Citations

Background Cerebrospinal fluid-venous fistulas (CSFVF) are a common cause of spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH). Transvenous embolization has emerged as a reliable treatment option. We review the clinical presentation, imaging, and clinical outcomes of 100 consecutive CSFVF patients who underwent embolization over 2 years. Methods Baseline clinical characteristics, imaging findings (including Bern SIH score), technical outcomes, and long-term imaging and clinical outcomes were collected. All patients had at least 3 months of clinical follow-up and had baseline MRI. 99/100 patients underwent follow-up imaging at ≥3 months post-treatment. Results 100 patients were included. Mean imaging and clinical follow-up duration was 8.3±7.7 months and 15.0±6.8 months, respectively. The mean duration of symptoms before embolization was 40.9±52 months. Mean baseline Bern SIH score was 5.9±3.3. The most common baseline symptoms were headache (96 patients), tinnitus (55 patients), and cognitive dysfunction (44 patients). Technical success rate was 100%. Mean post-treatment Bern SIH score was 0.9±1.6 (P<0.0001). Following treatment, 95% of patients reported significant improvement or resolution in symptoms (58 patients reporting resolution and 37 reporting improvement). 5 patients reported no improvement. There were no major procedural or periprocedural complications. 10 patients had minor procedural complications that did not result in any change in management (Onyx emboli, venous perforation). 19 patients had rebound intracranial hypertension requiring acetazolamide therapy. 7 patients had recurrent fistula at the initially treated level. Conclusions Transvenous embolization of CSFVF in SIH patients is safe and effective with a 95% treatment response, significant improvement in imaging outcomes, and a very low rate of complications.

Abstract Objective Randomized trials have demonstrated efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Preliminary data suggested that treatment of PDN with high-frequency SCS resulted in improvements on neurological examination. The purpose of the present study was to explore whether patients with PDN treated with high-frequency SCS would have improvements in lower-extremity peripheral nerve function. Design Prospective cohort study in an outpatient clinical practice at a tertiary care center. Methods Patients with PDN were treated with high-frequency SCS and followed up for 12 months after SCS implantation with clinical outcomes assessments of pain intensity, neuropathic symptoms, and neurological function. Small-fiber sudomotor function was assessed with the quantitative sudomotor axon reflex test (QSART), and large-fiber function was assessed with nerve conduction studies (NCS). Lower-extremity perfusion was assessed with laser Doppler flowmetry. Results Nine patients completed 12-month follow-up visits and were observed to have improvements in lower-extremity pain, weakness, and positive sensory symptoms. Neuropathy impairment scores were improved, and 2 patients had recovery of sensory responses on NCS. A reduction in sweat volume on QSART was observed in the proximal leg but not at other sites. No significant differences were noted in lower-extremity perfusion or NCS as compared with baseline. Conclusions The improvement in pain relief was concordant with improvement in neuropathy symptoms. The findings from this study provide encouraging preliminary data in support of the hypothesis of a positive effect of SCS on peripheral neuropathy, but the findings are based on small numbers and require further evaluation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03769675.

Introduction Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis or management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. This multisociety guidance aims to fill this void and provide practitioners with comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations to prevent, diagnose and manage patients with PDPH. Methods Based on input from committee members and stakeholders, the committee cochairs developed 10 review questions deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid) on 2 March 2022. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for deduplication and screening, followed by data extraction. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for the development of guidelines and shared with contributors. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations graded according to the US Preventative Services Task Force grading of evidence. The interim draft was shared electronically, with each collaborator requested to vote anonymously on each recommendation using two rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Results Based on contemporary evidence and consensus, the multidisciplinary panel generated 50 recommendations to provide guidance regarding risk factors, prevention, diagnosis and management of PDPH, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. After two rounds of voting, we achieved a high level of consensus for all statements and recommendations. Several recommendations had moderate-to-low certainty of evidence. Conclusions These clinical practice guidelines for PDPH provide a framework to improve identification, evaluation and delivery of evidence-based care by physicians performing neuraxial procedures to improve the quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Uncertainty remains regarding best practice for the majority of management approaches for PDPH due to the paucity of evidence. Additionally, opportunities for future research are identified.

