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.     

Application of Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Abdominal Visceral Pain Syndromes: Case Reports

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has traditionally been applied to the treatment of neuropathic pain with good to excellent outcomes. Visceral pain syndromes can be just as debilitating and disabling as somatic and neuropathic pain, however, there seems to be a general lack of consensus on appropriate treatment strategies for these disorders. We present here several case studies to demonstrate the viscerotomal distribution of abdominal visceral pain pathways and the application of traditional SCS techniques for its management. Nine patients, experiencing abdominal visceral pain due to various conditions including chronic nonalcoholic pancreatitis, post‐traumatic splenectomy, and generalized abdominal pain secondary to laparotomies, were treated with SCS. Efficacy of treatment was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain intensity and a reduction, if any, in opioid intake. There was an overall mean reduction of 4.9 points in the VAS score for pain intensity and a substantial (> 50%) decrease in narcotic use. All patients were followed for more than one year with excellent outcomes and minimal complications. We conclude, based on these case reports, that SCS might be an effective, nondestructive, and reversible treatment modality for abdominal visceral pain disorders.     

Abdominal Angina due to Obstruction of Mesenteric Artery Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Clinical Case

Introduction: Abdominal angina occurs in patients affected by mesenteric artery obstruction, causing postprandial episodes of visceral pain. The conventional treatment consists of vessels revascularization, but sometimes this is not applicable. Case Report: The authors report a case of a patient with severe abdominal angina caused by mesenteric ischemia, not treatable with surgery and few‐responder to pharmacological therapy (opioids and epidural infusion of local anesthetics). After a successful screening test, the patient underwent implantation of a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. Results: The stimulation provided a reduction in pain episodes (number and intensity) and in oral analgesics consumption. Results obtained support the clinical efficacy and durability of the SCS in the management of abdominal angina due to not treatable mesenteric ischemia. Conclusions: Spinal cord stimulation may be considered for abdominal angina, although there is still no evidence provided by controlled studies.     

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 recurrent painful neuromas of the foot

The authors report the case of a patient affected by recurrent neuromas of the interdigital nerves of the left foot that appeared after surgery for Morton’s disease. Implantation of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system was performed after three unsuccessful surgical revisions, which demonstrated the presence of multiple neuromas growing at endings of the stumps of the nerves and fasciculi. The patient developed chronic neuropathic pain localized within the third metatarsal region of the left foot. Conservative treatments failed and autonomous gait became impossible. SCS immediately abolished pain and the patient was able to perform her normal daily activities within 1 month. At our knowledge, this is the first report in literature of SCS successfully employed for recurrent and refractory pain due to Morton’s neuroma.     

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.     

Rare Side‐effects during Spinal Cord Stimulation: Gastrointestinal Symptoms

In current medical literature, most reported complications during spinal cord stimulation (SCS) concern technical problems, such as malfunction, migration or breakage of the lead, or internal pulse generator dysfunction, while reports about side‐effects caused by SCS are rare. In this clinical report, we describe uncommon and unexplained gastrointestinal (GI) side‐effects of constipation, abdominal pain, and distension during SCS in a patient suffering for chronic neuropathic pain caused by failed back surgery syndrome. These GI symptoms disappeared after suspension of SCS and were reduced if the stimulation settings were reduced below paresthesia threshold. The symptoms experienced by our patient could be related to a functional and reversible block of parasympathetic outflow in the GI system since SCS may involve not only dorsal horn structures but also somatic and visceral sensory afferents to these structures in an unpredictable way.     

Attenuation by spinal cord stimulation of a nociceptive reflex generated by colorectal distention in a rat model

The mechanisms underlying the cause and treatment of visceral pain of gastrointestinal origin are poorly understood. Previous clinical studies have shown that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) attenuates neuropathic and ischemic pain, and animal experiments have provided knowledge about probable physiological mechanisms. The goal of the present study was to investigate whether SCS influences colonic sensitivity in a conscious rat. A visceromotor behavioral response (VMR), induced by colorectal distention, was used to quantify the level of colonic sensitivity. Under anesthesia, an electrode (cathode) was placed on the dorsal surface of the spinal cord at L1. One week after implantation of the SCS electrode, the effects of stimulation delivered with different intensities (50 Hz, 0.2 ms for 30 min) on colonic sensitivity were determined. Nociceptive levels of colorectal distention (60 mm Hg for 10 min) induced an enhanced VMR quantified as an increased number of abdominal muscle contractions compared to controls in which the balloon catheter was inserted into the colorectal region but not distended. Colonic sensitization with acetic acid increased the VMR to innocuous levels of colorectal distention (30 mm Hg for 10 min). We found that SCS induced a significant depression of the VMR produced by colorectal distention in both normal rats and those with sensitized colons. The suppressive effect of SCS on colonic sensitivity suggests that SCS may have therapeutic potential for the treatment of visceral pain of gastrointestinal origin associated with abdominal cramping and painful abdominal spasms.     

