Allergic reaction to spinal cord stimulator

Spinal cord stimulation-induced gastroparesis: A case report

BACKGROUND

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) involves the utilization of an implantable neurostimulation device, stereotypically used in the treatment of patients with chronic neuropathic pain. While these devices have been shown to have significant clinical benefits, there have also been documented potential complications, including the risk of infection, fractured electrodes, electrode migration, and lack of symptom improvement. In addition, there has been minimal documentation on gastrointestinal (GI) side effects after SCS implantation.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 42-year-old patient with chronic axial and radicular neuropathic pain in her back and left leg status post multiple lumbar surgeries underwent implantation of an open paddle lead in the T8-T9 region. After the procedure, the patient endorsed a 50% decrease in pain at the 6-week follow-up with no further concerns. However, at the 18 months follow-up, the patient endorsed severe constipation when the SCS was turned on, leading to subsequent evaluation by gastroenterology, motility studies, and a thorough bowel regimen. Symptoms persisted, and the patient ultimately opted for the removal of the SCS implant at 21 months after the initial surgery.

CONCLUSION

While the exact mechanism behind the GI side effects endorsed in this patient is unknown, current literature postulates a variety of theories, including a SCS-induced parasympathetic blockade of the GI tract. Further, investigation is needed to determine the exact effects of SCS on the GI tract.

Advances in Spinal Cord Stimulation

Neuromodulation, specifically spinal cord stimulation (SCS), has become a staple of chronic pain management for various conditions including failed back syndrome, chronic regional pain syndrome, refractory radiculopathy, and chronic post operative pain. Since its conceptualization, it has undergone several advances to increase safety and convenience for patients and implanting physicians. Current research and efforts are aimed towards novel programming modalities and modifications of existing hardware. Here we review the recent advances and future directions in spinal cord stimulation including a brief review of the history of SCS, SCS waveforms, new materials for SCS electrodes (including artificial skins, new materials, and injectable electrodes), closed loop systems, and neurorestorative devices.

Allergy Considerations in Implanted Neuromodulation Devices

OBJECTIVES

Allergic reactions are rare and poorly understood complications of neuromodulation device implantation. There are currently no guidelines for management of allergic reactions to these devices and their components. Here we review the published cases of allergic reactions to implanted neuromodulatory devices and leverage the experiences of other specialties that deal with similar complications to formulate recommendations for prevention and management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A review and assessment of the literature.

RESULTS

Allergic reactions to a number of implantable devices have been observed and published. In dentistry and orthopedics, metals such as nickel are the most frequent cause of allergic reactions. In interventional cardiology, where devices closely resemble neuromodulatory devices, titanium, silicone, and polyurethanes are the most common causes of allergic reactions. In neurosurgery, allergic reactions to implantable neuromodulatory devices are rare, and we summarize 13 cases published to date. Such allergic reactions generally present as local dermatitis, erythema, and pruritus, which can be difficult to distinguish from surgical site infection. In one published case, symptoms resolved with corticosteroid treatment, but all other cases required explantation. The successful reimplantation with a modified device was reported in some cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients should be screened for a personal history of contact allergy before implantation procedures. A multidisciplinary approach to suspected cases of postoperative allergic reactions involving collaboration between neurosurgeons and other implanting physicians, dermatologists or allergists, and device manufacturers is recommended. In cases where an allergic reaction is suspected, an infectious etiology should be ruled out first. Clinical suspicion can then be supported with the use of patch testing, interpreted by an experienced dermatologist or allergist. If patch testing supports an allergic etiology, the implanting physician and the device manufacturer can work together to modify the device for safe reimplantation.

The appropriate use of neurostimulation: avoidance and treatment of complications of neurostimulation therapies for the treatment of chronic pain. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee

INTRODUCTION

The International Neuromodulation Society (INS) has determined that there is a need for guidance regarding safety and risk reduction for implantable neurostimulation devices. The INS convened an international committee of experts in the field to explore the evidence and clinical experience regarding safety, risks, and steps to risk reduction to improve outcomes.

METHODS

The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) reviewed the world literature in English by searching MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar to evaluate the evidence for ways to reduce risks of neurostimulation therapies. This evidence, obtained from the relevant literature, and clinical experience obtained from the convened consensus panel were used to make final recommendations on improving safety and reducing risks.

