D’Souza, Ryan S.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are standardized and designed to provide superior analgesia, reduce opioid consumption, improve patient recovery, and reduce hospital length of stay. Yet, moderate-to-severe postsurgical pain continues to afflict over 40% of patients and remains a major priority for anesthesia research. Methadone administration in the perioperative setting may reduce postoperative pain scores and have opioid-sparing effects, which may be beneficial for enhanced recovery. Methadone possesses a multimodal profile consisting of µ-opioid agonism, N -methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonism, and reuptake inhibition of serotonin and norepinephrine. Furthermore, it may attenuate the development of chronic postsurgical pain. However, caution is advised with perioperative use of methadone in specific high-risk patient populations and surgical settings. Methadone’s wide pharmacokinetic variability, opioid-related adverse effects, and potential negative impact on cost-effectiveness may also limit its use in the perioperative setting. In this PRO-CON commentary article, the authors debate whether methadone should be incorporated in ERAS protocols to provide superior analgesia with no increased risks.

Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as an important treatment for chronic pain disorders. While there is evidence supporting improvement in pain intensity with SCS therapy, efforts to synthesize the evidence on physical functioning are lacking. Objective The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to assess long-term physical function following 12 months of SCS for chronic back pain. Evidence review PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched for original peer-reviewed publications investigating physical function following SCS. The primary outcome was physical function at 12 months following SCS therapy for chronic back pain compared with baseline. A random effects model with an inverse variable method was used. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to determine the certainty of evidence. Findings A total of 518 studies were screened, of which 36 were included. Twenty-two studies were pooled in the meta-analysis. There was a significant reduction in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at all time frames up to 24 months following implantation. Pooled results revealed significant improvement in ODI scores at 12 months with a mean difference of −17.00% (95% CI −23.07 to −10.94, p<0.001). There was a very low certainty of evidence in this finding as per the GRADE framework. There was no significant difference in subgroup analyses based on study design (randomised controlled trials (RCTs) vs non-RCTs), study funding, or stimulation type. Conclusion This meta-analysis highlights significant improvements in physical function after SCS therapy. However, this finding was limited by a very low GRADE certainty of evidence and high heterogeneity.

Current pharmacologic treatments may provide limited analgesia in fibromyalgia and other chronic pain disorders. Low-dose naltrexone (LDN) has emerged as a potential analgesic option that has been minimally explored. This study aims to describe current real-world prescribing practices of LDN, to investigate if patients have a perceived benefit of LDN in treating pain symptoms and to identify predictors associated with a perceived benefit or discontinuation of LDN. We evaluated all outpatient prescriptions for LDN prescribed for any pain indication in the Mayo Clinic Enterprise from 1 January 2009 to 10 September 2022. A total of 115 patients were included in the final analysis. The patients were 86% female, had a mean age of 48 ± 16 years, and 61% of prescriptions were for fibromyalgia-related pain. The final daily dose of oral LDN ranged from 0.8 to 9.0 mg, while the most common dose was 4.5 mg once daily. Of patients who reported follow-up data, 65% reported benefit in their pain symptoms while taking LDN. Adverse effects were reported in 11 (11%) patients and 36% discontinued taking LDN by the most recent follow-up. Concomitant analgesic medications were used by 60% of patients and were not associated with perceived benefit nor discontinuation of LDN, including concomitant opioids. LDN is a relatively safe pharmacologic option that may benefit patients with chronic pain conditions and warrants further investigation in a prospective, controlled, and well-powered randomized clinical trial.

This case series aims to highlight the efficacy of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in the treatment of phantom limb pain, as well as provide an alternative method for the treatment of this pain syndrome. In this report, we describe three amputee patients with severe phantom limb pain who obtained substantial analgesia and improvement in physical functionality after implantation of a temporary PNS device. Future studies should assess predictors of successful response or poor response to PNS therapy, such as mental health, environmental stressors, coping skills, and procedural factors. These factors may facilitate an individualized approach for each patient to ensure appropriate candidacy for PNS and better prognosis. Considering that patients in our cohort did not achieve long-lasting benefit after removal of temporary PNS, future research should assess if patients with phantom limb pain would benefit from permanent PNS, rather than temporary PNS.

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.