Search

Neuromodulation is an expanding area of pain medicine that incorporates an array of non-invasive, minimally invasive, and surgical electrical therapies. In this Series paper, we focus on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies discussed within the framework of other invasive, minimally invasive, and non-invasive neuromodulation therapies. These therapies include deep brain and motor cortex stimulation, peripheral nerve stimulation, and the non-invasive treatments of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. SCS methods with electrical variables that differ from traditional SCS have been approved. Although methods devoid of paraesthesias (eg, high frequency) should theoretically allow for placebo-controlled trials, few have been done. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that SCS is superior to reoperation or conventional medical management for failed back surgery syndrome, and conflicting evidence as to the superiority of traditional SCS over sham stimulation or between different SCS modalities. Peripheral nerve stimulation technologies have also undergone rapid development and become less invasive, including many that are placed percutaneously. There is low-to-moderate quality evidence that peripheral nerve stimulation is effective for neuropathic pain in an extremity, low quality evidence that it is effective for back pain with or without leg pain, and conflicting evidence that it can prevent migraines. In the USA and many areas in Europe, deep brain and motor cortex stimulation are not approved for chronic pain, but are used off-label for refractory cases. Overall, there is mixed evidence supporting brain stimulation, with most sham-controlled trials yielding negative findings. Regarding non-invasive modalities, there is moderate quality evidence that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation does not provide meaningful benefit for chronic pain in general, but conflicting evidence regarding pain relief for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcranial direct current stimulation, there is low-quality evidence supporting its benefit for chronic pain, but conflicting evidence regarding a small treatment effect for neuropathic pain and headaches. For transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, there is low-quality evidence that it is superior to sham or no treatment for neuropathic pain, but conflicting evidence for non-neuropathic pain. Future research should focus on better evaluating the short-term and long-term effectiveness of all neuromodulation modalities and whether they decrease health-care use, and on refining selection criteria and treatment variables.

Objectives To determine the prevalence and breakdown of pain symptoms among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection admitted for nonpain symptoms and the association between the presence of pain and intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. Patients and Methods In this multicenter prospective study, data on the intensity and type of pain were collected on 169 patients with active severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection at 2 teaching hospitals in the United States and Korea and on 8 patients with acute pain at another large teaching hospital between February 1, 2020, and June 15, 2020. Results Sixty-five of 169 patients (38.5%) reported an active pain condition. Among the 73 patients with pain, the most common pain symptoms were headache (n=22; 30.1%), chest pain (n=17; 23.3%), spinal pain (n=18; 24.7%), myalgia (n=13; 17.8%), abdominal or pelvic pain (n=13; 17.8%), arthralgia (n=11; 15.1%), and generalized pain (n=9; 12.3%). Those reporting headache as their main symptom were less likely to require ICU admission (P=.003). Acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were prescribed to 80.8% (n=59), opioids to 17.8% (n=13), adjuvants to 8.2% (n=6), and ketamine to 5.5% (n=4) of patients with pain. When age 65 years and older and sex were controlled for in multivariable analysis, the absence of pain was associated with ICU admission (odds ratio, 2.92; 95% CI, 1.42 to 6.28; P=.004) and death (odds ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 1.40 to 9.76; P=.01). Conclusion Acute pain is common during active COVID-19 infection with the most common manifestations being headache, chest pain and spine pain. Individuals without pain were more likely to require intensive care and expire than those with pain. Reasons why pain may be associated with reduced mortality include that an intense systemic stimulus (eg, respiratory distress) might distract pain perception or that the catecholamine surge associated with severe respiratory distress might attenuate nociceptive signaling.

Background Lumbar sympathetic neurolysis (LSN) is a treatment option for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). We examined whether LSN-related temperature changes are associated with clinical outcome and investigated relationships between the outcome of LSN and clinical variables in patients with CRPS-I. Methods We included 95 patients with CRPS-I affecting a single lower extremity, by the Budapest criteria, and who underwent LSN after successful lumbar sympathetic blocks, in this retrospective study. Fluoroscopy-guided LSN was conducted with 1.5 mL of 99% alcohol at L2 and L3 vertebral levels. Positive outcome was defined as a reduction of ≥50% on a numeric rating scale pain score at 6 months after LSN. The relationship between successful outcome and clinical variables was analyzed. Results Positive LSN outcome occurred in 49.5% of patients, and it was suggested that Sympathetically maintained pain may accompany CRPS-I in 28% of patients. The overall temperature in the affected limb was increased after LSN, without contralateral limb temperature changes, but did not differ significantly between the positive and negative outcome groups (P = 0.590). Temperature after LSN in warm-type CRPS was reduced in the affected limb, without contralateral limb temperature changes. The absolute temperature change was significantly greater in cold-type than in warm-type CRPS (P = 0.026). In multivariate analysis, a short duration of pain and concurrent cold intolerance were significant factors predicting a positive outcome after LSN. Conclusions LSN may be effective in some patients with CRPS, irrespective of temperature changes and temperature asymmetry pattern. A short duration of pain and concurrent cold intolerance significantly predict successful LSN.