Management of chronic severe pain: cerebral neuromodulatory and neuroablative approaches

Spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain in adolescent patients: a single-institution series, systematic review, and individual participant data meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Neuropathic pain is undertreated in children. Neurosurgical treatments of pediatric chronic pain are limited by the absence of both US Food and Drug Administration approval and pediatric-specific hardware, as well as weak referral patterns due to a lack of physician education. This study presents a single-institution retrospective case series of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in children ≤ 19 years of age and a systematic review of SCS in children. The authors’ findings may further validate the role of SCS as an effective treatment modality for varied neuropathic pain syndromes found in pediatric patients.

METHODS

The study was a single-center, single-surgeon, retrospective case series of individuals treated between July 2017 and May 2022. The outcomes for pediatric patients with chronic neuropathic pain syndromes indicated by the multidisciplinary pain clinic for evaluation for SCS were cataloged. A systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed for cases treated until May 2022, using PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus to characterize outcomes of children with neuropathic pain treated with SCS.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were evaluated and 9 were indicated for percutaneous or buried lead trials. Seven female and 2 male patients between the ages of 13 and 19 years were implanted with trial leads. Eight of 9 (89%) patients went on to receive permanent systems. The average trial length was 6 days, and the length of stay for both trial and implant was less than 1 day. Complication rates due to CSF leaks were 22% and 0% for trial and implant, respectively. Visual analog scale pain scores decreased from 9.2 to 2.9 (p = 0.0002) and the number of medications decreased from 4.9 to 2.1 (p = 0.0005). Functional status also improved for each patient. A systematic review identified 13 studies describing pediatric patients with SCS, including 12 providing IPD on 30 patients. In the IPD meta-analysis, pain was reduced in 16/16 (100%) of patients following surgery and in 25/26 (96.2%) at last follow-up. Medication use was decreased in 16/21 (76.2%), and functional outcomes were improved in 29/29 (100%). The complication rate was 5/30 (16.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

SCS effectively decreases pain and medication use for pediatric neuropathic pain syndromes. Patients also report improved functional status, including improved matriculation, gainful employment, and physical activity. There is minimal high-quality literature describing neuromodulation for pain in children. Neuromodulation should be considered earlier as a viable alternative to escalating use of multiple drugs and as a potential mechanism to address tolerance, dependence, and addiction in pediatric patients.

Contemporary concepts of pain surgery

Pain surgery is one of the historic foundations of neurological surgery. The authors present a review of contemporary concepts in surgical pain management, with reference to past successes and failures, what has been learned as a subspecialty over the past 50 years, as well as a vision for current and future practice. This subspecialty confronts problems of cancer pain, nociceptive pain, and neuropathic pain. For noncancer pain, ablative procedures such as dorsal root entry zone lesions and rhizolysis for trigeminal neuralgia (TN) should continue to be practiced. Other procedures, such as medial thalamotomy, have not been proven effective and require continued study. Dorsal rhizotomy, dorsal root ganglionectomy, and neurotomy should probably be abandoned. For cancer pain, cordotomy is an important and underutilized method for pain control. Intrathecal opiate administration via an implantable system remains an important option for cancer pain management. While there are encouraging results in small case series, cingulotomy, hypophysectomy, and mesencephalotomy deserve further detailed analysis. Electrical neuromodulation is a rapidly changing discipline, and new methods such as high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS), burst SCS, and dorsal root ganglion stimulation may or may not prove to be more effective than conventional SCS. Despite a history of failure, deep brain stimulation for pain may yet prove to be an effective therapy for specific pain conditions. Peripheral nerve stimulation for conditions such as occipital neuralgia and trigeminal neuropathic pain remains an option, although the quality of outcomes data is a challenge to these applications. Based on the evidence, motor cortex stimulation should be abandoned. TN is a mainstay of the surgical treatment of pain, particularly as new evidence and insights into TN emerge. Pain surgery will continue to build on this heritage, and restorative procedures will likely find a role in the armamentarium. The challenge for the future will be to acquire higher-level evidence to support the practice of surgical pain management.

Lack of efficacy of motor cortex stimulation for the treatment of neuropathic pain in 14 patients

OBJECTIVES

Motor cortex stimulation has been reported as an effective treatment for medically resistant neuropathic pain. The goal of this study is to review the efficacy of this treatment in a series of 14 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The records of a consecutive series of 14 patients undergoing MCS for neuropathic pain at Stanford University Hospital and Clinics between 2002 and 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome measure was a visual analogue scale, which patients completed prior to surgery and following each programming session. The motor cortex was localized using 1) MR image guidance, 2) intraoperative somatosensory evoked potentials and motor response to stimulation, and 3) postoperative imaging. All patients underwent extensive stimulator programming.

RESULTS

Five patients exhibited a transient improvement of >50%. Of these, only two patients maintained >50% improvement to their last clinic visit. One of these patients died of unrelated causes, and the other complained of variable response at home. The median time from best to final VAS was 50 days. Average postoperative follow-up was 55.5 weeks. Postoperative imaging demonstrated appropriate lead placement in 12 patients. The other two patients did not undergo postoperative imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of 14 patients with neuropathic pain, motor cortex stimulation failed to produce acceptable long-term benefit. Possible reasons for this failure are discussed in the context of a small retrospective study.

Destructive procedures for the treatment of nonmalignant pain: a structured literature review

OBJECT

Nonmalignant pain has been treated in the past century with ablative, or more appropriately, destructive procedures. Although individual outcomes for these procedures have previously been described in the literature, to the authors' knowledge this is the first comprehensive and systematic review on this topic.

METHODS

A US National Library of Medicine PubMed search was conducted for the following ablative procedures: cingulotomy, cordotomy, DREZ (also input as dorsal root entry zone), ganglionectomy, mesencephalotomy, myelotomy, neurotomy, rhizotomy, sympathectomy, thalamotomy, and tractotomy. Articles related to pain resulting from malignancy and those not in peer-reviewed journals were excluded. In reviewing pertinent articles, focus was placed on patient number, outcome, and follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 146 articles was included in the review. The large majority of studies (131) constituted Class III evidence. Eleven Class I and 4 Class II studies were found, of which nearly all (13 of 15) evaluated radiofrequency rhizotomies for different pain origins, including lumbar facet syndrome, cervical facet pain, and Type I or typical trigeminal neuralgia. Overall, support for ablative procedures for nonmalignant pain is derived almost entirely from Class III evidence; despite a long history of use in neurosurgery, the evidence supporting destructive procedures for benign pain conditions remains limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Newly designed prospective standardized studies are required to define surgical indications and outcomes for these procedures, to provide more systematic review, and to advance the field.