Severe urinary retention secondary to intrathecal morphine pain pump: a case report

An elderly female with multiple comorbidities presented with acute onset of severe urinary retention immediately following placement of an intrathecal morphine pain pump. This case highlights the need to closely monitor chronic pain patients with complex medical histories who may be uniquely predisposed to opioid-mediated severe urinary retention.

Cost analysis of cordotomy and intrathecal pain pump placement for refractory cancer pain

Background: Cancer pain can be debilitating and 10–20% of patients will have refractory pain despite optimal medical management. Here, we present a cost comparison of treating terminal cancer patients with intravenous (IV) narcotics, anterolateral cordotomy, or intrathecal pain pump (ITPP) placement. Case Description: We evaluated and treated 2 patients with metastatic breast cancer and expected survivals of <1 year. The first patient, a 53-year-old female, had tumor invasion of the right chest wall and had failed oral pain regimens; she was admitted to receive IV Dilaudid as patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). After 7 days of treatment without improvement, she underwent a left-sided C1-2 cordotomy. For her, the cost of the cordotomy was $18,462 and the expenses for 7 days hospital stay with PCA was $89,884; the total was $108,346. The second patient, a 60-year-old female, had severe somatic pain due to invasion by tumor of the left knee cap. She, too, has failed oral therapy and was receiving in-hospital IV Dilaudid PCA. Following 2 days of failed treatment, a morphine ITPP was placed and effectively treated her pain. In patient 2, the cost of the ITPP was $80,603 and the expenses for 8 days of the hospital stay with PCA came to $84,785; the total was $165,389. Conclusion: The treatment of refractory pain in cancer patients is challenging. It requires invasive procedures such as cordotomy or ITPP. Although procedures may yield comparable pain control, there was a significant cost savings for cordotomy versus ITPP ($57,043 saved).

Epilepsy, Functional, and Pain Neurosurgery

This chapter covers several aspects of the management of seizures and epilepsy relevant to a general neurosurgical practice. First, all candidates should know how to manage a patient presenting with a new-onset seizure or in status epilepticus with a brain lesion or after a craniotomy. Second, they are expected to be able to explain how to perform fundamental epilepsy procedures such as a temporal lobectomy for hippocampal sclerosis or resection of an epileptogenic lesion. Third, it is useful to have a clear process in place for mapping language and motor function for the resection of tumors located in the eloquent cortex. Lastly, the thought process behind developing an appropriate plan for the surgical management of movement disorders and the technical nuances of managing such cases are discussed. Historically, surgery for pain has been a large part of general neurosurgical practice. A variety of destructive and decompressive interventions have been developed over the years, and a number of comprehensive textbooks have summarized neurosurgical involvement with management of all kinds of medically refractory pain syndromes. It is included in the core neurosurgical education curriculum and is an integral part of neurosurgical knowledge that is tested during the oral board examination. Not surprisingly, cases involving complex pain conditions that require neurosurgical interventions may show up during examinations, and it is expected that examinees are comfortable performing these interventions and able to discuss indications, surgical details, outcomes and complications. Cases include trigeminal neuralgia, cordotomy versus morphine pain pump for cancer pain and a spinal cord stimulator.

Cost comparison among punctate midline myelotomy, intrathecal pain pump, and spinal cord epidural stimulator

Background: Invasive pain procedures can be valuable tools to manage chronic pain. Here, we compared the costs of three procedures used to address chronic pain; punctate midline myelotomy (PMM), placement of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS), or placement of an intrathecal pain pump (ITPP). Case Description: This retrospective chart review yielded 9 patients with chronic pain syndromes; 3 had PMM, 3 had SCS, and 3 had ITPP procedures. Variables studied included; pain type, the procedures performed, and the cost of each procedure. The Wilcoxon rank-sum and one-way analysis of variance were used to compare the three groups (P < 0.05). PMM was performed for patients with chronic nonmalignant visceral pain and SCS was utilized for failed back syndrome, while ITPP was placed in two patients with chronic visceral cancer pain and one patient with chronic somatic cancer pain. The mean length of stay was significant shorter for SCS and PMM versus ITPP (e.g., 1, 3.6 ± 0.6 and 15 ± 5.6 days). The mean procedure costs were significantly higher for SCS versus PMM and ITPP (105,234, $71,087, and $79,333); for the latter PMM and ITPP, procedural costs were not significantly different. Conclusion: For the three pain procedures discussed in this report, PMM is the most cost-effective as it obviates the need for efficacy trials, and there are: no implant device costs, no medication refills, no maintenance costs, and no complication management costs.

Malfunctioning sufentanil intrathecal pain pump: a case report

Background Sufentanil is a potent opioid uncommonly used to manage pain and is rarely administered via an intrathecal pain pump system. Case presentation This case illustrates the use of intrathecal sufentanil in a 50-year-old Caucasian man for the management of chronic pain; however, the intrathecal drug delivery system experienced a malfunction which led to 1/100th output of the correct dosage. Interesting aspects of this case report include the uncommon choice of sufentanil use for an intrathecal drug delivery system, as well as the unusual pharmacokinetics of this drug. Specifically, this patient did not experience the major withdrawal that would be expected given significant under dosing of opioid, and this may be explained by the lipophilicity and context-sensitive half-times of sufentanil. Conclusions Because of the absence of a clinically significant withdrawal in this case report, clinicians must be aware of relevant pharmacokinetic properties and unusual intrathecal drug delivery system technologies that influence a patient’s response when device malfunction occurs.