Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

CHAPTER 9

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Interventional Treatment DAVID STOLZENBERG, DO  •  HENRY CHOU, DO  •  DAVID JANERICH, DO

Interventional pain management procedures for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) are often considered when conservative treatment options such as physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and/or medications fail to provide adequate pain relief. The literature supports the concurrent use of certain procedures along with medications, modalities, and psychologic treatment to help maximize pain relief and functional restoration.1,2

SYMPATHETIC NERVE BLOCKS The sympathetic nervous system has been implicated in the pathophysiology of CRPS in certain presentations of the syndrome. Thus it may be a useful target for injection therapy.3,4 Sympathetic nerve blocks (SNBs) have been used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes for many years.5 Historically, some clinicians diagnosed CRPS only if SNB relieved pain.6 However, it was found that for some patients, there is a lack of response to SNB, which led to the concept of CRPS variants that are not sympathetically mediated (sympathetically independent pain, SIP) and rethinking of the mechanism behind the disorder.2,6 Overall, there is a lack of universally accepted guidelines in selecting patients for SNB and a lack of high-quality studies to provide significant evidence to support or refute the use of SNB for CRPS.7 Based on the available literature, along with clinical experiences of many experts, it is believed that patients with CRPS with signs of mechanical allodynia and temperature and color changes of the affected limb are more likely to have a positive response from SNB. In general, the procedure is often recommended for those patients who have pain that limits participation in PT or OT despite adequate oral medications.4,6 The primary targets for SNB involve the stellate ganglion (SGB) for upper extremity CRPS and the lumbar sympathetic chain (LSB) for lower extremity CRPS. The stellate ganglion is composed of the inferior cervical ganglion and the first thoracic ganglion. It is typically

located anteriorly to the first rib. SGB was traditionally performed “blindly” via palpation of anatomic landmarks, but now it is done via guidance with fluoroscopy, ultrasonography, or computerized tomography. The typical target of the needle is the junction of the vertebral body and uncinate process of C6 (Chassaignac tubercle). An example of the procedure being performed under fluoroscopic guidance is shown in Figs. 9.1–9.4. Both the C6 and C7 vertebrae have been used as targets for injection, but injection at the C6 level has become a more common practice to lessen potential complications such as pneumothorax and vertebral artery puncture.8 For LSB, the lumbar sympathetic chain ganglia are located along the anterolateral aspect of the first through fourth lumbar vertebral bodies. The target of injection is usually at the inferior portion of the L2 or superior

FIG. 9.1 Stellate ganglion block under fluoroscopic guid-

ance—Part 1. (Copyright David Stolzenberg, DO.)

65

66

Challenging Neuropathic Pain Syndromes

FIG. 9.2  Stellate ganglion block under fluoroscopic guid-

FIG. 9.4  Stellate ganglion block under fluoroscopic guid-

ance—Part 2. (Copyright David Stolzenberg, DO.)

ance—Part 4. (Copyright David Stolzenberg, DO.)

FIG. 9.3  Stellate ganglion block under fluoroscopic guid-

ance—Part 3. (Copyright David Stolzenberg, DO.)

portion of the L3 vertebral body (Figs. 9.5 and 9.6).8 An example of the procedure being performed under fluoroscopic guidance is shown in figures 9.5 and 9.6. After the needle reaches the target site, a small volume of contrast dye is injected to confirm localized spread and rule out vascular uptake. Then 5–10 mL of local anesthetic is

injected, usually lidocaine or bupivacaine, with or without corticosteroid. Success of the SGB is defined by Malmqvist et al. as: (1) Horner’ syndrome, which consists of ptosis (drooping of upper eyelid), anhidrosis (decreased sweating on the affected side of the face), and miosis (constricted pupil); (2) Gutman sign, which is increased skin and upper limb temperature >34°C (or by 1–3 degrees compared with before the procedure) within 5 min of the block; (3) increased blood flow by more than 50% by laser Doppler flowmetry; (4) abolition of radial and ulnar skin resistance response; (5) increase in the skin resistance level by 13% or more.4,9,10 However, even in the study by Malmqvist, complete sympathetic blockade of the stellate ganglion meeting all five criteria was met only in 6 of the 54 blocks and only 15 of 54 cases met four of the criteria.9 This indicates that there is a high rate of incomplete or partial sympathetic blockade in SGB. Another study by Schurmann et al. demonstrated there is difficulty in correlating increased limb temperature, Horner syndrome, and complete sympathetic blockade. In addition, even in patients with complete sympathetic block, the amount of pain relief following the SGB was just slightly more than 50%, further supporting the concept of nonsympathetically mediated CRPS, or SIP.4 Temperature testing is perhaps the most widely used measurement of sympathetic blockade.10 Subjective successful responses to a block include

CHAPTER 9  Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Interventional Treatment

FIG. 9.5  Lumbar sympathetic block under fluoroscopic

guidance—Part 1. (Copyright David Stolzenberg, DO.)

