Search

INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as a prevalent therapy for chronic neuropathic pain and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) over the past three decades, offering various stimulation types differentiated primarily by frequency. CASE REPORT: A 51-year-old male patient in 2016 underwent lumbar discectomy – L4/L5 due to symptomatic discopathy, which resulted in pain relief; however, the symptoms returned. In 2021 a Stimwave high-frequency (HF) SCS was placed epidurally at Th8–Th10. The patient reported substantial improvement after stimulation, nevertheless, after two weeks there was sudden exacerbation of his symptoms, especially in the lumbar region. Despite multiple attempts at program change and confirmation of the electrode location, there was no improvement. The HF stimulator was not removed owing to the risk of complications and 20% relief of pain in the right lower limb. After two years he was qualified for the implantation of newer generation of stimulators – BurstDR™ stimulation. An epidural electrode was implanted at Th8–Th10, followed by the placement of a BurstDR™ pulse generator. Currently, the patient has two active electrodes, one with HF stimulation, the other with BurstDR™ stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Our case report demonstrates that there is no need to abandon SCS after the first failed attempt and it is worth trying stimulation with a different modulation. Furthermore, according to our center’s experience, the therapeutic effects of HF stimulation are quickly depleted and only after using burst stimulation was the expected result achieved. The reasons for this phenomenon are unknown and should be further researched.

Background and Objectives: As brain lesions present complex diagnostic challenges, accurate tissue sampling via biopsy is critical for effective treatment planning. Traditional frame-based stereotactic biopsy has been complemented by navigated biopsy techniques, leveraging advancements in imaging and navigation technology. This study aims to compare the navigated and frame-based stereotactic biopsy methods in a clinical setting, evaluating their efficacy, safety, and diagnostic outcomes to determine the optimal approach for precise brain lesion targeting. Materials and Methods: retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent brain biopsies between January 2017 and August 2023 at an academic medical center. Data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, biopsy technique (navigated vs. frame-based), and outcomes including accuracy, complications, and hospital stay duration were analyzed. Results: The cohort comprised 112 patients, with no significant age or gender differences between groups. Symptoms leading to biopsy were predominantly diminished muscle strength (42.0%), cognitive issues (28.6%), and aphasia (24.1%). Tumors were most common in the deep hemisphere (24.1%). The median hospital stay was 5 days, with a rehospitalization rate of 27.7%. Complications occurred in 4.47% of patients, showing no significant difference between biopsy methods. However, navigated biopsies resulted in fewer samples (p < 0.001) but with comparable diagnostic accuracy as frame-based biopsies. Conclusions: Navigated and frame-based stereotactic biopsies are both effective and safe, with comparable accuracy and complication rates. The choice of technique should consider lesion specifics, surgeon preference, and technological availability. The findings highlight the importance of advanced neurosurgical techniques in enhancing patient care and outcomes.

Background and Objectives: In case of the ineffectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in managing chronic neuropathic pain, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) with BurstDR™ stimulation may reduce pain and increase the quality of life. The term “burst” refers to a series of stimulation impulses that are compressed into small packets and separated by intervals of latency. Materials and Methods: A group of 30 consecutive patients who received the BurstDR™ stimulator using the minimally invasive percutaneous method was selected. Patients selected for our study underwent numerous spinal surgeries before SCS implantation. In the study, analgesics and co-analgesics and their doses used by patients before and 6 months after SCS implantation were examined and compared. Using the visual analogue scale (VAS), pain was compared before and after the procedure. Patients` quality of life was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Results: We observed a significant reduction in opioid daily doses by an average of 32.4% (±36.1%) and a reduction in paracetamol daily doses by an average of 40% (±33.4%). There was a reduction in pregabalin doses as well. Ketoprofen daily dose reduction was 85.4 mg. The mean VAS difference before and after procedure was 3.9 (±2.3), and the mean difference in ODI was 12.9 (±9), which benefits operative treatment. The VAS and ODI results were statistically significant as well. Conclusions: According to our research, BurstDR™ stimulation improves the quality of life by reducing doses of analgesics and the level of pain.

COVID-19 has affected the entire world and has had a great impact on healthcare, influencing the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care of patients with AIS. We performed a retrospective analysis of 1599 patients diagnosed with AIS and hospitalized in the authors’ institution from January 2018 to December 2021. The final sample consisted of 265 patients treated with thrombolysis without a diagnosis of COVID-19. The initiation of thrombolytic treatment during the pandemic was delayed (2:42 ± 0:51 vs. 2:25 ± 0:53; p = 0.0006). The delay was mainly related to the pre-hospital phase (1:41 ± 0:48 vs. 1:26 ± 0:49; p = 0.0014), and the door-to-needle time was not affected. There were no differences in stroke severity and patients’ outcomes. Patients with AIS were less likely to have previously been diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (16.9% vs. 26.7%; p = 0.0383), ischemic heart disease (25.3% vs. 46.5%; p = 0.0003) and hyperlipidemia (31.2% vs. 46.5%; p = 0.0264). Patients treated during the pandemic had higher glycemia (149.45 ± 54. vs. 143.25 ± 60.71 mg/dL; p= 0.0012), while no significant differences in their lipid profiles were found. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic affected the treatment of AIS patients locally at our stroke center. It caused treatment delay and hindered the recognition of risk factors prior to the occurrence of AIS.