Search

Background Context: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs), mostly due to osteoporosis, are very common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate management of patients with or suspected of having a VFF., Purpose: This work aimed at developing a comprehensive clinical care pathway (CCP) for VFF., Study Design/setting: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop patient-specific recommendations for the various components of the CCP. The study included two individual rating rounds and two plenary discussion sessions., Methods: A multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro]radiologists and pain specialists) assessed the importance of 20 signs and symptoms for the suspicion of VFF, the relevance of 5 diagnostic procedures, the appropriateness of vertebral augmentation versus nonsurgical management for 576 clinical scenarios, and the adequacy of 6 aspects of follow-up care., Results: The panel identified 10 signs and symptoms believed to be relatively specific for VFF. In patients suspected of VFF, advanced imaging was considered highly desirable, with MRI being the preferred diagnostic modality. Vertebral augmentation was considered appropriate in patients with positive findings on advanced imaging and in whom symptoms had worsened and in patients with 2 to 4 unfavorable conditions (eg, progression of height loss and severe impact on functioning), dependent on their relative weight. Time since fracture was considered less relevant for treatment choice. Follow-up should include evaluation of bone mineral density and treatment of osteoporosis., Conclusions: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a multispecialty expert panel established a comprehensive CCP for the management of VFF. The CCP may be helpful to support decision-making in daily clinical practice and to improve quality of care., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Limited midline myelotomy targets the midline nociceptive pathway for intractable visceral pain. Multiple techniques are available for limited midline myelotomy; however, outcome data for each technique are sparse., Objective: To review our experience with open and percutaneous approaches for limited midline myelotomy for intractable visceral pain., Methods: Patients who underwent limited midline myelotomy for intractable visceral pain were reviewed. Myelotomy was performed using 3 techniques: open limited myelotomy, percutaneous radiofrequency myelotomy, and percutaneous mechanical myelotomy. Demographic and perioperative clinical data were recorded. In addition to the visual analog scale and Karnofsy performance score, outcomes were categorized as excellent (no pain), good (considerable reduction in pain, not requiring opioids stronger than codeine), fair (minimal reduction in pain, but no change in opioid medication requirement), and poor (no reduction in pain)., Results: Eight patients (median age 56.5 yr, 6 females) underwent limited myelotomy. Four patients underwent open limited thoracic myelotomy with excellent pain outcomes. Three patients underwent percutaneous radiofrequency lesioning with fair (n = 1) and poor outcomes (n = 2). One patient underwent percutaneous mechanical lesioning with a good outcome (n = 1). The median duration of follow-up was 11 wk (2-54 wk). Two patients reported minor sensory complications after the procedure., Conclusion: In our preliminary experience, outcomes for open limited thoracic myelotomy were superior to percutaneous approaches. Given the limited utilization of this technique, multicenter registries are needed to further evaluate the best surgical technique for limited midline myelotomy.

The last several decades have seen a marked increase in both the recognition and treatment of chronic pain. Unfortunately, patients frequently misunderstand both the nature of pain and the best practices for its treatment. Because primary care physicians treat the majority of chronic pain, they are ideally situated to provide evidence-based pain care. The majority of the medical evidence supports a biopsychosocial model of pain that integrates physical, emotional, social, and cultural variables. The goal of this primer is to assist primary care physicians in their understanding of pain, evaluation of the chronic pain patient, and ability to direct evidence-based care. This article will discuss the role of physical rehabilitation, pain psychology, pharmacotherapy, and procedural interventions in the treatment of chronic pain. Given the current epidemic of drug-related deaths, particular emphasis is placed on the alternatives to opioid therapy. Unfortunately, death is not the only significant complication from opioid therapy, and this article discusses many of the most common side effects. This article provides general guidelines on the most appropriate utilization of opioids with emphasis on the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, risk stratification, and patient monitoring. Finally, the article concludes with the critical role that a pain medicine specialist can play in the management of patients with chronic pain.

Objective: The increasing incidence of cancer survivorship has shifted treatment of cancer-related pain from short-term analgesia to long-term chronic pain management. As a result, alternatives to oral analgesics, such as intrathecal therapy, may be beneficial for patients with cancer-related pain. The authors review the use of intrathecal therapy in the management of cancer-related pain., Methods: The Medline database was searched for English-language articles that included "ziconotide" or "morphine" AND ("cancer" OR "malignant") AND "intrathecal" in title or abstract. Available abstracts from scientific congresses in the areas of neuromodulation and oncology were also reviewed., Results: Intrathecal therapy provides pain relief with reduced systemic concerns in patients with cancer-related pain. Patients should undergo multidisciplinary evaluation and, in most cases, drug trialing before intrathecal pump implantation. Morphine, an opioid ( Μ: -opioid receptor antagonist), and ziconotide, a nonopioid (selective N-type calcium channel inhibitor), are both approved for intrathecal analgesia; however, tolerance and safety concerns may deter the use of intrathecal morphine. Ziconotide has also shown efficacy for reduction of cancer-related pain; however, proper dosing and titration must be used to prevent adverse events. There is little information available on use of intrathecal therapies specifically in cancer survivors., Conclusions: Treatment of cancer-related pain has shifted toward chronic pain management strategies, especially among cancer survivors. Intrathecal therapy provides an alternate route of administration of chronic pain medications (e.g., morphine and ziconotide) for cancer patients with and without active disease, although additional research is needed to support effectiveness in cancer survivors., (© 2016 American Academy of Pain Medicine.)

