John Muir Health

Introduction Osteoporosis of the femoral neck contributes significantly to hip fracture risk and remains challenging to treat due to the limitations of systemic pharmacotherapies. We investigated whether direct intra-medullary visualization of the femoral neck is feasible and could support localized therapeutic delivery. Methods Four cadaveric femoral specimens were evaluated. A guidewire was placed into the femoral neck under biplanar fluoroscopy, followed by canal access using a 5 mm reamer. A 4 mm standard arthroscope was inserted, and the cavity was irrigated and debrided using a 3.5 mm shaver and a radiofrequency probe. Tetracycline and Alizarin Red dyes were instilled and visualized under ultraviolet and green light, respectively. Results The intramedullary cavity of the femoral neck was easily accessed and visualized. Loose cancellous bone, fibrous, and adipose tissue were observed and removed. The inferior femoral neck appeared softer than the superior portion. Bi-portal access allowed effective irrigation, visualization, and working space maintenance. Fluorochrome-based imaging revealed patchy areas of fluorescence, demonstrating potential for localized labeling and future targeted delivery. No obstruction to fluid inflow or visualization was noted. Discussion Intraosseous visualization enabled both structural assessment and localized labeling of the femoral neck intramedullary canal. This approach may support novel future strategies to prevent fractures of the femoral neck from osteoporosis. Conclusion This pilot cadaveric study demonstrates that the femoral neck intramedullary canal can be accessed and visualized using standard arthroscopic tools. This approach allows for real-time visualization and cavity preparation, providing a potential route for targeted osteoporosis therapies. Further development of endoscopic imaging systems and localized delivery agents may enable biologic reconstruction of compromised bone while minimizing systemic exposure.

Management of refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP) includes a range of treatments (eg, physical therapy, injections, ablations, neurostimulation, surgery) with varying utilization and effectiveness. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effectiveness of one treatment option, percutaneous 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), compared to usual care with standard interventional management for CLBP. Two hundred thirty patients with CLBP were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to Group 1 (percutaneous 60-day PNS) or Group 2 (physician-directed usual care with standard interventional management). The Primary Clinical Endpoint evaluated the proportion of participants with ≥50% reductions in CLBP at 3 months post-treatment compared to baseline. At the Primary Endpoint, a greater proportion of participants receiving percutaneous 60-day PNS (55%; n = 112; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45-65) experienced ≥50% pain relief compared to usual care with standard interventional management (26%; n = 110; 95% CI = 17-34; P < .001). Concordant with the Primary Endpoint, percutaneous 60-day PNS also produced greater improvements in patient-centric secondary endpoints, including disability, pain interference, health-related quality of life, and analgesic consumption. Reductions in pain and resulting improvements in function were sustained through 6 months with percutaneous 60-day PNS. This prospective multicenter pragmatic RCT met its Primary Clinical Endpoint and found that more participants with CLBP reported pain relief at 3 months after receiving percutaneous 60-day PNS as compared to usual care with standard interventional management. Participants treated with 60-day PNS showed greater reductions in pain and more substantial improvements in functional outcomes through 6 months. NCT04246281; Primary funding: Department of Defense (DoD), with additional funding needed to complete the study provided by the study's sponsor, SPR.The protocol is available on ClinicalTrials.gov. The statistical analysis plan and results will be made available within 12 months of the study's completion.

Infections related to neuromodulation devices such as spinal cord stimulators (SCS) and intrathecal pumps (ITPs) present complex challenges due to potential complications such as localized infections, deep infections, sepsis, and neurological injury. Prompt diagnosis requires patients and providers to be educated on wound management and sepsis symptoms for immediate medical attention. Antibiotic therapy and duration vary based on infection severity, with deep infections often requiring device removal despite recent improvements in salvage rates with aggressive initial intervention. Deep infections necessitate timely diagnosis through imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT), followed by device removal and culture-guided antibiotic therapy, often in collaboration with infectious disease specialists and spine surgeons. ITP infections pose similar challenges along with the risk of meningitis and may require careful management of medication withdrawal symptoms during emergent pump removal. Lab monitoring may aid treatment assessment, although negative cultures can occur due to post-antibiotic exposure. Postoperative recommendations stress standardized guidelines, patient education, and vigilant surveillance, with close follow-up crucial for early infection detection and intervention. Managing device-related infections demands a multi-specialty approach to minimize complications and optimize outcomes. This paper outlines best practices for diagnosing, managing, and treating neuromodulation device infections, focusing on guiding clinical decision-making from the onset of infection through treatment and potential reimplantation.

BackgroundTicagrelor, a P2Y12 inhibitor, offers a rapid onset and consistent platelet inhibition, making it a viable alternative for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The optimal ticagrelor dose for neurointerventional procedures, however, remains unclear. We report our experience with ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily plus aspirin 81 mg daily compared with the standard aspirin and clopidogrel regimen for intracranial stenting.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database, identifying consecutive patients who underwent intracranial stenting for aneurysm treatment or intracranial atherosclerosis. Patients received either ticagrelor 60 mg with aspirin or aspirin with clopidogrel 75 mg daily. Primary outcomes included peri-procedural ischemic and/or hemorrhagic events within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were the median P2Y12 reaction unit and in-stent stenosis rates at 6-month follow-up.ResultsAmong 119 patients, 59 received ticagrelor and 60 (50.4%) received clopidogrel. Baseline characteristics including age and gender were comparable between the two groups, although the ticagrelor group had a higher proportion of African-American patients. The majority of patients underwent aneurysm treatment (n=105; 88.23%), while the remainder received stenting for intracranial atherosclerosis (n=14; 11.77%). No ischemic events occurred in either group and intracranial hemorrhage rates were comparable (1.7% in both groups). The median P2Y12 reaction unit was significantly lower in the ticagrelor group (69 vs 126, P<0.001). In-stent stenosis rates were lower with ticagrelor (5% vs 21%).ConclusionTicagrelor 60 mg for DAPT in intracranial stenting is safe and effective. Larger prospective studies may be required to validate these findings.