3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Spinal cord stimulation for treatment of the pain associated with hereditary multiple osteochondromas

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Hereditary multiple osteochondromas (HMO) usually presents with neoplastic lesions throughout the skeletal system. These lesions frequently cause chronic pain and are conventionally treated with surgical resection and medication. In cases where conventional treatments have failed, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) could be considered as a potential option for pain relief. The objective of this case was to determine if SCS may have a role in treating pain secondary to neoplastic lesions from HMO.

          Case presentation

          We report a 65-year-old female who previously received both surgical and pharmacological interventions for treating HMO neoplastic pain in the lumbar, pelvis, femur, and tibial regions. These interventions either failed to offer significant pain relief or caused excessive lethargy. A SCS trial was then offered with a dual 16-contact lead trial leading to 70%–80% improvement in pain from baseline and 85% reduction in oxycodone IR intake. This was followed by permanent implantation of two 2×8 contact paddle leads (T7–T8 and T9–T10 interspaces). After 8-week follow-up, settings were further optimized resulting in an additional 30% improvement in pain compared to last visit. At 6-month follow-up, the patient reported continued pain relief.

          Conclusion

          This case demonstrates the first successful use of SCS to treat both HMO and nonmalignant neoplastic-related pain. The patient reported pain improvement from baseline, reduced pain medication requirements, and subjective improvement in quality of life. Additionally, this case demonstrates the potential advantage of trialing multiple painful areas with a 16-contact lead in order to avoid multiple trials and placement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The natural history of hereditary multiple exostoses.

          We established a database of hereditary multiple exostoses for the state of Washington, on the basis of a retrospective review of the medical records and a clinical evaluation of family members, to determine the prevalence, clinical range of expression, and rate of malignant degeneration. The database comprised forty-six kindreds with 113 affected members; all kindreds had at least one member living in the state of Washington. The over-all prevalence was at least one in 50,000. Approximately 10 per cent of the subjects had no family history of multiple exostoses. With the use of twenty-three pedigrees that demonstrated an adequate multigenerational history for determination of penetrance of the gene, we identified one unaffected individual among twenty-six obligate heterozygotes, a rate of penetrance of 96 per cent. There was no evidence for a substantial reduction of penetrance in female subjects. The median age at the time of the diagnosis in the 113 affected individuals was three years (range, birth to twelve years). In a cohort of eighty-four subjects for whom we had complete information, the clinical range of expression was wide: thirty-three (39 per cent) had an obvious deformity of the forearm, eight (10 per cent) had an inequality in the lengths of the limbs, seven (8 per cent) had an angular deformity of the knee, and two (2 per cent) had a deformity of the ankle. The average number of operations for the patients for whom the operative history was known was two.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Interventional techniques: evidence-based practice guidelines in the management of chronic spinal pain.

