Delayed upper extremity paresthesia post permanent implantation of five lead spinal cord stimulator for low back and lower extremity pain: A case report

2015 ◽  
Vol 134 ◽  
pp. 72-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy S. Towers ◽  
Y. Robert Ding ◽  
Khalid H. Kurtom
2021 ◽  
pp. 33-36
Author(s):  
James C. Burns

Background: A significant number of patients who undergo spinal fusion surgery are managed in chronic pain clinics for low back pain or what is commonly described as failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). There are a multitude of reasons for chronic long standing back pain after surgery, and the etiology is often multifactorial involving both preoperative and postoperative risk factors. In patients with scoliosis, it has been shown that fusion with Harrington rods extending into the lumbar region is associated with increases in postoperative back pain, especially with fusions to the L4-L5 region. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recognized treatment for this condition after repeat surgery or when conservative treatments have failed. Case Report: This case report describes the use of SCS with combination therapy in the management of severe low back pain after thoracolumbar fusion with Harrington rods in a patient with congenital scoliosis. After a failed trial of conservative medical management, a spinal cord stimulator capable of delivering combination traditional paresthesia with subperception and burst stimulation was placed. Regarding the choice of SCS therapy, there is a vast array of choices including traditional paresthesia, paresthesia-free, subperception, microburst, or combination treatment. The latter is capable of delivering multiple therapies over time designed to provide more thorough and longer-lasting relief. Conclusion: Simultaneous traditional paresthesia and subperception waveform therapy might offer superior pain relief in comparison to therapies utilizing a sing=le waveform. Further studies are needed to evaluate the use of combination over traditional SCS therapy for the treatment of axial back pain secondary to FBSS. Key words: Chronic pain, combination therapy, congenital scoliosis, neuromodulation, spinal cord stimulator, spinal fusion


2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Reehl ◽  
Thomas Cheriyan ◽  
Owais Qureshi ◽  
Zhuo Sun ◽  
Paramvir Singh ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesThe purpose of this case report is to describe an occurrence of a rare complication of lead extrusion, which was observed 10 months after spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation.MethodsA patient with low back pain and failed back surgery syndrome underwent implantation of a SCS without complications. Ten months after implantation, one SCS lead extruded from her lower back leading to surgical removal of the leads.ResultsAfter identifying the complication of a SCS lead extruding from the patient’s back, a surgical revision was performed to remove the SCS leads but retain the implantable pulse generator (IPG) in the gluteal region. During the surgery, it was noted that the anchors were in the appropriate position, sutured and fibrosed to a deep fascial layer. There were no complications from the surgical revision and no infectious process was observed.ConclusionsWe report the occurrence and management of a rare complication of SCS lead extrusion after SCS implantation for failed back surgery syndrome. After recognition, removal of the leads with retention of the IPG was able to effectively resolve the complication. The revising procedure was well tolerated but resulted in the recurrence of the patient’s previous low back pain. We believe that knowledge of this case and its management will aid future physicians in the recognition and management of this rare complication of SCS implantation. Furthermore, as there is a paucity of literature discussing the management of lead extrusion after SCS implantation, we hope that this case report will spur additional research on the management of this complication.


Vascular ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 293-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall W. Franz ◽  
Aleksey Prok

A young adult man with Klippel-Trénaunay syndrome presented to our pain management service with complaints of severe lower extremity neuropathic pain (pain scale 8 of 10 on the left and 4 of 10 on the right). The pain in his left leg was so severe that he wanted to undergo a left lower extremity amputation. The patient declined chronic use of narcotic medications for pain relief, believing that this would interfere with his educational and lifestyle pursuits. After a complete evaluation for possible sources of pain, we performed a trial placement of a spinal cord stimulator at the T9 level, which relieved his pain. We then placed a stimulator at the T10 level. At 1 year postimplantation, he was pain free (pain scale 1 of 10 bilaterally) and was able to function normally without narcotic support. We believe this to be the first use of a spinal cord stimulator for lower extremity pain resulting from Klippel-Trénaunay syndrome. We also discuss the clinical evaluation and treatment of a Klippel-Trénaunay syndrome patient with chronic pain.


