Treatment of Chronic Chest Wall Pain in a Patient With Loeys-Dietz Syndrome Using Spinal Cord Stimulation

Objective: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used with increased frequency for the treatment of intractable pain including chronic chest pain. Methods: The patient with a history of Loeys‐Dietz syndrome who underwent repair of pectus excavatum with subsequent chronic chest wall pain underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous epidural placement of two temporary eight‐electrode leads placed at the level of T3‐T4‐T5. Results: After experiencing excellent pain relief over the next two days, the patient was implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable generator four weeks later and reported sustained pain relief at 12‐month follow‐up visit. Conclusion: SCS provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with Loeys‐Dietz syndrome who underwent repair of pectus excavatum with subsequent chronic chest wall pain who have failed conservative treatment. SCS may provide pain relief with advantages over conservative treatments and more invasive techniques.     

Combined Spinal Cord and Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for Persistent Post‐Herniorrhaphy Pain

Objectives: Chronic post‐hernia pain is a common complication after inguinal herniorrhaphies. Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are two new promising treatment modalities. Four patients with persistent neuropathic post‐hernia pain were recruited for this prospective study. Materials and Methods: Electrodes were inserted into the epidural space of the spinal canal and into the subcutaneous tissue in the inguinal region during a single surgical procedure. During a 14‐day trial, double‐blind stimulation was performed via an external stimulator: three days using the spinal electrode (SCS), three days using the inguinal electrode (PNFS), three days using both (SCS + PNFS), and five days off, with an alternating order from patient to patient. During the trial, pain intensity was assessed thrice daily by the visual analog scale. Additionally, pain intensity and quality of life (QOL) were assessed before and after surgical intervention by the Brief Pain Inventory, SF36 scale, and Pain Disability Index. Results: All patients had a marked pain reduction during the trial phase, and this reduction was more prominent when both electrodes were activated simultaneously (p < 0.001). At the late follow‐up, a significant pain reduction and improvement of QOL was observed in three patients. Conclusions: Both SCS and PNFS are effective in treating post‐hernia pain, but the magnitude of pain reduction was more prominent with concomitant stimulation. Combined PNFS and SCS should be considered for patients with a less than optimal response to either SCS or PNFS. More studies are necessary to address the cost‐effect issues of this new approach to treatment.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation as Alternative Treatment for Chronic Post‐Herniorrhaphy Pain

Objective: Our goal was to determine the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for patients with intractable post‐herniorrhaphy pain which conventional treatment failed to ameliorate. Procedure: The patients underwent an uneventful spinal cord stimulator (SCS) trial with percutaneous placement of two eight‐electrode epidural leads (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN, USA) to level T7‐T8‐T9. Results: Upon experiencing excellent pain relief over the next two days during the trial, the patients were implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable or non‐rechargeable generators two to four weeks later and reported sustained pain relief during following 12 months after implantation. Conclusion: We conclude that SCS offers an alternative treatment option for intractable post‐herniorrhaphy pain. This type of treatment should be considered for use in a select group of patients when all conventional treatments failed.     

High-Level Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation Used to Treat Intractable Pain Arising from Transverse Myelitis Caused by Schistosomiasis

The efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of various chronic painful conditions is well established. Very few reports have documented the use of SCS for treatment of chronic pain after spinal cord injury. We present a case showing a good outcome after such treatment, and suggest that high cervical stimulation may be efficacious. A 53-year-old male underwent SCS on the C1-3 level for treatment of intractable neuropathic pain below the T3 level, and in the upper extremities, arising from spinal cord injury resulting from transverse myelitis caused by schistosomiasis. High cervical SCS significantly improved the pain in the upper extremities and at the T3-T10 dermatome level. The patient continues to report excellent pain relief 9 months later. The present case suggests that high cervical stimulation may improve chronic pain in the upper extremities and the T3-T10 dermatome level arising from spinal cord injury.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation,Conception, Pregnancy,and Labor: Case Study in a Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Patient

