Facial pain: a possible therapy with stellate ganglion block

Analgesic efficacy of stellate ganglion block in head and neck cancer pain: A case series

Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) have ongoing pain but Stellate ganglion block which is a sympatholytic block may be a viable therapy for treating it. The data were retrospectively collected from five histopathologically confirmed HNC patients who had completed chemotherapy and radiation doses. Stellate ganglion block was given to these patients and was subsequently monitored for 3 months to assess pain alleviation and overall satisfaction. Over a 3-month period, there was a decrease in the pain levels with a better quality of life so the stellate ganglion block can be a promising modality for reducing the pain of HNC.

Novel Bipolar High-Voltage Pulsed Radiofrequency Targeting the Cervical Sympathetic Chain for Treating Acute Herpetic Neuralgia

INTRODUCTION

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in the oral, maxillofacial, neck, and upper limb regions is a refractory neuropathic pain and severely affects the quality of life of patients. Because of the absence of ideal treatments for this condition, relieving pain in the acute stage and preventing the occurrence of PHN are of great clinical significance. However, the optimal intervention for this acute herpetic neuralgia remains obscure.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate whether bipolar high-voltage pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) targeting the cervical sympathetic chain could effectively treat acute herpetic neuralgia in the oral, maxillofacial, neck, and upper limb regions and reduce the incidence of PHN.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 patients with acute herpetic neuralgia in the oral, maxillofacial, neck, and upper limb regions were enrolled. The radiofrequency group (n = 30) received bipolar high-voltage PRF under ultrasound guidance at the level of the transverse processes of C6 and C7 to modulate the cervical sympathetic chain. In the sham group (n = 30), the electrodes were simply placed at the same position as in the radiofrequency group, but no radiofrequency energy was applied. The same treatment was repeated in each group after 72 hours. If patients were reported to have a visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥4, they would receive oral tramadol and gabapentin as rescue analgesics. The VAS score, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) score, use of tramadol and gabapentin, incidence of PHN, and adverse reactions were recorded to assess the effect and safety of therapy during three months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Decreased VAS scores, PSQI scores, and improved SF-36 scores were detected in the two groups at different time points after treatment (all p < 0.05). The VAS scores, PSQI scores, use of tramadol and gabapentin, and incidence of PHN were significantly lower, whereas the SF-36 scores were significantly higher in the radiofrequency group than in the Sham group (all p < 0.05). No serious adverseness related to the treatment was detected in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Bipolar high-voltage PRF treatment targeting the cervical sympathetic chain could effectively relieve acute herpetic neuralgia in the oral, maxillofacial, neck, and upper limb regions and reduce PHN incidence. The efficacy and safety of this novel treatment make it worthy of recommendation for clinical application.

Prolonged blockade of the cervical sympathetic nerve by stellate ganglion block accelerates therapeutic efficacy in trigeminal neuropathy

PURPOSE

Stellate ganglion block (SGB) is effective in treating head and neck pain and neuropathic diseases by increasing tissue blood flow through its sympatholytic effect. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between duration of cervical sympathetic nerve block by SGB and its therapeutic efficacy against trigeminal neuropathy after orthognathic surgery.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients with trigeminal neuropathy were randomly assigned to two groups (mepivacaine and levobupivacaine) according to the drug used for SGB. Increased blood flow, which is a symptom of sympathetic blockade, was recorded for 180 min after SGB. Current perception threshold, warm or cool detection threshold, and tactile detection threshold were measured preoperatively, postoperatively, on day 10 after initiation of SGB, and 3 months postoperatively to compare therapeutic efficacy between the groups.

RESULTS

The levobupivacaine group had a significantly longer duration of increased blood flow compared with the mepivacaine group. Values of current perception threshold, warm and cool detection threshold, and tactile detection threshold significantly improved in the levobupivacaine group on day 10 after initiation of SGB and 3 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

A prolonged increase in blood flow due to long-term sympatholytic effects accelerates the therapeutic efficacy of SGB in trigeminal neuropathy.

Effects of local anaesthetics (neural therapy) on pain and hand functions in patients with De Quervain tenosynovitis: A prospective randomised controlled study

OBJECTIVE

De Quervain tenosynovitis is the most common cause of lateral wrist pain. The diagnosis can be made with the Finkelstein test when pain is provoked with wrist ulnar deviation. Conservative treatment including rest, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication and physical therapy is applied first, then there may be a need for corticosteroid injections, and in resistant cases, surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of neural therapy (NT) on pain and hand functions in patients with De Quervain tenosynovitis.

