Successful treatment of notalgia paresthetica with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster: a case report.

Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a sensory neuropathy characterized by chronic, localized pruritus in a circumscribed area on the upper back. Pruritus, frequently resistant to treatment, may be accompanied by pain, paresthesia, allodynia and alloknesis. There is a paucity of data in the NP literature about the use of lidocaine 5% medicated plaster. This case involves a 75-year-old woman with NP and a history of many unsuccessful local or systemic treatments. The patient was treated with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, while other therapies were progressively retired. After 11 weeks of therapy, a significant reduction in the intensity of itching was achieved and the itching area was reduced. The patient also reported an associated improvement in her quality-of-life throughout therapy. In conclusion, lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was successful in relieving itching and other symptoms in this case of NP.

Notalgia paresthetica (NP) is a nerve disorder characterized by itching on the upper back. Sometimes the itch is so painful and intense that it can make it difficult to sleep, work and socialize, affecting quality-of-life. There are different treatments for NP and not everyone will have the same response to treatment. In this case, a woman with long-standing NP, after several unsuccessful therapies, were treated with lidocaine 5% medicated plaster, which can be applied to the skin where it hurts. After 11 weeks of therapy, an important reduction in the intensity of itching was achieved and the itching area was reduced. The patient also reported an improvement in her quality-of-life throughout therapy. In conclusion, lidocaine 5% medicated plaster was successful in relieving severe itch in this NP case.

Dolor sacroilíaco: epidemiología, fisiopatología, diagnóstico y tratamiento / Sacroiliac pain: epidemiology, physiopathology, diagnosis and treatment

El dolor sacroilíaco es una causa generalmente subdiagnosticada de dolor lumbar, que afecta del 15% a 30% de los pacientes con dolor lumbar bajo crónico no radicular. La articulación sacroilíaca (ASI) recibe continuo stress durante la bipedestación y marcha, siendo estabilizada por estructuras ligamentarias, capsulares y miofasciales fuertes, que reciben una abundante inervación. Destaca la dificultad en el diagnóstico del dolor sacroilíaco; debido a su naturaleza heterogénea. Éste se debe sospechar en todo paciente con síndrome de dolor lumbar no radicular, unilateral y no central. El examen físico debería descartar patología de cadera y columna lumbar. La realización de maniobras de provocación del dolor sacroilíaco aporta en el diagnóstico, teniendo la combinación de 3 o más maniobras positivas una sensibilidad de 85% y especificidad de 79%. Se ha recurrido a inyecciones diagnósticas con anestésicos locales, tanto intraarticulares como de ligamentos circundantes. El tratamiento del dolor sacroilíaco es multimodal e individualizado para cada paciente. El tratamiento conservador­basado en terapia física y antiinflamatorios no esteroidales­ es la terapia de primera línea. Las infiltraciones esteroidales tanto intra como extraarticulares pueden proveer alivio en un grupo de pacientes con inflamación activa. La denervación de los ramos dorsales laterales con radiofrecuencia ha mostrado ser un tratamiento exitoso en pacientes con dolor sacroilíaco, logrando 6 meses a 1 año de alivio del dolor. En pacientes con dolor refractario, la fusión de la articulación sacroilíaca es una opción, prefiriéndose la técnica mínimamente invasiva de fijación trans-sacroilíaca.

Sacroiliac pain is an frecuent underdiagnosed source of low back pain, affecting 15% to 30% of individuals with chronic, non-radicular pain. The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is subject to continuous stress during standing position and gait, being stabilized by strong ligament, capsular and myofascial structures with rich innervation. Due to its heterogeneous nature, SIJ pain is difficult to diagnose, and it should be suspected in all patients with non-radicular unilateral and non-central low back pain syndrome. Physical examination should rule out hip and lumbar spine pathology. SIJ provocation maneuvers are used for diagnosis, with the combination of 3 or more positive maneuvers resulting in a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 79%. Diagnostic injections of local anesthetics, both intra-articular and in the surrounding ligaments have been used. treatment of SIJ pain is multimodal and individualized for each patient. Conservative treatment, based on physical therapy and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is the first line therapy. Both intra- and extra-articular steroid infiltrations can provide relief in a group of patients with active inflammation. Radiofrequency denervation of lateral dorsal branches has proven to be a successful treatment in SIJ pain patients, achieving 6 to 12 months of pain relief. In patients with refractory pain, SIJ fusion is an option, with minimally invasive trans-sacroiliac fixation being the preferred technique.