Importance Postdural puncture headache (PDPH) can follow unintentional dural puncture during epidural techniques or intentional dural puncture during neuraxial procedures, such as a lumbar puncture or spinal anesthesia. Evidence-based guidance on the prevention, diagnosis, and management of this condition is, however, currently lacking. Objective To fill the practice guidelines void and provide comprehensive information and patient-centric recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and managing PDPH. Evidence Review With input from committee members and stakeholders of 6 participating professional societies, 10 review questions that were deemed important for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH were developed. A literature search for each question was performed in MEDLINE on March 2, 2022. Additional relevant clinical trials, systematic reviews, and research studies published through March 2022 were also considered for practice guideline development and shared with collaborator groups. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with recommendations that were rated according to the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence. Collaborators were asked to vote anonymously on each recommendation using 2 rounds of a modified Delphi approach. Findings After 2 rounds of electronic voting by a 21-member multidisciplinary collaborator team, 47 recommendations were generated to provide guidance on the risk factors for and the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PDPH, along with ratings for the strength and certainty of evidence. A 90% to 100% consensus was obtained for almost all recommendations. Several recommendations were rated as having moderate to low certainty. Opportunities for future research were identified. Conclusions and Relevance Results of this consensus statement suggest that current approaches to the treatment and management of PDPH are not uniform due to the paucity of evidence. The practice guidelines, however, provide a framework for individual clinicians to assess PDPH risk, confirm the diagnosis, and adopt a systematic approach to its management.

Abstract Introduction Restless legs syndrome (RLS) can dramatically impair sleep quality and quality of life. Some patients have insufficient treatment response or intolerance to available pharmacological options. Exploration of novel therapeutic approaches is needed. Methods We report a case of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) providing benefit in RLS. We also performed a scoping review of SCS in RLS with comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus. Results A 77-year-old woman with DM2, OSA (on ASV), depression, familial RLS and iron deficiency with typical RLS symptoms for all of her adult life presented for management in 2000. In 2011 she developed intractable painful peripheral neuropathy and chronic back pain. Levodopa, pramipexole, oral/intravenous iron, gabapentin, pregabalin, tramadol, oxycodone, and methadone were ineffective or poorly tolerated. A 7-day percutaneous SCS trial resulted in RLS symptoms improvement initially by 50%. A Medtronic stimulator with lead placement at T8-T9 was implanted. 6 months later, the patient toggled between a tonic program (2.1-4.6 mA, 200 us, 50 Hz) and a sub-perception, differential target multiplexed program duty-cycled to 1:2 on:off (3.7 mA, 170 us, 300 Hz). She reported 75% improvement in RLS symptoms. Pain improved by 50%. Total daily dose of Oral Morphine Equivalents was reduced from 48.75mg/day to 37.5mg/day, with a stable once daily dose of 400 mg gabapentin at night. Uninterrupted sleep went from 2-5 hours to 6 hours. RLS worsened when the device was off. Our case corroborates the current evidence of benefit of SCS for RLS from the literature. We identified other 16 unique patients from case reports and series who had undergone SCS for RLS. Leads were most often implanted in mid or low thoracic levels. Stimulation waveforms were high frequency in 4 patients, tonic in 3 patients, burst stimulation in 1 patient, and undescribed in the others. All patients had RLS symptom reduction. Comorbid pain was reported in 14 patients, which also improved with SCS. Complication with lead erosion was reported in one case. Conclusion SCS remains a promising therapeutic approach for refractory RLS that deserves further investigation. SCS may reduce hyperexcitability seen in RLS by modulating dysfunctional spinal, subcortical, and cortical networks. Support (if any)

