Literature DB >> 29911986

Treatment of Chronic Back and Chest Pain in a Patient with Sickle Cell Disease Using Spinal Cord Stimulation

Damla Yürük1, İbrahim Aşık2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic pain; Sickle cell disease; Spinal cord stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29911986      PMCID: PMC6256825          DOI: 10.4274/tjh.2017.0447

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Turk J Haematol        ISSN: 1300-7777            Impact factor:   1.831


× No keyword cloud information.

To the Editor,

Pain with sickle cell disease can occur in two forms: acute or chronic. Acute pain is often treated with analgesics in emergency services or at home and can intermittently relapse. In the later stages of the disease, chronic pain occurs due to central sensitization. Here we report a patient with sickle cell pain who was treated with a spinal cord stimulator (SCS). Our patient was a 28-year-old female. She was admitted to the hospital due to painful crises and had a history of operations due to vertebral fracture, femoral head osteonecrosis, and pulmonary hypertension. Her back and chest pain was ranked as 9 on a numeric rating scale when she was referred to the pain clinic. Non-enhancing areas involving vertebral bodies at dorsal and lumbar levels, suggestive of infarcts, were shown by magnetic resonance imaging (Figure 1). Pain control could not be achieved medically; all nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids had been unsuccessful. After evaluation by the local pain council of the hospital, the patient underwent implantation of an SCS.
Figure 1

Magnetic resonance imaging shows multiple infarcts involving vertebral column T2 and T1 sagittal images. Non-enhancing areas involving vertebral bodies at dorsal and lumbar levels suggest infarcts.

In the operating room she was placed in the prone position. Under fluoroscopic guidance a 15-gauge Tuohy needle was inserted into the T6-T7 interlaminar space. Eight-electrode leads were inserted through the needle and advanced until the tip lay at the T1-T4 epidural level (Figure 2). Parameters of stimulation were pulse width of amplitude 2.5 mA and frequency of 10 kHz. Following more than 60% pain relief throughout the trial period, the lead was connected to an implantable pulse generator, which was placed into the left buttock. During 1-year follow-up of the implantation of the high-frequency SCS, excellent pain relief continued with improvement of both the patient’s pain and her ability to perform activities of daily living.
Figure 2

Plain X-ray demonstrating placement of spinal cord stimulator electrodes at the level of T1-T4.

SCS has become popular in recent years. It is a neuromodulator and manages cases of certain chronic pain for which other procedures have failed, including failed back syndrome [1], ischemic limb pain [2], angina pectoris [3], and painful peripheral neuropathies [4]. The mechanism of pain relief by the SCS is still not clear [5]. According to the gate control theory, in the peripheral nerve system the afferent activity of large fibers or small fibers is controlled by the dorsal column cells, associated with central transmission of pain. When a surplus of large-fiber activity occurs, this gate closes [6]. The pathophysiology of sickle cell disease could also be related to autonomic nervous system efficiency [7]. Constriction or obstruction of a blood vessel usually causes a reduction in blood flow and oxygen delivery to the tissues and thus insufficient perfusion [8]. Small fibers, which carry nociceptive information in the sympathetic pain pathway, can be blocked by a high-frequency SCS. The present report describes the first patient with intractable pain due to sickle cell disease who was treated with a high-frequency SCS successfully. For patients in whom  all available treatments have failed or who have an increased risk for more invasive surgical interventions, the SCS might be a therapeutic alternative.
  8 in total

1.  Frequency of pain crises in sickle cell anemia and its relationship with the sympatho-vagal balance, blood viscosity and inflammation.

Authors:  Danitza Nebor; Andre Bowers; Marie-Dominique Hardy-Dessources; Jennifer Knight-Madden; Marc Romana; Harvey Reid; Jean-Claude Barthélémy; Vanessa Cumming; Olivier Hue; Jacques Elion; Marvin Reid; Philippe Connes
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 9.941

2.  Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain in peripheral neuropathy.

Authors:  K Kumar; C Toth; R K Nath
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  1996-10

Review 3.  Pain mechanisms: a new theory.

Authors:  R Melzack; P D Wall
Journal:  Science       Date:  1965-11-19       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Spinal cord stimulation.

Authors:  Milan P Stojanovic; Salahadin Abdi
Journal:  Pain Physician       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  The differential effect of the level of spinal cord stimulation on patients with advanced peripheral vascular disease in the lower limbs.

Authors:  A W Ghajar; J B Miles
Journal:  Br J Neurosurg       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.596

6.  Spinal cord stimulation in chronic intractable angina pectoris: a randomized, controlled efficacy study.

Authors:  R W Hautvast; M J DeJongste; M J Staal; W H van Gilst; K I Lie
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  Spinal cord stimulation in treatment of chronic benign pain: challenges in treatment planning and present status, a 22-year experience.

Authors:  Krishna Kumar; Gary Hunter; Denny Demeria
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 8.  Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain of neuropathic or ischaemic origin: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Authors:  E L Simpson; A Duenas; M W Holmes; D Papaioannou; J Chilcott
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.014

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.