Search

Purpose of Review: It is essential to have validated and reliable pain measurement tools that cover a wide range of areas and are tailored to individual patients to ensure effective pain management. The main objective of this review is to provide comprehensive information on commonly used pain scales and questionnaires, including their usefulness, intended purpose, applicability to different patient populations, and associated advantages and disadvantages., Recent Findings: Acute pain questionnaires typically focus on measuring the severity of pain and the extent of relief achieved through interventions. Chronic pain questionnaires evaluate additional aspects such as pain-related functional limitations, psychological distress, and psychological well-being. The selection of an appropriate pain scale depends on the specific assessment objectives. Additionally, each pain scale has its strengths and limitations. Understanding the differences among these pain scales is essential for selecting the most appropriate tool tailored to individual patient needs in different settings., Conclusion: Medical professionals encounter challenges in accurately assessing pain. Physicians must be familiar with the different pain scales and their applicability to specific patient population., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Gabapentin is one of the most common medications employed in Pain Medicine, specifically targeting the management of neuropathic pain. We are most familiar with the incremental dosing strategy where a ceiling dose is eventually attained guided by efficacy and patient tolerance, after which a fixed dosing regimen is prescribed. We propose that autonomous short-term dose variations per patient could have rapid clinically significant effects in the management of chronic pain., Objectives: This study examines the frequency at which patients take gabapentin on a fixed vs variable schedule and how the pattern of gabapentin use correlates with efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction., Study Design: Single institution, cross-sectional observational survey study with data collection performed over 2 phases as a pilot for proof of concept., Setting: Remote contact via telephone with researchers calling from a quiet, private location within the hospital complex conducive for confidential conversation., Methods: Patients recently prescribed gabapentin were queried on the patterns of use and self-perceived efficacy, satisfaction, and side effects in accordance to a standardized oral script. Patients selected met the criteria of being new patients freshly prescribed gabapentin who have been consistently on the medication for at least a month, while having chronic pain symptoms for over 3 months. Responses were collected in the form of a 5-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism., Results: Of the 222 patients, 92 patients agreed to participate in the survey for a response rate of 41.4. Of these, 51% had terminated the medication for various reasons. Of the patients still taking gabapentin, 73% were on a fixed schedule, while 27% were on a variable dosing schedule. Variable dosing cohort reported better efficacy (P = 0.027) and satisfaction (P = 0.036), while the side-effect profile between the 2 groups was similar., Limitations: The study is limited by its nature of being a pilot, single-institution study performed on a relatively small sample size. None of the patients we surveyed had been given the autonomy to adjust gabapentin doses by their providers and this could significantly reduce the proportion of patients who would be encouraged to run a variable dosing regimen., Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that a significant portion of patients choose to administer variable doses of gabapentin and associate this with better efficacy and satisfaction. A larger study is needed to confirm this supposition. Based upon this pilot study, the variable dosing option may be an option for improved therapeutic efficacy or as an alternative to those whose lifestyles do not allow for fixed dosing regimens. Discussion of the risks of gabapentin, including respiratory depression, and clear dosage parameters of use, would need to be outlined when considering a variable dose regimen.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for neuropathic pain. Outcomes of SCS may be influenced by peri-implant opioid management; however, to date, standard practices of opioid management in this scenario remain undefined and unreported., Methods: A survey inquiring SCS management practices in the peri-implant period was sent to the members of the Spine Intervention Society and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia. The results of three questions pertaining to peri-implant opioid management are presented here., Results: For each of the three questions examined, there were between 181 and 195 responses. Among respondents, 40 percent encouraged reduction of opioids prior to SCS trial, and 17 percent mandated reduction. After a SCS trial, 87 percent of respondents did not provide any additional opioids for periprocedure pain. After implant, the majority of respondents provided 1-7 days of opioids for post-operative pain., Conclusion: Based upon survey results and current literature, it is advisable to recommend or attempt opioid reduction before SCS and to not provide additional opioid for post-operative pain after trial lead insertion. Routine prescribing for the pain of the SCS implant beyond 7 days is not favored.

Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies are used in the management of patients with complex regional pain syndrome I (CRPS I) and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). The purpose of this study was to investigate the racial and health insurance inequalities with SCS therapy in patients with chronic pain who had CRPS I and FBSS., Methods: Patients with chronic pain who had a discharge diagnosis of FBSS and CRPS I were identified using the National Inpatient Sample database. Our primary outcome was defined as the history of SCS utilization by race/ethnicity, income quartile, and insurance status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the variables associated with utilization of SCS therapy., Results: Between 2011 and 2015, 40,858 patients who were hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of FBSS and/or CRPS I were identified. Of these patients, 1,082 (2.7%) had a history of SCS therapy. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that compared to White patients, Black and Hispanic patients had higher odds of having SCS therapy (Black patients: odds ratio [OR] = 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.77; P = 0.003; Hispanic patients: OR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.81; P = 0.007). Patients with private insurance had significantly higher odds of having SCS therapy compared with those with Medicare (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.43; P = 0.003). Compared to patients with Medicare, Medicaid patients had lower odds of having SCS therapy (OR = 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.70; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Our study suggests that socioeconomic disparities may exist in the utilization of SCS among hospitalized patients with CRPS I and FBSS the United States. However, confirming these data from other administrative databases, in the outpatient setting, may shed more insight., (© 2020 World Institute of Pain.)

Introduction: Chronic pain remains an important public health problem as it continues to increase healthcare-related cost. Comorbidities like obesity have been associated with efficacy of spinal cord stimulator (SCS) therapy and worse outcomes. The goal of this study is to investigate the trends of obesity amongst hospitalized patients with SCS therapy as well as healthcare utilization outcomes., Methods: Using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) ninth and tenth procedure and diagnosis code, we investigated the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for patients with SCS implants between 2011 and 2015. Patients received a diagnosis of obesity based on the following categories: class I, II and III obesity. Age, gender, and comorbid conditions of patients with obesity were matched 1:1 on propensity score to those without obesity diagnosis. Our primary outcome was defined as trend of obesity diagnosis. Our secondary outcome, healthcare utilization, included in-hospital cost, length of stay, and discharge location., Results: Between 2011 and 2015, a total of 3893 patients with SCS implants were identified (average age 56 ± 15 years, 58% female, 0.70 ± 1.1 Charlson Comorbidity Index, CCI). Of this cohort, 640 patients were identified as obese. The proportion of patients with obesity diagnosis increased significantly from 13.75% in 2011 to 19.36% in 2015 (p < 0.001). After 1:1 matching on propensity score, 597 patients with obesity were successfully matched to 597 patients without obesity. The total hospital cost for SCS patients with obesity (median $104,845, IQR $74,648-144,292) was not significantly different from patients without obesity diagnosis (median $111,092, IQR $68,990-145,459) (p = 0.161)., Conclusions: The data from our study suggests that there is an increasing rate of obesity diagnosis amongst patients with SCS therapy. However, there was no difference in healthcare utilization between patients with and without obesity. Additional studies may provide more insight into our findings.

Background: High-frequency 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (10-kHz SCS) has shown promise in multicenter prospective trials for the management of chronic back and leg pain. Traditional spinal cord stimulation (t-SCS) has a long history of effectiveness in chronic neuropathic syndromes but not uncommonly can fail to provide long-term relief, leaving a significant group of patients with unsatisfactory outcomes. There is mounting evidence that 10-kHz SCS may offer relief in this subset of patients., Methods: The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to report a single-institution long-term experience of 10-kHz SCS in patients who did not get adequate pain relief with prior t-SCS devices. A temporary trial of 10-kHz SCS was carried out for 7 days, and those experiencing an average of 50% reduction in pain intensity underwent implantation. Patients were classified as moderate responders if relief was 31% to 50% and excellent responders if pain relief exceeded 50%., Results: Thirty-one patients who had experienced failed t-SCS primarily from poor paresthesia coverage underwent a trial of 10-kHz SCS and 29 underwent implantation. Twenty-eight patients were available for analysis, with 57.1% experiencing 30% response and 46.4% experiencing excellent response at a median follow-up of 21.2 (±8.4) months., Conclusions: This small single-institution study suggests that a significant proportion of patients with previously failed t-SCS may achieve clinically meaningful and durable pain relief with 10-kHz SCS., (© 2020 World Institute of Pain.)