FIG. 9.6  Lumbar sympathetic block under fluoroscopic

guidance—Part 2. (Copyright David Stolzenberg, DO.)

patient’s report of decreased pain and/or allodynia of the affected limb. The pain relief from an SNB often lasts longer than the duration of effect of the local anesthetics, and in some cases, it may provide long-lasting relief, although the response duration and efficacy is variable.4,11,12 Based on the currently available treatment guidelines, patients

67

should immediately begin aggressive PT and OT. The treatments focus on desensitization, normalizing sensation, restoration of range of motion (ROM), and promoting functional use of the affected limb. A successful response would be expected in patients with sympathetically maintained pain (SMP) as compared with those with SIP.13 Many researchers have studied the effectiveness of the SGB and LSB in CRPS. However, the majority of these are low-quality studies and lack significant numbers of subjects. Price et al. conducted a double-blind crossover study evaluating the use of anesthetic versus saline in SGB and LSB. Analgesia was achieved within 30 min of using both anesthetic and saline, but the anesthetic group with a mixture of lidocaine and bupivacaine resulted in average of 3 days 18 h of analgesia versus 19 h for the saline group.11 Cepeda and colleagues conducted a systematic review evaluating SNB with local anesthetics. Among the 30 studies that were evaluated, only a few were prospective, randomized, and placebo controlled. In total, over a 1000 patients were included. Overall, 29% of patients had a full response, 41% had partial response, and 32% had no response to SNB. Another review evaluated the results of two additional small randomized, double-blinded, crossover studies. The combined effect of the two trials (23 subjects) produced a relative risk to achieve at least 50% of pain relief for 30 min to 2 h after the sympathetic blockade of 1.17 (95% confidence interval 0.80–1.72).14 However, the effect of sympathetic blockade on long-term pain relief was inconclusive.14 A randomized trial of SGB with 0.5% bupivacaine versus guanethidine intravenous (IV) regional block (which in itself lacks strong evidence of efficacy as discussed later) found significant improvement in both groups and no significant difference between SGB and guanethidine IV regional block.15 SNBs may be repeated if there is short-term benefit in those patients who had a clear reduction of pain, improved ROM, and increase tolerance to PT and/or OT.1,2,6 However, there is lack of evidence to support routine extended series of SNB. The addition of botulinum toxin to LSB has been studied as a potential option to prolong the analgesic duration of the LSB.16,17 Carroll et al. conducted a small prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled crossover study of nine patients with refractory CRPS type I. The botulinum toxin enhanced the analgesic effect of LSB. Each patient received two injections, the first with 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine and the second with 10 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine plus 75 units of botulinum toxin A. The median time to analgesic failure in patients who received bupivacaine plus botulinum toxin was 71 days compared with less than 10 days

68

Challenging Neuropathic Pain Syndromes

when patients received bupivacaine alone.16 Choi et al. reported similar findings in a case study consisting of two male patients with CRPS after ankle injuries. Pain relief lasted for 2 months after injection of 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine plus 5000 IU of botulinum toxin type B compared with only 5 h after injection with bupivacaine alone. Furthermore, there was no further need for opioid pain medications after LSB using botulinum toxin.17 Despite these promising findings, additional studies with larger sample sizes are required. Potential complications of SGB and LSB include needle injury to the nearby visceral organs and neurovascular structures. The SGB can cause pneumothorax, hemothorax, and injury to the brachial plexus, trachea, or esophagus. The local anesthetics can cause laryngeal nerve block, resulting in hoarseness of voice, or phrenic nerve block, which can lead to diaphragmatic paralysis with respiratory depression, and hence bilateral SGB is contraindicated.10 SNB can cause vasodilation of the extremities, which may lead to orthostatic hypotension; thus blood pressure needs to be monitored. Genitofemoral neuritis is a possible complication specific to LSB.13 As with any injection, infection can occur. 

CHEMICAL AND SURGICAL SYMPATHECTOMY For longer term relief, chemical or surgical sympathec­ tomy has been performed for SMP from CRPS in those patients who receive transient relief from SGB or LSB. Chemical sympathectomy involves using alcohol or phenol injection to denature the proteins of the sympathetic chain ganglion. Outcomes for chemical sympathectomy are variable with uncertain efficacy.1 Surgical treatment can be performed by open removal or electrocoagulation of the sympathetic chain ganglion or by minimally invasive techniques using stereotactic thermal or laser ablation. The effect of analgesia may last for up to 1 year with radiofrequency ablation. Nerve regeneration is common following both surgical and chemical ablation, and recurrence of symptoms and development of postsympathectomy neuralgia is common. Manjunath et al. randomized 20 patients with lower limb CRPS to either radiofrequency or phenol lumbar sympathectomy and found a statistically significant reduction from baseline in all pain scores for both treatment groups at 4 months’ follow-up. Complications of sympathectomy include postsympathectomy neuralgia in up to 50% of patients, as well as hyperhidrosis and persistent Horner syndrome (for SGB).18 Owing to the poor evidence for long-term

effectiveness coupled with the risk of complications, sympathectomy should be used with great caution and reserved only for patients who have failed other treatments options but responded to SNB. 

