the length of stay at the hospital, without increasing postoperative complications.</p

Durability of Evoked Compound Action Potential (ECAP)-Controlled, Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in a Real-World European Chronic Pain Population

Introduction: Closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS) is a recently introduced system that records evoked compound action potentials (ECAPs) from the spinal cord elicited by each stimulation pulse and uses this information to automatically adjust the stimulation strength in real time, known as ECAP-controlled SCS. This innovative system compensates for fluctuations in the distance between the epidural leads and the spinal cord by maintaining the neural response (ECAP) at a predetermined target level. This data collection study was designed to assess the performance of the first CL-SCS system in a real-world setting under normal conditions of use in multiple European centers. The study analyzes and presents clinical outcomes and electrophysiological and device data and compares these findings with those reported in earlier pre-market studies of the same system. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted in 13 European centers and aimed to gather electrophysiological and device data. The study focused on the real-world application of this system in treating chronic pain affecting the trunk and/or limbs, adhering to standard conditions of use. In addition to collecting and analyzing basic demographic information, the study presents data from the inaugural patient cohort permanently implanted at multiple European centers. Results: A significant decrease in pain intensity was observed for overall back or leg pain scores (verbal numerical rating score [VNRS]) between baseline (mean ± standard error of the mean [SEM]; n = 135; 8.2 ± 0.1), 3 months (n = 93; 2.3 ± 0.2), 6 months (n = 82; 2.5 ± 0.3), and 12 months (n = 76; 2.5 ± 0.3). Comparison of overall pain relief (%) to the AVALON and EVOKE studies showed no significant differences at 3 and 12 months between the real-world data release (RWE; 71.3%; 69.6%) and the AVALON (71.2%; 73.6%) and EVOKE (78.1%; 76.7%) studies. Further investigation was undertaken to objectively characterize the physiological parameters of SCS therapy in this cohort using the metrics of percent time above ECAP threshold (%), dose ratio, and dose accuracy (µV), according to previously described methods. Results showed that a median of 90% (40.7–99.2) of stimuli were above the ECAP threshold, with a dose ratio of 1.3 (1.1–1.4) and dose accuracy of 4.4 µV (0.0–7.1), based on data from 236, 230, and 254 patients, respectively. Thus, across all three metrics, the majority of patients had objective therapy metrics corresponding to the highest levels of pain relief in previously reported studies (usage over threshold &gt; 80%, dose ratio &gt; 1.2, and error &lt; 10 µV). Conclusions: In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the real-world application of the ECAP-controlled CL-SCS system, highlighting its potential for maintaining effective pain relief and objective neurophysiological therapy metrics at levels seen in randomized control trials, and potential for quantifying patient burden associated with SCS system use via patient–device interaction metrics. Clinical Trial Registration: In the Netherlands, the study is duly registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Trial NL7889). In Germany, the study is duly registered as NCT05272137 and in the United Kingdom as ISCRTN27710516 and has been reviewed by the ethics committee in both countries.</p

1. Lumbosacral radicular pain

Introduction: Patients suffering lumbosacral radicular pain report radiating pain in one or more lumbar or sacral dermatomes. In the general population, low back pain with leg pain extending below the knee has an annual prevalence that varies from 9.9% to 25%. Methods: The literature on the diagnosis and treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain was reviewed and summarized. Results: Although a patient's history, the pain distribution pattern, and clinical examination may yield a presumptive diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain, additional clinical tests may be required. Medical imaging studies can demonstrate or exclude specific underlying pathologies and identify nerve root irritation, while selective diagnostic nerve root blocks can be used to confirm the affected level(s). In subacute lumbosacral radicular pain, transforaminal corticosteroid administration provides short-term pain relief and improves mobility. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) treatment adjacent to the spinal ganglion (DRG) can provide pain relief for a longer period in well-selected patients. In cases of refractory pain, epidural adhesiolysis and spinal cord stimulation can be considered in experienced centers. Conclusions: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radicular pain is based on a combination of history, clinical examination, and additional investigations. Epidural steroids can be considered for subacute lumbosacral radicular pain. In chronic lumbosacral radicular pain, PRF adjacent to the DRG is recommended. SCS and epidural adhesiolysis can be considered for cases of refractory pain in specialized centers.</p

Core patient-reported outcome measures for chronic pain patients treated with spinal cord stimulation or dorsal root ganglia stimulation