Introduction. Interventional modalities for pain treatment are reserved for patients failing multidisciplinary pain management, including psychological, physical, pharmacological, and anesthetic techniques. Objective. Medications for intractable pain may be unacceptable because the risk of teratogenic effects. The purpose of this study is to find out whether spinal cord stimulation may be safe during conception, pregnancy, and delivery. Materials and Methods. We report a 30-year old, female, neonatal nurse who developed left hand burning pain, swelling, coldness, and weakness following a mild brachial plexus injury in a motor vehicle accident. The patient responded well to a combination of Neurontin, Trazadone, Ultram, and Vicodin. A year later, the patient married and wanted to become pregnant but was afraid of possible teratogenic effects of the medications. Therefore, she requested an interventional modality for control of her symptoms. We recommended spinal cord stimulation (SCS) based on our excellent experience with this modality in the management of complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS). However, we did inform the patient that no data had been published regarding the safety of this modality in pregnancy and labor. Results. Cervical SCS resulted in excellent pain control and discontinuation of the medications. Thirteen months later, she delivered a healthy five pound baby girl. Mother and baby were discharged home in two days. The SCS was not turned off at any time during the labor and delivery. Conclusion. SCS was safe for implantation in our case study of a pregnant woman. This may constitute a new indication for SCS in patients otherwise successfully managed with non-interventional modalities for pain control.     

Treatment of Multifocal Pain with Spinal Cord Stimulation

Introduction: We report a retrospective case study of combined treatment of cancer‐related pain and chronic low back and lower extremity pain related to postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS) with one spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system. Methods: The patient underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of two temporary eight‐electrode leads (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN) placed at the level of T8‐T9‐T10 and T5‐T6‐T7. Results: After successful trial, he was implanted with permanent leads and generator, reporting sustained pain relief at 12‐month follow‐up visit. Discussion: SCS is a trialable, reversible, and interactive therapy permitting patients to control the level of stimulation they feel based on their degree of pain. Conclusion: SCS provides an effective, alternative treatment for select patients with cancer‐related chest wall pain and pain related to PLS who have failed conservative treatment.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Intractable Visceral Pain due to Chronic Pancreatitis

Pain caused by chronic pancreatitis is medically intractable and resistant to conventional interventional or surgical treatment. We report a case of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for intractable pain due to chronic pancreatitis. The patient had a history of nonalcoholic chronic pancreatitis and multiple emergency room visits as well as repeated hospitalization including multiple nerve block and morphine injection for 3 years. We implanted surgical lead at T6-8 level on this patient after successful trial of percutaneous electrode. The patient experienced a decreased visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain intensity and amount of opioid intake. The patient was followed for more than 14 months with good outcome and no further hospitalization. From our clinical case, spinal cord stimulation on intractable pain due to chronic pancreatitis revealed moderate pain control outcome. We suggest that SCS is an effective, noninvasive treatment option for abdominal visceral pain. Further studies and long term follow-up are needed to fully understand the effect of SCS on abdominal visceral pain.     

Successful Treatment of Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth Chronic Pain with Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Case Study

Objectives: Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth (CMT) disease is one of the most common hereditary neuropathies affecting one in 2500 people in the United States. CMT disease is associated with moderate to severe chronic extremity pain. We present the case of a young man with chronic intractable lower extremity pain associated with CMT disease treated with spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Materials and Methods: This was an Institutional Review Board‐approved case study involving a 37‐year‐old man diagnosed with CMT disease with pain of more than 20 years. He was implanted with an SCS device and patient pain and quality of life was assessed one and six months later using the SF‐McGill Pain Questionnaire, Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, Pain Disability Index, and SF‐36. Baseline measures were obtained retrospectively. Qualitative data were collected from the medical record. Results: SCS was effective in decreasing pain, improving quality of life and reducing medication consumption at both one and six months post‐implant. In addition, the patient was satisfied with SCS treatment. Conclusion: SCS produced favorable results in a patient with CMT and should be considered a treatment option for pain resulting from this condition.     