The 5% Lidocaine-Medicated Plaster: Its Inclusion in International Treatment Guidelines for Treating Localized Neuropathic Pain, and Clinical Evidence Supporting its Use.

When peripheral neuropathic pain affects a specific, clearly demarcated area of the body, it may be described as localized neuropathic pain (LNP). Examples include postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, as well as post-surgical and post-traumatic pain. These conditions may respond to topical treatment, i.e., pharmaceutical agents acting locally on the peripheral nervous system, and the topical route offers advantages over systemic administration. Notably, only a small fraction of the dose reaches the systemic circulation, thereby reducing the risk of systemic adverse effects, drug-drug interactions and overdose. From the patient's perspective, the analgesic agent is easily applied to the most painful area(s). The 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster has been used for several years to treat LNP and is registered in approximately 50 countries. Many clinical guidelines recommend this treatment modality as a first-line option for treating LNP, particularly in frail and/or elderly patients and those receiving multiple medications, because the benefit-to-risk ratios are far better than those of systemic analgesics. However, some guidelines make only a weak recommendation for its use. This paper considers the positioning of the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster in international treatment guidelines and how they may be influenced by the specific criteria used in developing them, such as the methodology employed by randomized, placebo-controlled trials. It then examines the body of evidence supporting use of the plaster in some prevalent LNP conditions. Common themes that emerge from clinical studies are: (1) the excellent tolerability and safety of the plaster, which can increase patients' adherence to treatment, (2) continued efficacy over long-term treatment, and (3) significant reduction in the size of the painful area. On this basis, it is felt that the 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster should be more strongly recommended for treating LNP, either as one component of a multimodal approach or as monotherapy.

A pharmacological treatment algorithm for localized neuropathic pain.

Neuropathic pain is caused by a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory system and is difficult to manage, often proving refractory to existing treatments. In more than half of cases, it is localized and affects a specific, clearly circumscribed area of the body (localized neuropathic pain, or LNP). A recently developed screening tool enables patients with probable neuropathic pain/LNP to be identified quickly and easily. In view of the conflicting current treatment recommendations, an advisory board of pain specialists met in June 2015 to develop a complementary treatment guidance algorithm, for use in the primary care setting and by non-pain specialists. The starting point of the algorithm is a diagnosis of LNP and there was consensus that first-line treatment should be a topical analgesic agent, because the benefit/risk ratios are far better than for systemic agents. Topical application offers site-specific delivery, a lower total systemic dose and avoidance of first-pass metabolism, reducing the risk of adverse events and drug/drug interactions. The 5% lidocaine medicated plaster has most evidence supporting its use in LNP, producing effective analgesia and reducing the associated area of allodynia, but other topical agents include capsaicin, clonidine and botulinum toxin type A. Treatment should be commenced with the topical agent of choice, and the patient re-assessed after an appropriate period. Where the response is good the topical agent is continued, with a re-evaluation after 3-6 months. A systemic agent (e.g. gabapentin, pregabalin, duloxetine, venlafaxine) is added if there is only a partial response, or substituted if there is no response, and the patient re-assessed after a month. If there is poor or no response to the systemic agent the patient should be switched to an alternative one and, if this also proves ineffective, referred to a pain specialist.

Retrospective analysis of 4 years of clinical experience with transdermal buprenorphine (Transtec) in post-traumatic pain.