Introduction: To date, no study has reported the prevalence of cannabis use in chronic pain patients. The aim of this study is to investigate the trends in cannabis use among chronic pain in-patients from 2011 to 2015 in the USA., Methods: Patients were identified from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, diagnosis codes for chronic pain and cannabis use. Annual estimates and trends were determined for cannabis use, patient characteristics, cannabis use among subgroups of chronic pain conditions, cost, length of stay, and associated discharge diagnosis., Results: Between 2011 to 2015, a total of 247,949 chronic pain patients were cannabis users, increasing from 33,189 to 72,115 (P < 0.001). There were upward trends of cannabis use in females (38.7-40.7%; P = 0.03), Medicare insured patients (32.7-40.4%; P < 0.01), patients with lowest annual household income (36.1-40.9%; P = 0.02), patients aged 45-64 years (45.9-49.2%; P < 0.001), and patients with tobacco use disorder (63.8-72.4%; P < 0.0001). Concurrently, cannabis use decreased among patients with opioid use disorder (23.8-19.9%; P < 0.001). Cannabis use increased from 2011 to 2015 in patients with chronic regional pain syndrome, trauma, spondylosis, and failed back surgery syndrome. Adjusted total hospitalization cost increased from $31,271 ($1333) in 2011 to $38,684 ($946) in 2015 (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Cannabis use increased substantially from 2011 to 2015, while the rates of cannabis use in opioid users down-trended simultaneously. Disparities in cannabis use among subgroups should be explored further.

Purpose of Review: Post dural puncture headache (PDPH) is a relatively common complication which may occur in the setting of inadvertent dural puncture (DP) during labor epidural analgesia and during intentional DP during spinal anesthetic placement or diagnostic lumbar puncture. Few publications have established the long-term safety of an epidural blood patch (EBP) for the treatment of a PDPH., Recent Findings: The aim of this pilot study was to examine the association of chronic low back pain (LBP) in patients who experienced a PDPH following labor analgesia and were treated with an EBP. A total of 146 patients were contacted and completed a survey questionnaire via telephone. The EBP group was found to be more likely to have chronic LBP (percentage difference 20% [95% CI 6-33%], RR 2.6 [95% CI 1.3-5.2]) and also LBP < 6 (percentage difference 24% [95% CI 9- 37%], RR 2.3 [95% CI 1.3-4.1]). There were no significant differences in the severity and descriptive qualities of pain between the EBP and non-EBP groups. Our findings suggest that PDPH treated with an EBP is associated with an increased prevalence of subsequent low back pain in parturients. The findings of this pilot study should spur further prospective research into identifying potential associations between DP, EBP, and chronic low back pain.

Background: Chronic pain remains a major public health issue that affects the lives of many worldwide, including patients with chronic pain. Comorbidities like depression have been associated with decreased quality of sleep, decreased enjoyment of life activities, increased anxiety, and decreased efficacy in treatments among patients with chronic pain. Despite these associations, the trends and demographic characteristics of patients with chronic pain with depression is yet to be investigated., Objectives: To investigate the trends and demographic characteristics of hospitalized patients with chronic pain with comorbid depression from years 2011 to 2015 in the United States., Study Design: This was an observational study., Setting: Patients were identified from a Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database called National Inpatient Sample (NIS) documentation., Methods: Patients were identified from the NIS database using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision (ICD-9 and ICD-10) diagnosis codes for chronic pain and comorbid depression from years 2011 to 2015., Results: Between 2011 and 2015, an estimated 9.3 million patients with chronic pain were identified. Of this cohort, 2.2 million patients (22.9%) were diagnosed with comorbid depression. The estimated number of patients with depression varied from 399,865 (22.6%) in 2011 to 421,490 (23.1%) in 2015 (P = 0.13). From 2011 to 2015, there was a significant upward trend of depression among blacks (8.1 ± 0.42% to 9.7 ± 0.27%), patients aged 65 to 84 years (29.0 ± 0.39% to 32.4 ± 0.23%), Medicare insured patients (56.1 ± 0.54% to 58.5 ± 0.29%), Medicaid insured patients (14.7 0.4% to 17.1 ± 0.24%), and patients from zip code areas with lowest annual household income (29.2 ± 1.3% to 32.0 ± 0.59%). Among patients with depression, the adjusted total hospitalization cost increased from $43,584 in 2011 to $49,923 in 2015 (P < 0.001), with average length of hospital stay stable around 5.05 ± 0.02 days. Most patients were discharged home or with self-care compared with short-term facility (57.9 ± 0.14% vs. 2.0 ± 0.03%)., Limitations: Large database research comes with several limitations. The NIS database does not contain variables that can evaluate disease severity such as depression. In addition, the NIS database is highly dependent on the selection and report accuracy of the appropriate diagnostic ICD codes. These estimates could be imprecise from over or underestimation of the number of patients with chronic pain with comorbid depression., Conclusions: These findings from the present investigation suggest that depression in patients with chronic pain remained stable from 2011 to 2015, with the majority of patients identified as women, white, and ages 45 to 65 years., Key Words: Chronic pain, depression, National Inpatient Sample.