METHODS

A total of 36 patients admitted between May 2019 and March 2020 were randomly assigned to neural therapy (NT) and control groups. Hand rest and thumb spica splint were applied to all the patients, and NT interventions to the NT group only. A visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Duruöz Hand index (DHI) were used to measure pain and functionality at baseline, then at 1 and 12 months after the end of the treatment.

RESULTS

The NT and control groups both showed improvements in VAS and DHI scores at 1 and 12 months compared with baseline (P < .001) according to within group comparisons. The VAS scores were significantly lower at both 1 and 12 months compared with baseline in the NT group (P < .001, P = .002 respectively). The DHI scores were lower in the NT group at 1 month (P = .009), and at 12 months there was no significant difference between the two groups (P = .252). No adverse effects were seen in any patient.

CONCLUSION

NT seems to be effective in reducing pain and improving hand functions in patients with De Quervain tenosynovitis.

Impact of Stellate Ganglion Block on Tissue Blood Flow/Oxygenation and Postoperative Mandibular Nerve Hypoesthesia: A Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Although a stellate ganglion block (SGB) increases tissue blood flow in the mandibular region, the change in tissue oxygenation after SGB and therapeutic effect of SGB for postoperative mandibular nerve hypoesthesia remain to be established. The study aim was to measure the change in tissue oxygenation in the mandibular region after SGB.

METHODS

To determine the variation in tissue oxygenation in the mandibular region, the tissue oxygen index (TOI; percentage of oxygenated hemoglobin in the total hemoglobin) was measured at the skin near the mental foramen bilaterally, at the primary site of unilateral SGB, achieved using 6 mL of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, for the treatment of bilateral postoperative mandibular nerve injury. The primary outcome of this study is the temporal variation in TOI after SGB (0.5, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 minutes after SGB), and the control group in this study is the TOI at the end of SGB injection (0 minute). All data are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation and 95% confidence interval (CI). Repeated-measures analysis of variance with Dunnett's test was used to determine parametric statistical significance. A P-value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients were enrolled in this study. On both the blocked and contralateral side, the TOI was significantly increased compared to that before SGB (ΔTOI at 15 minute after SGB, 5.87 ± 2.89%, P < .001, 95% CI: 4.122 to 7.617% in the blocked side, 1.88 ± 2.73%, P = .005, 95% CI: 1.877 to 2.725% in the contralateral side).

CONCLUSIONS

Unilateral SGB using 6 mL of 1% lidocaine hydrochloride results in an increase in tissue oxygenation in the mandibular region. Based on these findings, we hypothesize that a series of SGBs may contribute to a more rapid recovery of postoperative trigeminal nerve injury.

Preoperative Stellate Ganglion Block for Perioperative Pain in Lateralized Head and Neck Cancer: Preliminary Results

Patients with head and neck cancer represent a vulnerable population at particular risk of opioid dependence due to frequent histories of substance abuse, requirement of extensive surgery, and the synergistic toxicity of multimodal therapy. Regional anesthetic techniques have been used by other surgical disciplines to facilitate early recovery after surgery and decrease postoperative patient narcotic requirements. This pilot study investigates the efficacy of a preoperative regional analgesia using stellate ganglion block in lateralized head and neck cancer surgery. From our early results, stellate ganglion blockade may hold promise as an effective preoperative intervention for controlling early postoperative pain, lessening narcotic requirements, and improving quality of life.

A Randomized Comparison between 4, 6 and 8 mL of Local Anesthetic for Ultrasound-Guided Stellate Ganglion Block

