Retrospective Evaluation of Bipolar Peripheral Nerve Stimulation for Nociceptive and Neuropathic Pain: A Pilot Study.

Purpose: This retrospective review evaluates pain and patient-defined functional goal improvement utilizing bipolar peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) in chronic neuropathic and nociceptive pain states. Patients and Methods: Our dataset includes 24 patients who underwent implantation of a permanent peripheral nerve stimulator from January 2018 through December 2022. A total of 29 leads were implanted amongst 24 patients, with 5 patients having leads at 2 different dermatomes. Fifteen leads were placed for primarily neuropathic pain, and 14 leads were placed for nociceptive pain. Inclusion criteria were the following: pain duration greater than 6 months, documented peri-procedural Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and greater than 60 days follow-up post implant. Results: Data was collected and analyzed showing that 89.6% of implants at 6 months follow-up and 70% at 12 months follow-up achieved 50% or greater pain relief. A significant reduction in NPRS scores when comparing pre-procedure pain scores (Median = 7, n = 29) to 6-month follow-up data (Median = 2, n = 29), p<0.001 with a large effect size, r = 0.61. Ninety-three percent of patients reported achieving their personal functional goal. Twelve of the fourteen (86%) leads implanted for primary nociceptive pain and fourteen of the fifteen (93%) leads implanted for neuropathic pain achieved ≥50% relief at 6 months. At twelve months, seven leads in each group provided ≥50% sustained pain relief. Of the 14 patients that were on opioids, 6 discontinued, while another 2 had a reduction in oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) at the 12-month follow-up. Conclusion: This retrospective review demonstrates the potential clinical application of PNS in both nociceptive and neuropathic pain states. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate the effectiveness of PNS in the treatment of refractory nociceptive and neuropathic pain states.

Combined use of peripheral nerve stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation for refractory complex regional pain syndrome type I to avoid amputation: A case report.

We describe a case of left foot and ankle complex regional pain syndrome type 1 that necessitated a novel combination of a functioning dorsal root ganglion stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation. This approach optimized pain relief, functional improvement, and avoided amputation.

Education and Experience in Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems (IDDS) During Pain Medicine Fellowships.

Objective: Targeted drug delivery (TDD) via intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) exposure and clinical adoption remains low despite multiple well-designed trials that demonstrate safety, efficacy, reliability, and cost-saving benefits. This study aims to understand the possible contributing factors starting with Pain Medicine fellowship training. Materials and Methods: An internet-based, anonymous pilot survey was distributed to pain medicine fellows enrolled in an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited pain medicine training program during the 2021-2022 academic year. Fellowship programs were identified using published online ACGME accreditation data. The survey was distributed via email to fellowship program directors and coordinators and was made available through pain medicine societies. Results: Seventy-one of four hundred and twenty-three pain medicine fellows (17% response rate) completed the survey. Nine percent of respondents evidence-informed opinion coincided with the most recent Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) guidelines recommendations for IDDS treatment indications. Fifty-one percent of respondents felt there was an unmet need for IDDS training. About one-third of respondents felt that lack of curriculum, faculty, and cases were barriers to IDDS use, respectively. Thirty-one percent of fellows reported sufficient training for IDDS in their fellowship programs. The majority (70%) of respondents somewhat or strongly support direct training by IDDS manufacturers. Conclusion: A wide variability exists surrounding IDDS training during ACGME accredited pain medicine fellowship. Insufficient case exposure and lack of a standardized curriculum may play a role in future therapy adoption. The results from this study call for a more standardized training approach with an emphasis on adequate clinical exposure, utilization of peer reviewed educational curriculum and supplemental material to aid pain medicine fellows' education.

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practices and Guidelines for the Interventional Management of Cancer-Associated Pain.

Moderate to severe pain occurs in many cancer patients during their clinical course and may stem from the primary pathology, metastasis, or as treatment side effects. Uncontrolled pain using conservative medical therapy can often lead to patient distress, loss of productivity, shorter life expectancy, longer hospital stays, and increase in healthcare utilization. Various publications shed light on strategies for conservative medical management for cancer pain and a few international publications have reviewed limited interventional data. Our multi-institutional working group was assembled to review and highlight the body of evidence that exists for opioid utilization for cancer pain, adjunct medication such as ketamine and methadone and interventional therapies. We discuss neurolysis via injections, neuromodulation including targeted drug delivery and spinal cord stimulation, vertebral tumor ablation and augmentation, radiotherapy and surgical techniques. In the United States, there is a significant variance in the interventional treatment of cancer pain based on fellowship training. As a first of its kind, this best practices and interventional guideline will offer evidenced-based recommendations for reducing pain and suffering associated with malignancy.