AIMS: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of transdermal buprenorphine (BTDS) in the treatment of post-traumatic pain in a working population. PATIENTS & METHODS: Retrospective case series of patients with severe post-traumatic pain treated with BTDS between 2008 and 2012. RESULTS: 57 patients were evaluated: 38 men, 19 women (mean age 43 years); patients with burns (n = 22), skin degloving (14), open dislocations (eight), traumatic nerve lesions (six), spinal cord injury (four) and limb amputations (three). 25, 12 and 20 patients experienced neuropathic pain, nociceptive pain or neuropathic/nociceptive pain, respectively. The mean baseline DN4 questionnaire and pain intensity scores were 4.8±2.3 and 7.4±1.5, respectively. The mean duration of pain before BTDS use was 24.4 months (>3 months in 65% of patients). Total patient-years of BTDS treatment were 73. After 14.7±14.9 months of BTDS treatment, mean pain intensity was reduced by 4.2±2.2 points, 38 patients (66.7%) had ≥50% pain relief, 69% reported functional improvement, especially in gait ability (25) and activities of daily life (14), and 46 patients (80.7%) had improved sleep quality. The starting dose of BTDS was 4.4-17.5 µg/h; maintenance dose was 8.8-70 µg/h. At the start of BTDS treatment, all patients used a total of 187 concomitant analgesics daily, 72% of which were stopped during treatment with BTDS; the number of patients that could be managed exclusively with BTDS and rescue analgesia increased to 31%. 13 patients (22%) presented nausea, eight constipation, six local skin reactions, three vomiting and somnolence, and two patients experienced dizziness. Four patients (6.9%) stopped BTDS due to adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: BTDS is an effective and safe alternative for the treatment of patients with severe post-traumatic pain, reducing the intensity of pain and improving functional capacity and quality of sleep.

Is an easy and reliable diagnosis of localized neuropathic pain (LNP) possible in general practice? Development of a screening tool based on IASP criteria.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Neuropathic pain (NP) is a common type of chronic pain in which 60% of patients present with localized symptoms. Early diagnosis of NP is often a challenge in primary care. Moreover, so far no standard diagnostic procedure for localized NP (LNP) is available. To help general practitioners, a screening tool was developed and evaluated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The development of the screening tool was based on the grading system principles for NP proposed by the IASP, focusing on medical history and distribution of painful symptoms and sensory signs. It was tested by 31 general practitioners and evaluated against the NP diagnosis of three pain specialists as reference in a single center prospective study in Spain using a cohort study design including an adult population of chronic pain patients. This design avoids spectrum bias where the spectrum of disease is not correctly reflected in the study population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: General practitioners rated usefulness, simplicity, and time requirements of the tool. Diagnostic accuracy was expressed by sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. RESULTS: General practitioners consecutively screened 2079 chronic pain patients (mean age 60.7 ± 11.1 years, 69.9% female). Using the tool, 394 patients were diagnosed with LNP. Screening including sensory examination took 7 min (median). General practitioners rated the tool as useful (24/31; 77.4%) or very useful (7/31; 22.6%) for diagnosing LNP and facilitating clinical practice (30/31; 96.8%). Under daily practice conditions, sensitivity and specificity of the tool for detecting LNP was 46.7% and 86.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed screening tool was shown to be easy and useful for detecting NP and LNP in chronic pain patients as a fast first assessment tool in primary care, thus facilitating the choice of a topical treatment. LIMITATIONS AND STRENGTHS: The drop-out rate was high but was accounted for by using correction factors in the diagnostic accuracy calculations. A strength is the unselected chronic patient population: spectrum of disease correctly reflects day-to-day clinical practice and is not biased. Diagnostic accuracy of the tool therefore appears to be realistic.

Complicaciones tardías en cohorte de lesionados medulares traumáticos de origen laboral / Late complications in a cohort of work related traumatic spinal cord injured patients

