Background: There are reports of pain relief from spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with incomplete spinal cord injuries. However, the results for pain relief from SCS in patients with complete spinal cord inj...Background: There are reports of pain relief from spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with incomplete spinal cord injuries. However, the results for pain relief from SCS in patients with complete spinal cord injury are dismal. Patients with complete spinal cord injury therefore are generally not considered suitable candidates for SCS. The authors report a case in which a quadriplegic patient with cervical spinal cord injury got significant pain relief from spinal cord stimulation. Methods: The patient is 41 years old with quadriplegia secondary to C5-6 injury. He has no function below the level of the injury except for a few patchy areas of sensation. Ten years after the injury the patient had hemorrhoidectomy. This resulted in severe pain in the anal pain. The treatment for pain failed conservative treatment. He however did have good response to a trial of spinal cord stimulation through an epidural lead placed at T8-T9 vertebral body level. Permanent implantation of spinal cord stimulator was therefore performed. Results: At preoperative evaluation the patient rated his pain as a 7/10. Presently at 2 years’ follow-up the patient rates his pain at 1/10. Conclusions: Spinal cord stimulation proved to be a successful means of achieving adequate pain relief in a patient who had complete loss of motor function below the level of the injury. Therefore, although patients with such condition are unlike to benefit from SCS it is worthwhile trying this treatment if no other option is available there.展开更多
文摘Background: There are reports of pain relief from spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with incomplete spinal cord injuries. However, the results for pain relief from SCS in patients with complete spinal cord injury are dismal. Patients with complete spinal cord injury therefore are generally not considered suitable candidates for SCS. The authors report a case in which a quadriplegic patient with cervical spinal cord injury got significant pain relief from spinal cord stimulation. Methods: The patient is 41 years old with quadriplegia secondary to C5-6 injury. He has no function below the level of the injury except for a few patchy areas of sensation. Ten years after the injury the patient had hemorrhoidectomy. This resulted in severe pain in the anal pain. The treatment for pain failed conservative treatment. He however did have good response to a trial of spinal cord stimulation through an epidural lead placed at T8-T9 vertebral body level. Permanent implantation of spinal cord stimulator was therefore performed. Results: At preoperative evaluation the patient rated his pain as a 7/10. Presently at 2 years’ follow-up the patient rates his pain at 1/10. Conclusions: Spinal cord stimulation proved to be a successful means of achieving adequate pain relief in a patient who had complete loss of motor function below the level of the injury. Therefore, although patients with such condition are unlike to benefit from SCS it is worthwhile trying this treatment if no other option is available there.