One-Year Results of Prospective Research Study Using 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation in Persistent Nonoperated Low Back Pain of Neuropathic Origin: Maiden Back Study

PurposeSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recommended treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Persistent nonoperative low back pain of neuropathic origin has profound negative impacts on patient’s lives. This prospective, open label, research study aimed to explore the use of SCS in patients with associated features of central sensitisation such as allodynia and hyperalgesia.Materials and MethodsTwenty-one patients with back pain and hyperalgesia or allodynia who had not had prior spinal surgery underwent a SCS trial followed by full implantation. SCS comprised administering electrical impulses epidurally at a frequency of 10 kHz and pulse width of 30 μsec. Patients attended follow-up visits after 6 and 12 months of SCS. Repeated measure ANOVAs/Friedman tests explored change after 6 and 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. Independent sample t-tests/Mann–Whitney U tests examined differences in response after 12 months of 10 kHz SCS.ResultsBack and leg pain, quality of life (QoL), pain-related disability, and morphine equivalence significantly improved compared with baseline following 6 and 12 months of 10 kHz SCS. There were no increases in the consumption of opioids, amitriptyline, gabapentin or pregabalin in any patient. After 12 months of treatment, 52% encountered ≥50% improvement in back pain, 44% achieved remission (0–3 cm back pain VAS), 40% reported ODI scores between 0 and 40 and 60% experienced a reduction of at least 10 ODI points. Patients reporting ≥10-point improvement in ODI had significantly longer pain history durations and experienced significantly greater improvements in back pain, leg pain and QoL than those reporting <10-point improvement in ODI.ConclusionThe 10 kHz SCS improved back and leg pain, QoL, pain-related disability and medication consumption in patients with nonoperative back pain of neuropathic origin. With further research incorporating a sham control arm, the efficacy of 10 kHz SCS in this patient cohort will become more established.     

Economic evaluation of spinal cord stimulation for chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the economic aspects of treatment of chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) with spinal cord stimulation (SCS), using outcomes and costs of care before and after the start of treatment. METHODS: Fifty-four patients with chronic RSD were randomized to receive either SCS together with physical therapy (SCS+PT; n = 36) or physical therapy alone (PT; n = 18). Twenty-four SCS+PT patients responded positively to trial stimulation and underwent SCS implantation. During 12 months of follow-up, costs (routine RSD costs, SCS costs, out-of-pocket costs) and effects (pain relief by visual analogue scale, health-related quality of life [HRQL] improvement by EQ-5D) were assessed in both groups. Analyses were carried out up to 1 year and up to the expected time of death. RESULTS: SCS was both more effective and less costly than the standard treatment protocol. As a result of high initial costs of SCS, in the first year, the treatment per patient is $4,000 more than control therapy. However, in the lifetime analysis, SCS per patient is $60,000 cheaper than control therapy. In addition, at 12 months, SCS resulted in pain relief (SCS+PT [-2.7] vs PT [0.4] [p < 0.001]) and improved HRQL (SCS+PT [0.22] vs PT [0.03] [p = 0.004]). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found SCS to be both more effective and less expensive as compared with the standard treatment protocol for chronic RSD.     