Introducción: Las complicaciones tardías en el lesionado medular (LM) son frecuentes, pesquisables y prevenibles mediante un programa de seguimiento. Objetivo: Determinar las complicaciones tardías que presentan los LM atendidos en Hospital del Trabajador (HT) de Asociación Chilena de Seguridad (ACHS), sometidos a programa de control de seguimiento, que viven en regiones rurales lejanas de Santiago. Pacientes y Métodos: Se evaluaron los pacientes LM en control de seguimiento en HT ACHS entre 2000 y 2006, a los que se les realizó evaluación multidisciplinaria, estudios de pesquisa de laboratorio, imaginología y entrevista de enfermería. El análisis estadístico se realiza por pruebas paramétricas. Resultados: Se controlaron 78 pacientes, 74 hombres y 4 mujeres, edad 48,7 +/- 11,8 años; la LM más frecuente fue paraplejia completa (52,6 por ciento). Todos los pacientes presentaron alguna complicación durante el período observado. Las complicaciones más frecuentes fueron dislipidemia (80,8 por ciento), dolor (71,8 por ciento), espasticidad (53,8 por ciento), infección urinaria (52,6 por ciento), constipación (48,7 por ciento) e insomnio (46,2 por ciento). 33,3 por ciento de los pacientes presentaron úlceras por presión. La prevalencia de diabetes mellitus fue 10,2 por ciento. Mediante ecografía abdominal se pesquisó 24,4 por ciento de colelitiasis y 24,4 por ciento de hígado graso. Discusión: La incidencia acumulada complicaciones tardías en los LM de nuestra cohorte es muy similar al descrito previamente, existiendo mayor frecuencia de enfermedades crónicas no trasmi-sibles (ECNT) que en la población general, debido a disminución de actividad física y alteración del metabolismo de lípidos y carbohidratos. Conclusiones: La alta incidencia acumulada de complicaciones tardías en LM recomienda desarrollar programas de evaluación de seguimiento multidisciplinario que permitan detectarlas precozmente.

Introduction: Late complications in spinal cord injured (SCI) are common, detectable and preventable by a follow up program. Aim: To determine late complications suffered by SCI treated at Hospital del Trabajador (HT) of Asociación Chilena de Seguridad (ACHS), subject to follow-up evaluation program and living in distant rural areas of Santiago. Patients and Methods: Patients evaluated in follow-up evaluation program of HT ACHS between 2000 and 2006 who underwent multidisciplinary evaluation, laboratory studies and imaging research and nursing interview. Statistical analysis was performed by parametric tests. Results: 78 patients were monitored, 74 men and 4 women, age 48.7 +/- 11.8 years; the most frequent SCI was complete paraplegia (52.6 percent). All patients had complications during the observation period. The most frequent complications were dyslipidemia (80.8 percent), pain (71.8 percent), spasticity (53.8 percent), uri-nary tract infection (52.6 percent), constipation (48.7 percent) and insomnia (46.2 percent). 33.3 percent of patients had pressure ulcers. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus was 10.2 percent. Abdominal ultrasound detected 24.4 percent of gallstones and 24.4 percent of fatty liver. Discussion: The incidence of late complications in our SCI cohort is very similar to that described previously, existing more frequent in chronic diseases than in the general population, due to decreased physical activity and altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism. Conclusions: High incidence of late complications in SCI recommends develop a multidisciplinary evaluation program and screening tests to early detection of them.

Análisis de gestión del control de seguimiento abreviado de pacientes con lesión medular traumática de origen laboral residentes en regiones / An analysis of the management of brief follow-ups in regional patients with spinal cord injuries of occupational origin

Introduction: spinal cord injury (SCI) patients require periodic preventive health screening systems for early detection of complications. Objective: toevaluate the quality of a brief follow-up evaluation (BFE) program implemented in SCI Hospital del Trabajador (HT), with patients living outside the Central Metropolitan region, considering efficacy and efficiency. Patients and methods: aretrospective case series study of SCI patients residing between Arica and Linares (Chile), who completed BFE between the year 2000 and 2012. A BFE consists of a scheduled check-up appointment at HT, in which the patient and laboratory tests performed at the patient´s regional hospital, are evaluated sequentially by a multidisciplinary team. Program results were compared with the traditional system used since 1998. Quality indicators were established for efficiency and efficacy, and cost savings evaluated. Results: during the study period, 95 patients participated in one or more BFE. The efficiency of the program improved: it required only 22.9 percent of the time previously needed; patient participation was 2.6higher; 76 percent of patients attended all required laboratory tests, and 87 percent completed a comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation. On average, 60 complications were detected per year. The program saved 1,800 hospital bed days per year, equating to a total opportunity cost per patient of U.S. $ 192,442, or U.S. $ 14,803 per year. Discussion: the greatest strength of the program is its foundation in a standardized, multidisciplinary approach, involving the systematic recording of information, and structured detection and resolution of complications in our health system. Conclusion: the brief follow-up evaluation program at HT proved successful, with high efficiency and efficacy compared to the previous system.

