Spinal cord stimulation for treatment of the pain associated with hereditary multiple osteochondromas

Spinal Cord Stimulation Meets Them All: An Effective Treatment for Different Pain Conditions. Our Experience and Literature Review

IntroductionSpinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is an emerging minimally invasive technique which uses neuromodulation to manage different forms of intractable pain. SCS is a well-established option for the treatment of various pain conditions, and nowadays, indications are ever increasing.Materials and MethodsIn this study, we present our case series of 49 patients who underwent SCS at our Institution for the treatment of pain from different etiologies, and discuss our 10-year experience in SCS. For the purpose of this study, we also performed a systematic review of current indications and new perspectives in SCS.ResultsAmong our case series, patients were differentiated into two groups upon prior spinal surgery: patients who had undergone prior spinal surgery for back pain were defined as the "FBSS (failed back surgery syndrome) group," instead patient suffering from different types of pain but who had never undergone surgery were defined as the "naive group." As regards clinical response to SCS, 20 patients out of 36 (55.56%) were classified as responders in the FBSS group; in the "naïve" group, 10 patients out of 13 (76.92%) were classified as responders. Among the "not responders" group, several patients suffered from infections.Of the recent literature about SCS, 2124 records were screened and 37 studies were finally included in the qualitative synthesis for our systematic review.DiscussionIn case of FBSS, surgical revision is often associated with a high morbidity and corresponding low rates of success. Unfortunately, patients affected by chronic pain often become refractory to conservative treatments. Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is nowadays considered as an effective therapy for several chronic and neuropathic pain conditions, such as failed back surgery syndrome. As regards the economic impact of SCS, implantation of an SCS system results in short-term costs increase, but the annual cumulative costs decrease during the following years after implantation, when compared to the costs of conventional management. Beyond the application for the treatment of FBSS, SCS has also been used for the treatment of other types of chronic non-oncological pain such as neuropathic pain and chronic back pain ineligible for surgical intervention. This evidence paved the way to establishing the potential role of SCS also for the treatment of oncological pain. However, the effectiveness and relative safety of SCS for cancer-related pain has not yet been adequately established.ConclusionsSpinal Cord Stimulation is a well-established treatment option in for FBSS. Beyond that, SCS has also been used for the treatment of "naive" patients, suffering from other types of chronic, both oncological and non-oncological, medical-refractory pain such as neuropathic pain and chronic back pain ineligible for surgical intervention.

Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Unresponsive Cancer Pain: A Possible Solution in Palliative Oncological Therapy

(1) Background: Treatment of cancer-related pain is still challenging, and it can be managed by both medical and interventional therapies. Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is a minimally invasive technique, and its use is rapidly increasing in the treatment of chronic pain. (2) Materials and Methods: Our study aims to perform a review of the pertinent literature about current evidences in cancer pain treatment by Spinal Cord Stimulation. Moreover, we created a database based on case reports or case series (18 studies) in the literature. We analyzed a clinical group of oncological patients affected by intractable pain undergoing SCS implantation, focusing on outcome. (3) Results: The analysis of the 18 included studies in our series has shown a reduction in painful symptoms in 48 out of 56 treated patients (87.51%); also 53 out of 56 patients (96.64%) have shown an improvement in their Quality of Life (QoL). (4) Conclusions: Spinal Cord Stimulation can be considered an efficient method in the treatment of cancer-related pain. However, literature regarding SCS for the treatment of cancer-related pain is largely represented by case reports and small case series, with no effective population studies or Randomized Controlled Trials demonstrating the efficacy and the level of evidence. Further prospective studies are needed.

Current Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Cancer Pain

Cancer and cancer treatment-related chronic pain affect a significant number of patients. The etiology of this pain is diverse and may include nociceptive and/or neuropathic characteristics. Treatment is often multifactorial and may require advanced interventional techniques, such as spinal cord stimulation (SCS). This narrative review provides a thorough overview of cancer-related pain mechanisms and the use of SCS for cancer-related pain. Additionally, a review of the precautions that should be considered when caring for this patient population is provided with recommendations for safe care when utilizing these techniques.

The impact of hereditary multiple exostoses on quality of life, satisfaction, global health status, and pain

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to evaluate quality of life (QOL), global health status, pain, and level of satisfaction in patients with hereditary multiple exostoses (HME), and to correlate the association between the severity of diseases and age, sex, number of surgical procedures, and number of exostoses.

METHODS

The data of 50 patients with HME were retrospectively evaluated and recorded. QOL was evaluated with the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) questionnaire, the 12-Item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q-SF); intensity of pain was measured using the visual analogue scale (VAS). The association of age, gender, pain, quality of life, number of exostoses, and number of surgical procedures were evaluated and correlated.

RESULTS

Mean number of exostoses in our patient's cohort resulted 18.12 ± 8.60, and every patient underwent to a mean of 5.62 ± 5.74 surgical procedures for the exostoses. Mean VAS resulted 5.16 ± 2.90. Considering SF-12, mental (MCS) and physical (PCS) component resulted, respectively, 45.36 ± 10.76 and 38.73 ± 11.09, while GHQ-12 and Q-LES-Q-SF were 15.48 ± 4.70 and 45.28 ± 9.55, respectively. We found a significant positive correlation between the number of exostoses and the number of surgical procedures (p < 0.001), a significant positive correlation between the number of surgical procedures and GHQ-12 (p = 0.422) and VAS (p = 0.0011), and a negative correlation between the number of surgical procedures and PCS (p = 0.0257) and between age and GHQ-12 (p = 0.0385).

CONCLUSIONS

We can conclude that HME impact on patient quality of life as measured by the MCS and PCS scores similar to the disability associated with osteoarthritis in the mental component and tumors or diabetes as regards the physical component. Moreover, we found no difference in patients' quality of life as regards number of exostoses, age, and surgical procedure, but we found that women have a worse response as regards the psychological side than men.