INTRAVENOUS REGIONAL ANESTHESIA Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) involves peripheral injection of medication, including sympatholytics, anesthetics, or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs into the affected extremity. IVRA has been used for many years to empirically treat CRPS with a wide variety of substances, including guanethidine, lidocaine, bretylium, clonidine, droperidol, ketanserin, or reserpine.4 IVRA with guanethidine to treat CRPS was first described by Hannington-Kiff, and the procedure consists of intravenous injection of guanethidine, followed by elevation of the injected arm and then inflation of a tourniquet above the patient’s systolic pressure. The tourniquet is then maintained for 15–30 min while the medication bathes the area, then the tourniquet is slowing released. The theory is that this causes displacement of noradrenaline from presynaptic vesicles and prevents the reuptake causing increased blood flow.13,19 Numerous IVRA trials using guanethidine have been conducted and have been proved to be largely ineffective. Perez et al. conducted a meta-analysis of nine IVRA studies, and six of those included guanethidine.20 The analysis showed a lack of proven effect of IVRA overall and guanethidine in particular. Other studies have also reported generally negative outcomes. Ramamurthy et al. conducted a double-blind, multicenter randomized control trial comparing IVRA with guanethidine with control of lidocaine in 60 patients with CRPS and found no difference in long-term outcomes.21 Another study compared low-dose guanethidine with saline and did not find significant differences between the groups. The study had to be terminated because of complications from high-dose guanethidine.22 Many other IVRA trials have been done using atropine, guanethidine, lidocaine, bretylium, clonidine, droperidol, ketanserin, and reserpine. Of these agents, only bretylium and ketanserin IVRA have shown some modest efficacy.22 One retrospective study that evaluated IVRA using lidocaine and ketorolac showed ketorolac had pain-relieving effects.23 However, a randomized, double-blind crossover study found that lidocaine with ketorolac reduced pain significantly for only 1 day. All other outcome measures found no difference between treatment with lidocaine alone and lidocaine with ketorolac.24 In summary, based on the available literature, the efficacy of IVRA in treating CRPS is poor. 

CHAPTER 9  Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Interventional Treatment

69

INTRAVENOUS INFUSION

SPINAL CORD STIMULATION

Various agents have been used for intravenous infusion attempting to treat CRPS. Ketamine has been the most widely utilized and studied. Ketamine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, has been used in the treatment of acute and chronic pain, targeting the central sensitization of pain.25,26 Central sensitization is a phenomenon whereby persistent activation of the nociceptor results in an increased excitatory transmission along the afferent fibers. Over time the continuous and repetitive activation results in modulation of the dorsal root ganglion (DRG) and dorsal horn wide dynamic range (WDR) neurons, which accentuate the responsiveness of the nociceptive pathways. NMDA receptor activation plays a significant role in the accentuated response to repeated noxious stimulation.25,27 In a randomized controlled trial by Sigtermans, patients receiving 100 h continuous IV infusion of subanesthetic ketamine had a significantly lower pain score for the first 11 weeks of the study compared with those receiving placebo. However, by week 12 of the study, there was no significant improvement in pain relief. Also, there was no significant improvement in function.28 Schwartzmann conducted a doubleblind placebo-controlled study of 19 patients with CRPS and found that IV infusion of normal saline with ketamine for 4 h daily for 10 days resulted in a significant reduction in weekly pain measures for the duration of the study (12 weeks) and nonsignificant improvements in quantitative sensory testing.29 Kiefer et al. conducted a nonrandomized, open label, Phase II trial of continuous IV infusion of ketamine at an anesthetic dose for 5 days in 20 patients with refractory CRPS. All patients were sedated during the treatment period. The study showed a significant pain reduction in the Numeric Rating Scale from baseline in all patients at 1 week and at 6 months (8.0 vs. 2, P < .001) post infusion. They also found complete remission from CRPS in all patients at 1 month, in 17 of 20 patients at 3 months, and in 16 of 20 patients at 6 months. The study demonstrated efficacy using an anesthetic dose of ketamine, but investigators highlighted safety as a main concern.30 Adverse effects of ketamine have been found to include possible liver toxicity, psychotropic side effects, nightmares, insomnia, and hallucinogenic and other psychomimetric effects. Although ketamine is generally safe, there is only low- to moderate-quality evidence showing the efficacy of IV ketamine infusion in treating CRPS.7,25,26 

