Int J Pharm Pharm Sci, Vol 15, Issue 8, 1-8Review Article

CURRENT ADVANCEMENTS AND COMPLICATIONS IN INTRATHECAL DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEM

ABDUL MANNAN, MOHAMMED FAHAD*, FAIZAH AYESHA AMJAD, JUVERIA FATIMA

Department of Pharmaceutics, Deccan School of Pharmacy, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
*Corresponding author: Mohammed Fahad; *Email: mohammedfahad070401@gmail.com

Received: 28 May 2023, Revised and Accepted: 01 Jul 2023

ABSTRAC

Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) have emerged as a valuable treatment option for patients with chronic pain who have failed to achieve adequate relief with conventional therapies. These systems provide targeted delivery of medications directly to the cerebrospinal fluid, resulting in improved pain control and reduced systemic side effects. However, the use of IDDS is not without potential complications and considerations that must be addressed to ensure optimal patient outcomes. This comprehensive review examines the various complications associated with IDDS and the considerations that healthcare providers and patients need to be aware of. Surgical complications, such as infection, bleeding, spinal fluid leaks, and nerve damage, are discussed, along with strategies to minimize these risks. Device malfunctions, including pump failure, catheter issues, and electronic problems, are explored, highlighting the importance of regular monitoring and maintenance. Medication-related side effects, such as nausea, sedation, and respiratory depression, are addressed, emphasizing the need for close monitoring and appropriate dosage adjustments. Long-term considerations, including tolerance to medication, physical dependence, and withdrawal symptoms, are also examined, emphasizing the significance of gradual tapering and proper discontinuation protocols. The review underscores the importance of regular follow-up appointments to assess the system's functionality, medication dosages, and patient response to treatment. By proactively managing and addressing complications, healthcare providers can optimize pain relief and minimize adverse effects, ensuring the long-term effectiveness and safety of IDDS.

Keywords: Intrathecal drug delivery systems, Complications, Considerations, Surgical complications, Medication-related side effects, Long-term use

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Innovare Academic Sciences Pvt Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.22159/ijpps.2023v15i8.48573. Journal homepage: https://innovareacademics.in/journals/index.php/ijpps.

INTRODUCTION

Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) are advanced medical devices that deliver medications directly into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) surrounding the spinal cord [1]. These systems offer targeted and localized drug delivery, providing effective pain relief and management for various chronic pain and neurological conditions [2]. This article provides a comprehensive overview of intrathecal drug delivery systems, including their indications, components, implantation techniques, advantages, limitations, and emerging advancements [1, 2].

Indications for intrathecal drug delivery

Intrathecal drug delivery systems are primarily used in the management of chronic pain that is unresponsive to conventional treatments [1]. They are also employed in the treatment of spasticity, cancer pain, and certain neurologic disorders, such as dystonia and multiple sclerosis [1]. The selection of patients for IDDS is based on careful assessment, evaluation of the underlying condition, and consideration of the potential benefits and risks [1].

Fig. 1: Intrathecal catheter in subarachnoid space [1]

Components of intrathecal drug delivery systems

Implantable pump

The core component of an intrathecal drug delivery system is the implantable pump. These pumps are programmable and capable of delivering medications in a controlled and precise manner. The most commonly used pumps are programmable infusion pumps, which allow for adjustable drug doses and delivery rates to meet individual patient needs [2]. These pumps are typically placed in the subcutaneous pocket of the abdomen or the gluteal region.

Fig. 2: Implantable intrathecal drug delivery system [81]

Fig. 3: Example of placement of intrathecal drug delivery system pump [81]

Fig. 4: Synchromed system in synchroMed [82]

Table 1: Equianalgesic of opioids-oral to intravenous to epidural to intrathecal

Oral Intravenous Epidural Intrathecal
Morphine 30 mg 10 mg 1 mg 0.1 mg
Hydromorphone 4 mg 1 mg 0.1 mg 0.04 mg
Fentanyl Not available 100 mcg 33 mcg 10 mcg

Fig. 5: Exterior view of the SynchroMed® II pump

Fig. 6: Interior view of SynchroMed® II pump components

Fig. 7: Pump and spinal segments of the Ascenda® Intrathecal catheter adjoined by the catheter connector

Catheter system

The catheter system consists of a flexible catheter that is inserted into the intrathecal space and connected to the implantable pump. The catheter delivers the medication from the pump to the target area in the spinal cord or brain. The choice of catheter type and placement location depends on the specific indication and individual patient factors [3]. Advances in catheter design and materials aim to improve drug dispersion and minimize complications.

Implantation techniques

The implantation of an intrathecal drug delivery system involves a surgical procedure performed under sterile conditions. The procedure is typically performed using local anaesthesia and conscious sedation. Fluoroscopic guidance or real-time imaging techniques, such as ultrasound or computed tomography, may be utilized to ensure accurate catheter placement [4]. Proper surgical technique, adherence to infection control measures, and precise catheter positioning are essential for optimal outcomes.

Fig. 8: SynchroMed® II Clinician programmer components

Advantages of intrathecal drug delivery systems

Targeted drug delivery

Intrathecal drug delivery allows for precise targeting of the affected area, resulting in improved drug concentration at the site of action. This targeted drug delivery minimizes systemic side effects and enables lower medication doses compared to oral or systemic routes [5]. The ability to deliver medications directly to the CSF provides enhanced therapeutic efficacy and reduces the risk of adverse events.

