Background: Chronic pain affects 20.5% of the US population, costing $296 billion annually in lost productivity. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a key treatment for refractory neuropathic and nociceptive pain, with increasing usage due to technological advancements. However, the durability of SCS therapy, including explantation rates, remains a concern. Understanding explantation causes is essential for improving patient selection and device effectiveness. This study aims to analyze SCS explantation rates and reasons, as well as evaluate the financial burden of these procedures on the healthcare system. Methods: Three primary screening methods were used: manual search with keywords, MeSH term query, and reference list screening. The search covered PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from inception to November 2024, yielding 719 articles. After applying eligibility criteria, 72 articles were identified, and 25 were selected for analysis. Data extraction was done by independent reviewers, with a second reviewer ensuring accuracy. Discrepancies were resolved by the corresponding editor. Results: We reviewed data from 13,026 patients who underwent permanent SCS implantation between 1984 and 2024, across 25 studies. A total of 1882 patients (9.82%) underwent explantation. The most common reason was lack of efficacy and inadequate pain relief (38%), followed by lead failure (15%) and infection (14%). While SCS is generally effective, issues related to device longevity and patient satisfaction persist, with explantation rates due to technical failures and lack of efficacy being concerns. Conclusion: SCS efficacy varies, with explantation rates reaching up to 38%, often due to inadequate pain relief. Most explantations occur within the first year, despite SCS being a safe and effective treatment. High implantation costs ($35,000 to $70,000) and revision costs ($15,000 to $25,000) raise concerns among payors. The hardware-driven model limits waveform flexibility, highlighting the need for innovation.

Introduction In recent years, the erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has seen widespread use to treat acute and chronic pain in the regions of the thoracic spine. While limited data suggest its increasing utilization for pain management distal to the thoracic, abdomen and trunk, the anesthetic spread and analgesic mechanism of ESPB at the level of the lumbar spine has not been fully described or understood. Methods This is an observational anatomic cadaveric study to assess the distribution of solution following an ESPB block performed at the fourth lumbar vertebrae (L4) using ultrasound guidance to evaluate the spread of a 20 ml solution consisting of local anesthetic and methylene blue. The study was performed in an anatomy lab in a large academic medical center. Following injection of local anesthetic with contrast dye, cadaveric dissection was performed to better understand the extent of contrast dye and to determine the degree of staining to further predict analgesic potential. We reviewed the findings of other ESPB cadaveric studies currently available for comparison. Results Following cadaveric dissection in an anatomy lab, the contrast dye was observed in the ESP space, and staining was found most cranially at L2 and extending caudally underneath the sacrum. Evaluating the depth of its spread, we found it to be confined to the posterior compartment of the spine sparing the nerve roots bilaterally, which is consistent with the only other cadaveric study of ESPB performed at L4. Conclusion Our results demonstrate the clinical utility of lumbar ESPB where posterior confinement of local anesthesia is preferred. However, further investigation is needed to determine the efficacy of ESPB in lower extremity analgesia which is predicated on ventral nerve root involvement.

Spinal cord injuries are often devastating and result in severe functional limitations. Our review breaks down the pathophysiology, molecular mechanisms, and omics approaches regarding spinal cord injuries. The pathophysiology can be divided into two main phases, with the secondary phase being of greater interest. Understanding the underlying mechanisms behind these phases allows for targeted approaches to be developed. Advancements in omics technologies (genomics, epigenomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) are excellent tools in creating tailored spinal cord injury treatment plans. Emerging therapeutic solutions involving ion imbalance, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction also show promising results. Mitochondrial transplantation has shown promising initial results in maintaining cellular homeostasis and reducing inflammation. However, significant challenges remain in translating the omics and therapeutic approaches from animal models to clinical trials.

Sayed E Wahezi, MD, Moorice Caparo, MD, Tahereh Naeimi, MD, Lynn Kohan, MD; Fellowship Education in a New Era of Pain Medicine; Concerns and Commentary for Chan