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a reversible and nondestructive method of controlling chronic, severe, and intractable pain. SCS involves delivering an electrical field directly over the dorsal columns of the spinal cord to modulate pain generation and processing. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and CRPS when there has been a failure or inadequate response to more conservative medical management. The development of the Gate Control Theory of pain by Wall and Melzack in 1965 led to the first case report of SCS in a human for chronic intractable pain.31 In 1967 Shealy performed a thoracic laminectomy and sutured an electrode to the dura of a patient with intractable chest and abdominal wall pain from inoperable metastatic lung cancer. The patient had significant pain relief and was quickly off opioid medications. Unfortunately, the patient died shortly thereafter from medical issues unrelated to the procedure.32 The technology and understanding of its mechanism of action has evolved over time. The current understanding of the mechanism of pain relief of SCS has been found to be complex and incompletely understood. The Gate Control Theory still serves as a core mechanism of action, but the details are controversial and there are other factors and distinct mechanisms of action. Wall and Melzack theorized that cells of the substantia gelatinosa in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord act as a gate control system, modulating transmission of nerve impulses from the peripheral to central nervous system via inhibitory interneurons. Stimulation of large myelinated afferent αβ fibers effectively “closes the gate” to pain-transmitting small unmyelinated C fibers and small myelinated αδ fibers.31 Modulation of neural activity with SCS has been found to occur at several levels of the nervous system, including ascending and descending pathways via peripheral nerves, suppression of dorsal horn WDR neuronal hyperexcitability, supraspinal inhibition, and the sympathetic nervous system.33,34 In addition, alterations of local neurochemistry have been identified. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis in the area of SCS in animal models has demonstrated an increased release of the inhibitory neurotransmitter γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Furthermore, pain relief from SCS can be blocked with a GABA antagonist. Increased glycine, serotonin, and adenosine have also been found, as well as decreased excitatory neurotransmitters of glutamate and aspartate.33,35 Contributions from endogenous

Mechanism of Action

70

Challenging Neuropathic Pain Syndromes

opioid release have not been found to exist, and the pain relief of SCS is not reversed or blocked by naloxone.36 

Procedure Technique Placement in the epidural space over the dorsal columns is typically performed in a two-stage process. Initially, a temporary trial is undertaken, whereby a cylindrical lead with multiple electrodes at its tip is placed percutaneously via an introducer needle under fluoroscopic guidance. The target spinal level of placement is guided by the sensory mapping work of Barolat, where the goal is to overlap pleasant paresthesia sensations in the area of the patients’ pain.37 Sedation is diminished so that patients can clearly confirm that paresthesia coverage is present over their appropriate individual painful sites. Intraoperative adjustments of electrode location can be made via repositioning the lead(s). Once the location is optimal, the needle is removed and the electrode is secured to the skin and left in place for the 3- to 7-day trial period (see Figs. 9.7–9.9). An example of the procedure being performed under fluoroscopic guidance is shown in figures 9.7–9.9. The external portion is connected to a controller that allows programming with variations in frequency, pulse width, and amplitude to optimize pain control.

FIG. 9.8  Spinal cord stimulator trial—Part 2. (Copyright

David Stolzenberg, DO.)

FIG. 9.7  Spinal cord stimulator trial—Part 1. (Copyright

FIG. 9.9  Spinal cord stimulator trial—Part 3. (Copyright

David Stolzenberg, DO.)

David Stolzenberg, DO.)

CHAPTER 9  Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Interventional Treatment Anatomic impediments to safe percutaneous cylindrical trial lead placement, typically spinal stenosis or prior posterior spine surgery at the levels where the lead would enter or traverse, necessitate a more invasive surgical trial. This is performed in a similar fashion to a permanent surgical implant via a small laminotomy. A successful trial should have a minimum of 50% pain relief, which has been associated with a higher probability of long-term success. Less than 50% success is highly associated with long-term treatment failure.38 There should be functional improvements and a decrease in pain medications. After a successful trial, a permanent implant can be performed and the generator is internalized with a surgical pocket in a similar fashion to a pacemaker. The permanent system can utilize similar cylindrical leads used in the trial or a flat paddle lead via laminotomy. The main advantages to surgical paddle leads are the capability of broader stimulation patterns and lower stimulation requirements, which may prolong battery life. Classically they were felt to be more stable with less lead migration and positional effects on stimulation, but that is now controversial because of newer anchoring systems and techniques with percutaneous leads.39 

Efficacy of SCS in CRPS Many studies have shown a strong efficacy for SCS in CRPS with regards to reducing pain and improving limb function and quality of life (QOL); however, only a few are of robust methodologic quality. Kemlers’ study in the New England Journal of Medicine was a prospective randomized controlled trial that evaluated 54 patients with chronic severe pain and functional impairment from CRPS who had failed extensive conservative care. The initial study had a 1-year followup, and a subsequent study continued to follow up patients for 5 years.40,41 Patients were randomized into SCS plus PT (n = 36) or PT alone (n = 18). The PT regimen was standardized and performed for 6 months in both groups. In 24 of 36 patients who underwent SCS trial, greater than 50% relief was obtained, and these patients went on to implantation. Pain and healthrelated QOL measures improved significantly more in the SCS plus PT group than in the PT alone group at 1 year, although there was no change in function. Of those who underwent implantation, 20 of 24 had 50% pain relief, and a visual analog scale (VAS) decrease of 2.7 at 1 year, whereas pain was slightly increased with PT alone.40 Five-year follow-up data revealed similar results, although there was some diminished effectiveness of SCS over time. The difference between groups on