Tripolar Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Abdominal Pain Associated With Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Objectives: The objective of this case report is to describe the use of transverse tripolar dorsal column stimulation in a patient with a history of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) associated with abdominal pain resistant to conservative treatments. Method: We report a 36‐year‐old man who presented to the pain clinic with an eight‐year history of IBS (constipation predominant with occasional diarrheal episodes), with “crampy and sharp” abdominal pain. He also had nonradicular thoracic spine pain due to thoracic scoliosis. Both pains were affecting his ability to function as an attorney. Prior conservative therapy, including psychologic treatment, antidepressants, and opioids, was without any benefits. Results: The use of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) was discussed with the patient. The procedure was performed after Institutional Review Board approval. A tripolar SCS was implanted at the T8 level using one‐eight contact and two‐four contact percutaneous leads based on paresthesia reproduction of patient's areas of discomfort. This tripolar spinal cord stimulation provided relief of abdominal and thoracic pain, and better management of gastrointestinal symptoms. The patient was followed‐up for one year, and his quality of life also was improved via the IBS‐Severity Scoring System quality of life tool. Conclusions: The use of the tripolar SCS in this patient provided relief of abdominal and thoracic spine pain, regulated bowel habits, and improved the patient's quality of life. We believe that the use of SCS should be considered as a treatment option in patients with IBS when all conservative treatments failed.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Objective. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of modern spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Materials and Methods. Thirty patients were treated with SCS between December 1992 and January 1998 for low back and radicular pain after multiple failed back surgeries. Permanent systems were implanted if trial stimulation led to > 50% pain reduction. Median long‐term follow‐up was 34 months (range, 6–66 months). Severity of pain was determined postoperatively by a disinterested third party. Results. Overall, 12 of the 16 patients (75%) who received permanent implants continued to report at least 50% relief of pain at follow‐up. All six patients who underwent placement of laminectomy‐styled electrode for SCS in the thoracic region had > 50% pain relief at long‐term follow‐up. Visual analog scores decreased an average of 3.2 (from 8.6 preoperatively to 5.4 postoperatively). Patients undergoing SCS placement via laminectomy in the thoracic region experienced an average decrease of 4.9 in VAS, whereas those who underwent percutaneous placement of thoracic leads had an average decrease of 2.5. Conclusions. SCS is an effective treatment for chronic low back and lower extremity pain which is refractory to conservative therapy and which is not amenable to corrective anatomic surgery. Though our patient population is small, our results imply that the laminectomy‐style electrodes in the thoracic region achieve better long‐term effectiveness than percutaneous leads.     

A Prospective,Open‐Label,Multicenter Study to Assess the Efficacy of Spinal Cord Stimulation and Identify Patients Who Would Benefit

Objective: To identify patients likely to benefit from spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Materials and Methods: This multicenter, prospective, open‐label study included medical centers experienced in SCS therapy, carried out in 13 physicians in seven centers. We recruited 55 patients with complex regional pain syndrome, failed back surgery syndrome, or peripheral vascular disease. Neurostimulators were implanted in 34 patients found to respond to SCS in a preliminary test, who were then followed for six months. Thirty‐four patients scored their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) and completed the EuroQol‐5D questionnaire before and after test stimulation and after one and six months. Results: During test stimulation, the mean VAS and quality of life (QOL) scores improved from 74.0 to 23.4 and from 0.430 to 0.664, respectively, in the 34 patients. At six months, the mean VAS score was 29.7 in 29 patients and the mean QOL score was 0.661 in 31 patients. Conclusion: SCS may improve pain management and QOL.     

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.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Conjunction With Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation for the Treatment of Low Back and Leg Pain: A Case Series

Background. The treatment of chronic low back and leg pain remains a difficult medical challenge, particularly for patients with postlaminectomy syndrome. While spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been a significant addition to the available options, it is often inadequate in relieving both the back and leg pain components. We hypothesized that for some patients the combination of SCS with peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) would be a safe, effective alternative that would be more effective than either modality alone. Objective. Our objective was to demonstrate the efficacy of PNFS used in combination with SCS for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes involving the lower back and legs. Study Design. Case series. Methods. A total of 20 patients with chronic low back and leg pain syndromes who had failed conventional therapies underwent implantation of a combination of traditional SCS and PNFS. Leads were placed in the epidural space, as well as superficially in the subcutaneous tissues of the lower back, directly in the region of maximum pain. Patients initially underwent a trial of stimulation to assess response, and a permanent system was implanted if patients reported greater than 50% pain relief during the trial. For some patients, a combination was used at the time of the initial trial. In other cases, the decision to proceed with the combination was made later, either at the time of permanent implant, or later on, after SCS alone failed to adequately control pain. Results. In each case, PNFS was used in combination with traditional SCS for patients with chronic lower back and lower extremity pain. While not all of these patients ultimately proceeded with the combination of SCS and PNFS to control their pain, the majority of patients found the combination better in controlling their overall pain than either modality alone. In addition, using a combined approach at the time of trial provided a noninvasive and effective method of comparing the efficacy of each method, allowing patients to identify the best form of neuromodulation for their particular pain. Conclusions. Due to the availability of 16 contact capacity generators, neurostimulation with multiple leads in various combinations—including both epidural and peripheral nerve field stimulation simultaneously—can be applied safely and effectively. The availability of this combined approach for a trial of stimulation prior to implant allows patients to compare SCS to PNFS and to indicate a preference for one over the other or for the combination. We conclude that PNFS may be used in combination with SCS as a safe and effective alternative treatment for patients with chronic low back and leg pain, and further suggest that the combined approach should be considered as a treatment option for this population.     