Background: Neurostimulation is a highly effective therapy for the treatment of chronic Intractable pain, however, due to the complexity of pain, measuring a subject’s long-term response to the therapy remains difficult. Frequent measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to reflect multiple aspects of subjects’ pain is a crucial step in determining therapy outcomes. However, collecting full-length PROs is burdensome for both patients and clinicians. The objective of this work is to identify the reduced set of questions from multiple validated PROs that can accurately characterize chronic pain patients’ responses to neurostimulation therapies. Methods: Validated PROs were used to capture pain, physical function and disability, as well as psychometric, satisfaction, and global health metrics. PROs were collected from 509 patients implanted with Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) or Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRG) neurostimulators enrolled in the prospective, international, post-market REALITY study (NCT03876054, Registration Date: March 15, 2019). A combination of linear regression, Pearson’s correlation, and factor analysis were used to eliminate highly correlated questions and find the minimal meaningful set of questions within the predefined domains of each scale. Results: The shortened versions of the questionnaires presented almost identical accuracy for classifying the therapy outcomes as compared to the validated full-length versions. In addition, principal component analysis was performed on all the PROs and showed a robust clustering of pain intensity, psychological factors, physical function, and sleep across multiple PROs. A selected set of questions captured from multiple PROs can provide adequate information for measuring neurostimulation therapy outcomes. Conclusions: PROs are important subjective measures to evaluate the physiological and psychological aspects of pain. However, these measures are cumbersome to collect. These shorter and more targeted PROs could result in better patient engagement, and enhanced and more frequent data collection processes for digital health platforms that minimize patient burden while increasing therapeutic benefits for chronic pain patients.</p

Comparing the Efficacy of Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation With Conventional Medical Management in Patients With Chronic Postsurgical Inguinal Pain:Post Hoc Analyzed Results of the SMASHING Study

Objectives: Approximately 10% of patients who undergo inguinal hernia repair or Pfannenstiel incision develop chronic (&gt; three months) postsurgical inguinal pain (PSIP). If medication or peripheral nerve blocks fail, a neurectomy is the treatment of choice. However, some patients do not respond to this treatment. In such cases, stimulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) appears to significantly reduce chronic PSIP in selected patients. Materials and Methods: In this multicenter, randomized controlled study, DRG stimulation was compared with conventional medical management (CMM) (noninvasive treatments, such as medication, transcutaneous electric neurostimulation, and rehabilitation therapy) in patients with PSIP that was resistant to a neurectomy. Patients were recruited at a tertiary referral center for groin pain (SolviMáx, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) between March 2015 and November 2016. Suitability for implantation was assessed according to the Dutch Neuromodulation Association guidelines. The sponsor discontinued the study early owing to slow enrollment. Of 78 planned patients, 18 were randomized (DRG and CMM groups each had nine patients). Six patients with CMM (67%) crossed over to DRG stimulation at the six-month mark. Results: Fifteen of the 18 patients met the six-month primary end point with a complete data set for a per-protocol analysis. Three patients with DRG stimulation had a negative trial and were lost to follow-up. The average pain reduction was 50% in the DRG stimulation and crossover group (from 6.60 ± 1.24 to 3.28 ± 2.30, p = 0.0029). Conversely, a 13% increase in pain was observed in patients with CMM (from 6.13 ± 2.24 to 6.89 ± 1.24, p = 0.42). Nine patients with DRG stimulation experienced a total of 19 adverse events, such as lead dislocation and pain at the implantation site. Conclusions: DRG stimulation is a promising effective therapy for pain relief in patients with PSIP resistant to conventional treatment modalities; larger studies should confirm this. The frequency of side effects should be a concern in a new study. Clinical Trial Registration: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the study is NCT02349659.</p

Efficacy of the Gelstix nucleus augmentation device for the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain: protocol for a randomised, sham-controlled, double-blind, multicentre trial.

INTRODUCTION Discogenic pain is the cause of pain in 26%-40% of patients with for low back pain. Consensus about treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain is lacking and most treatment alternatives are supported by limited evidence. The percutaneous implantation of hydrogels into the nucleus pulposus represents a promising regenerative intradiscal therapy. The hydrogel 'GelStix' is composed primarily of hydrolyzed polyacrylonitrile and acts as a reservoir of hydration, producing increased pressure and improved pH balance, potentially leading to disc preservation. We hypothesise that treatment with GelStix will lead to greater reduction in pain intensity at 6 months post-treatment compared with patients receiving sham treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This is a parallel group, randomised sham-controlled double-blind, multicentre trial to assess whether the GelStix device is superior to sham in reducing pain intensity in patients with chronic discogenic low back pain. The study will be conducted in two regional hospitals in Europe. Seventy-two participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome will be the change in pain intensity between preoperative baseline and at 6 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, the patient's global impression of change scale, the use of pain medication and the disc degeneration process assessed by means of MRI. For change in pain intensity, disability, health-related quality of life and disc height, mean values will be compared between groups using linear regression analysis, adjusted for treatment centre. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Canton Ticino, Switzerland (CE2982) and by the Medical Ethical Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen, the Netherlands (2016-2944). All patients that agree to participate will be asked to sign an informed consent form. Results will be disseminated through international publications in peer-reviewed journals, in addition to international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02763956. PROTOCOL VERSION 7.1, 18 November 2020

