ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Spinal malignancy-related pain results from tumor, fracture, instability, inflammation, and/or nerve root/spinal cord compression. Systemic corticosteroids are commonly used but have many undesirable adverse effects that impact quality of life and continuation of cancer treatments. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) may be a viable alternative pain treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study starts with a pragmatic review on the efficacy of ESIs to treat spinal malignancy-related pain. Given the limited evidence, we supplement the study with a single-center, retrospective review. METHODS: A pragmatic review using PRISMA guidelines was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Review. Then, a retrospective chart review was performed. RESULTS: A pragmatic review yielded 10 patients who underwent ESI for spinal malignancy-related pain. Three patients had "excellent" relief (≥ 50% relief), who all received thoracic injections. This amounted to level IV evidence and an inconclusive recommendation (Grade C) as per Wright's criteria. In our retrospective review, all thoracic cases achieved at least "moderate" pain improvement (30% to 49% relief). 55.6% had "excellent" relief. Lumbosacral injections resulted in 86.0% with at least "moderate" relief and 69.8% with "excellent" relief. Caudal injections were less likely to benefit than lumbosacral injections (P = 0.02). The transforaminal approach resulted in the best relief. There were no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There is inconclusive evidence to use ESIs to treat spinal malignancy-related pain in the current literature. Our retrospective review provides level III evidence for our conclusion that ESIs are safe and efficacious to treat spinal malignancy-related pain. Thoracic/lumbosacral injections led to significantly better pain relief compared with caudal injections.
Subject(s)
Cancer Pain/drug therapy , Pain Management/methods , Radiculopathy/drug therapy , Spinal Neoplasms/drug therapy , Steroids/administration & dosage , Analgesia, Epidural/methods , Analgesics/administration & dosage , Back Pain/drug therapy , Back Pain/etiology , Cancer Pain/etiology , Humans , Injections, Epidural , Quality of Life , Radiculopathy/etiology , Retrospective Studies , Spinal Neoplasms/complications , SpineABSTRACT
Stiff person syndrome is a neuroimmunological disorder characterized by progressive muscular rigidity and spasms that affect axial/limb muscles, resulting in severe pain and functional limitations. When refractory to conservative treatments, intrathecal baclofen is a viable option to treat the increased tone. Intrathecal baclofen has been shown to accelerate underlying neuromuscular scoliosis in the pediatric population with cerebral palsy. This adverse effect has never been reported in adults with stiff person syndrome. We report a case of an adult with stiff person syndrome and underlying scoliosis who experienced accelerated progression of scoliosis after initiation of intrathecal baclofen, subsequently requiring neurosurgical intervention.
Subject(s)
Scoliosis , Stiff-Person Syndrome , Adult , Baclofen , Child , Humans , Scoliosis/complications , Scoliosis/drug therapy , Scoliosis/surgery , Stiff-Person Syndrome/drug therapyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Numerous mechanical and pathologic variables contribute to sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain. The oncologic population has additional considerations, including tumor burden causing fracture, nerve compression, joint instability, and periosteal inflammation. Post-treatment changes may also restrict joint mobility, causing transitional pain. Currently, fluoroscopically guided SIJ injections, aimed at the inferior one third of the SIJ, are the gold standard for treatment but have only been described in the nononcologic population. Ultrasound (US) guidance may confer several benefits, including positioning, ease of procedure, lower costs, and, importantly, guidance to avoid neovascularization, metastatic disease, and other soft tissue structures. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe the advantages of US-guided SIJ injections for refractory malignant SIJ pain from extra-articular tumors. We then describe our technique and decision framework for accessing the superior or inferior SIJ in patients with metastatic sacroiliac pain. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 5 patients with refractory malignant SIJ pain who underwent US-guided superior or inferior approach SIJ injection. Using imaging and outcomes, we developed a decision framework. RESULTS: Patients received either inferior or superior approach SIJ injections depending on location of tumor, extent of tumor invasion, and stability of the SIJ as per our framework. All patients reported improvement in pain and function without complications. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a decision framework for inferior vs. superior approach US-guided SIJ injections in the oncologic population with SIJ pain from metastases to the pelvis or sacrum. Having multiple techniques to approach the SIJ is important in the oncologic population, in whom metastatic tumor burden poses a technical challenge to performing these injections.
