Treatment of cancer-related chest wall pain using spinal cord stimulation. Spinal cord stimulation in management of chronic pain. A 9-year experience. Management of intractable pain with percutaneous epidural spinal cord stimulation: differences in pain-relieving effects among diseases and sites of pain. Spinal cord stimulation for cancer-related low back pain.
it has been estimated that 15% to 40% of chronic cancer pain has a neuropathic component, and this type of pain often responds poorly to opioids. In an attempt to provide increased pain relief for patients with intractable cancer pain, unconventional agents and interventional management approaches have received considerable attention. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been used with increased frequency for the treatment of intractable cancer pain.
                the patients with a history of cancer-related chest wall pain underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of 2 temporary 8-electrode leads (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minnesota) placed at the level of T3-T4-T5.
                after experiencing excellent pain relief over the next 2 days, the patients were implanted with permanent leads and rechargeable generator 2 to 2 ½ weeks later and reported sustained pain relief at 12-month follow-up visit. Conclusion: SCS provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with cancer-related chest wall pain who have failed conservative treatment. SCS may provide pain relief with advantages over conservative treatments and more invasive techniques. Between 1978 and 1986, 109 patients with chronic pain underwent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) at the authors' institute as part of their pain treatment program. The results of SCS in these patients at the end of the test period and at the latest follow-up examination are analyzed in relation to the etiology of their pain. In 40 patients pain was associated with an obstructive peripheral vasculopathy, in 10 with a previous herpes zoster infection, in 15 with an incomplete traumatic spinal cord lesion, in nine with root and/or nerve damage, in 11 with cancer, and in 19 with previous back surgery. The etiology of the pain in five patients was uncertain. This experience supports the conclusion that the best indications for SCS are vasculopathic pain and post-herpetic neuralgia. No clinical usefulness was found for SCS in cancer pain or in central deafferentation types of pain. This study is a survey of the overall clinical results achieved with our pain treatment method, percutaneous epidural low-frequency (1.6-8.0 Hz) spinal cord stimulation. It examines the relationship between the effectiveness of epidural spinal cord stimulation (ESCS) and diseases or sites of pain. Continuous indwelling of the catheter electrodes in the posterior epidural space ranged from 3 to 67 days, and the duration of percutaneous ESCS varied from less than 1 wk to more than 1 yr. Complete pain relief (100%) was achieved during stimulation in 11.5% of the patients (52 of 454). Complete (100%) to partial (more than 30%) pain relief occurred in 71.1% of the patients. In six (1.3%) patients pain was aggravated by stimulation. Analgesics and/or sedatives were discontinued completely after treatment in 52 patients (11.5%) and reduced in 263 patients (57.9%). The number of patients who rated pain relief better than 50% was significantly more in carcinoma/sarcoma and causalgia (P < 0.001), and significantly less in postherpetic neuralgia and thromboangitis obliterans/arterial sclerosis obliterans (P < 0.001) than the average in all diseases. There was a significantly high responsiveness to ESCS in female patients in comparison to male patients (P < 0.05). Pain in the head/face, neck/upper extremities, and trunk responded more to ESCS than pain in the lower extremities. Alleviation of pain by ESCS was lower when the verbal pain score was high. There were no major complications in percutaneous ESCS. Thus, we have demonstrated that pain-alleviating effects of ESCS varies significantly by disease and site of pain, and that this simple percutaneous method can be used for a relatively long period. At least one third of patients with cancer have pain at the time of their diagnosis. In an attempt to provide increased pain relief for patients with intractable cancer pain, unconventional agents and interventional procedures including spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have received considerable attention.
                Patients with cancer-related low back pain underwent an uneventful SCS trial with percutaneous placement of 2 temporary 8-electrode leads placed at the level of T8-T9-T10.
                After experiencing excellent pain relief during the 2-day trial, patients were subsequently implanted with permanent leads and generator with sustained pain relief at 12 months postoperation.
                Spinal cord stimulation provides an effective, alternative treatment option for select patients with cancer-related pain who have failed conservative treatment.
Current evidence is insufficient to establish the role of SCS in treating refractory cancer-related pain. Future randomised studies should focus on the implantation of SCS in patients with cancer-related pain.