RESULTS

The NACC determined that the ability to reduce risk associated with the use of neurostimulation devices is a valuable goal and possible with best practice. The NACC has recommended several practice modifications that will lead to improved care. The NACC also sets out the minimum training standards necessary to become an implanting physician.

CONCLUSIONS

The NACC has identified the possibility of improving patient care and safety through practice modification. We recommend that all implanting physicians review this guidance and consider adapting their practice accordingly.

Spinal stimulator peri-electrode masses: case report

The authors describe a case of delayed spastic quadriparesis caused by a peri-electrode mass following the implantation of a minimally invasive percutaneous spinal cord stimulator (SCS). Prior reports with paddle-type electrodes are reviewed, and a detailed histological and pathophysiological comparison with the present case is made. The patient developed tolerance to a cervical percutaneous SCS 4 months after implantation, followed by the onset of spastic quadriparesis 9 months after implantation. The stimulator was removed, and contrast-enhanced MRI revealed an enhancing epidural mass where the system had been placed, with severe spinal cord compression. Decompression was carried out, and the patient experienced neurological improvement. Pathological examination revealed fibrotic tissue with granulomatous and multinucleated giant cell reactions. No evidence of infection or hemorrhage was found. Professionals treating patients with SCSs or contemplating their insertion should be aware of this delayed complication and associated risk factors.

Detailed analysis of allergic cutaneous reactions to spinal cord stimulator devices

The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices to treat chronic, refractory neuropathic pain continues to expand in application. While device-related complications have been well described, inflammatory reactions to the components of these devices remain underreported. In contrast, hypersensitivity reactions associated with other implanted therapies, such as endovascular and cardiac rhythm devices, have been detailed. The purpose of this case series is to describe the clinical presentation and course of inflammatory reactions as well as the histology of these reactions. All patients required removal of the entire device after developing inflammatory reactions over a time course of 1-3 months. Two patients developed a foreign body reaction in the lead insertion wound as well as at the implantable pulse generator site, with histology positive for giant cells. One patient developed an inflammatory dermatitis on the flank and abdomen that resolved with topical hydrocortisone. "In vivo" testing with a lead extension fragment placed in the buttock resulted in a negative reaction followed by successful reimplantation of an SCS device. Inflammatory reactions to SCS devices can manifest as contact dermatitis, granuloma formation, or foreign body reactions with giant cell formation. Tissue diagnosis is essential, and is helpful to differentiate an inflammatory reaction from infection. The role of skin patch testing for 96 hours may not be suited to detect inflammatory giant cell reactions that manifest several weeks post implantation.

Treatment of contact dermatitis associated with spinal cord stimulator pulse generator--technical note

BACKGROUND

Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sheets have been successfully used as a biologic barrier in the treatment of pacemaker contact dermatitis.

TECHNIQUE

In this report, we describe two patients with contact dermatitis related to the implantable pulse generator of a spinal cord stimulator who were treated with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene as a barrier.

RESULTS

Resolution of the dermatitis was achieved in both cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This technique is an effective way of treating contact dermatitis related to implantable pulse generators, without the need for explantation of the neuromodulation system.

Quadriparesis and spinal cord stimulation: case report

STUDY DESIGN

Case report.

OBJECTIVE

To report the occurrence of a rare complication following revision of a spinal cord stimulator.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Puncture of the dura with placement of an electrode within the spinal cord has not been reported as a complication of spinal cord stimulation.

METHODS

A patient presented with upper and lower extremity weakness following inadvertent placement of an electrode into the spinal cord. The clinical case is presented as well as review of the literature.

RESULTS

The patient had the electrode successfully removed; however, her neurologic status deteriorated.

CONCLUSION

Revision of spinal cord stimulators is usually a safe procedure. However, placement of an electrode within the spinal cord during the revision process is a potential complication resulting in severe neurologic injury.

Adverse Reaction without Drug Absorption; Allergic Reaction to Spinal Cord Stimulator; Interferon Beta-1b and Hypothyroidism; Priapism with Sildenafil Citrate; Chest and Back Pain Associated with Liposomal Daunorubicin; Interaction between Warfarin and Trazodone

The purpose of this feature is to heighten awareness of specific adverse drug reactions (ADRs), to discuss methods of prevention, and to promote reporting of ADRs to the FDA's medWatch program (1-800-FDA-1088). If you have reported an interesting preventable ADR to medWatch, please consider sharing the account with our readers.