Citations

Postdural puncture headache is a frequently encountered complication following procedures such as lumbar puncture, neuraxial anesthesia, or intrathecal drug delivery device implantation. It classically presents as a painful orthostatic headache that is exacerbated when a patient is upright. For treatment, patients are often started on conservative options such as hydration, caffeine, bedrest, and NSAID analgesics; however, certain patients who fail these therapies may require intervention with an epidural blood patch. The epidural blood patch remains the gold standard for treating refractory postdural puncture headache. Contraindications to epidural blood patch include severe coagulopathy, patient refusal, or infection at the intended site of entry. There are no clear consensus recommendations regarding patients with a hematological malignancy and potential risk that autologous blood may seed malignant cells into the neuraxis. In this case report, we present a patient with acute myeloid leukemia who developed a postdural puncture headache after receiving subarachnoid administration of antineoplastics. The patient was refractory to conservative therapy, prompting multidisciplinary consultation and discussion with the patient about the risks and benefits of proceeding with an epidural blood patch. Ultimately, the patient elected to proceed with the offered epidural blood patch which led to complete resolution of his painful headaches and did not cause any spread of malignant cells into his neuraxis or cerebral spinal fluid.

Back pain with radicular symptoms is associated with detrimental physical and emotional functioning and economic burden. Conservative treatments including physical, pharmacologic and injection therapy may not provide clinically significant or long-standing relief. Regenerative medicine research including Platelet rich plasma (PRP), Platelet lysate (PL) or Plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) continues to develop, however evidence appraisal for treatment of radicular pain remains lacking. Thus, we performed a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of epidural steroid injections containing PRP or related products to treat radicular pain. Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar databases were queried. Twelve studies were included in qualitative analysis, consisting of three randomized controlled trials and nine observational studies. The primary outcome was pain intensity, and secondary outcomes included functional improvement, anatomical changes on advanced imaging, and adverse events. All studies identified improved pain intensity and functional outcomes after epidural injection of PRP, PRGF and/or PL. Similar or longer lasting pain relief was noted in the PRP cohort compared to the cohort receiving epidural steroid injections with effects lasting up to 12–24 months. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) analysis revealed a very-low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.

Abstract Ulnar neuropathy is a condition that manifests with symptoms of neuropathic pain, numbness, tingling, and even possible motor deficits in the ulnar distribution of the arm. This debilitating painful condition may be refractory to conservative, pharmacologic, and surgical interventions. Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) technology has advanced significantly in recent years allowing for conditions such as ulnar neuropathy to be treated in a minimally invasive manner. Here we report the first case reports in the literature (to our knowledge) of two patients with intractable ulnar neuropathy who underwent minimally invasive PNS Bioventus implants. Both patients experienced at least 75% pain relief based on NRS scores at 6 months after ulnar nerve PNS implantation. The patients also experienced significant improvement in functional outcomes, including return to employment, ability to perform activities of daily living without any impairment, and improved quality of life measures. While the results presented in our two case reports are promising, we only provide observational data over a 6 to 15-month period post-implantation. Future well-powered, large-scale, and long-term randomized controlled trials are warranted to determine efficacy and long-term pain and functional outcomes from PNS therapy for treatment of ulnar neuropathy.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been utilized for over 50 years with accumulating evidence of efficacy in a variety of chronic pain conditions. The level and strength of evidence supporting the use of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain remains unclear. The purpose of this review is to synthesize data from prospective studies on the efficacy of PNS for neuropathic pain as it pertains to pain intensity, neurological deficits/neuropathy (e.g., weakness, sensory deficits, gait/balance), and other secondary outcomes (quality of life, satisfaction, emotional functioning, and adverse events). In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this review identified articles from MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Overall, per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, pooled results demonstrate very low quality or low quality of evidence supporting modest to substantial improvement in pain and neurological function after PNS implantation for treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. PNS for phantom limb pain was the only indication that had moderate level evidence. Future prospective and well-powered studies are warranted to assess the efficacy of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain.

AbstractObjectiveThe objective was to qualitatively synthesize all reported cases of complications, adverse effects, side effects, or harms arising from the use of scrambler therapy (ST).Methods and DesignA systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, United States National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from database inception to December 10, 2021. Case reports/series, abstracts, retrospective studies, and prospective studies (e.g., open-label trials, randomized controlled trials) pertaining to ST and any description of a complication, adverse effect, side effect, or harm were screened. The search protocol was developed a priori and registered via the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021291838).ResultsA total of six RCTs, 19 prospective open-label trials, and 11 case series / case reports met the inclusion criteria, comprising 1,152 total patients. Two patients experienced contact dermatitis, and one patient reported minor ecchymosis that resolved without intervention. This yielded a composite complication rate of 0.26% (3/1,152). There were zero reported serious adverse events.ConclusionsWhen used in accordance with the treatment protocols described by the United States Food and Drug Administration and device manual, ST is associated with a reported composite complication rate that is orders of magnitude lower than those of invasive neuromodulation devices. ST neuromodulation is a safe alternative for patients who cannot undergo invasive neuromodulation device implantation because of either risk or preference.

