Interventional Pain Medicine最新文献

Background

Accuracy in the interpretation of data, and publication of studies regardless of outcomes are vital to the development of the scientific literature.

Objective

To determine the proportion of studies in the spine literature that report positive results.

Study design

Review article of studies published in nine major spine, pain, and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) journals from January 1, 2018–December 31, 2022.

Patient sample

Not applicable.

Methods

Articles that reported on pain and/or function from 2018 to 2022 in nine major journals were reviewed by two independent evaluators. The articles were graded as either positive or negative based on the authors’ own conclusions about their work.

Results

Overall, 91 % [95 % CI 88–94 %] of all articles were reported to have positive results. No significant differences were found between the broad categories of spine, pain, and PM&R journals. When comparing different categories of treatments, there were lower rates of positive results from medication/supplement studies (54 % [95 % CI 27–81 %]) compared to studies of spine injections/interventions (95 % [95 % CI 91–99 %]) and those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96–100 %]), and a lower rate of positive results from studies on physical treatments (85 % [95 % CI 75–95 %]) compared to those of surgery (100 % [95 % CI 96–100 %]). Studies with placebo controls were less likely to report positive results (60 % [95 % CI 44–76 %]) compared to those that did not use placebo controls (96 % [95 % CI 94–98 %]).

Conclusions

Despite the vast majority of studies in the spine literature concluding positive results, the high disease prevalence of spine conditions and the enormous burden on the healthcare system remain.

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices are routinely trialed to assess pain and functional improvement before permanent lead implantation. Lead migration is a common complication that may cause a loss of therapeutic effect in patients who may otherwise benefit from SCS. The timing of lead migration during the trial period is currently unknown.

Objectives

We hypothesize that significant lead migration may occur early in the SCS trial period, such as postoperative day 1 or 2, which may allow for contact stimulation adjustment to prevent false negative trial results. As such, in this study, we aim to evaluate the incidence and distance of lead migration in early thoracic SCS trial period.

Methods

We performed a case series of 27 patients ≥19 years of age who received differential target multiplexed thoracic SCS trials for chronic neuropathic pain from July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2023. Patients with a neuropathic pain diagnosis failing medical treatment, without structural pathology limiting epidural access, and with psychiatric clearance for suitability are eligible for SCS trials at our center. Pre- and post-flexion radiographs taken immediately after implantation and on postoperative day 1 or 2 were examined to assess the distance of lead migration. Clinically significant lead migration was pre-defined as ≥ 10 mm.

Results

The mean (SD) distances of epidural lead migration on postoperative day 1 or 2 were 18.2 (12.9) mm and 19.1 (13.3) mm for the cephalic and caudal leads, respectively. All migrations were caudad except for one trial. Clinically significant lead migration occurred in 20/27 (74 %) patients.

Conclusion

Clinically significant epidural lead migration occurs in the early SCS trial period.

Previous authors have described the anatomy of the superior cluneal nerves with medial, intermediate, and lateral branches as they pass over the iliac crest. Prior authors describe a technique for radiofrequency of the superior cluneal nerves with needle placement walking off of the superior border of the iliac crest with needle redirection by sensory testing and a monopolar radiofrequency lesion. This is a case report of a patient with sustained pain relief after performing a radiofrequency ablation of the superior cluneal nerves utilizing a bipolar palisade technique.

Objective

The present IRB-approved retrospective chart review describes the use of a 60-day PNS treatment for shoulder pain at a single center in 60 total consecutive patients.

Background

Chronic shoulder pain affects an increasing number of patients per year and is especially prevalent in elderly populations. Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) treatment targeting the nerves of the shoulder has been shown to reduce pain in prospective clinical studies and in analysis of real-world data.

Methods

Data were extracted from the electronic medical records of patients who had previously undergone percutaneous PNS treatment for chronic shoulder pain. Demographic data and treatment characteristics were summarized alongside treatment outcomes.

