Higher Preimplantation Opioid Doses Associated With Long‐Term Spinal Cord Stimulation Failure in 211 Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

ObjectiveSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). We studied the effect of preimplantation opioid use on SCS outcome and the effect of SCS on opioid use during a two-year follow-up period.Materials and methodsThe study cohort included 211 consecutive FBSS patients who underwent an SCS trial from January 1997 to March 2014. Participants were divided into groups, which were as follows: 1) SCS trial only (n = 47), 2) successful SCS (implanted and in use throughout the two-year follow-up period, n = 131), and 3) unsuccessful SCS (implanted but later explanted or revised due to inadequate pain relief, n = 29). Patients who underwent explantation for other reasons (n = 4) were excluded. Opioid purchase data from January 1995 to March 2016 were retrieved from national registries.ResultsHigher preimplantation opioid doses associated with unsuccessful SCS (ROC: AUC = 0.66, p = 0.009), with 35 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day as the optimal cutoff value. All opioids were discontinued in 23% of patients with successful SCS, but in none of the patients with unsuccessful SCS (p = 0.004). Strong opioids were discontinued in 39% of patients with successful SCS, but in none of the patients with unsuccessful SCS (p = 0.04). Mean opioid dose escalated from 18 ± 4 MME/day to 36 ± 6 MME/day with successful SCS and from 22 ± 8 MME/day to 82 ± 21 MME/day with unsuccessful SCS (p < 0.001).ConclusionsHigher preimplantation opioid doses were associated with SCS failure, suggesting the need for opioid tapering before implantation. With continuous SCS therapy and no explantation or revision due to inadequate pain relief, 39% of FBSS patients discontinued strong opioids, and 23% discontinued all opioids. This indicates that SCS should be considered before detrimental dose escalation.     

Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Direct insertion of an ultra‐slim upper endoscope for cholangioscopy in patients undergoing choledochoduodenostomy

Direct peroral cholangioscopy (POC) using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope is one modality of POC for intraductal endoscopic evaluation and treatment of the bile duct. Choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) is one modality of biliary bypass surgery that provides a new route to the bile duct. We carried out direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the use of accessories in 10 patients (four sump syndromes, three bile duct strictures and three intrahepatic duct stones) previously undergoing surgical CDS. Direct POC was successful in all patients. The use of an intraductal balloon catheter was required in one patient for advancement of the endoscope into the bile duct. Distal bile ducts with sump syndromes were cleared using baskets and water irrigation under direct POC. Cholangiocarcinoma was diagnosed in one patient with hilar bile duct stricture after cholangioscopic evaluation and a targeting forceps biopsy under direct POC. Intrahepatic duct stones were successfully extracted after intraductal fragmentation under direct POC. Oozing bleeding occurred during intraductal lithotripsy but stopped spontaneously. Direct POC using an ultra‐slim upper endoscope without the assistance of accessories can easily be carried out in patients undergoing CDS.