71

intent-to-treat analysis was no longer statistically significant. Nonetheless, those with SCS had a 2.5 VAS improvement versus 1.0 with PT alone, 11 of 20 patients who underwent implantation maintained greater than 50% pain relief, and 95% of patients with SCS would have repeated the treatment for the same results at 5 years.41 Another study with a long-term follow-up on 25 patients, averaging 88 months, demonstrated a slight regression of outcome with SCS over time, but the statistical significance remained for improvements in pain on VAS, disability via Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), mood via Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and other QOL parameters.42 Geurts published a large prospective cohort study in 2013 with follow-up data of up to 12 years, with a mean of 5.2 years, on 84 consecutive patients with CRPS after a positive SCS trial. Treatment success was defined as a 30% reduction in pain relief. About 63% of patients who underwent implantation still met this criterion at long-term follow-up. About 59% of patients rated pain as “much” or “very much” improved.38 In another prospective study, 29 patients with CRPS type I and SMP, proven by response to SNB and negative placebo block, were followed up for 3 years after SCS implantation. Stimulation was periodically turned off during the trial, and full return of pain occurred in all patients during those times. Outcomes included a greater than 80% decrease in deep pain and allodynia, significantly increased function on the pain disability index, grip strength in upper limb CRPS, ability to walk without crutches in lower limb CRPS, and decrease in pain medications, with 17 of 29 no longer requiring any pain medication.43 Reig followed up 40 patients with SCS for CRPS for an average of 38 months; 47.5% obtained pain relief between 50% and 75%, and 7.5% of patients received greater than 75% relief.44 Numerous other prospective and retrospective studies report similar outcomes, with between 45% and 80% of patients achieving greater than 50% pain relief with SCS, with results limited by study designs and quality.45–52 

Optimizing Outcomes of SCS in CRPS Several factors have been evaluated with regards to predicting and achieving optimal outcomes. Two studies have evaluated the outcomes in CRPS type I with SMP and suggest that SMP responds to SCS better than SIP. Hord performed a multicenter retrospective study of 23 patients who had an adequate SNB and later underwent SCS trial. All sympathetic blocks were confirmed to be technically adequate by temperature elevation in the limb of at least 1°C. The block was considered positive if greater than 50% pain relief was achieved,

72

Challenging Neuropathic Pain Syndromes

and these patients were determined to have SMP. All 13 patients who experienced a positive response to SNB had a positive SCS trial, whereas only 3 of 10 patients with a negative SNB had a positive SCS trial. The seven patients with negative SNB had poor pain relief during the SCS trial despite adequate paresthesia coverage. At 9 months’ follow-up after permanent SCS implantation, 88% of those with SMP had a greater than 50% pain relief compared with 33% with SIP.53 Another study described earlier, with all patients having SMP, demonstrated a much greater than typical response with SCS in terms of pain relief and functional improvement.43 A shorter duration of time between pain onset and implantation with SCS is strongly associated with positive outcomes. Kumar found that the best SCS outcomes occur within 1 year of onset of CRPS and in the early stages of the disease rather than as a last resort after a protracted course.42 It has also been demonstrated in a study involving 410 patients with CRPS and other diagnosis, such as FBSS, that if time to SCS treatment was less than 2 years from pain onset, the longterm success rate was 85%, but it declined substantially thereafter and was only 9% if implantation was delayed beyond 15 years.54 With regards to outcomes for SCS on upper versus lower limb CRPS, no significant difference has been demonstrated.47,54 Psychologic factors such as depression and fear avoidance are negative predictive factors. Workers compensation insurance coverage is also a negative predictive factor for pain relief and return-towork rates as compared with other types of insurers.54 One study found that an increased severity of allodynia was associated with a lower chance of achieving longterm pain reduction with SCS, whereas no correlation was found with age, baseline pain severity, or gender.55 

Cost-effectiveness of SCS in CRPS Several studies have demonstrated that SCS is overall more cost-effective than conventional management over the long term, despite the initial increased costs. Kemler demonstrated that SCS for CRPS becomes less expensive than conventional treatment after 3 years and cost-effective at 2 years.56 The predicted lifetime cost savings is $60,000 when SCS is used with conventional medical management.57,58 