Background: Because it affords greater accuracy than landmark-based techniques, ultrasound guidance may reduce the volume of local anesthetic required for sympathetic blockade of the upper extremity. We hypothesized that 4 mL would provide a similar clinical effect when compared to larger volumes. Methods: One hundred and two patients with chronic neuropathic pain of the upper extremity or face were randomly assigned to receive an ultrasound-guided (USG) stellate ganglion block (SGB) with either 4 mL (group A), 6 mL (group B) or 8 mL (group C) mL of 1.0% lidocaine. Skin temperatures of the face, hand, and axillary fold were measured bilaterally at baseline, 10, 20, and 30 min after the block. Our primary outcome was the relative increase in hand temperature on the blocked side at 30 min and our non-inferiority margin was −0.6 °C. Secondary outcomes included success rate (as defined by a relative temperature increase of ≥1.5 °C), pain relief, degree of ptosis and side-effects. Results: The 95% confidence intervals for the difference of the means exceeded our non-inferiority margin (A versus B: −0.76 to 0.24; A versus C: −0.89 to 0.11) for temperature changes in the hand; however, success rates were similar (44, 45 and 55% for A, B and C respectively, p = 0.651). No intergroup differences were found in temperature-related outcomes for the other measurement sites (face, axilla). The incidence of minor side-effects was significantly higher in group C and no block-related complications were noted. Conclusions: We were unable to establish the non-inferiority of a 4 mL volume for sympathetic blockade of the hand. The clinical significance of these findings is unclear as success rates were similar between the different groups. In contrast, the 6- and 8 mL volumes were not associated with greater temperature changes in the face and axilla.

Changes in blood flow at the mandibular angle and Horner syndrome in a rat model of superior cervical ganglion block

Background

A stellate ganglion block (SGB) causes increased blood flow in the maxillofacial region, exhibiting the potential for regenerative effects in damaged tissue. The focus of this study was to understand the efficacy of SGB for regenerative effects against nerve damage. A rat model of the superior cervical ganglion block (SCGB) was created instead of SGB, and facial blood flow, as well as sympathetic nervous system function, were measured.

Methods

A vertical incision was made on the left side of the neck of a Wistar rat, and a 5-mm resection of the superior cervical ganglion was performed at the back of the bifurcation of the internal and external branches of the left common carotid artery. Blood flow in the skin at the mandibular angle and mean facial temperature were measured using a laser-Doppler blood flow meter and a thermographic camera, respectively, over a 5-week period after the block. In addition, the degree of ptosis and miosis were assessed over a period of 6 months.

Results

The SCGB rat showed significantly higher blood flow at the mandibular angle on the block side (P < 0.05) for 3 weeks, and significantly higher skin temperature (P < 0.05) for 1 week after the block. In the SCGB rat, ptosis and miosis occurred immediately after the block, and persisted even 6 months later.

Conclusions

SCGB in rats can cause an increase in the blood flow that persists over 3 weeks.

Assessing and treating primary headaches and cranio-facial pain in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases

BACKGROUND

Pain is a very common condition in patient undergoing rehabilitation for neurological disease; however the presence of primary headaches and other cranio-facial pains, particularly when they are actually or apparently independent from the disability for which patient is undergoing rehabilitation, is often neglected. Diagnostic and therapeutic international and national guidelines, as well as tools for the subjective measure of head pain are available and should also be applied in the neurorehabilitation setting. This calls for searching the presence of head pain, independently from the rehabilitation needs, since pain, either episodic or chronic, interferes with patient performance by affecting physical and emotional status. Pain may also interfere with sleep and therefore hamper recovery.

