Search

Stimulation of primary afferent neurons offers a new approach for the control of localized chronic pain. We describe the results with a new neurostimulation technique, subcutaneous target stimulation (STS), for the treatment of chronic focal noncancer pain. STS applies permanent electrical stimulation directly at the painful area via a percutaneous-placed subcutaneous lead. We reported the clinical outcomes of 111 patients with focal chronic, noncancer pain treated with STS in this first nationwide, multicenter retrospective analysis. The indications for STS were low back pain (n = 29) and failed back surgery syndrome (back pain with leg pain) (n = 37), cervical neck pain (n = 15), and postherpetic neuralgia (n = 12). Pain intensity was measured on a numerical rating scale (NRS) before and after implantation. Data on analgesic medication, stimulation systems, position, and type of leads and complications were obtained from the patients' records. After implantation, the mean pain intensity improved by more than 50% (mean NRS reduction from 8.2 to 4.0) in the entire patient group (P = 0.0009). This was accompanied by a sustained reduction in demand for analgesics. In all the patients, the STS leads were positioned directly at the site of maximum pain. Lead dislocation occurred in 14 patients (13%), infections in 7 (6%), and in 6 cases (5%), lead fractures were observed. The retrospective data analysis revealed that STS effectively provided pain relief in patients suffering from refractory focal chronic noncancer pain and that STS is an alternative treatment option. Prospective controlled studies are required to confirm these retrospective findings. This article presents a new minimally invasive technique for therapy-resistant focal pain.

Abd-Sayed A, Fiala K, Weisbein J, et al. J Pain Res. 2022;15:1305–1314. The authors have advised there is an error in the author list on page 1305. The author name “Alaa Abd-Sayed” should read “Alaa Abd-Elsayed”. The authors apologize for this error.

Alaa Abd-Sayed,1 Kenneth Fiala,1 Jacqueline Weibstein,2 Pooja Chopra,3 Christopher Lam,4 Hemant Kalia,5 Navdeep Jassal,6 Amitabh Gulati,7 Dawood Sayed,4 Timothy Deer8 1Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, 53792-3272, USA; 2Napa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA, 94558, USA; 3Bux Pain Management, Danville, KY, 40422, USA; 4Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA; 5Rochester Regional Health, Rochester, NY, 14626, USA; 6Excel Pain and Spine, Lakeland, FL, 33805, USA; 7Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, NY, NY, 10604, USA; 8Department of Anesthesiology, University of West Virginia, Charleston, WV, 25301, USACorrespondence: Alaa Abd-Sayed, Email alaaawny@hotmail.comBackground: The use of intrathecal drug delivery for chronic and cancer pain medicine has been established for decades. However, optimization and utilization of this technique still lag behind other modalities for pain control. Some of this may be due to variability of surgical technique, medication usage and education. It is currently unclear on whether or not practitioners follow available algorithms for the use of intrathecal drug delivery systems.Methods: A survey developed by the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) was sent to its members via email using the cloud-based SurveyMonkey. After 30 days of being available, 159 different providers responded to the survey that consisted of 31 various multiple choice and free response questions. Each question was not required and the number of responses to each varied from 128 to 159.Results: Approximately 9% of those who successfully received and opened the email containing the survey responded, likely due to a small number of providers working with intrathecal drug delivery systems. Eighty-six of respondents practice medicine in the United States, and 87% of the respondents were attending physicians. A majority of respondents, approximately 74%, were board certified in pain medicine with 69% of respondents being train in anesthesiology. The first and second most used medications for intrathecal pump trial were morphine and fentanyl, respectively. Most respondents, approximately 96%, provide pre-operative/intra-operative antibiotics. The most common first-choice medication for implanted intrathecal pumps was also morphine with the most common implanted location being the abdomen.Conclusion: Interestingly, there is currently fairly substantial variation in the way providers utilize intrathecal pump delivery for both chronic and cancer pain. There is variation from the training background of the providers providing care, to the pre-implantation trial medications, to where the pump is implanted for each patient, to if the patient has the option to give themselves boluses once implanted. Further research is needed to elucidate current and best practices for intrathecal drug delivery system trials, implantations, and utilization.Keywords: pain management, intrathecal, chronic pain, cancer pain, neuromodulation, analgesia