Epidural Catheter Design

Background: Continuous epidural infusions are commonly used in clinical settings to reduce the likelihood of transition to postherpetic neuralgia via pain control. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of conventional continuous epidural infusion to that of continuous epidural infusion in which the catheter is guided by electric stimulation to areas with neurological damage for the treatment of zoster-related pain and prevention of postherpetic neuralgia. Methods: We analyzed the medical records of 114 patients in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: contrast (conventional continuous epidural infusion) and stimulation (continuous epidural infusion with epidural electric stimulation). In the contrast group, the position of the epidural catheter was confirmed using contrast medium alone, whereas in the stimulation group, the site of herpes zoster infection was identified through electric stimulation using a guidewire in the catheter. Clinical efficacy was assessed using a numerical rating scale (pain score) up to 6 months after the procedures. We compared the percentage of patients who showed complete remission (pain score less than 2 and no further medication) in each group. We also investigated whether the patients required additional interventional treatment due to insufficient pain control during the 6-month follow-up period after each procedure. Results: After adjusting for confounding variables, the pain score was significantly lower in the stimulation group than in the contrast group for 6 months after the procedure. After adjustment, the odds of complete remission were 1.9-times higher in the stimulation group than in the contrast group (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-4.44, P = 0.14). Patients in the contrast group were significantly more likely to require other interventions within 6 months of the procedure than patients in the stimulation group (odds ratio: 3.62, 95% CI: 1.17-11.19, P = 0.03). Conclusion: Epidural drug administration to specific spinal segments using electric stimulation catheters may be more helpful than conventional continuous epidural infusion for improving pain and preventing postherpetic neuralgia in the acute phase of herpes zoster.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 50%

Efficacy of continuous epidural infusion with epidural electric stimulation compared to that of conventional continuous epidural infusion for acute herpes zoster management: a retrospective study

et al. 2020

“…Reportedly, closed-tip, multi-orifice catheters are more effective for sensory blocks than open-tip, end-hole catheters. However, in our study, the stimulation group (in which open-tip, endhole catheters were used) showed greater pain reduction than the contrast group (in which closed-tip multi-orifice catheters were used) [14,15]. These results suggest that a continuous epidural infusion utilizing electric stimulation to confirm the location of herpes zoster is more effective in achieving pain relief than the conventional continuous epidural infusion.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 49%

Efficacy of continuous epidural infusion with epidural electric stimulation compared to that of conventional continuous epidural infusion for acute herpes zoster management: A retrospective study

Choi

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: Continuous epidural infusions are commonly used in clinical settings to reduce the likelihood of transition to postherpetic neuralgia via pain control. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of conventional continuous epidural infusion to that of continuous epidural infusion in which the catheter is guided by electric stimulation to areas with neurological damage for the treatment of zoster-related pain and prevention of postherpetic neuralgia.Methods: We analyzed the medical records of 114 patients in this study. The patients were divided into two groups: contrast (conventional continuous epidural infusion) and stimulation (continuous epidural infusion with epidural electric stimulation). In the contrast group, the position of the epidural catheter was confirmed using contrast medium alone, whereas in the stimulation group, the site of herpes zoster infection was identified through electric stimulation using a guidewire in the catheter. Clinical efficacy was assessed using a numerical rating scale (pain score) up to 6 months after the procedures. We compared the percentage of patients who showed complete remission (pain score less than 2 and no further medication) in each group. We also investigated whether the patients required additional interventional treatment due to insufficient pain control during the 6-month follow-up period after each procedure.Results: After adjusting for confounding variables, the pain score was significantly lower in the stimulation group than in the contrast group for 6 months after the procedure. After adjustment, the odds of complete remission were 1.9-times higher in the stimulation group than in the contrast group (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-4.44, P = 0.14). Patients in the contrast group were significantly more likely to require other interventions within 6 months of the procedure than patients in the stimulation group (odds ratio: 3.62, 95% CI: 1.17-11.19, P = 0.03).Conclusion: Epidural drug administration to specific spinal segments using electric stimulation catheters may be more helpful than conventional continuous epidural infusion for improving pain and preventing postherpetic neuralgia in the acute phase of herpes zoster.

“…There was also a difference in the drug injection site of the epidural catheter tip between the two groups. Reportedly, closed-tip, multi-orifice catheters are more effective for sensory blocks than open-tip, end-hole catheters; however, in the epistim group, where open-tip, end-hole catheters was used, a greater pain reduction was demonstrated than in the esopocan group, where closed-tip multiorifice catheters were used [14,15]. These results suggest that continuous epidural block, which uses electrical stimulation to confirm the location of herpes zoster, is more effective in achieving pain relief than the conventional continuous epidural block.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Efficacy of continuous epidural block with epidural electrical stimulation compared to conventional continuous epidural block for acute herpes zoster management: A retrospective study

Choi

et al. 2019

Preprint

Background Continuous epidural block is commonly used in clinical settings and reduces the likelihood of transition to postherpetic neuralgia via pain control. The purpose of the present study was to compare the efficacies of conventional continuous epidural block and continuous epidural block involving electric stimulation-guided localization of the catheter to areas with neurological damage, in the treatment of herpes zoster pain and prevention of postherpetic neuralgia.Methods We analyzed the medical records of 114 patients in the present study. The patients were divided into two groups: esopocan (conventional continuous epidural block) and epistim (continuous epidural block with epidural electric stimulation). In the esopocan group, the position of the epidural catheter was confirmed using contrast medium alone, whereas in the epistim group, the site of herpes zoster infection was identified through electric stimulation using the guidewire in the catheter. Clinical efficacy was assessed using a numerical rating scale (pain score) up to 6 months after the procedures. We compared the percentage of patients who showed complete remission (pain score less than 2 and no further medication) in each group. We also investigated whether the patients required additional interventional treatment due to insufficient pain control during the 6 month follow-up period after each procedure.Results After adjusting for confounding variables, the pain score was significantly lower in the epistim group than in the esopocan group for 6 months after the procedure. The adjusted odds ratio of patients included in the complete remission category was 1.9 times higher in the epistim group than the esopocan group (95% confidence interval: 0.81-4.44, P = 0.14). The adjusted odds ratio for other interventions within 6 months after the procedure was 3.62 times higher in the esopocan group than the epistim group (95% confidence interval: 1.17-11.19, P = 0.03). Conclusion Epidural drug administration to specific spinal segments using electrical stimulation catheters may be more helpful than conventional continuous epidural block in improving pain and preventing postherpetic neuralgia in acute herpes zoster.