Electrophysiologic Monitoring for Placement of Laminectomy Leads for Spinal Cord Stimulation Under General Anesthesia

Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a valid option for intractable neuropathic pain syndromes, yet some patients cannot undergo the standard awake procedure. Our retrospective study chronicles laminectomy‐electrode placement for SCS under general anesthesia and use of compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) to guide placement in the absence of patient verbal feedback. Methods: After nonsurgical measures proved ineffective for relief of neuropathic pain, 8 men and 11 women underwent SCS lead placement under general rather than local anesthesia because of deafness, language barriers, lidocaine allergy, or extensive scar tissue. A midline thoracic laminectomy was performed, and paddle SCS leads were placed. CMAPs of the rectus abdominis, quadriceps, gastrocnemius, anterior tibialis, abductor hallicus, and intercostal muscles were analyzed. Final lead placement was determined by the right‐to‐left symmetry of the CMAPs in conjunction with fluoroscopic imaging. Stimulation coverage was evaluated postoperatively. Results: Inconsistencies were found in lower‐extremity CMAPs in the first two procedures. Thereafter, intercostal and rectus abdominis muscle CMAPs obtained in the remaining 17 procedures were consistent, more predictive of final results. Immediately postoperatively, 16 (84.2%) of 19 patients had adequate stimulation coverage and good pain relief with appropriate programming. Of three (15.8%) patients with minimal or no short‐term pain relief, lack of response was not attributable to inadequate distribution of stimulation. Conclusions: With electrophysiologic monitoring and fluoroscopy guidance, placement of SCS laminectomy leads in select patients under general anesthesia may result in appropriate stimulation coverage and pain relief in most.     

Using the SAFE Principles When Evaluating Electrical Stimulation Therapies for the Pain of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Objective: In this paper we review the literature on failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and use principles of Safety, Appropriateness, Fiscal Neutrality, and Effectiveness (SAFE) to determine the appropriate place for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for the treatment of FBSS. Methods and Results: We analyzed the most recent literature regarding treatments of pain due to FBSS and used the SAFE principles to reprioritize pain treatments, particularly electrical stimulation therapies, for FBSS in a more appropriate, relevant, and up to date continuum of care. Conclusions: Based on this review and analysis of the safety, appropriateness, cost‐effectiveness, and efficacy of treatments for the pain of FBSS, relegating SCS to a last resort therapy is no longer justifiable. SCS should be considered before submitting a patient to either long‐term systemic opioid therapy or repeat spinal surgery for chronic pain resulting from FBSS.     

Treatment of Chronic Intractable Hip Pain After Iliac Crest Bone Graft Harvest Using Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation

Introduction: Autologous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) harvest is a common procedure performed at the time of many spinal surgical procedures and associated with morbidity incurred at the harvest site, the most troublesome being chronic donor site pain. Methods: The patient underwent an uneventful peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) trial with percutaneous placement of two temporary eight‐electrode leads (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) placed in epifascial plane over the left ICBG harvest site. Results: After experiencing excellent pain relief over the next two days, the patient was implanted with permanent leads and generator two weeks later and reported sustained pain relief at 12‐month follow‐up visit. Discussion: Peripheral nerve field stimulation provides an effective treatment option for patients suffering from chronic hip pain after ICBG harvest who have failed conservative treatment. PNFS may provide pain relief with advantages over conservative treatments and more invasive techniques. Conclusion: Peripheral nerve field stimulation offers an alternative treatment option for select patients with chronic hip pain after ICBG harvest.