Objective: Interventional pain management procedures have an important role in the management of chronic pain. The present study seeks to identify the proportion of patients who experience severe pain during pain procedures either with or without sedation. There is then an attempt to identify any association of high pain levels with factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, preprocedure pain level, procedure type, tobacco use, and baseline pharmaceuticals taken for both pain and/or mood disorder management., Methods: This is a prospective survey study evaluating patients' discomfort during interventional pain procedures in an outpatient academic facility. Patient discomfort was assessed by the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) and modified for nonsedation cases., Results: There were 155 patients in the survey, with 20 of these receiving nonspinal injections. Of the remaining 135 patients who underwent spinal injections, only 10 received conscious sedation. On average, 14.2% experienced severe pain during spinal injections, whereas 20% experienced severe pain with nonspinal injections. Though few patients received conscious sedation, most of these (60%) experienced high levels of pain. There was no correlation between level of procedural pain with age, gender, ethnicity, preprocedure pain level, procedure type, tobacco use, or medication type used., Conclusions: The majority of patients who undergo nonsedated interventional pain management procedures do not experience severe pain. There is a small but appreciable group of subjects who seem to experience severe pain that cannot be correlated to any particular clinical characteristic in a standard patient evaluation. Even with standard conscious sedation, there is no clear best method to ensure patient comfort for this high-pain level group., (© 2017 American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Objective: The study aims to assess utilization of spinal cord stimulator (SCS) devices while driving a vehicle and potential association with motor vehicle accidents (MVAs)., Materials and Methods: A telephone survey study was conducted in two phases, from 2001 to 2008 and from 2009 to 2011. Patients selected for the survey were age 18 or older and at least one year post-SCS implantation, demonstrating stable analgesic use for at least six months, and reporting a minimum of 50% pain relief and enhancement of activities of daily living. Both phases of the study evaluated for degree of utilization of SCS while driving a motor vehicle as well as associated accidents. Additionally, patients with active SCS use while driving were further asked in the second phase of the study about mileage per week and first activation of the device postimplant., Results: Ninety-seven percent of the 78 patients contacted were active drivers and of these, 80% reported chronic and consistent use of SCS for the analgesic benefit while operating a motor vehicle. Eleven percent reported MVAs, which were not related to SCS. In the second phase of the study, participants reported a median of 100 miles driven per week with the SCS device on and began use of the device at a median of 21 days postimplant for up to 49 months., Conclusion: Because of the perceived benefits of pain reduction, there is high utilization of active SCS while driving a motor vehicle and that does not seem predispose toward MVAs., (© 2015 International Neuromodulation Society.)

Background: The use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is continuously escalating for the evaluation of patients with persistent pain following lumbar spine surgery (LSS). Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is being clinically applied much more commonly for the management of chronic pain following LSS. There is an increased probability that these 2 incompatible modalities may be accidentally used in the same patient., Objectives: The purpose of this case report is to: (1) summarize a case in which a patient with a thoracic spinal cord stimulator underwent a diagnostic lumbar MRI, (2) describe the 3 magnetic fields used to generate images and their interactions with SCS devices, and (3) summarize the present literature., Study Design: Case report., Setting: University hospital., Results: Aside from mild heat sensations in the generator/pocket site and very low intensity shocking sensations in the back while in the MRI scanner, the patient emerged from the study with no clinically detected adverse events. Subsequent activation of the SCS device would result in a brief intense shocking sensation. This persisted whenever the device was activated and required Implantable Pulse Generator (IPG) replacement. Electrical analysis revealed that some of the output circuitry switches, which regulate IPG stimulation and capacitor charge balancing, were damaged, most likely by MRI radiofrequency injected current., Limitations: Single case of a patient with a thoracic SCS having a lumbar MRI study., Conclusion: This case demonstrates the lack of compatibility of lumbar MRI and the Precision SCS system as well as one of the possible patient adverse events that can occur when patients are exposed to MRI outside of the approved device labeling.

