Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Peripheral Nerve Stimulation of the Musculocutaneous Nerve for Refractory Antecubital ElbowPain-Brief Technical Report and Illustrative Case Report.

Chronic pain following distal biceps rupture (DBR) is often nonspecific in that it may arise due to the injury, subsequent surgical repair, or a combination of factors, making the painful symptoms challenging to treat. Peripheral nerve injury in the setting of DBR most commonly affects the musculocutaneous nerve or one of its terminal branches and may lead to chronic neuropathic pain involving the elbow and lateral/radial aspect of the forearm. In this brief technical report, we describe an ultrasound-guided (USG) technique for percutaneous implantation of a peripheral nerve stimulator (PNS) targeting the musculocutaneous nerve, along with an illustrative case report of successful treatment of chronic refractory pain following DBR utilizing this technique. Six months postimplantation, the patient reported a greater than 60% baseline pain intensity reduction, and no complications were noted.

La douleur chronique consécutive à une rupture distale du biceps est souvent non spécifique en ce sens qu'elle peut survenir en raison de la blessure, de la réparation chirurgicale ultérieure, ou d'une combinaison de facteurs, rendant les symptômes douloureux difficiles à traiter. La lésion du nerf périphérique dans le cadre d'une rupture distale du biceps affecte le plus souvent le nerf musculo-cutané ou l'une de ses branches terminales et peut entraîner des douleurs neuropathiques chroniques au niveau du coude et de la face latérale/radiale de l'avant-bras. Dans ce bref rapport technique, nous décrivons une technique guidée par ultrason pour l'implantation percutanée d'un stimulateur nerveux périphérique ciblant le nerf musculo-cutané, ainsi qu'un rapport de cas illustratif du traitement réussi de la douleur réfractaire suite à une rupture distale du biceps en utilisant cette technique. Six mois après l'implantation, le patient a signalé une réduction de plus de 60 % de l'intensité de la douleur initiale, et aucune complication n'a été observée.

Combination Intrathecal Drug Therapy Strategies for Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: Numerous combination intrathecal drug therapy (CIDT) strategies exist and are utilized for varying pain syndromes, typically when monotherapy dose escalation or medication alternation is deemed untenable or unfeasible. Unfortunately, the supportive evidence basis for the use of these strategies and specific drug combinations is generally lacking and unclear, with many medications being used for off-label indications. OBJECTIVE: In this manuscript, we provide a robust exploration and analysis of the literature to provide an evidence-based narrative for the use of CIDT strategies in regard to clinical indications, pharmacologic parameters, specific drug combinations, safety profiles, and future directions. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: This was an evidence based narrative performed after extensive review of the literature. RESULTS: Variances in intrathecal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are utilized advantageously with CIDT strategies to achieve improved analgesic benefit; however, appropriate use may be limited by increased or compounded risk of adverse effects. The supportive evidence for CIDT use for chronic pain conditions is largely lacking and limited to small, uncontrolled, observational studies, with many having various confounding factors, including a lack of standardized dosing. The most evidenced CIDT strategies include polyanalgesia with morphine-ziconotide, opioid-clonidine, and morphine-bupivacaine. Notably, in addition to pain relief, morphine-bupivacaine has been shown to decrease early opioid escalation requirements. LIMITATIONS: The supportive evidence for CIDT use for chronic pain conditions is largely lacking and limited to small, uncontrolled, observational studies, with many having various confounding factors including a lack of standardized dosing. CONCLUSIONS: CIDT strategies and polyanalgesia combinations can be effective for treating various patient populations with chronic pain. The appropriate use of these strategies may be limited by increased or compounded risk of adverse effects, both of which are highly patient and scenario dependent. Therefore, practitioners should maintain a particularly low threshold of suspicion for adverse effects in patients with CIDT such that safety profiles associated with this therapy can be favorably maintained.

Current Trends in Steroid Dose Choice and Frequency of Administration of Epidural Steroid Injections: A Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are commonly used to treat refractory radicular spinal pain. Although evidence suggests that an increasing cumulative dose of exogenous corticosteroid may be harmful, knowledge of current practice patterns is limited regarding the choice of dose and frequency of epidural steroid injections (ESIs). OBJECTIVE: Describe current practice trends in the dose selection and frequency of administration of transforaminal ESIs (TFESIs) and interlaminar ESIs (ILESIs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred fourteen physician members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS). From May to June 2018, an online survey was distributed to 5907 physician members of the SIS. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Corticosteroid dose used by practitioners and the number of annual ESIs administered per patient. RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen physicians responded to the survey. For single cervical or lumbar injections of dexamethasone, most physicians (56.0%) reported using 10 mg; 17% of physicians reported use of doses greater than 10 mg, with 6% using a dose of 20 mg per injection level. The most common particulate corticosteroid dose used during both cervical and lumbar ILESIs was 80 mg (cervical = 55.4%, lumbar = 54.7%). During cervical and lumbar ILESIs, 17% and 12.7% of physicians reported using doses greater than 80 mg, respectively. Almost 10% of physicians reported performing cervical TFESIs with particulate steroids. Forty percent of physicians reported allowing four ESIs at a given spinal segmental level per year (cervical/thoracic/lumbosacral). A small percentage of physicians reported allowing more than six ESIs annually (6%) and >10 injections annually (1%). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability among this large cohort of interventionists with regard to corticosteroid dose selection and epidural steroid injection frequency. A small proportion of respondents reported Mulitsociety Pain Workgroup guideline-discordant use of particulate steroids during cervical TFESIs. These findings demonstrate a need for additional research regarding both the reasons for such variation in care and the reasons for guideline-discordant practice in a subset of physicians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Trends in steroid agent and diluent choices for epidural steroid injections: a survey of Spine Intervention Society physicians.

BACKGROUND: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a frequently used treatment for refractory radicular spinal pain. ESIs, particularly transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI), may provide pain relief and delay the need for surgery. Corticosteroid agent and diluent choices are known to impact the safety of ESIs. In particular, the risk of embolization with particulate corticosteroids has led to recommendations for non-particulate steroid use by the Multisociety Pain Workgroup. Additionally, there is in vitro evidence that ropivacaine can crystalize in the presence of dexamethasone, potentially creating a particulate-like injectate. Despite widespread use and known risk mitigation strategies, current practice trends related to steroid and diluent choices are unknown. OBJECTIVE: Identify the use of particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids for epidural steroid injections in the cervical and lumbar spine, as well as local anesthetics commonly used as diluents during these procedures. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey study of 314 physician members of the Spine Interventional Society. RESULTS: 41% and 9% of providers reported using particulate corticosteroids during lumbar TFESIs and cervical TFESI, respectively. Four per cent of providers reported the use of ropivacaine in cervical TFESIs. Forty-four per cent of respondents reported using anesthetic in cervical interlaminar ESIs. 21% of providers report using high volumes (> 4.5 mL) during cervical interlaminar ESIs. CONCLUSION: Current trends, as assessed by this survey study, indicate substantial variability in steroid and diluent choice for ESIs. Patterns were identified that may impact patient safety including the continued use of particulate corticosteroids for TFESIs and the use of ropivacaine during TFESIs by a subset of respondents.