Spinal cord stimulation revisited.

The proportion of patients with intractable pain successfully managed with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains disputed. We analyze 27 consecutive patients with intractable pain treated with SCS using identical hardware (Itrel II System; Medtronic Neurological, Inc Minneapolis, MN, USA) by a single satisfactory diagnosis 1992 through 1995. A rigid selection protocol was used: 1. A satisfactory diagnosis of the pathologic process resulting in pain was made. 2. A corrective surgical procedure was judged not feasible by surgeons experienced in the particular pathology, e.g., vascular peripheral nerve, spine. 3. Lack of satisfactory response to noninterventional pain management modalities by an interdisciplinary pain clinic. 4. Independent psychological evaluation, including a structured interview was performed by a psychologist specialized in chronic pain management. In the last eight cases, a battery of self-report tests designed to assess psychosocial and behavioral consequences of the chronic pain problem were administered as well. All cases were of nonmalignant pain, except for one patient. Thirteen cases were diagnosed with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), one older patient with lumbosacral radiculopathy who refused decompression, one cervical radiculopathy and Klippel-Feil syndrome, six with reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), two with peripheral vascular ischemic disease, one with post-thoracotomy pain syndrome, one with leg pain following resection of angiolipoma, one with traumatic superficial peroneal neuropathy, and one with Pancoast's tumor. Fifteen patients were female and twelve were male. All were Caucasian. Their ages ranged from 27 to 84 years (mean:48). The average follow-up was 21 months (range: 48-6). All patients underwent a three day trial screening with Pisces-Quad/Resume epidural leads connected to a temporary external stimulator. An Itrel II System pulse-generator was internalized in each of the 24 patients who had successful trial (three cervical and twenty-one thoracic-lumbar). There was no morbidity. Pain reduction was sustained in 22 out of the 24 patients who continue to use the stimulator. The same number would choose to receive in an electrical stimulator again. Normalization or improvement in Quantitative Sudomotor Axon Reflex Test (Q-SART) and Thermography was documented in the patients with RSD. We conclude that rigid selection protocol can maximize the proportion of patients with intractable pain who are successfully treated with SCS. Strict neurosurgical technique eliminates infection risk. Hardware selection minimizes incidence of malfunction.

Traumatic onset of temporomandibular disorders: positive effects of a standardized conservative treatment program.

OBJECTIVE: To compare presenting problems and response to treatment of chronic temporomandibular (TMD) patients who perceive the onset of their symptoms to be related to trauma with those who report symptoms of unknown origin. DESIGN: Prospective treatment outcome study. SETTING: Outpatient multidisciplinary pain treatment center at a university medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 361 were evaluated initially, including 103 who perceived traumatic onset of symptoms and 258 who did not perceive onset to be related to trauma. Two hundred thirty-three (59 trauma and 174 nontrauma) returned for follow-up evaluation 6 months after the conclusion of treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Standardized six-session treatment program consisting of intraoral appliance, biofeedback, and stress management training. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical changes in muscle pain, temporomandibular joint pain, and mandibular opening. Self-report of change in perceived pain severity (MPQ--short form), depressive symptoms (BDI), catastrophizing about pain (CSQ--catastrophizing scale), MPI--interference scale, oral parafunctional habits, global evaluation of improvement, and use of pain medications at follow-up. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Regression of onset type on pretreatment variables indicated that a small but statistically significant proportion of pretreatment variability (8.7%) could be accounted for by onset. Both traumatic and nontraumatic onset groups showed positive outcomes following treatment. No significant differences between groups were found for any of the clinical or self-reported outcome measures with the exception that a significantly higher percentage of the trauma group reported using pain medication at follow-up. These findings are in contrast with previous suggestions that post-traumatic TMD patients show poorer response to treatment than nontrauma TMD patients.

Elongated styloid process in a temporomandibular disorder sample: prevalence and treatment outcome.

An elongated styloid process is an anatomic anomaly present in 2% to 30% of adults; it is occasionally associated with pain. Its prevalence among patients with classic temporomandibular disorder pain symptoms is unknown. The effect of conservative treatment on patients who have symptoms of temporomandibular disorders and an elongated styloid process is also unknown. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of the elongated styloid process in a sample of patients with temporomandibular disorders and to compare patients with and without the elongated styloid process on initial presenting signs and symptoms and treatment outcome. A total of 100 panoramic radiographs of patients with symptomatic temporomandibular disorders were examined to ascertain the presence or absence of an elongated styloid process. All patients participated in a conservative treatment program of biofeedback and stress management and a flat-plane intraoral appliance. Initial symptoms and treatment outcome of patients with and without an elongated styloid process were compared by use of multivariate analysis of variance on several oral-paraoral and psychosocial-behavioral methods. The prevalence of an elongated styloid process in this clinic sample of temporomandibular disorders was 27%. The patients with or without an elongated styloid process were not significantly different in pretreatment symptoms, and both groups exhibited substantial treatment gains. However, patients with an elongated styloid process showed significantly less improvement on unassisted mandibular opening without pain than did patients who did not have an elongated styloid process. This suggests that an elongated styloid process may place structural limitations on pain-free maximum mandibular opening. The results support conservative management of patients with symptoms of temporomandibular disorders when an elongated styloid process is present.

Dysfunctional patients with temporomandibular disorders: evaluating the efficacy of a tailored treatment protocol.

Forty-eight dysfunctional patients (i.e., high levels of pain, interference, and affective distress and low levels of perceived control) with temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) were randomly assigned either to a treatment consisting of an intraoral appliance (IA) and stress management with biofeedback (SM) plus nondirective, supportive counseling (SC) -- IA + SM + SC -- or to a customized treatment that included cognitive therapy (CT) with the IA and SM--IA + SM + CT. Both treatment groups reported statistically significant reductions on a set of physical, psychosocial, and behavioral measures posttreatment and at a 6-month follow-up. However, the intervention that included CT demonstrated significantly greater reductions in pain, depression, and medication use. Only the groups receiving the treatment that included the CT demonstrated continued improvements to the follow-up on pain associated with muscle palpation, self-reported pain severity, depression, and use of medications. These results support the efficacy of the tailored treatment for dysfunctional TMD.

Effects of intraoral appliance and biofeedback/stress management alone and in combination in treating pain and depression in patients with temporomandibular disorders.

To assess the differential efficacy of two commonly used treatments for temporomandibular disorders (TMD), intraoral appliances (IAs) and biofeedback (BF), separately and in combination, two studies were conducted. The first study directly compared IA treatment, a combination of biofeedback and stress management (BF/SM), and a waiting list control group in a sample of 80 TMD patients. Both treatments were determined to be equally credible to patients, ruling out this potential threat to the validity of the results obtained. The results demonstrated that the IA treatment was more effective than the BF/SM treatment in reducing pain after treatment, but at a 6-month follow-up the IA group significantly relapsed, especially in depression, whereas the BF/SM maintained improvements on both pain and depression and continued to improve. The second study examined the combination of IA and BF/SM in a sample of 30 TMD patients. The results of this study demonstrated that the combined treatment approach was more effective than either of the single treatments alone, particularly in pain reduction, at the 6-month follow-up. These results support the importance of using both dental and psychologic treatments to successfully treat TMD patients if treatment gains are to be maintained.