Evidence-Based Non-Pharmacological Therapies for Fibromyalgia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Fibromyalgia (FM) is the second most common rheumatologic pain disorder after osteoarthritis with a multisystem presentation. While the treatment of FM in a clinical setting incorporates both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic modalities, the present investigation reviews evolving literature on cognitive behavioral and complementary medical therapies. The recent medical literature on FM was reviewed between 2012 and 2017 via MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, with an emphasis on randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and evidence-based treatment guidelines. RECENT FINDINGS: Cognitive behavioral therapy continues to play a significant role in the non-medical therapy of FM. It is especially helpful in high catastrophizing patients as evidenced by recent studies that note changes in the brain on functional magnetic resonance imaging. Mindfulness meditation can be helpful in improving pain symptoms and pain perception. No particular diet is found to have a meaningful impact in FM; however, various diets including low fermentable oligo- di -monosaccharides and polyols diet, gluten free, and hypocaloric may be helpful in ameliorating gastrointestinal distress in select patient populations. Current literature does not support the routine use of acupuncture for improving pain or quality of life in FM; however, given its benign side effect profile, it should not be discouraged. Goals for symptom management and pain control should be set early, and patient engagement remains critical in the management of this complex pain presentation. While low quality evidence exists for most non-pharmacologic treatment modalities for FM, CBT and mindfulness meditation show promise for future investigation.

Value of Other Endovascular Techniques Among Patients with MERCI Device Failure during the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: What to do when MERCI fails?

BACKGROUND: The MERCI Retrieval system (Concentric Medical, Mountain View, CA) was the first FDA -approved device for mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke. It remains one of the most commonly used devices today despite its failure to restore blood flow in approximately 50% of the occlusions after technically successful deployment and retrieval. It remains unclear whether additional endovascular techniques or continued use of MERCI device can achieve recanalization post- MERCI failure. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcome of continued MERCI retriever use compared with other endovascular techniques after initial failure. METHODS: Failure of MERCI retriever was defined by successful deployment and retrieval of MERCI across target occlusion without recanalization in a single pass.. Pre- and post- treatment cerebral angiogram was classified using the Qureshi Grading Scale (QGS). Recanalization was defined by a reduction in ≥ 1 QGS grade between pre- and post- treatment cerebral angiogram in the Qureshi Grading Scale (QGS).We ascertained and compared the angiographic and clinical results with continued use of MERCI retriever or other endovascular techniques in patients following MERCI failure. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients (53% men) had MERCI retrieval in this cohort with a mean age (±standard deviation) of 66.8 years ± 16 years and a mean admission National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 16.8 ± 6.7. Of the 40 patients treated with MERCI retrieval, there were 26 patients with MERCI failure. In group 1, there were 11 patients who underwent continued MERCI use and group 2 consisted of 15 patients who underwent an alternate endovascular technique. There was no significant difference in age, risk factors, or outcomes between the groups. The rate of recanalization (82% versus 80%, p=1.0), asymptomatic intra cerebral hemorrhage (18% versus 13%, p =0.77) and favorable outcome at discharge (27% versus 20%, p =0.66) were similar amongst the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Continued attempts using the MERCI device did not result in higher recanalization rates when compared to alternate endovascular treatment modalities following initial MERCI failure. Both techniques produced comparable rates of recanalization and favorable outcome.

Value of Other Endovascular Techniques Among Patients with MERCI Device Failure during the Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke: What to do when MERCI fails?

BACKGROUND: The MERCI Retrieval system (Concentric Medical, Mountain View, CA) was the first FDA -approved device for mechanical thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke. It remains one of the most commonly used devices today despite its failure to restore blood flow in approximately 50% of the occlusions after technically successful deployment and retrieval. It remains unclear whether additional endovascular techniques or continued use of MERCI device can achieve recanalization post- MERCI failure. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the outcome of continued MERCI retriever use compared to other endovascular techniques after initial failure. METHODS: Failure of MERCI retriever was defined by successful deployment and retrieval of MERCI across target occlusion without recanalization in a single pass.. Pre- and post- treatment cerebral angiogram was classified using the Qureshi Grading Scale (QGS). Recanalization was defined by a reduction in ≥ 1 grade between pre- and post- treatment cerebral angiogram in the Qureshi Grading Scale (QGS). We ascertained and compared the angiographic and clinical results with continued use of MERCI retriever and other endovascular techniques in patients with MERCI failure. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients (53% men) had MERCI retrieval in this cohort with a mean age (±standard deviation) of 66.8 years ± 16 years and a mean admission NIHSS score of 16.8 ± 6.7. Of the 40 patients treated with MERCI retrieval, there were 26 patients with MERCI failure. In group 1, there were 11 patients who underwent continued MERCI use and group 2 consisted of 15 patients who had an alternate endovascular technique. There was no significant difference in age, risk factors, or outcomes between the groups. The rate of recanalization (82% versus 80%, p=1.0), asymptomatic intra cerebral hemorrhage (18% versus 13%, p =0.77) and favorable outcome at discharge (27% versus 20%, p =0.66) were similar amongst the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Continued attempts using the MERCI device did not result in higher recanalization rates when compared to alternate endovascular treatment modalities following initial MERCI failure. Both techniques produced comparable rates of recanalization and favorable outcome.