Epidural Laterality and Pain Relief With Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation.

INTRODUCTION: Burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can achieve excellent clinical reduction of pain, alongside improvements in function, quality of life, and related outcomes. Good outcomes likely depend on good lead placement, thereby enabling recruitment of the relevant neural targets. Several competing approaches exist for lead implantation, such as the use of single vs bilateral leads and leads lateralized vs placed at midline. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between paresthesia locations and pain relief with burst SCS in a prospective double-blind crossover design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All participants had bilateral back and leg pain, with more intense pain experienced on one side of the body. A trial SCS system was placed, during which brief intraoperative mapping with conventional stimulation was used to characterize paresthesia locations. Two programs for subperception burst SCS treatment were then applied for two days each, in random order: bilateral paresthesia coverage vs unilateral paresthesia coverage contralateral to the side of the body with more intense pain. Pain ratings (visual analog scale [VAS]) and pain reductions (scaling pain relief [SPR]) were reported for each. RESULTS: Of the 30 participants who completed the study, 24 (80%) had good pain relief with at least one program. A baseline VAS score of 8.75 was reduced to 5.98 with contralateral stimulation and to 2.88 with bilateral stimulation; with SPR, this equated to 31.25% and 67.50% improvement, respectively. The incremental benefit of bilateral stimulation over contralateral stimulation was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Of the 24 participants, 87.5% preferred bilateral stimulation, whereas 12.5% preferred unilateral stimulation. The six participants who failed the trial had no preference. DISCUSSION: When burst stimulation is delivered to spinal targets that can generate paresthesias contralateral to the side of worst pain, suboptimal therapy is achieved. Thus, attention to laterality and pain coverage is critical for successful therapy, and it may be important to carefully consider lead implantation techniques.

Recurrent Median Nerve Injury in a Weight Lifter.

Recurrent median neuropathy is an uncommon injury that can be commonly mistaken for other pathological causes. It is important to be aware of the potential causes and symptoms of injury as delay in diagnosis can lead to permanent decrease in hand function and disability. This case is a description of a 33-year-old male patient who previously presented with radicular symptoms and had complete resolution of his pain after a C7 selective nerve root block. Several months after presentation, he developed significant thenar atrophy, localized pain, and weakness associated with weight lifting activities. He was originally diagnosed with a recurrence of his C7 symptoms and a wrist sprain and was treated with a prednisone taper and wrist splint. After no improvement, he was referred to a physiatrist at an outpatient orthopedic clinic where he was examined and found to have a recurrent median neuropathy on electrodiagnostic studies. A left hand MRI was ordered which demonstrated no anatomical evidence of a compressive nerve lesion, and it was concluded that his injury was secondary to direct compression from high intensity weight lifting.