Anterograde Revision of Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulator Paddle Electrode: A Case Report

Objectives: To illustrate a new surgical revision strategy for malfunctioning spinal cord stimulation (SCS) paddle electrodes. Background: SCS is a treatment for chronic neuropathic pain that delivers therapeutic doses of electric current to the dorsal columns resulting in dermatomal paresthesia and pain reduction. Reasons for SCS failure include hardware malfunction or breakage and medical complications. Case Report: A 34‐year‐old woman presented with a two‐year history of intractable pain in the left upper extremity and thoracic region which was previously controlled by SCS. Imaging demonstrated breakage of the cervical electrode wire that had been advanced in the caudal direction from the C1 spinal level. Revision of the broken electrode was performed by hemilaminectomy of C3‐C4 and the replacement electrode was advanced in the cephalad direction. Results: Ideal and exact paresthesia pattern was confirmed intraoperatively and the patient maintained successful pain reduction at five‐year follow‐up. Conclusion: Advancing SCS electrodes into the upper cervical spine in the cephalad direction, using the previously formed scar capsule, offers an alternate strategy for revision of malfunctioning SCS paddle electrodes.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain Management in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Case Report

Introduction. The classic presentation of ankylosing spondylitis not only impairs spinal mobility but also imposes functional limitations, and fatigue is common. Methods. We report here the outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in the case of a 47‐year‐old man with low back and hip/thigh pain due to ankylosing spondylitis, with failed responses to conservative therapies aimed at treating this pain. Results. Spinal cord stimulation induced axial low back and bilateral hip paresthesia resulting in complete subjective pain relief, cessation of analgesic medications, reduced fatigue, and improved sleep patterns. SCS also resulted in improved socioeconomic outcomes with a return to work. Conclusions. With further research in patients with broader presentations of the disease, SCS may prove efficacious in suppressing intractable pain symptoms due to ankylosing spondylitis, thus improving quality of life measures.     

Spinal cord stimulation in the United Kingdom.

All the medical, surgical and engineering personnel in the UK who have used spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients, attended a workshop to discuss their results. The major use of SCS has been for multiple sclerosis and intractable pain. It was concluded that the technique benefited up to two thirds of patients with bladder dysfunction, and that pain and possibly spasticity also responded to SCS, but other manifestations of multiple sclerosis did not. Further information on long term benefit is needed and the use of SCS in other conditions, such as spinal injury and peripheral vascular disease, is not yet established. SCS cannot be recommended for use outside large centres as x-ray screening, urodynamic and neurophysiological assessment facilities are required as well as biological engineering assistance.     

Spinal cord stimulation in a patient with multiple sclerosis and failed back surgery syndrome

In the present article, we described a case of treating intractable pain from failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and multiple sclerosis (MS) after implantation of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a patient. We are reporting a case where SCS has been used for treating a patient with both FBSS and MS.