Introduction: While spinal cord stimulator implant is an increasingly safe procedure, one of the most feared complications is spinal cord injury. Still, literature regarding its incidence remains highly variable. This retrospective analysis aims to evaluate the incidence of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant using a large-scale claims database.Methods: The PearlDiver-Mariner database of national all payer claims was used to identify patients who underwent spinal cord stimulator implant (percutaneous or paddle) and developed subsequent spinal cord injury within 45 days. The primary outcome was to determine the overall incidence of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of potential factors associated with developing spinal cord injury using univariable and multivariable regression analysis.Results: A total of 71,172 patients who underwent a spinal cord stimulator implant were included in the analysis, of which 52,070 underwent percutaneous and 19,102 underwent paddle spinal cord stimulator lead implant. The overall incidence of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant (any lead type) was found to be 0.42% (302 patients). The incidence of spinal cord injury after percutaneous and paddle lead implants did not differ at 0.45% (233 patients) and 0.36% (69 patients)(p=0.12), respectively. Overall, variables associated with a significantly increased OR (95% confidence interval) of developing spinal cord injury included male gender by 1.31 times (1.04 to 1.65)(p=0.02); having a claim for low molecular weight heparin within 30 days by 3.99 times (1.47 to 10.82)(p<0.01); a diagnosis for osteoporosis within 1 year by 1.75 times (1.15 to 2.66)(p<0.01); and a diagnosis of cervical or thoracic spinal canal stenosis within 1 year by 1.99 (1.37 to 2.90)(p<0.001) and 4.00 (2.63 to 6.09)(p<0.0001) times, respectively.Conclusions: Overall, our results support the notion that spinal cord stimulator implant continues to be a safe procedure for chronic pain patients. However, risk factor mitigation strategies for the prevention of spinal cord injury after spinal cord stimulator implant should be undertaken prior to performing the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine if any of the factors recorded on a standard clinical history of a patient considered for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) would be associated with reduction or cessation of opioids following implantation. Design: Retrospective, single academic center. Methods: Patients included in the chart analysis underwent implantation of percutaneous SCS devices from 1999 to 2015 with follow‐up until the end of September 2018. Patients who achieved at least an average of 50% pain reduction were included for analysis of daily opioid intake. Patients were then divided into 4 groups that included no opioid use, stable opioid daily dose, weaned opioid dose, and complete cessation of opioids. Statistical methods were used to analyze for associations between opioid intake after SCS insertion and usual elements of a clinical history, including adjuvant medications, numeric pain rating, past medical history, psychiatric illness, substance abuse, employment, and smoking history. Results: In a group of 261 patients who had undergone implantation, 214 met the criteria for analysis and had a median age of 50 years, with majority having the diagnoses of failed back surgery syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. The only factor that was associated with complete cessation of opioid use was a median dose of 30 mg of morphine per day (P < 0.01) and was observed in 15% of subjects who used opioids preoperatively. Conclusion: The elimination of opioid dependence following initiation of SCS therapy is highly dependent on the daily dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: High‐frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz (HF10‐SCS) has been demonstrated to provide enhanced and durable pain relief in patients with chronic back and radiating leg pain. Patients with pain related to complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in the chronic stages are commonly challenging to treat and often receive traditional spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Very little information is currently available about the therapeutic outcomes following application of high‐frequency stimulation in this cohort of patients. Methods: The purpose of the retrospective case series was to report on the initial experience of HF10‐SCS in 13 patients with CRPS, some of whom had been exposed to low‐frequency SCS. A temporary trial of HF10‐SCS was carried out for 1 week, and those achieving a minimum of 50% pain intensity reduction underwent implantation. Successful responders were those who achieved a 50% decrease in pain intensity on subsequent follow‐up. Results: Thirteen patients were trialed, 12 of whom went on to receive a permanent implant. Of the patients receiving permanent implants, the responder rate (50% pain relief) was 67% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34 to 0.90), with an average follow‐up period of 12.1 ± 4.6 months. Of the 5 patients who had sympathetically independent pain, 3 were responders, and of the 7 patients who had sympathetically mediated pain, 5 were responders. There were no adverse events. Conclusion: This small case series suggests that HF10‐SCS may be a viable option for patients with CRPS who have chronic intractable pain, including those who had suboptimal results from traditional SCS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]