Future Innovations in SCS There are several promising newer variations of SCS, with some theoretical advantages in CRPS, but little to no data specifically in CRPS. DRG stimulation involves the placement of epidural leads directly in the neuroforamen near the DRG relevant to the patient’s location

of pain and allows the targeting of discrete body areas that can be difficult to reach or isolate with traditional SCS (i.e., foot).59,60 Only one study involved patients with CRPS. In a prospective trial of 51 patients with a variety of diagnosis, 39 had positive trials, including 9 with CRPS. At 6 months, foot pain was decreased by greater than 50% in 84.5% of patients compared with 52% for leg or back pain. There was no outcome breakdown by diagnosis.60 Novel electrical parameters have also been developed and compared with traditional tonic stimulation, with favorable results in several studies. Both highfrequency and burst stimulation (which provides intermittent brief packets of closely spaced stimulation), provide pain relief without the need for paresthesias in the areas of pain.61–64 Although the lack of paresthesia in general or outside the painful area seems intuitively advantageous, this type of stimulation has yet to be rigorously tested for efficacy specifically in CRPS. The lack of paresthesia will also allow for future blinded and placebo-controlled studies on SCS, which is not possible with tonic, paresthesia-based, stimulation. 

AMPUTATION Amputation is a controversial treatment option for refractory severe CRPS.1 A study involving 31 amputations showed that CRPS symptoms recurred in 28 of the residual limbs after amputation. Furthermore, only two patients were able to tolerate prosthesis because of the recurrence of CRPS symptoms post amputation.65 Interestingly, another retrospective study involving 22 patients with CRPS type I found that most patients experienced reduced pain and increased mobility after amputation. CRPS symptoms recurred in the residual limb in 14% of patients. In 10% of patients, symptoms developed in a different limb.66 Another study compared pain and depression in 19 patients who underwent amputation for intractable CRPS and 19 patients who did not have the procedure. The results showed that the amputation group consistently reported less pain and depression than those who chose against amputation as a treatment.67 Overall, the current literature on amputation for CRPS is limited and reports mixed findings. More research is required for amputation to be considered a routine treatment option for CRPS. 

INTRATHECAL MEDICATION Evidence for intrathecal (IT) pain medication efficacy in CRPS is very limited. Several studies have evaluated

CHAPTER 9  Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Interventional Treatment the utilization of IT baclofen, a GABA-B agonist, particularly in those with CRPS-associated dystonia given its accepted use in severe refractory spasticity and dystonia. One study with 42 subjects and 12 months’ follow-up sought to evaluate the effects of IT baclofen on dystonia, though also noted significant benefits in pain, disability, and quality of life. Of the 36 patients who had IT pumps implanted, there was a high rate of complications and six pumps were explanted during the study period.68 A follow-up study was designed to determine if the decrease in pain from IT baclofen was independent from the improvement in dystonia. Significantly decreased pain was seen during the first 6 months, and then the pain leveled off, whereas further escalating doses of baclofen further improved dystonia, indicating a separate effect.69

REFERENCES 1. Freedman M, Greis AC, Marino L, et al. Complex regional pain syndrome: diagnosis and treatment. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2014;25(2):291–303. 2. Stanton-Hicks M, Baron R, Boas R, et al. Complex regional pain syndromes: guidelines for therapy. Clin J Pain. 1998;14:155–166. 3. Evans J. Sympathectomy for reflex sympathetic dystrophy: report of 29 cases. JAMA. 1946;132:620–623. 4. Harden RN, Oaklander AL, Burton AW, et al. Complex regional pain syndrome: practical diagnostic and treatment guidelines, 4th edition. Pain Med. 2013;14:180–229. 5. Bonica JJ. The Management of Pain. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Feibiger; 1953. 6. Nelson DV, Stacey BR. Interventional therapies in the management of complex regional pain syndrome. Clin J Pain. 2006;22(5):438–442. 7. O’Connell NE, Wand BM, McAuley J, et al. Interventions for treating pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome- an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4). 8. Furman MB, Lee TS, Berkwits L. Atlas of Image-Guided Spinal Procedures. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2013. 9. Malmqvist EL, Bengtsson M, Sorensen J. Efficacy of stellate ganglion block: a clinical study with bupivacaine. Reg Anesth. 1992;17:340–347. 10. Elias M. Cervical sympathetic and stellate ganglion blocks. Pain Physician. 2000;3:294–304. 11. Price D, Long S, Wilsey B, et al. Analysis of peak magnitude and duration of analgesia produced by local anesthetics injected into sympathetic ganglia of complex regional pain syndrome patients. Clin J Pain. 1998;14: 216–226. 12. Burton A, Conroy B, Sims S, et al. Complex regional pain syndrome type II as a complication of subclavian line insertion (letter). Anesthesiology. 1998;89:804.