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a chronic demyelinating autoimmune disease and the most frequently occurring type of neuronal demyelination. Multiple Sclerosis may show various neurological manifestations, including neuropathic pain, dysesthesia and paraesthesia in approximately 75% of the patients, based on the severity of nerve damage.1 The associated neuropathic pain accounts for 30% of all MS symptomatic medication. However, medical treatment is generally unresponsive or inadequate for the management of this pain.1Failed back surgery syndrome is the most common indication for spinal cord stimulation (SCS). It is often characterised by disabled back or radicular limb pain following spinal surgery, with neuropathic and nociceptive components that are often insufficiently responsive to conventional therapies such as reoperation or medical treatment.2Neuropathic pain may develop secondary to a primary lesion in the nervous system or due to nervous system dysfunction. Depending on the location of the lesion in the nervous system, it is classified as either central or peripheral neuropathic pain. Due to insufficient epidemiological research and follow-up, the exact prevalence of neuropathic pain remains unknown. However, it is estimated that approximately 1-1.5% of the population is affected by it.Spinal cord laminae I, II and V receive information from nociceptive afferent fibres of the dorsal root ganglia.3 Although nociceptive information is transmitted to higher centres for processing, it can be modified at primary afferent nerve terminals and at the presynaptic junction of projection neurones in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord.Spinal cord stimulation-induced analgesia involves neurophysiological and neurochemical mechanisms. Spinal cord stimulation activates the dorsal column and inhibitory interneurons that attenuate pain.3Neurostimulation is a known effective treatment for neuropathic pain.1 Therefore, we aimed to determine whether SCS is successful in treating intractable pain in a patient with MS and FBSS.     

脊髓和马尾神经损伤后慢性神经源性疼痛外科治疗策略

目的 探讨脊髓和马尾神经损伤后慢性神经源性疼痛的神经外科治疗策略.方法 脊髓和马尾神经损伤后慢性神经源性疼痛20例,年龄28～81岁,病程8个月～50年.共行镇痛手术23次,其中,脊髓背根入髓区显微外科切开术19次,脊髓电刺激术3次,鞘内靶控输注系统植入术1次.采用视觉模拟评分（VAS）来评估手术疗效,以术后疼痛缓解大于75%为疗效优秀,疼痛缓解50%～75%为良好,疼痛缓解小于50%为差.结果 随访6个月～4年,10例疼痛消失,停用镇痛剂,生活质量改善;7例疼痛明显减轻,VAS 2～4分,其中,5例停用镇痛剂,2例镇痛剂使用量明显下降,生活质量改善;3例疼痛无明显改善.结论 脊髓背根入髓区显微外科切开术和脊髓电刺激术对脊髓和马尾神经损伤后慢性神经源性疼痛患者疗效满意,但其适应证有差别,应根据患者的损伤节段、损伤程度和疼痛部位等具体情况选择手术方式.     

Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Cord Stimulation and Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for Chronic Intractable Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ObjectivesIn the spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S) literature, the typical primary outcome measure includes pain relief, whether numeric rating scale changes or percentage pain relief, and functional outcomes and patient satisfaction are included as secondary outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the rate of patient satisfaction with the use of SCS and DRG-S in the treatment of chronic intractable pain.Materials and MethodsThe study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews. We queried articles from multiple electronic data bases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials data bases, and hand-searched reference lists of identified publications. All periods were included. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies that reported patient satisfaction in patients who underwent SCS or DRG-S. Bias evaluation for the included studies involved appropriate guidelines for each study design (Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies).ResultsOur search strategy identified 242 unique citations, of which nine RCTs and 23 observational studies were included for analysis. Overall, 25 studies comprising 1355 participants were pooled in our quantitative analysis. The pooled proportion of patients who reported satisfaction from all studies was 82.2% (95% CI, 77.8%–86.2%). This finding had high statistical heterogeneity (I² = 74.0%). Subgroup analysis did not reveal differences in satisfaction when studies were stratified based on study design (RCT or observational study) or follow-up period (six, 12, 24, and 36 months).ConclusionsOur results show high levels of patient satisfaction across the SCS and DRG-S literature when these treatment modalities are used for chronic intractable pain, regardless of SCS programming algorithm. However, there is a scarcity of unbiased and/or non–industry-funded prospective studies in the neuromodulation field, and future efforts to expand this area of the SCS and DRG-S literature are greatly needed.     

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.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Visceral Pain From Chronic Pancreatitis