2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Robert H. Haralson

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, was published in November 2000 and contains major changes from its predecessor. In the Fourth Edition, all musculoskeletal evaluation and rating was described in a single chapter. In the Fifth Edition, this information has been divided into three separate chapters: Upper Extremity (13), Lower Extremity (14), and Spine (15). This article discusses changes in the spine chapter. The Models for rating spinal impairment now are called Methods. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, has reverted to standard terminology for spinal regions in the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) Method, and both it and the Range of Motion (ROM) Method now reference cervical, thoracic, and lumbar. Also, the language requiring the use of the DRE, rather than the ROM Method has been strengthened. The biggest change in the DRE Method is that evaluation should include the treatment results. Unfortunately, the Fourth Edition's philosophy regarding when and how to rate impairment using the DRE Model led to a number of problems, including the same rating of all patients with radiculopathy despite some true differences in outcomes. The term differentiator was abandoned and replaced with clinical findings. Significant changes were made in evaluation of patients with spinal cord injuries, and evaluators should become familiar with these and other changes in the Fifth Edition.


2008 ◽  
Vol 3;11 (5;3) ◽  
pp. 333-338
Author(s):  
Asokumar Buvanendran

Background: Failed back surgery syndrome is a common clinical entity for which spinal cord stimulation has been found to be an effective mode of analgesia, but with variable success rates. Objective: To determine if focal stimulation of the dorsal columns with a transverse tripolar lead might achieve deeper penetration of the electrical stimulus into the spinal cord and therefore provide greater analgesia to the back. Design: Case report. Methods: We describe a 42-year-old female with failed back surgery syndrome that had greater back pain than leg pain. The tripolar lead configuration was achieved by placing percutaneously an octapolar lead in the spinal midline followed by 2 adjacent quadripolar leads, advanced to the T7-T10 vertebral bodies. Results: Tripolar stimulation pattern resulted in more than 70% pain relief in this patient during the screening trial, while stimulation of one or 2 electrodes only provided 20% pain relief. After implantation of a permanent tripolar electrode system with a single rechargeable battery, the pain relief was maintained for one year. Conclusion: This is case report describing a case of a patient with chronic low back pain with a diagnosis of failed back surgery syndrome in which transverse tripolar stimulation using an octapolar and 2 quadripolar leads appeared to be beneficial. The transverse tripolar system consists of a central cathode surrounded by anodes, using 3 leads. This arrangement may contribute to maximum dorsal column stimulation with minimal dorsal root stimulation and provide analgesia to the lower back. Key words: Epidural, low back pain, spinal cord stimulation, failed back surgery syndrome, tripolar stimulation


2012 ◽  
Vol 4;15 (4;8) ◽  
pp. E363-E404
Author(s):  
Ramsin Benyamin

Background: Intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc degeneration without disc herniation, and post lumbar surgery syndrome are the most common diagnoses of chronic persistent low back and lower extremity symptoms, resulting in significant economic, societal, and health care impact. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back pain. However the evidence is highly variable among different techniques utilized – namely interlaminar, caudal, and transforaminal – and for various conditions, namely – intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Multiple systematic reviews conducted in the evaluation of the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural injections have been marred with controversy. Consequently, the debate continues with regards to the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of interlaminar epidural injections. Study Design: A systematic review of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids. Objective: To evaluate the effect of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back and lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain. Methods: The available literature on lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. Outcome Measures: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake. Results: Overall, 82 lumbar interlaminar trials were identified. All non-randomized studies without fluoroscopy and randomized trials not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Overall, 15 randomized trials and 11 non-randomized studies were included in the analysis. Analysis was derived mainly from fluoroscopically-guided randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids, with fluoroscopically-guided epidural injections. Limitations: The limitations of this study include that we were unable to perform meta-analysis for disc herniation, and the paucity of evidence for discogenic pain and spinal stenosis. Further, methodological criteria have been highly variable along with sample sizes. The studies were heterogenous. Conclusion: The evidence based on this systematic review is good for lumbar epidural injections under fluoroscopy for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetic and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids. Key words: Chronic low back pain, lower extremity pain, disc herniation, radiculitis, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, fluoroscopy


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document