METHODS

In our role of task force of the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation (ICCPN), we have elaborated specific recommendations for diagnosing and treating head pains in patients undergoing rehabilitation for neurological diseases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In this narrative review, we describe the available literature that has been evaluated in order to define the recommendations and outline the needs of epidemiological studies concerning headache and other cranio-facial pain in neurorehabilitation.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Gabapentin is commonly used to treat neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). This review updates a review published in 2014, and previous reviews published in 2011, 2005 and 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for randomised controlled trials from January 2014 to January 2017. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and online clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing gabapentin (any route of administration) with placebo or another active treatment for neuropathic pain, with participant-reported pain assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality and potential bias. Primary outcomes were participants with substantial pain relief (at least 50% pain relief over baseline or very much improved on Patient Global Impression of Change scale (PGIC)), or moderate pain relief (at least 30% pain relief over baseline or much or very much improved on PGIC). We performed a pooled analysis for any substantial or moderate benefit. Where pooled analysis was possible, we used dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio (RR) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNT) or harmful outcome (NNH). We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four new studies (530 participants), and excluded three previously included studies (126 participants). In all, 37 studies provided information on 5914 participants. Most studies used oral gabapentin or gabapentin encarbil at doses of 1200 mg or more daily in different neuropathic pain conditions, predominantly postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy. Study duration was typically four to 12 weeks. Not all studies reported important outcomes of interest. High risk of bias occurred mainly due to small size (especially in cross-over studies), and handling of data after study withdrawal.In postherpetic neuralgia, more participants (32%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (17%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.1); NNT 6.7 (5.4 to 8.7); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (46%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (25%) (RR 1.8 (95% CI 1.6 to 2.0); NNT 4.8 (4.1 to 6.0); 8 studies, 2260 participants, moderate-quality evidence).In painful diabetic neuropathy, more participants (38%) had substantial benefit (at least 50% pain relief or PGIC very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (21%) (RR 1.9 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.3); NNT 5.9 (4.6 to 8.3); 6 studies, 1277 participants, moderate-quality evidence). More participants (52%) had moderate benefit (at least 30% pain relief or PGIC much or very much improved) with gabapentin at 1200 mg daily or greater than with placebo (37%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.6); NNT 6.6 (4.9 to 9.9); 7 studies, 1439 participants, moderate-quality evidence).For all conditions combined, adverse event withdrawals were more common with gabapentin (11%) than with placebo (8.2%) (RR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.7); NNH 30 (20 to 65); 22 studies, 4346 participants, high-quality evidence). Serious adverse events were no more common with gabapentin (3.2%) than with placebo (2.8%) (RR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.7); 19 studies, 3948 participants, moderate-quality evidence); there were eight deaths (very low-quality evidence). Participants experiencing at least one adverse event were more common with gabapentin (63%) than with placebo (49%) (RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.4); NNH 7.5 (6.1 to 9.6); 18 studies, 4279 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Individual adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Participants taking gabapentin experienced dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (14%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin at doses of 1800 mg to 3600 mg daily (1200 mg to 3600 mg gabapentin encarbil) can provide good levels of pain relief to some people with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is very limited. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. Around 3 or 4 out of 10 participants achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 1 or 2 out of 10 for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief but may experience adverse events. Conclusions have not changed since the previous update of this review.

Therapeutic potential of stellate ganglion block in orofacial pain: a mini review

Orofacial pain is a common complaint of patients that causes distress and compromises the quality of life. It has many etiologies including trauma, interventional procedures, nerve injury, varicella-zoster (shingles), tumor, and vascular and idiopathic factors. It has been demonstrated that the sympathetic nervous system is usually involved in various orofacial pain disorders such as postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndromes, and atypical facial pain. The stellate sympathetic ganglion innervates the head, neck, and upper extremity. In this review article, the effect of stellate ganglion block and its mechanism of action in orofacial pain disorders are discussed.

The effect of superior cervical ganglion resection on peripheral facial palsy in rats

PURPOSE

Stellate ganglion block is performed to treat peripheral facial palsy because it increases blood flow and promotes nerve regeneration. Although stellate ganglion block increases blood flow around the facial nerve that runs outside the temporal bone, it may not affect blood flow inside the bone. Therefore, although stellate ganglion block is an effective procedure when the facial nerve is damaged outside the temporal bone, no studies have investigated the relationship between the site of nerve damage and the therapeutic effect of stellate ganglion block. Here, we investigated the efficacy of stellate ganglion block for facial palsy caused by facial nerve damage both inside and outside the temporal bone in rats.

METHODS

A rat facial palsy model was created with nerve cooling that damaged the facial nerve inside or outside the temporal bone. A rat facial palsy stellate ganglion block model was also created by performing superior cervical ganglion resection on facial palsy model rats, and the duration of paralysis was examined.

RESULTS

Facial nerve cooling inside and outside the temporal bone resulted in a mean duration of paralysis of 13.8 ± 1.6 days and 18.3 ± 2.2 days, respectively. Superior cervical ganglion resection in which the facial nerve had been cooled inside and outside the temporal bone reduced the mean duration of paralysis by 2.4 ± 1.3 days and 5.4 ± 1.3 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Stellate ganglion block was more effective in facial palsy caused by damage to the facial nerve outside, rather than inside, the temporal bone.

Effects on hemodynamic variables and echocardiographic parameters after a stellate ganglion block in 15 healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND

The sympathetic nervous system has an important role in generating pain. Various pathomechanisms are involved that respond well to the application of local anesthetics (LA), for example to the stellate ganglion block (SGB).

OBJECTIVES

We wanted to know more about the effects of SGB on cardiovascular parameters.

METHODS

We included 15 healthy volunteers; another 15 healthy volunteers as a control group (sham injection of LA). In order to produce a more precise SGB, we employed only a small volume of LA (3mL), a LA with a lower permeability (procaine 1%), and a modified injection technique. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), heart rate (HR), and echocardiographic parameters were recorded before and after SGB. We also investigated whether there are side differences (left and right SBG).