Background and Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may reduce pain scores and improve function in patients with various chronic abdominal pain syndromes including chronic pancreatitis. Here described is a large clinical experience in SCS for severe chronic pancreatitis. Methods: SCS was trialed in 30 patients with chronic pancreatitis. SCS trials lasted 7–14 days (median 9 days). SCS lead tips were mostly positioned at the T5 (N= 10) or T6 (N= 10) vertebral level. Results: Twenty‐four patients (80%) reported at least 50% pain relief on completion of the trial. Among these, pre‐trial visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores averaged 8 ± 1.6 (standard deviation) and opioid use averaged 165 ± 120 mg morphine sulfate equivalents. During the trial, VAS pain scores decreased to 3.67 ± 2 cm (p < 0.001, Mann–Whitney Rank Sum Test) and opioid use decreased to 105 ± 101 mg morphine equivalent a day. Six patients failed the trial; one was lost to follow‐up; in three patients after the implantation, the system had to be removed due to infection or lead migration; and 20 were followed for the whole year. For 20 patients followed for the whole year, VAS pain scores remained low (3.6 ± 2 cm; p < 0.001) at one year, as did opioid use (48.6 ± 58 mg morphine equivalents). Conclusions: SCS may be a useful therapeutic option for patients with severe visceral pain from chronic pancreatitis. Prospective trial is warranted.     

Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation in the Treatment of Postlaminectomy Syndrome after Multilevel Spinal Surgeries

Introduction: Chronic low back pain in patients with postlaminectomy syndrome (PLS) is challenging to treat, especially for patients who have undergone multilevel surgical procedures. Despite conservative therapy and available interventional pain procedures including spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and intrathecal therapies, patients may continue with intractable low back pain. Peripheral nerve field stimulation (PNFS) may represent an effective alternative treatment option for these patients when conventional treatments do not provide adequate relief of intractable low back pain. Methods: Eighteen patients underwent an uneventful PNFS trial with percutaneous placement of four temporary quadripolar leads (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) placed subcutaneously over the lumbar or thoraco‐lumbar area. Results: After experiencing excellent pain relief over the next two days, temporary leads were removed. The patients were implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable or non‐rechargeable generator two to four weeks after temporary lead removal. All patients reported sustained pain relief 12 months after implantation. Discussion: PNFS with use of four vertically orientated leads provides an effective treatment option for patients with PLS after multilevel surgical procedures with intractable low back pain who have failed conservative treatment. PNFS may provide pain relief with advantages over conservative treatments and interventional treatments including SCS and intrathecal therapy. Conclusion: PNFS may be more effective in treating intractable low back pain than SCS in patients with PLS after multilevel spinal surgeries.     

Spinal Stimulation for Pain: Future Applications

With continuous progress and rapid technological advancement of neuromodulation it is conceivable that within next decade or so, our approach to the electrical stimulation of the spinal cord used in treatment of chronic pain will change radically. The currently used spinal cord stimulation (SCS), with its procedural invasiveness, bulky devices, simplistic stimulation paradigms, and frustrating decline in effectiveness over time will be replaced by much more refined and individually tailored modality. Better understanding of underlying mechanism of action will allow us to use SCS in a more rational way, selecting patient-specific targets and techniques that properly fit each patient with chronic pain based on pain characteristics, distribution, and cause. Based on the information available today, this article will summarize emerging applications of SCS in the treatment of pain and theorize on further developments that may be introduced in the foreseeable future. An overview of clinical and technological innovations will serve as a basis for better understanding of SCS landscape for the next several years.     

Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: report of 2 cases

Two adolescents with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) were treated safely and effectively by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). They complained of intractable pain resistant to conservative therapies. Whereas continuous epidural anesthesia temporarily reduced pain, SCS was more effective in alleviating chronic severe pain and improving the quality of life. With careful selection of patients, SCS therapy might be recommended even in young cases.     

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Pain Treatment After Spinal Cord Injury

In addition to restoration of bladder, bowel, and motor functions, alleviating the accompanying debilitating pain is equally important for improving the quality of life of patients with spinal cord injury(SCI). Currently,however, the treatment of chronic pain after SCI remains a largely unmet need. Electrical spinal cord stimulation(SCS) has been used to manage a variety of chronic pain conditions that are refractory to pharmacotherapy. Yet, its efficacy, benefit profiles, and mechanisms of action in SCI pain remain elusive, due to limited research, methodological weaknesses in previous clinical studies, and a lack of mechanistic exploration of SCS for SCI pain control. We aim to review recent studies and outline the therapeutic potential of different SCS paradigms for traumatic SCI pain. We begin with an overview of its manifestations,classification, potential underlying etiology, and currentchallenges for its treatment. The clinical evidence for using SCS in SCI pain is then reviewed. Finally, future perspectives of pre-clinical research and clinical study of SCS for SCI pain treatment are discussed.