Intrathecal drug delivery is an effective treatment option for patients with severe chronic pain who have not obtained adequate analgesia from more conservative therapies (eg, physical therapy, systemic opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants). This review focuses on, but is not limited to, the 2 agents currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for intrathecal analgesia: preservative-free morphine and ziconotide (a nonopioid, selective N-type calcium channel blocker). We describe the appropriate use of intrathecal therapy in the management of severe chronic pain, based on current best practices. Topics addressed here include patient selection, trialing, dosing and titration, adverse event profiles, long-term management, intrathecal therapy for cancer-related pain, and the placement of intrathecal therapy in the pain care algorithm. In appropriately selected patients with chronic pain, intrathecal therapy can provide substantial pain relief with improved functioning and quality of life. Successful long-term management requires ongoing patient monitoring for changes in efficacy and the occurrence of adverse events, with subsequent changes in intrathecal dosing and titration, the addition of adjuvant intrathecal agents, and the use of concomitant oral medications to address side effects, as needed. Based on an infrequent but clinically concerning risk of overdose, granuloma, and other opioid-induced complications, nonopioid therapy with ziconotide may be preferred as a first-line intrathecal therapy in patients without a history of psychosis or allergy., (© 2016 The Authors. Pain Practice published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of World Institute of Pain.)

The Metastatic Spine Disease Multidisciplinary Working Group consists of medical and radiation oncologists, surgeons, and interventional radiologists from multiple comprehensive cancer centers who have developed evidence- and expert opinion-based algorithms for managing metastatic spine disease. The purpose of these algorithms is to facilitate interdisciplinary referrals by providing physicians with straightforward recommendations regarding the use of available treatment options, including emerging modalities such as stereotactic body radiation therapy and percutaneous tumor ablation. This consensus document details the evidence supporting the Working Group algorithms and includes illustrative cases to demonstrate how the algorithms may be applied., (©AlphaMed Press.)

Purpose: Chemoneuropathy remains a painful, burdensome complication of cancer treatment for patients receiving a range of chemotherapeutics, yet the cause and persistence of this condition are not fully documented. This study was designed to quantify the longevity of and contributions to neuropathy following treatment with the plant alkaloids paclitaxel and vincristine., Methods: Quantitative sensory testing was conducted approximately 18 months apart on 14 patients, seven of which had been treated with paclitaxel and seven with vincristine and compared to data from 18 healthy control subjects. In addition, skin biopsies were obtained to investigate changes in the density of Meissner's corpuscles and epidermal nerve fibers (ENFs), the loss of which is thought to contribute to multiple forms of neuropathy., Results: Impairments in motor skills, as measured by a grooved peg-board, were found. Deficits in touch detection were observed using von Frey monofilaments, as were changes in sharpness detection using a weighted needle device. Using a Peltier device, warmth and heat detection were impaired. These deficits were consistent across time. Remarkably, the average length of time patients reported painful neuropathy was over four and a half years. Skin biopsies were found to be deficient in Meissner's corpuscles and ENFs., Conclusions: The combination of widespread deficits in sensory testing and decreases in skin innervation for cancer patients receiving paclitaxel or vincristine document a persistent polyneuropathy which severely impacts these patients. Decreases in Meissner's corpuscles and ENFs indicate a possible mechanism for the neuropathy.

Intrathecal drug delivery is a mode of analgesic delivery that can be considered in those experiencing both refractory pain and excessive side effects from opioid and adjuvant analgesic use. Delivery of analgesic agents directly to the cerebral spinal fluid allows binding of the drug to receptors at the spinal level. Therefore, a reduced analgesic dosage can be afforded, resulting in reduction of drug side effects due to decreased systemic absorption. Drug delivery into the intrathecal space provides this benefit, yet it does not eliminate the possibility of drug side effects or risks of complications. Complications from this route of administration may be seen in the perioperative period or beyond, including infection, inflammatory mass, bleeding, and catheter or pump dysfunction, among others. This may manifest as new/worsening pain or as a neurologic deficit, such as a sensorimotor change and bladder/bowel dysfunction. Urgent evaluation with a detailed physical examination, device interrogation, and other workup including imaging is called for if symptoms suspicious for device-related problems arise. For the cancer pain patient, the underlying malignancy should also be considered as a potential cause for these new symptoms after intrathecal system implantation. We present 2 such cases of complications in the cancer pain patient after intrathecal drug delivery due to progression of the underlying malignant process rather than to surgical or device-related problems. The first patient had a history of metastatic osteosarcoma who, shortly after undergoing an intrathecal drug delivery trial with external pump, presented with new symptoms of both pain and neurologic changes. The second patient with a history of chondrosarcoma developed new symptoms of pain and sensorimotor change several days after intrathecal drug delivery system implantation.

Objective: To test the efficacy and safety of a cannabinoid, dronabinol, compared with an active control, diphenhydramine, in relieving neuropathic pain in persons with spinal cord injury., Design: A randomized, controlled, double-blind, crossover pilot study., Results: Seven adults with spinal cord injury and neuropathic pain below the level of injury participated. Two participants withdrew while receiving dronabinol, their first medication. For the remaining five participants, change in pain on a scale of 0-10 from baseline to the end of the maintenance phase did not differ significantly between the two medications (mean change, dronabinol: 0.20 ± 0.837, range = -1.00 to 1.00; diphenhydramine: -1.80 ± 2.490, range = -6.00 to 0; Wilcoxon Z = 1.63, P = 0.102). Similar results were found when the average of the two ratings during the maintenance phase was used (dronabinol: -0.20 ± 0.671, range = -0.50 to 1.00; diphenhydramine: -1.40 ± 1.245, range = -3.50 to -0.50; Wilcoxon Z = 1.60, P = 0.109). The most common side effects were dry mouth, constipation, fatigue, and drowsiness for both medications., Conclusions: On average, dronabinol was no more effective than diphenhydramine for relieving chronic neuropathic pain below the level of injury.