Radiofrequency for chronic lumbosacral and cervical pain:Results of a consensus study using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method

Background: Despite the routine use of radiofrequency (RF) for the treatment of chronic pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region, there remains uncertainty on the most appropriate patient selection criteria. This study aimed to develop appropriateness criteria for RF in relation to relevant patient characteristics, considering RF ablation (RFA) for the treatment of chronic axial pain and pulsed RF (PRF) for the treatment of chronic radicular pain. Methods: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM) was used to explore the opinions of a multidisciplinary European panel on the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a variety of clinical scenarios. Depending on the type of pain (axial or radicular), the expert panel rated the appropriateness of RFA and PRF for a total of 219 clinical scenarios. Results: For axial pain in the lumbosacral or cervical region, appropriateness of RFA was determined by the dominant pain trigger and location of tenderness on palpation with higher appropriateness scores if these variables were suggestive of the diagnosis of facet or sacroiliac joint pain. Although the opinions on the appropriateness of PRF for lumbosacral and cervical radicular pain were fairly dispersed, there was agreement that PRF is an appropriate option for well-selected patients with radicular pain due to herniated disc or foraminal stenosis, particularly in the absence of motor deficits. The panel outcomes were embedded in an educational e-health tool that also covers the psychosocial aspects of chronic pain, providing integrated recommendations on the appropriate use of (P)RF interventions for the treatment of chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region. Conclusions: A multidisciplinary European expert panel established patient-specific recommendations that may support the (pre)selection of patients with chronic axial and radicular pain in the lumbosacral and cervical region for either RFA or PRF (accessible via https://rftool.org). Future studies should validate these recommendations by determining their predictive value for the outcomes of (P)RF interventions.</p

Introduction of a Post-Anaesthesia Care Unit in a Teaching Hospital Is Associated with a Reduced Length of Hospital Stay in Noncardiac Surgery: A Single-Centre Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Background: A post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) may improve postoperative care compared with intermediate care units (IMCU) due to its dedication to operative care and an individualized duration of postoperative stay. The effects of transition from IMCU to PACU for postoperative care following intermediate to high-risk noncardiac surgery on length of hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and postoperative complications were investigated. Methods: This single-centre interrupted time series analysis included patients undergoing eleven different noncardiac surgical procedures associated with frequent postoperative admissions to an IMCU or PACU between January 2018 and March 2019 (IMCU episode) and between October 2019 and December 2020 (PACU episode). Primary outcome was hospital length of stay, secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and ICU admissions. Results: In total, 3300 patients were included. The hospital length of stay was lower following PACU admission compared to IMCU admission (IMCU 7.2 days [4.2–12.0] vs. PACU 6.0 days [3.6–9.1]; p < 0.001). Segmented regression analysis demonstrated that the introduction of the PACU was associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (GMR 0.77 [95% CI 0.66–0.91]; p = 0.002). No differences between episodes were detected in the number of postoperative complications or postoperative ICU admissions. Conclusions: The introduction of a PACU for postoperative care of patients undergoing intermediate to high-risk noncardiac surgery was associated with a reduction in the length of stay at the hospital, without increasing postoperative complications

Cost-Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Denervation for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain:The MINT Randomized Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation when added to a standardized exercise program for patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside 3 pragmatic multicenter, nonblinded randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in The Netherlands with a follow up of 52 weeks. Eligible participants were included between January 1, 2013, and October 24, 2014, and had chronic low back pain; a positive diagnostic block at the facet joints (n = 251), sacroiliac (SI) joints (n = 228), or a combination of facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs (n = 202); and were unresponsive to initial conservative care. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and societal costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS: After 52 weeks, no difference in costs between groups was found in the facet joint or combination RCT. The total costs were significantly higher for the intervention group in the SI joint RCT. The maximum probability of radiofrequency denervation being cost-effective when added to a standardized exercise program ranged from 0.10 in the facet joint RCT to 0.17 in the SI joint RCT irrespective of the ceiling ratio, and 0.65 at a ceiling ratio of €30 000 per QALY in the combination RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Although equivocal among patients with symptoms in a combination of the facet joints, SI joints, and intervertebral discs, evidence suggests that radiofrequency denervation combined with a standardized exercise program cannot be considered cost-effective from a societal perspective for patients with chronic low back pain originating from either facet or SI joints in a Dutch healthcare setting