RESULTS

At baseline all parameters were within the normal range. After performing right and left SGB DBP significantly increased (on the right side from 68.73±8.61 to 73.53±11.10, p=0.015; on the left side from 70.66±13.01 to 77.93±10.40, p=0.003). In the control group no increase in DBP was observed. No side-specific differences were found, except a significant reduction in the maximum velocity of myocardial contraction during the systole with left-sided SGB.

CONCLUSIONS

Even with our methods we could not prevent the simultaneous occurrence of a partial parasympatholytic effect. For this reason, the SGB has only minor hemodynamic effects, which is desirable as it enhances the safety of the SGB.

Cervical sympathetic block prolongs the latency and reduces the amplitude of trigeminal somatosensory evoked potentials on the contralateral side

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the latency and amplitude of trigeminal somatosensory evoked potentials to clarify how nerve function on the contralateral side is affected after cervical sympathetic block (CSB).

METHODS

Subjects comprised 16 volunteers. For CSB, the tip of a needle was contacted with the transverse process of the sixth cervical vertebra on the right side, and lidocaine was injected. Trigeminal somatosensory evoked potentials were recorded bilaterally from C5/C6 scalp positions. Pupil diameters were also measured. Electrical stimulations were applied to the left-side lower lip, and trigeminal somatosensory evoked potentials waveforms derived from both sides of the scalp were recorded. Then, electrical stimulations were applied to the right-side of the lower lip, and recording was again performed. Recordings were performed at 5, 15, and 30 minutes after CSB.

RESULTS

On the CSB side, pupil diameter decreased at 5 and 15 minutes after CSB. Trigeminal somatosensory evoked potentials at contralateral stimulation showed a prolongation of the latency in both P20 and N25 components on bilateral recording sites 5 and 15 minutes after CSB. Trigeminal somatosensory evoked potentials' amplitude at contralateral stimulation was smaller than at ipsilateral stimulation 5 minutes after CSB.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical sympathetic block prolongs the latency and reduces the amplitude of trigeminal somatosensory evoked potentials on the contralateral side.

The effect of stellate ganglion block on the atypical facial pain

Atypical facial pain (AFP) is a type of facial pain which does not fulfill any other diagnosis. It has several features such as no objective signs, no obvious explanation of the cause and poor response to treatments. We report a case of a female patient with AFP on the left maxillary area. The pain was increased by cold innocuous stimulation and thermography showed that the temperature on the painful area was significantly decreased. The pain was successfully alleviated by stellate ganglion block (SGB). Therefore, SGB can be effectively used to treat AFP.

Successful use of stellate ganglion block and a new centrally acting analgesic with dual mode of action in a resistant temporomandibular joint pain

