Intrathecal Drug Delivery and Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Cancer Pain

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fangfang Xing ◽  
R. Jason Yong ◽  
Alan David Kaye ◽  
Richard D. Urman
Keyword(s):  
Drug Delivery ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Intrathecal Drug Delivery

scholarly journals Medical Device Related Pressure Injury in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: An Early Sign of Explantation in Suspected Infection

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. E235-E246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nerea Sanchis-López
Keyword(s):  
Drug Delivery ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Intrathecal Drug Delivery ◽  
Pressure Injury ◽  
Hospital General

Background Chronic back pain is a prevalent disease and has a high impact in daily life. Implantable devices (IDs) for chronic pain management include spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems and intrathecal drug delivery (ITDD) pumps. The number of ITDD implants have increased exponentially in the last decade. The number of complications, such as infections, are also more prevalent. Infection management guidelines are needed to standarize our clinical practice and define protocols of explantation. Objectives: The primary outcome is to define the likelihood of device explantation regarding some covariates related to the patient, antibiotic therapy or surgerical procedures. The secondary outcome is to evaluate performance compared to the results published in the literature. Study Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Hospital General of Valencia. Valencia. Spain. Methods: A retrospective study of 288 implantable device surgeries was conducted at the Hospital General Universitary of Valencia (Spain) from 1994 to 2015. Demographical and infection data were collected. We have followed the “guidelines for the diagnosis, prevention and management of implantable electronic cardiac device infection” due to the lack of a specific guideline in our field. Results: Forty-three out of 288 procedures were identified as suspected device-infected interventions. Half of the patients had microbiologically confirmed infection after wound, blood or lumbar fluid culture. The odds ratio (OR) for explantation of the device was 19 for the presence of decubitus, a sign of medical device related pressure injury (P < 0.0005) and 5 for positive wound culture (P < 0.0452). Medical indication leading to device implantation and the antibiotics on discharge also played a role in the decision of device explantation. Limitations: Lack of external validity and others. Conclusion: In this study, presence of decubitus is the defining variable for device explantation when a infection is suspected rather than waiting to culture results. Due to a high variability in infection rates, multidisciplinary guidelines are needed to provide an approach that focuses on accurate data monitoring, rigurous implantation technique and standardized protocols. Key Words: Chronic pain, spinal cord stimulation infection, neurostimulator, intrathecal drug delivery pump, complication, infection, explantation

scholarly journals Peripheral Nerve Stimulation of the Lateral Femoral Cutaneous and Superior Gluteal Nerves for Treating Proximal Neuropathy Hip Pain

2020 ◽  
pp. 221-224
Author(s):  
Niek Vanquathem
Keyword(s):  
Drug Delivery ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Peripheral Nerve Stimulation ◽  
Peripheral Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Intrathecal Drug Delivery

Background: Chronic postoperative hip pain is estimated to occur in 10% to 35% of patients undergoing total hip replacement. Proximal peripheral neuropathic pain of the lateral femoral cutaneous and superior gluteal nerves has proven to be a difficult disorder to treat. Opioids are often ineffective in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Interventional methods such as peripheral nerve stimulation are minimally invasive options capable of relieving neuropathic pain. Stimulators powered by an implantable pulse generator (IPG), however, may not be suitable for peripheral nerve stimulation because of difficulty finding an appropriate pocket site. The introduction of wireless peripheral nerve stimulation has improved the ability to offer this modality. Case Presentation: We present a case of proximal peripheral neuropathic pain of the lateral femoral cutaneous and superior gluteal nerves that failed all other treatment modalities including spinal cord stimulation and intrathecal drug delivery. Two quadripolar, tined, wireless electrode arrays were positioned over the lateral femoral cutaneous and superior gluteal nerves. A stimulation scheme with a pulse rate of 1.5 kHz and pulse width of 30 μs at 2.0 mA was tested and found effective. Conclusion: This patient had proximal neuropathic hip pain and failed a variety of chronic pain treatment options, including conventional IPG-based spinal cord stimulation and an intrathecal drug delivery system. She was successfully treated with a wireless peripheral nerve stimulation system. Key words: Hip pain, lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, peripheral nerve stimulator, peripheral neuropathy, superior gluteal nerve

scholarly journals Infectious Complications Related to Intrathecal Drug Delivery System and Spinal Cord Stimulator System Implantations at a Comprehensive Cancer Pain Center

2013 ◽  
Vol 3;16 (3;5) ◽  
pp. 251-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitchell P. Engle
Keyword(s):  
Drug Delivery ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Infectious Complication ◽  
Infectious Complications ◽  
Surgical Time ◽  
Intrathecal Drug Delivery ◽  
Pain Center ◽  
Pain Patients

Background: Intrathecal drug delivery (IDD) and spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems are implantable devices for the management of both chronic and cancer pain. Although these therapies have favorable long-term outcomes, they are associated with occasional complications including infection. The incidence of infectious complications varies from 2 - 8% and frequently requires prolonged antibiotics and device revision or removal. Cancer patients are particularly susceptible to infectious complications because they are immunocompromised, malnourished, and receiving cytotoxic cancer-related therapies. Objective: Determine if cancer pain patients have a higher incidence of infectious complications following implantation of IDD or SCS systems than non-cancer pain patients. Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Single tertiary comprehensive cancer hospital. Methods: Following local Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we collected data on infectious complications for IDD and SCS systems implanted at MD Anderson Cancer Center for the treatment of cancer and chronic pain. The examined implants were performed from July 15, 2006, to July 14, 2009. In addition, we obtained data regarding patient comorbidities and perioperative risk factors to assess their impact on infectious complications. Results: One hundred forty-two devices were implanted in 131 patients during the examined period. Eighty-three of the devices were IDD systems and 59 were SCS systems. Eighty percent of the patients had a diagnosis of cancer. Four infectious complications were noted with an overall infectious risk of 2.8%. The infection rate was 2.4% for IDD systems versus 3.4% for SCS systems (P = 1). All infections were at the implantable pulse generator (IPG) or pump pocket site. The rate of infection was 2.7% for cancer patients and 3.3% for non-cancer patients (P = 1). Neither the perioperative administration of prophylactic antibiotics (P = 0.4) nor the National Nosocomial Infection Surveillance (NNIS) risk level for individual patients (P = 0.15) were statistically associated with infectious complication. The mean surgical time was longer for cases with infection at 215 ± 93 minutes versus 132 ± 52 minutes for those without infection which was statistically significant (P = 0.02). Limitations: The major limitation of this study is that it was a retrospective analysis. An additional limitation is that 51(38.9%) of our patients either died or were lost to follow-up during the year following implantation which may have led to an underestimation of our infection rates. Conclusions: The experience of this tertiary cancer pain center demonstrates that infectious complications following implantation of IDD and SCS systems are relatively rare events in cancer patients. Contrary to our initial hypothesis, no difference was found in the infection rate between cancer and non-cancer patients. The main factor associated with increased risk of infectious complications was increased surgical time, indicating a need to minimize patient time in the operating room. The low infectious complication rate seen in this series compared to previous reports in non-cancer patients is likely multifactorial in nature. Key Words: Spinal cord stimulation, intrathecal drug delivery, implantable pain therapies, neuromodulation, pain procedures, pain, complications, infection, surgical site infection

Prevention and Management of Intrathecal Drug Delivery and Spinal Cord Stimulation System Infections

2004 ◽  
Vol 100 (6) ◽  
pp. 1582-1594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. Follett ◽  
Richard L. Boortz-Marx ◽  
James M. Drake ◽  
Stuart DuPen ◽  
Steven J. Schneider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Delivery ◽  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Stimulation ◽  
Intrathecal Drug Delivery ◽  
Stimulation System

scholarly journals Complications after Intrathecal Drug Delivery Due to the Underlying Malignancy in Two Patients with Intractable Cancer Pain

2013 ◽  
Vol 2;16 (2;3) ◽  
pp. E107-E111
Author(s):  
Thomas Chai
Keyword(s):  
Drug Delivery ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Systemic Absorption ◽  
Pain Patient ◽  
Drug Side Effects ◽  
Intrathecal Drug Delivery ◽  
Underlying Malignancy ◽  
History Of ◽  
Intractable Cancer Pain

Intrathecal drug delivery is a mode of analgesic delivery that can be considered in those experiencing both refractory pain and excessive side effects from opioid and adjuvant analgesic use. Delivery of analgesic agents directly to the cerebral spinal fluid allows binding of the drug to receptors at the spinal level. Therefore, a reduced analgesic dosage can be afforded, resulting in reduction of drug side effects due to decreased systemic absorption. Drug delivery into the intrathecal space provides this benefit, yet it does not eliminate the possibility of drug side effects or risks of complications. Complications from this route of administration may be seen in the perioperative period or beyond, including infection, inflammatory mass, bleeding, and catheter or pump dysfunction, among others. This may manifest as new/worsening pain or as a neurologic deficit, such as a sensorimotor change and bladder/bowel dysfunction. Urgent evaluation with a detailed physical examination, device interrogation, and other workup including imaging is called for if symptoms suspicious for device-related problems arise. For the cancer pain patient, the underlying malignancy should also be considered as a potential cause for these new symptoms after intrathecal system implantation. We present 2 such cases of complications in the cancer pain patient after intrathecal drug delivery due to progression of the underlying malignant process rather than to surgical or device-related problems. The first patient had a history of metastatic osteosarcoma who, shortly after undergoing an intrathecal drug delivery trial with external pump, presented with new symptoms of both pain and neurologic changes. The second patient with a history of chondrosarcoma developed new symptoms of pain and sensorimotor change several days after intrathecal drug delivery system implantation. Key words: Intrathecal analgesia, intrathecal drug delivery, perioperative complications, cancer pain, malignant pain, pain pump

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document