Introduction Spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH) caused by a spinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak classically presents with orthostatic headache. Digital subtraction myelography (DSM) has a well-established diagnostic yield in the absence of extradural spinal collection. At our institution, DSM is followed by lateral decubitus CT myelogram (LDCTM) in the same decubitus position to increase diagnostic yield of the combined study. We evaluated the incremental diagnostic yield of LDCTM following negative DSM and reviewed patient outcomes. Methods Retrospective review of consecutive DSMs with subsequent LDCTM from April 2019 to March 2021 was performed. Combined reports were reviewed, and studies with positive DSMs were excluded. Of the exams with negative DSM, only studies with LDCTM reports identifying potential leak site were included. Interventions and follow-up clinical notes were reviewed to assess symptoms improvement following treatment. Results Of the 83 patients with negative DSMs, 11 (13.2%) had positive leak findings on LDCTMs, and 21 (25.3%) were equivocal. Of 11 positive LDCTMs, 6 leaks were nerve sheath tears (NSTs) and 5 were CSF-venous fistulas (CVFs). 10/11 (90.9%) had intervention and follow-up, with 9/10 (90%) having positive clinical outcome. Of the 21 equivocal LDCTM patients (19 CVFs and 2 NSTs), 15 (71.4%) had interventions and follow-up, with 3/15 (20.0%) with positive clinical outcomes. Conclusion LDCTM following negative DSM has an incremental diagnostic yield up to 38.6%, with up to 14.5% of positive patient outcomes following treatment. LDCTM should be considered after DSM to maximize diagnostic yield of the combined exam.

Abstract Objective To provide an overview of the current available literature on peripheral nerve blocks for the management of migraine and other headache disorders in adults. Background Peripheral nerve blocks have been commonly performed in the headache practice for migraine, cluster headache, occipital neuralgia, and other headache disorders, despite a paucity of evidence supporting their use historically. In the past decade, there has been an effort to explore the efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve blocks for the management of headache, with the greatest interest centered around greater occipital blocks. Design We performed a search in PubMed using key words including “occipital nerve blocks,” “peripheral nerve blocks,” “occipital nerve,” “migraine,” “cluster headache,” and “neuralgia.” We reviewed the randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, and case series, and summarized the anatomy, techniques, and the evidence for the use of peripheral nerve blocks in different headache disorders, with particular focus on available RCTs. Case reports were included for a detail review of adverse events. Results Of 12 RCTs examining the use of greater occipital nerve blocks for migraine, all but one demonstrate efficacy with reduction in headache frequency, intensity, and/or duration compared to placebo. Studies have not demonstrated a difference in clinical outcomes with the use of corticosteroids for nerve blocks compared to blocks with local anesthetic in the treatment of migraine. There are two RCTs supporting the use of greater occipital blockade for cluster headache, both showing benefit of suboccipitally injected corticosteroid. One RCT suggests benefit of greater occipital nerve blocks for cervicogenic headache. Observational studies and case series/reports show that greater occipital nerve block may be effective in prolonged migraine aura, status migrainosus, post‐dural puncture headache, and occipital neuralgia. Overall, peripheral nerve blocks are well tolerated. Serious side effects are rare but have been reported, including acute cerebellar syndrome and infection. Conclusions Peripheral nerve blocks, especially occipital nerve blocks, are a viable treatment option for migraine and may be helpful in cluster headache as a transitional therapy or rescue therapy. Additional prospective studies are needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of occipital nerve blocks for long‐term migraine prevention, as well as for other headache disorders, such as occipital neuralgia.

Summary The COVID‐19 pandemic transformed everyday life, but the implications were most impactful for vulnerable populations, including patients with chronic pain. Moreover, persistent pain is increasingly recognised as a key manifestation of long COVID. This narrative review explores the consequences of the COVID‐19 pandemic for chronic pain. Publications were identified related to the COVID‐19 pandemic influence on the burden of chronic pain, development of new‐onset pain because of long COVID with proposed mechanisms and COVID‐19 vaccines and pain interventions. Broadly, mechanisms underlying pain due to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could be caused by ‘systemic inflammatory‐immune mechanisms’, ‘direct neuropathic mechanisms’ or ‘secondary mechanisms due to the viral infection or treatment’. Existing chronic pain populations were variably impacted and social determinants of health appeared to influence the degree of effect. SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased the absolute numbers of patients with pain and headache. In the acute phase, headache as a presenting symptom predicted a milder course. New‐onset chronic pain was reportedly common and likely involves multiple mechanisms; however, its prevalence decreases over time and symptoms appear to fluctuate. Patients requiring intensive support were particularly susceptible to long COVID symptoms. Some evidence suggests steroid exposure (often used for pain interventions) may affect vaccine efficacy, but there is no evidence of clinical repercussions to date. Although existing chronic pain management could help with symptomatic relief, there is a need to advance research focusing on mechanism‐based treatments within the domain of multidisciplinary care.