Stellate ganglion blocks have been shown to provide effective pain relief in a number of different conditions involving the upper body. This was demonstrated in a 65-year-old woman who had experienced severe debilitating pain in her left temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and the surrounding area of her face for over 10 years. The pain was unresponsive to indomethacin, carbamazepine, sodium valproate, gabapentin, lithium, melatonin and amitriptyline. She had also had four surgical procedures to the TMJ without success. The pain was partially responsive to Syndol tablets and pregabalin, although the use of pregabalin was limited by its adverse effects. The patient underwent 13 ultrasound guided stellate ganglion blocks over a 24-month period which demonstrated 90% pain relief for up to 10 weeks. Pulsed radio frequency lesioning showed no benefit over stellate ganglion block. More recently, tapentadol was found to be effective and this replaced the stellate ganglion blocks.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of a review published in 2011, itself a major update of previous reviews published in 2005 and 2000, investigating the effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia by searching the databases MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 10), and CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 12, 2014). We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov. Searches were run originally in 2011 and the date of the most recent search was 17 March 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain or fibromyalgia with assessment of pain intensity, pain relief, or both, using validated scales. Participants were adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted efficacy and adverse event data, examined issues of study quality, and assessed risk of bias. We performed analysis using three tiers of evidence. First tier evidence derived from data meeting current best standards and subject to minimal risk of bias (outcome equivalent to substantial pain intensity reduction, intention-to-treat analysis without imputation for dropouts; at least 200 participants in the comparison, 8 to 12 weeks duration, parallel design), second tier from data that failed to meet one or more of these criteria and were considered at some risk of bias but with adequate numbers in the comparison, and third tier from data involving small numbers of participants that were considered very likely to be biased or used outcomes of limited clinical utility, or both.For efficacy, we calculated the number needed to treat to benefit (NNT), concentrating on at least 50% pain intensity reduction, and Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit. For harm we calculated number needed to treat for harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model. We emphasised differences between conditions now defined as neuropathic pain, and other conditions like masticatory pain, complex regional painsyndrome type 1 (CRPS-1), and fibromyalgia.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven new studies with 1919 participants were added. Another report (147 participants) provided results for a study already included, but which previously had no usable data. A further report (170 participants) used an experimental formulation of intrathecal gabapentin. Thirty-seven studies (5633 participants) studied oral gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 84% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. There was no first tier evidence.Second tier evidence for the outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction, considered valuable by patients with chronic pain, showed that gabapentin was significantly better than placebo in postherpetic neuralgia (34% gabapentin versus 21% placebo; NNT 8.0, 95% CI 6.0 to 12) and painful diabetic neuropathy (38% versus 21%, NNT 5.9, 95% CI 4.6 to 8.3). There was insufficient information in other pain conditions to reach any reliable conclusion. There was no obvious difference between standard gabapentin formulations and recently-introduced extended-release or gastro-retentive formulations, or between different doses of gabapentin.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin could expect to have at least one adverse event (62%), withdraw because of an adverse event (11%), suffer dizziness (19%), somnolence (14%), peripheral oedema (7%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (3%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for direct comparisons with other active treatments, and only third tier evidence for other painful conditions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no top tier evidence that was unequivocally unbiased. Second tier evidence, with potentially important residual biases, showed that gabapentin at doses of 1200 mg or more was effective for some people with some painful neuropathic pain conditions. The outcome of at least 50% pain intensity reduction is regarded as a useful outcome of treatment by patients, and the achievement of this degree of pain relief is associated with important beneficial effects on sleep interference, fatigue, and depression, as well as quality of life, function, and work. About 35% achieved this degree of pain relief with gabapentin, compared with 21% for placebo. Over half of those treated with gabapentin will not have worthwhile pain relief. Results might vary between different neuropathic pain conditions, and the amount of evidence for gabapentin in neuropathic pain conditions except postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy, and in fibromyalgia, is very limited.The levels of efficacy found for gabapentin are consistent with those found for other drug therapies in postherpetic neuralgia and painful diabetic neuropathy.

Treatment of patients with painful blind eye using stellate ganglion block

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

management of pain in painful blind eyes is still a challenge. Corticosteroids and hypotensive agents, as well as evisceration and enucleation, are some of the strategies employed so far that are not always effective and, depending on the strategy, cause a deep emotional shock to the patient. Given these issues, the aim of this case report is to demonstrate a new and viable option for the management of such pain by treating the painful blind eye with the stellate ganglion block technique, a procedure that has never been described in the literature for this purpose.

CASE REPORT

six patients with painful blind eye, all caused by glaucoma, were treated; in these patients, VAS (visual analogue scale for pain assessment, in which 0 is the absence of pain and 10 is the worst pain ever experienced) ranged from 7 to 10. We opted for weekly sessions of stellate ganglion block with 4 mL of bupivacaine (0.5%) without vasoconstrictor and clonidine 1 mcg/kg. Four patients had excellent results at VAS, ranging between 0 and 3, and two remained asymptomatic (VAS=0), without the need for additional medication. The other two used gabapentin 300 mg every 12h.

CONCLUSION

currently, there are several therapeutic options for the treatment of painful blind eye, among which stand out the retrobulbar blocks with chlorpromazine, alcohol and phenol. However, an effective strategy with low rate of serious complications, which is non-mutilating and improves the quality of life of the patient, is essential. Then, stellate ganglion block arises as a demonstrably viable and promising option to meet this demand.

[Ultrasound in interventional pain therapy]

Peripheral nerve blocks are currently performed relatively blind even in the most complex anatomical structures and physicians mostly rely on palpable anatomical landmarks on the surface. Ultrasound has become an indispensable part of the modern medical world and has long since found its way into almost all medical professions. More and more this trend also reaches interventional pain physicians as it is possible to accurately target structures, to track the needle course during the intervention and to visualize the spread of the local anesthetic. Another advantage compared to other radiological techniques is the profound radiation safety for patients as well as for personnel performing the intervention. A deep understanding of anatomy and its correlate in ultrasound images is one of the most important requirements for the successful use of these interventional techniques. Moreover, the safe performance of the procedure depends on the simultaneous hand-eye coordination. Nevertheless, despite the euphoria ultrasound technology should only be used in pain management with sufficient indications.