Introducción: los lesionados medulares (LM) requieren de sistema de evaluación de salud preventivo periódico que permita detectar complicaciones precozmente. Objetivo: evaluar calidad del programa de control de seguimiento abreviado (CSA) de pacientes LM traumáticos de regiones, realizado en Hospital del Trabajador (HT), considerando eficiencia y eficacia. Pacientes y métodos: estudio retrospectivo de serie de casos de LM residentes entre ciudades de Arica y Linares, Chile, que realizaron CSA entre 2000-2012. El control abreviado consiste en evaluación programada, donde el paciente concurre con exámenes desde su regional para control multidisciplinario secuencial de un día en HT. Los resultados del programa se comparan con sistema tradicional de 1998. Se definen indicadores de calidad de eficiencia, eficacia y se evalúa ahorro económico. Resultados: durante el período de estudio, se realiza CSA en 95 pacientes LM. La eficiencia del programa abreviado mejoró, utilizando 22,9 por ciento del tiempo requerido previamente; la concurrencia al control aumentó 2,6 veces, asistiendo 76 por ciento con todos los exámenes y realizándose evaluación multidisciplinaria completa a 87 por ciento. Se detectaron 60 complicaciones promedio/anual. En trece años de funcionamiento del programa se ahorraron 1.800 días cama, sumado al costo-oportunidad de pacientes totalizaron US$ 192.442, US$ 14.803 promedio/anual. Discusión: la mayor fortaleza del programa es basarse en modelo estandarizado, multidisciplinario, con registro sistemático de información, detectando y resolviendo las complicaciones de manera homogénea en nuestro sistema de salud. Conclusión: el programa de control de seguimiento abreviado del HT ha sido exitoso, con alta eficiencia y eficacia, comparado con el sistema tradicional implementado hasta 1998.

Use of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster to treat localized neuropathic pain secondary to traumatic injury of peripheral nerves.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (LMP) has previously been demonstrated in post-traumatic localized neuropathic pain. This study evaluated the use of LMP in localized neuropathic pain secondary to traumatic peripheral nerve injury. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled patients with traumatic injuries to peripheral nerves that were accompanied by localized neuropathic pain of more than 3 months duration. Demographic variables, pain intensity (measured using the numeric rating scale; NRS), answers to the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire, and the size of the painful area were recorded. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included, aged (mean ± standard deviation) 41.4 ± 15.7 years. Nerve injuries affected the upper (eight patients) or lower (11 patients) limbs. The mean duration of pain before starting treatment with LMP was 22.6 ± 43.5 months (median 8 months). Mean baseline values included: NRS 6.7 ± 1.6, painful area 17.8 ± 10.4 cm(2) (median 18 cm(2)), and DN4 score 6.7 ± 1.4. The mean duration of treatment with LMP was 19.5 ± 10.0 weeks (median 17.4 weeks). Mean values after treatment were: NRS 2.8 ± 1.5 (≥3 point reduction in 79% of patients, ≥50% reduction in 57.9% of patients) and painful area 2.1 ± 2.3 cm(2) (median 1 cm(2), ≥50% reduction in 94.7% of patients). Functional improvement after treatment was observed in 14/19 patients (73.7%). CONCLUSION: LMP effectively treated traumatic injuries of peripheral nerves which presented with chronic localized neuropathic pain, reducing both pain intensity and the size of the painful area.

Topical pain management with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster--a review.

