Case Study of Phrenic Nerve Paralysis: “I Can't Breathe!”

BackgroundThe anatomic course of the phrenic nerve runs in the fascia covering the anterior scalene muscle. Interscalene blocks are commonly performed by an anesthesiologist for shoulder surgery, such as a rotator cuff repair, total shoulder replacement, humeral fracture, or other arm surgery. Phrenic nerve palsy or paralysis is a known complication from interscalene block and is covered in multiple case reports and series in both Anesthesia and Neurosurgical literature, but only one case report in the Emergency Medicine literature.Case ReportThis case involves a 57-year-old man who had an uncomplicated arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with placement of interscalene block under care of anesthesia. He was discharged with a pain pump in place and then subsequently presented to the Emergency Department (ED) later that same day for evaluation of dyspnea. Using point-of-care ultrasound, his right diaphragm did not appear to be moving. Chest x-ray study revealed an elevated right hemidiaphragm. He was diagnosed with iatrogenic right phrenic nerve paralysis from interscalene block.Why Should an Emergency Physician Be Aware of This?Emergent diagnosis of phrenic nerve paralysis in the ED is complicated by a distressed patient and need for quick intervention. Most formal tests for this diagnosis are not immediately available to emergency physicians. Ultrasound is a rapid and reproducible, noninvasive resource with high sensitivity and specificity, making it an ideal imaging modality for the emergent evaluation of possible phrenic nerve palsy or paralysis.     

中西医结合治疗动眼神经麻痹疗效观察

目的了解中西医结合法治疗动眼神经麻痹的临床疗效。方法对我院2012-03—2014-03收治的动眼神经麻痹患者进行抽样,择取74例患者随机分成2组,对照组予以基础性西医疗法,实验组在对照组治疗基础上予以中医疗法(包括针刺及服用中药正容汤等),观察2组患者的临床治疗效果。结果实验组总有效率(94.60%)明显高于对照组(64.86%),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论中西医结合法治疗动眼神经麻痹临床疗效确切,安全系数高,值得临床大力推广使用。     

Efficacy of percutaneous and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation in women with idiopathic overactive bladder: A prospective randomised controlled trial

BackgroundDifferent studies have reported the efficacy of percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS) and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) in treating idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB). However, no study has compared the effectiveness of PTNS and TTNS added to bladder training (BT) in idiopathic OAB.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of PTNS and TTNS added to BT in women with idiopathic OAB.MethodsWe randomised 60 women with idiopathic OAB into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 19) received BT, Group 2 (n = 19) received PTNS in addition to BT, and Group 3 (n = 20) received TTNS in addition to BT. PTNS and TTNS were performed 2 days a week, for 30 min a day, for a total of 12 sessions for 6 weeks. Patients were evaluated by incontinence severity (pad test), a 3-day voiding diary (frequency of voiding, incontinence episodes, nocturia and number of pads used), symptom severity, quality of life, treatment success (positive response rate), treatment satisfaction (Likert scale), discomfort level and preparation time for stimulation (sec).ResultsAt the end of treatment; severity of incontinence, frequency of voiding, incontinence episodes, nocturia, number of pads used, symptom severity and quality of life were significantly improved in Groups 2 and 3 versus Group 1 (P < 0.0167). Treatment success and treatment satisfaction were higher in Groups 2 and 3 than Group 1 (P < 0.001 and P < 0.0167, respectively). Level of discomfort was lower, treatment satisfaction was higher and preparation time for stimulation was shorter in Group 3 than Group 2 (P < 0.05).ConclusionBoth the PTNS plus BT and TTNS plus BT were more effective than BT alone in women with idiopathic OAB. These 2 tibial nerve stimulation methods had similar clinical efficacy but with slight differences: TTNS had shorter preparation time, less discomfort level and higher patient satisfaction than PTNS.     

Inter-ictal assay of peripheral circulating inflammatory mediators in migraine patients under adjunctive cervical non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS): A proof-of-concept study

Objective

To assay peripheral inter-ictal cytokine serum levels and possible relations with non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) responsiveness in migraineurs.

Paresthesia‐Free Spinal Nerve Root Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

ObjectiveStimulation of the dorsal spinal roots, or spinal nerve root stimulation (SNRS), is a neuromodulation modality that can target pain within specific dermatomal distributions. The use of paresthesia-free stimulation has been described with conventional dorsal column spinal cord stimulation, although has yet to be described for SNRS. This objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of paresthesia-free high-frequency (1000–1200 Hz) SNRS in the treatment of intractable, dermatomal neuropathic pain.Materials and MethodsA retrospective chart review was performed on 14 patients implanted with SNRS in varying distributions: Ten patients initially received tonic stimulation and crossed over to a paresthesia-free paradigm and four patients received only paresthesia-free stimulation. The primary outcome was reduction in pain severity (visual analog scale [VAS]), measured at baseline and follow-up to 24 months with paresthesia-free stimulation.ResultsAll 14 patients who received paresthesia-free stimulation had significant improvement in pain severity at a mean follow-up of 1.39 ± 0.15 years (VAS 7.46 at baseline vs. 3.25 at most recent follow-up, p < 0.001). Ten patients were initially treated with tonic stimulation and crossed over to paresthesia-free stimulation after a mean of 61.7 months. Baseline pain in these crossover patients was significantly improved at last follow-up with tonic stimulation (VAS 7.65 at baseline vs. 2.83 at 48 months, p < 0.001), although all patients developed uncomfortable paresthesias. There was no significant difference in pain severity between patients receiving tonic and paresthesia-free stimulation.ConclusionsWe present real-world outcomes of patients with intractable dermatomal neuropathic pain treated with paresthesia-free, high-frequency SNRS. We demonstrate its effectiveness in providing pain reduction at a level comparable to tonic SNRS up to 24 months follow-up, without producing uncomfortable paresthesias.