Utility of stellate ganglion block in atypical facial pain: a case report and consideration of its possible mechanisms

We present this report of a young patient with chronic severe atypical facial pain who was successfully controlled with stellate ganglion block under ultrasound guidance. The patient had a history of severe disabling, unilateral, facial neuropathic pain with minimal response to analgesic medications. Upon assessment the patient had features suggestive of trigeminal neuralgia, although postherpetic neuralgia could not be ruled out. As a diagnostic test intervention, stellate ganglion block was tried under ultrasound guidance. The patient showed significant improvement in pain control and functional disability lasting beyond 10 weeks. Subsequent blocks reinforced the analgesia. Atypical facial pain has several differential diagnoses. The involvement of sympathetic system in its causation or sustenance is uncertain. Stellate ganglion block achieves sympathetic block of cervicofacial structures, and its blockade has been shown to affect chronic pain conditions. Although its mechanism is not clear, one has to consider its possible role in conditions of stress apart from directly controlling the sympathetic activity. There is certainly a role in exploring the potential benefits of stellate ganglion block in such clinical conditions. The technique of stellate block under ultrasound is also described, as it influences the safety and precision of the block.

[Ultrasound in interventional pain therapy]

Peripheral nerve blocks are currently performed relatively blind even in the most complex anatomical structures and physicians mostly rely on palpable anatomical landmarks on the surface. Ultrasound has become an indispensable part of the modern medical world and has long since found its way into almost all medical professions. More and more this trend also reaches interventional pain physicians as it is possible to accurately target structures, to track the needle course during the intervention and to visualize the spread of the local anesthetic. Another advantage compared to other radiological techniques is the profound radiation safety for patients as well as for personnel performing the intervention. A deep understanding of anatomy and its correlate in ultrasound images is one of the most important requirements for the successful use of these interventional techniques. Moreover, the safe performance of the procedure depends on the simultaneous hand-eye coordination. Nevertheless, despite the euphoria ultrasound technology should only be used in pain management with sufficient indications.

Gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia in adults

BACKGROUND

This review updates parts of two earlier Cochrane reviews investigating effects of gabapentin in chronic neuropathic pain (pain due to nerve damage). Antiepileptic drugs are used to manage pain, predominantly for chronic neuropathic pain, especially when the pain is lancinating or burning.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the analgesic effectiveness and adverse effects of gabapentin for chronic neuropathic pain management.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified randomised trials of gabapentin in acute, chronic or cancer pain from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources. The date of the most recent search was January 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind studies reporting the analgesic and adverse effects of gabapentin in neuropathic pain with assessment of pain intensity and/or pain relief, using validated scales. Participants were adults aged 18 and over.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data. We calculated numbers needed to treat to benefit (NNTs), concentrating on IMMPACT (Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials) definitions of at least moderate and substantial benefit, and to harm (NNH) for adverse effects and withdrawal. Meta-analysis was undertaken using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies (3571 participants), studied gabapentin at daily doses of 1200 mg or more in 12 chronic pain conditions; 78% of participants were in studies of postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy or mixed neuropathic pain. Using the IMMPACT definition of at least moderate benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 14 studies with 2831 participants, 43% improving with gabapentin and 26% with placebo; the NNT was 5.8 (4.8 to 7.2). Using the IMMPACT definition of substantial benefit, gabapentin was superior to placebo in 13 studies with 2627 participants, 31% improving with gabapentin and 17% with placebo; the NNT was 6.8 (5.6 to 8.7). These estimates of efficacy are more conservative than those reported in a previous review. Data from few studies and participants were available for other painful conditions.Adverse events occurred significantly more often with gabapentin. Persons taking gabapentin can expect to have at least one adverse event (66%), withdraw because of an adverse event (12%), suffer dizziness (21%), somnolence (16%), peripheral oedema (8%), and gait disturbance (9%). Serious adverse events (4%) were no more common than with placebo.There were insufficient data for comparisons with other active treatments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Gabapentin provides pain relief of a high level in about a third of people who take if for painful neuropathic pain. Adverse events are frequent, but mostly tolerable. More conservative estimates of efficacy resulted from using better definitions of efficacy outcome at higher, clinically important, levels, combined with a considerable increase in the numbers of studies and participants available for analysis.