73

13. van Eijs F, Stanton-Hicks M, Van Zundert J, et al. Evidencebased interventional pain medicine according to clinical diagnoses. Complex regional pain syndrome. Pain Pract. 2011;11:70–87. 14. Cepeda M, Lau J, Carr D. Defining the therapeutic role of local anesthetic sympathetic blockade in complex regional pain syndrome: a narrative and systematic review. Clin J Pain. 2002;18:216–233. 15. Bonelli S, Conoscente F, Movilia P, et al. Regional intravenous guanethidine versus stellate ganglion blocks in reflex sympathetic dystrophy: a randomized trial. Pain. 1983;16:297–307. 16. Carroll I, Clark JD, Mackey S. Sympathetic block with botulinum toxin to treat complex regional pain syndrome. Ann Neurol. 2009;65(3):348–351. 17. Choi E, Cho CW, Kim HY, et al. Lumbar sympathetic block with botulinum toxin type B for complex regional pain syndrome: a case study. Pain Physician J. 2015;18: E911–E916. 18. Manjunath PS, Jayalakshimi TS, Dureja GP, et al. Management of lower limb complex regional pain syndrome type 1: an evaluation of percutaneous radiofrequency thermal lumbar sympathectomy versus phenol lumbar sympathetic neurolysis – a pilot study. Anesth Analg. 2008;106(2): 647–649. 19. Hannington-Kiff JG. Intravenous regional sympathetic block with guanethidine. Lancet. 1974;1:1019–1020. 20. Perez R, Kwakkel G, Zuurmond W, et al. Treatment of reflex sympathetic dystrophy (CRPS type I): a research synthesis of 21 randomized clinical trials. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001;21:511–526. 21. Ramamurthy S, Hoffman J, Group GS. Intravenous regional guanethidine in the treatment of reflex sympathetic dystrophy/causalgia: a randomized double blind study. Anesth Analg. 1995;81:718–723. 22. Jadad AR, Carroll D, Glynn CJ, et al. Intravenous regional sympathetic dystrophy: a systemic review and a randomized, double-blind crossover study. J Pain Symptom Manage. 1995;10:13–20. 23. Hanna MH, Peat SJ. Ketanserin in reflex sympathetic dystrophy. A double-blind placebo controlled cross-over trial. Pain. 1989;38:145–150. 24. Eckmann MS, Ramamurthy S, Griffin JG. Intravenous regional ketorolac and lidocaine in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome of the lower extremity: a randomized, double-blinded, crossover study. Clin J Pain. 2011;27(3):203–206. 25. Connolly SB, Prager JP, Harden RN. A systemic review of ketamine for complex regional pain syndrome. Pain Med. 2015;16:943–969. 26. Azari P, Lindsay DR, Briones D, et al. Efficacy and safety of ketamine in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review. CNS Drugs. 2012;26(3): 215–228. 27. Kosharskyy B, Almonte W, Shaparin N, et al. Intravenous infusions in chronic pain management. Pain Phys. 2013;16(3):231–249.

74

Challenging Neuropathic Pain Syndromes

28. Sigtermans MJ, Hilten JJ, Bauer MC, et al. Ketamine produces effective and long-term pain relief in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1. Pain. 2009;145(3):304–311. 29. Schwartzman RJ, Alexander GM, Grothusen JR, et al. Outpatient intravenous ketamine for the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind placebo controlled study. Pain. 2009;147(1–3):107–115. 30. Kiefer RT, Rohr P, Ploppa A, et al. Efficacy of ketamine in anesthetic dosage for the treatment of refractory complex regional pain syndrome: an open-label phase II study. Pain Med. 2008;9(8):1173–1201. 31. Melzack R, Wall P. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science. 1965;150:971–979. 32. Shealy C, Mortimer J, Resnick J. Electrical inhibition of pain by stimulation of the dorsal columns. Preliminary reports. J Int Anesth Res Soc. 1967;46:489–491. 33. Oakley J, Prager J. Spinal cord stimulation: mechanism of action. Spine. 2002;22:2574–2583. 34. Linderoth B, Foreman R. Physiology of spinal cord stimulation. Review and update. Neuromodulation. 1999;3:150–164. 35. Duggan AW, Fong FW. Bicuculline and spinal inhibition produced by dorsal column stimulation in the cat. Pain. 1985;22:249–259. 36. Stiller C-O, Cui J-G, O’Connor WT, et al. Release of GABA in the dorsal horn and suppression of tactile allodynia by spinal cord stimulation in mononeuropathic rats. Neurosurgery. 1996;39:367–375. 37. Barolat G, Massaro F, He J, et al. Mapping of sensory responses to epidural stimulation of the intraspinal neural structures in man. J Neurosurg. 1993;78:233–239. 38. Geurts J, Smits H, Kemler M, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome type I: a prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. Neuromodulation. 2013;16:523–529. 39. North R, Kidd D, Olin J, et al. Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: a prospective randomized comparison of percutaneous and insulated paddle electrodes. In: Abstracts of the 4th International Congress of the International Neuromodulation Society. 1998:211. 40. Kemler M, Barendse G, van Kleef M, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:618–624. 41. Kemler M, de Vet C, Barendse G, et al. Effect of spinal cord stimulation for chronic complex regional pain syndrome type I. Five-year final follow-up of patients in a randomized controlled trial. J Neurosurg. 2008;108:292–298. 42. Kumar K, Rizvi S, Bishop S. Spinal cord stimulation is effective in management of complex regional pain syndrome I: fact or fiction. Neurosurgery. 2011;69:566. 43. Harke H, Gretenkort P, Ladleif H, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in sympathetically maintained complex regional pain syndrome type I with severe disability. A prospective clinical study. Eur J Pain. 2005;9:363–373. 44. Reig E, Abejan D. Spinal cord stimulation. A 20-year retrospective analysis in 260 patients. Neuromodulation. 2009;12:232–239.

