↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Spinal cord stimulation for treatment of the pain associated with hereditary multiple osteochondromas

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Spinal cord stimulation for treatment of the pain associated with hereditary multiple osteochondromas
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s86790
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ravi G Mirpuri, Jereme Brammeier, Hamilton Chen, Frank PK Hsu, Vi K Chiu, Eric Y Chang

Abstract

Hereditary multiple osteochondromas (HMO) usually presents with neoplastic lesions throughout the skeletal system. These lesions frequently cause chronic pain and are conventionally treated with surgical resection and medication. In cases where conventional treatments have failed, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) could be considered as a potential option for pain relief. The objective of this case was to determine if SCS may have a role in treating pain secondary to neoplastic lesions from HMO. We report a 65-year-old female who previously received both surgical and pharmacological interventions for treating HMO neoplastic pain in the lumbar, pelvis, femur, and tibial regions. These interventions either failed to offer significant pain relief or caused excessive lethargy. A SCS trial was then offered with a dual 16-contact lead trial leading to 70%-80% improvement in pain from baseline and 85% reduction in oxycodone IR intake. This was followed by permanent implantation of two 2×8 contact paddle leads (T7-T8 and T9-T10 interspaces). After 8-week follow-up, settings were further optimized resulting in an additional 30% improvement in pain compared to last visit. At 6-month follow-up, the patient reported continued pain relief. This case demonstrates the first successful use of SCS to treat both HMO and nonmalignant neoplastic-related pain. The patient reported pain improvement from baseline, reduced pain medication requirements, and subjective improvement in quality of life. Additionally, this case demonstrates the potential advantage of trialing multiple painful areas with a 16-contact lead in order to avoid multiple trials and placement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 34%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 8 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,791
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,293
of 276,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#27
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.