Results

Overall, 84 % (49/58) of patients reported substantial (≥50 %) pain relief at the end-of-treatment. The records for 2 patients did not include patient-reported percent pain relief. The average indwelling period for leads (i.e., treatment period) was 57 days. Findings on treatment effectiveness were consistent when the patient population was stratified by cause of pain, duration living with pain, and presence of pain-modifying comorbidities. Stimulation paradigms were identified and categorized by the nerve target and stimulation frequency (e.g., motor stimulation, sensory stimulation, or bimodal stimulation).

Conclusions

These results indicate percutaneous PNS is an effective treatment for patients with various shoulder pain histories, and while all stimulation paradigms were effective at reducing pain, patients who received bimodal PNS reported the greatest pain relief. Key limitations of the study included heterogeneous shoulder pain etiologies among patients and sparse availability of long-term follow-up data. These data support existing real-world and prospective clinical evidence on the efficacy of 60-day PNS treatment at treating chronic pain and provide valuable insights into its use in clinical practice.

Background

Blockade of the suprascapular nerve is an effective diagnostic tool in the workup and potential treatment of shoulder pain. For chronic shoulder pain, peripheral nerve stimulation has been shown to provide significant, sustained pain relief. However, no literature to date has described peripheral nerve stimulation for the treatment of oncologic shoulder pain.

Objectives

We describe two cases of chronic oncologic-related shoulder pain that responded to posterior suprascapular peripheral nerve stimulator placement to facilitate future progress and discussion in the fields of peripheral nerve stimulation and oncology pain.

Methods

Two subjects with chronic shoulder pain underwent ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve stimulation therapy at the suprascapular nerve.

Results

At follow-up visits (30 and 98 days after procedure), both subjects reported greater than 50% pain relief as measured by the numerical rating scale (NRS).

Conclusions

Peripheral nerve stimulator placement at the suprascapular nerve is a feasible procedure to treat oncologic shoulder pain via the described technique. Both subjects experienced clinically significant pain relief and decreased oral analgesic medication intake, and decreased medication-related side effects. This warrants further investigation including large comparative, prospective studies to better assess efficacy and safety of this approach.

Background

In 2014 the FDA issued a drug safety warning that steroids in the epidural space may result in rare but serious neurological adverse events. The FDA identified 131 cases of neurological adverse events and most complications were related to cervical transforaminal epidural injections (TFESIs). These complications occurred before the standard use of non-particulate steroids. Many still consider cervical TFSEIs to be unsafe.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of cervical TFESIs with non-particulate steroids.

Methods

A review was done of all cervical TFESIs from 2004 to 2021 at an academic institution when non-particulate steroids became more commonly used by reviewing CPT code 64479 linked to the performing physician. All treating physicians and department directors were queried about catastrophic complications (stroke, spinal cord injury, death or other). A secondary analysis was done on 200 consecutive cervical TFESIs looking at immediate and delayed side-effects documented by the nurse in recovery, day-after phone calls and clinic follow-up notes.

Results

From 2004 to 2021 the CPT code 64479 was used 6967 times, with 6241 cervical TFESIs and 726 thoracic TFESIs. No catastrophic complications occurred. In the subset analysis of 200 consecutive cervical TFESIs, 7 patients (3.5 %, 95 % CI 1.0–6.0) had a transient increase in pain, 18 (9 %, 95 % CI 5.0–13.0) had no change in pain and 171 (85.5 %, 95 % CI 80.6–90.4) had a decrease in pain. The average pain score among all participants dropped 3.7 (95 % 3.0–4.4) points. A 2-point drop was seen in 75.5 % (95 % CI 69.5–81.5) and a 3-point drop was seen in 62.5 % (95 % CI 59.1–65.9). Five of the seven patients with transient increased pain had an increase of $\ge$ 3 points on numerical rating scale. There was one of each of the following reported: insomnia, glucose >500, transient thumb numbness with pain, and hypertension. Two cases of headaches were reported.

Conclusion

This study supports the safety of cervical TFESIs with non-particulate steroids as recommended by consensus opinions from medical societies.