Spinal cord stimulation for refractory angina pectoris and peripheral vascular disease.

The Center for Pain Relief, Charleston, West Virginia 25301, USA.
Pain physician (Impact Factor: 10.72). 11/2006; 9(4):347-52.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Spinal cord stimulation has been used in clinical practice for more than three decades. The primary use of this therapy has been in spine-related disorders. In recent years, the therapy has been used more extensively in diseases of the vascular system. Increasingly, interest has piqued in using this mode of treatment for refractory angina and ischemic pain secondary to peripheral vascular disease. In this publication, we review the current literature on these two indications and present case examples of both therapies.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Critical lower limb ischaemia is a diffuse pathology that could cause claudication, severe ischaemic pain and tissue loss. The common treatment includes modification of risk factors, pharmacological therapy and endovascular or surgical revascularisation of the lower limb to restore a pulsatile flow distally. Spinal cord stimulator is seen as a valid alternative in patients unsuitable for revascularisation after endovascular or surgical revascularisation failure and as adjuvant therapy in the presence of a functioning bypass in patients with extensive tissue loss and gangrene presenting a slow and difficult wound healing. We report our experience on spinal cord stimulation (SCS) indication and implantation in patients with critical lower limb ischaemia, at a high-volume centre for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease.
    International Wound Journal 04/2014; · 1.60 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lead migration (LM) is the most common complication after spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Although multiple reports of caudad LM have been described, cephalad LM has not been reported. Here we describe a case in which a stimulator lead migrates in the cephalad direction. A 60-year-old male with failed back surgery syndrome underwent SCS lead implantation via a dual lead approach to the top of vertebral body (VB) T9. A standard strain relief loop was used for each lead in the paramedian pocket. Postoperative testing revealed 100% paresthesia coverage of the painful areas. For the first 4 days, the patient continued to have excellent coverage; however, by the seventh day, the paresthesias ascended to above the nipple line. At the 2-week follow-up, cephalad migration of the left lead to the top of VB T1 was confirmed on fluoroscopy. The patient underwent successful lead revision in which a single paramedian incision technique was used to place extra sutures and a "figure-of-eight" strain relief loop. We provide the first case report of significant cephalad LM following SCS lead implantation. This migration can occur despite the use of current standard anchoring techniques. Additional investigation into the mechanism of such LM and lead-securing techniques is warranted.
    Pain physician 01/2012; 15(1):E79-87. · 10.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multiple studies have shown proved efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in peripheral vascular disease (PVD). The exact mechanism by which SCS acts in the treatment of PVD is not completely understood, and may include stimulating the release of nitric oxide, modulation of the sympathetic nervous system, or modulation of prostaglandin production. Patient selection criteria have been well defined and SCS should be reserved for patients with end-stage lower limb PVD unresponsive to medical therapy and not amenable to surgical reconstruction but in whom disease has not caused inevitable limb loss. This article reviews the outcomes, techniques, patient selection criteria, and putative mechanisms of SCS for PVD.
    Neurosurgery clinics of North America 01/2014; 25(1):25-31. · 1.73 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

1 Download
Available from
Aug 25, 2014