BACKGROUND: The topical 5% lidocaine medicated plaster is recommended as first-line treatment for localized peripheral neuropathic pain. SCOPE: In order to provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of the lidocaine plaster in the treatment of different neuropathic pain conditions, all efficacy and safety studies (randomized, controlled, or open-label with well described methodology), case reports, and pharmacological studies on the lidocaine plaster retrieved from a PubMed literature research (1960-March 2012) plus additional references identified from retrieved articles were included. FINDINGS: The lidocaine plaster is efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain symptoms associated with previous herpes zoster infection. Results from a large open-label controlled study suggest that the lidocaine plaster could be at least as effective as systemic pregabalin in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic polyneuropathy. Open-label studies indicate efficacy in the treatment of other localized neuropathic pain conditions, such as painful idiopathic sensory polyneuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome sequelae, postsurgical and posttraumatic pain. Quality of life markedly improved in a variety of neuropathic pain conditions and long-term treatment provided sustained relief in patients with neuropathic pain who are responsive to lidocaine plaster. The lidocaine plaster is usually well tolerated. The risk of systemic adverse events and pharmacokinetic interactions with concomitant medication is minimal owing to low systemic exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of several, primarily neuropathic and mixed-pain conditions with the 5% lidocaine medicated plaster was found efficacious and safe. Further controlled studies, in particular where only small open-label studies or case reports are available, should be considered.

Current considerations for the treatment of severe chronic pain: the potential for tapentadol.

Studies suggest that around 20% of adults in Europe experience chronic pain, which not only has a considerable impact on their quality of life but also imposes a substantial economic burden on society. More than one-third of these people feel that their pain is inadequately managed. A range of analgesic drugs is currently available, but recent guidelines recommend that NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors should be prescribed cautiously. Although the short-term efficacy of opioids is good, adverse events are common and doses are frequently limited by tolerability problems. There is a perceived need for improved pharmacological treatment options. Currently, many treatment decisions are based solely on pain intensity. However, chronic pain is multifactorial and this apaproach ignores the fact that different causative mechanisms may be involved. The presence of more than one causative mechanism means that chronic pain can seldom be controlled by a single agent. Therefore, combining drugs with different analgesic actions increases the probability of interrupting the pain signal, but is often associated with an increased risk of drug/drug interactions, low compliance and increased side effects. Tapentadol combines µ-opioid receptor agonism and noradrenaline reuptake inhibition in a single molecule, with both mechanisms contributing to its analgesic effects. Preclinical testing has shown that µ-opioid agonism is primarily responsible for analgesia in acute pain, whereas noradrenaline reuptake inhibition is more important in chronic pain. In clinical trials in patients with chronic pain, the efficacy of tapentadol was similar to that of oxycodone, but it produced significantly fewer gastrointestinal side-effects and treatment discontinuations. Pain relief remained stable throughout a 1-year safety study. Thus, tapentadol could possibly overcome some of the limitations of currently available analgesics for the treatment of chronic pain.

Treatment of localized post-traumatic neuropathic pain in scars with 5% lidocaine medicated plaster.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (LMP) for treating painful scars resulting from burns or skin degloving. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, observational case series study in individuals with painful scars <70 cm(2) in area, caused by burns or skin degloving. The study included a structured questionnaire incorporating demographic variables, pain evaluation using the numeric rating scale (NRS), the DN4 questionnaire, and measurement of the painful surface area. Patients with open wounds in the painful skin or with severe psychiatric disease were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-one men and eight women were studied, aged (mean + standard deviation) 41.4 ± 11.0 years, with painful scars located in the upper extremity (n = 9), lower extremity (n = 19), or trunk (n = 1). Eleven patients (37.9%) had an associated peripheral nerve lesion. The scars were caused by burns (n = 13), degloving (n = 7), and/or orthopedic surgery (n = 9). The duration of pain before starting treatment with lidocaine plaster was 9.7 ± 10.0 (median 6) months. The initial NRS was 6.66 ± 1.84 points, average painful area 23.0 ± 18.6 (median 15) cm(2), and DN4 score 4.7 ± 2.3 points. The duration of treatment with LMP was 13.9 ± 10.2 (median 11) weeks. After treatment, the NRS was reduced by 58.2% ± 27.8% to 2.72 ± 1.65. The average painful area was reduced by 72.4% ± 24.7% to 6.5 ± 8.6 (median 5) cm(2). Nineteen patients (69%) showed functional improvement following treatment. CONCLUSION: LMP was useful for treating painful scars with a neuropathic component, producing meaningful reductions in the intensity of pain and painful surface area. This is the first time that a decrease in the painful area has been demonstrated in neuropathic pain using topical therapy, and may reflect the disease-modifying potential of LMP.