Advances in our understanding of the biology of spinal systems in organizing and defining the content of exteroceptive information upon which higher centers define the state of the organism and its role in the regulation of somatic and automatic output, defining the motor response of the organism, along with the unique biology and spatial organization of this space, have resulted in an increased focus on therapeutics targeted at this extracranial neuraxial space. Intrathecal (IT) drug delivery systems (IDDS) are well-established as an effective therapeutic approach to patients with chronic non-malignant or malignant pain and as a tool for management of patients with severe spasticity and to deliver therapeutics that address a myriad of spinal pathologies. The risk to benefit ratio of IDD makes it a useful interventional approach. While not without risks, this approach has a significant therapeutic safety margin when employed using drugs with a validated safety profile and by skilled practioners. The present review addresses current advances in our understanding of the biology and dynamics of the intrathecal space, therapeutic platforms, novel therapeutics, delivery technology, issues of safety and rational implementation of its therapy, with a particular emphasis upon the management of pain.

Higher rates of device failure are associated with the use of off-label IT drugs. However, device failure may still occur while infusing only approved medications. Implanted patients should be properly informed and educated to differentiate and recognize the critical error alarm of their device as well as the signs and symptoms of IT medication overdose and withdrawal.

This minimally invasive procedure is an option for patients with central canal LSS who have continued pain-following conservative treatment such as physical therapy, oral medications, and lumbar spine injections. Percutaneous lumbar decompression is a procedure that bridges the gap between invasive surgery and more conservative treatment for LSS. This percutaneous technique provides increasing options to those patients with central canal lumbar stenosis who may not be candidates for an invasive decompression procedure. Overall, this procedure has been found to be well tolerated and effective in reducing pain while generally improving function.

Aim: The availability of long-term (>2 years) safety outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. We evaluated safety in a global SCS registry for chronic pain. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled globally at 79 implanting centers and followed out to 3 years after device implantation. Results: Of 1881 participants enrolled, 1289 received a permanent SCS implant (1776 completed trial). The annualized rate of device explant was 3.5% (all causes), and 1.1% due to inadequate pain relief. Total incidence of device explantation >3 years was 7.6% (n = 98). Of these, 32 subjects (2.5%) indicated inadequate pain relief as cause for removal. Implant site infection (11 events) was the most common device-related serious adverse event (<1%). Conclusion: This prospective, global, real-world study demonstrates a high-level of safety for SCS with low rate of explant/serious adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01719055 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )