Spinal cord stimulation and limb pain

2022 ◽  
pp. 545-554
Author(s):  
Timothy Sowder ◽  
Usman Latif ◽  
Edward Braun ◽  
Dawood Sayed
2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 030006052110040
Author(s):  
Kuen Su Lee ◽  
Yoo Kyung Jang ◽  
Gene Hyun Park ◽  
In Jae Jun ◽  
Jae Chul Koh

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used to treat sustained pain that is intractable despite various types of treatment. However, conventional tonic waveform SCS has not shown promising outcomes for spinal cord injury (SCI) or postamputation pain. The pain signal mechanisms of burst waveforms are different to those of conventional tonic waveforms, but few reports have presented the therapeutic potential of burst waveforms for the abovementioned indications. This current case report describes two patients with refractory upper limb pain after SCI and upper limb amputation that were treated with burst waveform SCS. While the patients could not obtain sufficient therapeutic effect with conventional tonic waveforms, the burst waveforms provided better pain reduction with less discomfort. However, further studies are necessary to better clarify the mechanisms and efficacy of burst waveform SCS in patients with intractable pain.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Lu ◽  
Peng Mao ◽  
Guihuai Wang ◽  
Wei Tao ◽  
Donglin Xiong ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Although effective results of many studies support the use of spinal cord stimulation in the chronic pain patients, no randomized controlled trial has been undertaken in China to date. CITRIP is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, withdrawal study designed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal cord stimulation plus remote programming management in patients with intractable trunk or limb pain.Method:Participants will be recruited in approximately 10 centers across China. Eligible participants with intractable trunk or limb and an average Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score ≥ 5 will undergo spinal cord stimulation test. Participants with VAS score reduction ≥ 50% could move forward to receive implantation of an implanted pulse generator. In the withdrawal period at 3-months follow-up visit, participants randomized to the experimental group (EG) will undergo continuous stimulation while ceasing the stimulation in the control group (CG). The outcome assessment will occur at baseline and at 1, 3 (pre and post randomization) and 6 months. The primary outcome is the difference of maximal visual analog scale (VAS) score between EG and CG in the withdrawal period compared with baseline before the withdrawal period. Additional outcomes include VAS score change at 1, 3 and 6-month follow-ups, responder rate (VAS score improving by 50%), achievement rate of a desirable pain state (VAS score ≤ 4), awake times during sleep, Beck Depression Inventory for depression evaluation, short-form 36 for quality of life evaluation, drug usage, satisfaction rating of the device. Adverse events will be collected. The primary analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion:The CITRIP study seeks to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a randomized withdrawal trial of spinal cord stimulation for patients with intractable trunk or limb pain.Trial registration: NCT03858790, clinicaltrials.gov, registered on March 1st, 2019, retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03858790


2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohit Aiyer ◽  
Robert L Barkin ◽  
Anurag Bhatia ◽  
Semih Gungor

2021 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 157
Author(s):  
Rupesh Raut ◽  
Shahzad Shams ◽  
Muddassar Rasheed ◽  
Azam Niaz ◽  
Waqas Mehdi ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengdao Deng ◽  
Dianyou Li ◽  
Shikun Zhan ◽  
Chencheng Zhang ◽  
Peng Huang ◽  
...  

Pain ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. S83
Author(s):  
P. Cisotto ◽  
S. Cusumano ◽  
P.L. Longatti ◽  
G. Trincia ◽  
A. Carteri

2007 ◽  
Vol 2;10 (3;2) ◽  
pp. 305-311
Author(s):  
Ricardo Vallejo

Electrical spinal neuromodulation in the form of spinal cord stimulation is currently used for treating chronic painful conditions such as complex regional pain syndrome, diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, peripheral ischemia, low back pain, and other conditions refractory to more conservative treatments. To date, there are very few published reports documenting the use of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of head/neck and upper limb pain. This paper reports a case series of 5 consecutive patients outlining the use of spinal cord stimulation to treat upper extremity pain. All subjects had previously undergone cervical fusion surgery to treat chronic neck and upper limb pain. Patients were referred following failure of the surgery to manage their painful conditions. Spinal cord stimulators were placed in the cervical epidural space through a thoracic needle placement. Stimulation parameters were adjusted to capture as much of the painful area(s) as possible. In total, 4 out of 5 patients moved to implantation. In all cases, patients reported significant (70–90%) reductions in pain, including axial neck pain and upper extremity pain. Interestingly, 2 patients with associated headache and lower extremity pain obtained relief after paresthesia-steering reportedly covered those areas. Moreover, 2 patients reported that cervical spinal cord stimulation significantly improved axial low back pain. Patients continue to report excellent pain relief up to 9 months following implantation. This case series documents the successful treatment of neck and upper extremity pain following unsuccessful cervical spine fusion surgery. Given this initial success, prospective, controlled studies are warranted to more adequately assess the long term utility and cost effectiveness of electrical neuromodulation treatment of chronic neck and upper extremity pain. Key words: spinal cord stimulator, cervical, neck pain, radicular pain, axial pain, headache, leg pain


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document