45. Oakley J, Weiner R. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome. A prospective study of 19 patients at two centers. Neuromodulation. 2002;1:47–50. 46. Moriyama K, Murakawa K, Uno T, et al. A prospective, open-label, multicenter study to assess the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation and identify patients who would benefit. Neuromodulation. 2012;15:7–11. 47. Forouzanfar T, Kemler M,Weber W, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome: cervical and lumbar devices are comparably effective. Br J Anaesth. 2004;92:348–353. 48. Bennett D, Alo K, Oakley J, et al. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome I. A retrospective multicenter experience from 1995–1998 of 101 patients. Neuromodulation. 1999;3:202–210. 49. Calvillo O, Racz G, Didie J, et al. Neuroaugmentation in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome of the upper extremity. Acta Orthop Belg. 1998;1:57–63. 50. Kumar K, Hunter G, Demeria D. Spinal cord stimulation in treatment of chronic benign pain: challenges in treatment planning and present status, a 22-year experience. Neurosurgery. 2006;58:481–496. 51. Sears N, Machado A, Nagel S, et al. Long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation with paddle leads in the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome and failed back surgery syndrome. Neuromodulation. 2011;14:312–318. 52. Olsson G, Meyerson B, Linderoth B. Spinal cord stimulation in adolescents with complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS-I). Eur J Pain. 2008;12:53. 53. Hord E, Cohen S, Cosgrove G, et al. The predictive value of sympathetic block for the success of spinal cord stimulation. Neurosurgery. 2003;53(3):626–632. 54. Kumar K, Wilson J. Factors affecting spinal cord stimulation outcome in chronic benign pain with suggestions to improve success rate. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2007;97:91–99. 55. Van Eijs F, Smits H, Geurts J, et al. Brush-evoked allodynia predicts outcome of spinal cord stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome type 1. Eur J Pain. 2010;14: 164–169. 56. Kemler M, Raphael J, Bentley A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome. Value Health. 2010;13:735–742. 57. Taylor R, Buyten J, Buchser E. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome. A systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors. Eur J Pain. 2006;10:91–101. 58. Kumar K, Rizvi S. Cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation therapy in management of chronic pain. Pain Med. 2013;14:1631–1649. 59. Deer T, Grigsby E, Weiner R, et al. A prospective study of dorsal root ganglion stimulation for the relief of chronic pain. Neuromodulation. 2012;16:67–71. 60. Liem L, Russo M, Huygen F, et al. A multicenter, prospective trial to assess the safety and performance of the spinal modulation dorsal root ganglion neurostimulator system in the treatment of chronic pain. Neuromodulation. 2013;16:471–482.

CHAPTER 9  Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: Interventional Treatment 61. De Ridder D, Vanneste S, Plazier M, et al. Burst spinal cord stimulation: toward paresthesia-free pain suppression. Neurosurgery. 2010;66:986–990. 62. De Ridder D, Plazier M, Kamerling N, et al. Burst spinal cord stimulation for limb and back pain. World Neurosurg. 2013;80:642–649. 63. Al-Kaisy A, Van Buyten J, Smet I, et al. Sustained effectiveness of 10 kHz high-frequency spinal cord stimulation for patients with chronic low back pain: 24-month results of a prospective multicenter study. Pain Med. 2013;15:347–354. 64. Kapural L, Yu C, Doust M, et al. Novel 10-kHz high-frequency therapy (HF10 therapy) is superior to traditional low-frequency spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain: the SENZA-RCT randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(4): 851–860.

75

65. Dielissen PW, Claassen AT, Veldman PH, et al. Amputation for reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Bone Joint J. 1995;77-B:270–273. 66. Krans-Schreuder HK, Bodde MI, et al. Amputation for long-standing, therapy-resistant type-I complex regional pain syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94(24):2263–2268. 67. Midbari A, Suzan E, Adler T, et al. Amputation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a comparative study between amputees and non-amputees with intractable disease. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-B(4):548–554. 68. VanderPlas AA, VanRijn MA, Marinus J, et al. Efficacy of intrathecal baclofen on different pain qualities in complex regional pain syndrome. Anesth Analg. 2013;116:211–215. 69. VanRijn MA, Munts AG, Marinus J, et al. Intrathecal baclofen for dystonia of complex regional pain syndrome. Pain. 2009;143:41–47.