Introduction Habituation and loss of efficacy from spinal cord stimulation are commonly reported. This retrospective analysis investigated rescue of analgesia from spinal cord stimulation failure after implementing a strategy called a stimulation holiday, during which spinal cord stimulation is interrupted for a defined period and subsequently restarted. Methods A 6-year review (June 1, 2016–May 13, 2022) from a tertiary care center was conducted on patients who underwent 10 kHz frequency dorsal column spinal cord stimulation for ≥3 months, experienced loss of efficacy (≤30% pain relief or patient self-report of lack of meaningful pain relief), subsequently underwent a stimulation holiday, and then restarted spinal cord stimulation. The primary outcome was comparison of pain relief and responder rate (≥50% relief in pain intensity) before and after stimulation holiday. Results Of 212 patients, 40 (18.9%) experienced loss of efficacy at a mean follow-up period of 452.7±326.4 days after stimulator implantation and underwent stimulation holiday. Pain relief was significantly higher 1 month after stimulation holiday (39.4%±28.6%) compared with before stimulation holiday (8.7%±13.0%; mean difference 30.6%, 95% CI 21.9% to 39.3%, paired t-test p<0.001). A significantly higher responder rate (≥50% relief in pain intensity) was identified after stimulation holiday (57.5%) compared with before stimulation holiday (0%; Fisher’s exact test p<0.001). Associations of superior pain relief and responder rate remained significant at 3 and 6 months after stimulation holiday. Discussion Patients who experience loss of efficacy from spinal cord stimulation habituation could attempt a stimulation holiday rather than abandon therapy. Rescue of analgesia may be achieved after implementing a stimulation holiday and restarting spinal cord stimulation.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and painful condition in patients who have received chemotherapy. The role of neuromodulation therapy in treating pain and improving neurological function in CIPN remains unclear and warrants evidence appraisal. In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review to assess change in pain intensity and neurological function after implementation of any neuromodulation intervention for CIPN. Neuromodulation interventions consisted of dorsal column spinal cord stimulation (SCS), dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG-S), or peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS). In total, 15 studies utilized SCS (16 participants), 7 studies utilized DRG-S (7 participants), and 1 study utilized PNS (50 participants). Per the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria, there was very low-quality GRADE evidence supporting that dorsal column SCS, DRG-S, and PNS are associated with a reduction in pain severity from CIPN. Results on changes in neurological function remained equivocal due to mixed study findings on thermal sensory thresholds and touch sensation or discrimination. Future prospective, well-powered, and comparative studies assessing neuromodulation for CIPN are warranted.

Abstract Introduction Lumbar spinal stenosis affects more than 200,000 adults in the United States, resulting in approximately 38,000 operations among the Medicare population and greater than $1.5 billion in hospital bills alone. Fortunately, Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression (MILD) and the Superion Indirect Decompression System have shown lasting benefit and cost savings compared to more aggressive surgical options. Objective Our primary objective was to retrospectively determine the rate of lumbar decompression surgery following the MILD and Superion procedures. Materials and Methods This was a pooled retrospective review of LSS patients who received MILD and/or Superion procedures between January 2011 and July 2019. Adult patients with CPT codes for MILD and Superion procedures were identified. Patients were included if they had a follow‐up visit at least 2 years from the procedure date, preprocedural MRI results, and surgical notes. Results A total of 199 patients were included in the final analysis, of which 57 patients (28.6%) underwent MILD procedure only, 124 patients (62.3%) underwent Superion only, and 18 patients (9.0%) underwent an MILD procedure initially followed by a Superion procedure. Two patients had an MILD procedure performed twice at the same level at separate encounters. A total of four patients in the entire cohort (2.0%; MILD 5.3%, Superion 0.8%) underwent subsequent lumbar spine surgery when followed for at least 2 years. It is notable that some of these patients may not have been surgical candidates and this may have skewed the results. Conclusions Patients undergoing minimally invasive decompression treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis have low rates of subsequent open surgery which potentially results in cost savings and a reduction in severe adverse events. The reason for low surgical rate may reflect improvement in their symptoms, a preference to avoid surgery, or being deemed not a surgical candidate.