            The evidence-based practice guidelines for the management of chronic spinal pain with interventional techniques were developed to provide recommendations to clinicians in the United States. To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain, utilizing all types of evidence and to apply an evidence-based approach, with broad representation by specialists from academic and clinical practices. Study design consisted of formulation of essentials of guidelines and a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions and statements about relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, systematic review, consensus evaluation, open forum presentation, and blinded peer review. Methodologic quality evaluation criteria utilized included the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) criteria, and Cochrane review criteria. The designation of levels of evidence was from Level I (conclusive), Level II (strong), Level III (moderate), Level IV (limited), to Level V (indeterminate). Among the diagnostic interventions, the accuracy of facet joint nerve blocks is strong in the diagnosis of lumbar and cervical facet joint pain, whereas, it is moderate in the diagnosis of thoracic facet joint pain. The evidence is strong for lumbar discography, whereas, the evidence is limited for cervical and thoracic discography. The evidence for transforaminal epidural injections or selective nerve root blocks in the preoperative evaluation of patients with negative or inconclusive imaging studies is moderate. The evidence for diagnostic sacroiliac joint injections is moderate. The evidence for therapeutic lumbar intraarticular facet injections is moderate for short-term and long-term improvement, whereas, it is limited for cervical facet joint injections. The evidence for lumbar and cervical medial branch blocks is moderate. The evidence for medial branch neurotomy is moderate. The evidence for caudal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief in managing chronic low back and radicular pain, and limited in managing pain of postlumbar laminectomy syndrome. The evidence for interlaminar epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief in managing lumbar radiculopathy, whereas, for cervical radiculopathy the evidence is moderate. The evidence for transforaminal epidural steroid injections is strong for short-term and moderate for long-term improvement in managing lumbar nerve root pain, whereas, it is moderate for cervical nerve root pain and limited in managing pain secondary to lumbar post laminectomy syndrome and spinal stenosis. The evidence for percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is strong. For spinal endoscopic adhesiolysis, the evidence is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. For sacroiliac intraarticular injections, the evidence is moderate for short-term relief and limited for long-term relief. The evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for sacroiliac joint pain is limited. The evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy is moderate in managing chronic discogenic low back pain, whereas for annuloplasty the evidence is limited. Among the various techniques utilized for percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is moderate for short-term and limited for long-term relief for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy, and percutaneous laser discectomy, whereas it is limited for nucleoplasty and for DeKompressor technology. For vertebral augmentation procedures, the evidence is moderate for both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. The evidence for spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. The evidence for implantable intrathecal infusion systems is strong for short-term relief and moderate for long-term relief. These guidelines include the evaluation of evidence for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in managing chronic spinal pain and recommendations for managing spinal pain. However, these guidelines do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. These guidelines also do not represent a "standard of care."
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Physiology of spinal cord stimulation: review and update.

              Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) was an outgrowth of the well-known gate control theory presented by Melzack and Wall in 1965. Although the method has been used to treat chronic severe pain for more than three decades, very little was known about the physiological and biochemical mechanisms behind the beneficial effects until recently. We now know that SCS activates several different mechanisms to treat different types of pain such as neuropathic and ischemic. In general, these mechanisms seem most dependent on activation of only a few segments of the spinal cord. However, both animal studies and human observations have indicated that supraspinal circuits may contribute as well. In the treatment of neuropathic pain, intermittent SCS may give several hours of pain relief after cessation of the stimulation. This protracted effect indicates long-lasting modulation of neural activity involving changes in the local transmitter systems in the dorsal horns. In ischemic pain, animal experiments demonstrate that inhibition of afferent activity in the spinothalamic tracts, long-term suppression of sympathetic activity, and antidromic effects on peripheral reflex circuits may take part in the pain alleviation. Moderate SCS intensities seem to evoke sympathetic inhibition, but higher stimulation intensities may induce antidromically mediated release of vasoactive substances, eg, the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), resulting in peripheral vasodilation. The anti-ischemic effect of SCS in angina pectoris due to intermittent coronary ischemia probably occurs because application of SCS appears to result in a redistribution of cardiac blood supply, as well as a decrease in tissue oxygen demand. Recent studies indicate that SCS modulates the activity of cardiac intrinsic neurons thereby restricting the arrythmogenic consequences of intermittent local coronary ischemia. The present state of knowledge is briefly reviewed and recent research directions outlined.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2015
                18 August 2015
                : 8
                : 557-560
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitaiton, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
                [2 ]Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
                [3 ]Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
                [5 ]Reeve-Irvine Research Center for Spinal Cord Injury, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Eric Y Chang, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of California Irvine, Gillespie Building Rm 3226A, 837 Health Science Road, Irvine, CA 92697-1050, USA, Tel +1 949 824 7222, Email changey1@ 123456uci.edu
                Article
                jpr-8-557
                10.2147/JPR.S86790
                4547638
                © 2015 Mirpuri et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License

                The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Case Report

                Comments

                Comment on this article