Improved pain control

IDDS offers significant pain relief for patients with chronic pain conditions, including neuropathic pain, cancer pain, and spasticity-related pain. Intrathecal administration bypasses the blood-brain barrier, allowing for direct access to the central nervous system, where pain signals are transmitted and processed [6]. This direct drug delivery to the spinal cord or brain leads to effective pain management and improved quality of life for patients.

Reduced medication use

By delivering medications directly to the target area, intrathecal drug delivery systems allow for lower medication doses compared to systemic administration. This reduction in medication usage can minimize the potential for systemic side effects, such as gastrointestinal disturbances, sedation, and drug interactions [7]. Lower medication doses also decrease the likelihood of tolerance development and the need for dose escalation.

Limitations and potential complications

Infection

Infection is a potential complication associated with IDDS implantation. It can occur at the pump pocket or along the catheter tract. Strict adherence to aseptic techniques during the implantation procedure, appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, and regular monitoring for signs of infection are crucial [8]. Prompt diagnosis and early intervention are essential to minimize the risk of complications.

Catheter-related complications

Catheter-related complications include catheter migration, obstruction, and breakage. Catheter migration can lead to suboptimal drug delivery, while catheter obstruction can result in inadequate pain control. Catheter breakage may require catheter revision or replacement. Proper catheter placement, secure fixation, and regular monitoring are important measures to prevent and address catheter-related issues [9].

Pump-related issues

Mechanical complications, including pump failure and malfunction, can lead to inadequate drug delivery and treatment interruption. Pump failure can result from technical issues, such as motor failure, battery depletion, or programming errors. Malfunction may occur due to electronic or software problems, causing abnormal drug delivery patterns or cessation of drug infusion [8].

Adverse effects

Adverse effects associated with intrathecal drug delivery systems can include nausea, vomiting, constipation, urinary retention, pruritus, and respiratory depression. These side effects can occur due to the medication itself or the presence of the delivery system. Close patient monitoring, appropriate medication selection, and dose adjustment are crucial to manage adverse effects and optimize patient safety and comfort [10]. Although intrathecal drug delivery systems minimize systemic side effects, there are still potential risks and adverse events associated with the medications themselves. These can include allergic reactions, drug toxicity, respiratory depression, and neurological complications. Close monitoring and regular assessment of patients are necessary to identify and manage any adverse events promptly.

Emerging advancements

The field of intrathecal drug delivery is continuously evolving, and several advancements are being explored to improve the safety and effectiveness of these systems. Some of the emerging advancements include:

Wireless technology

Wireless technology is being investigated to enhance the programming and monitoring of intrathecal drug delivery systems. This could enable remote adjustments of drug delivery parameters and real-time monitoring of pump function, improving patient convenience and reducing the need for frequent clinic visits [1-5].

Smart pumps

Smart pumps are being developed to incorporate advanced features such as dose titration algorithms and integrated sensors. These pumps could provide more precise and individualized drug delivery based on real-time patient needs, optimizing pain control and reducing the risk of adverse events [6-8].

Novel catheter designs

Researchers are exploring new catheter designs and materials to improve drug dispersion, reduce catheter-related complications, and enhance patient comfort. Advances in catheter technology aim to optimize drug delivery efficiency and minimize the potential for catheter-related issues [9-12].

Targeted drug delivery systems

Targeted drug delivery systems, such as intrathecal drug delivery with drug-loaded nanoparticles or microparticles, are being investigated to improve drug distribution and prolong therapeutic effects. These systems aim to enhance the precision and effectiveness of drug delivery while reducing the frequency of medication refills [13-15].

Nanotechnology and drug formulations

Nanotechnology is being explored to develop novel drug formulations for intrathecal drug delivery. Nanoparticles can be engineered to encapsulate drugs and improve their solubility, stability, and targeting to specific sites within the central nervous system. This approach has the potential to enhance drug delivery efficiency and reduce the required drug doses, thereby minimizing side effects and improving patient outcomes [16-18].

Closed-loop systems

Closed-loop systems, also known as responsive neurostimulation, are being investigated as a potential advancement in intrathecal drug delivery. These systems use real-time feedback from sensors to automatically adjust drug dosing based on the patient's physiological responses and pain levels. By providing adaptive and personalized therapy, closed-loop systems have the potential to optimize pain control and minimize side effects [19-21].

Patient selection and tailored therapy

Advancements in imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), can help identify the precise location and extent of pathology in the central nervous system. This information can aid in patient selection for intrathecal drug delivery and enable tailored therapy based on the individual's specific needs [22-24].

Multimodal approaches

In some cases, combining intrathecal drug delivery with other treatment modalities, such as neurostimulation techniques or physical therapy, may result in synergistic effects and improved pain management outcomes. Multimodal approaches can be considered for patients who have not achieved adequate pain relief with intrathecal drug delivery alone [25-27].

Patient education and support

Proper patient education and support are crucial for the successful implementation and long-term management of intrathecal drug delivery systems. Patients should receive comprehensive information about the benefits, potential risks, and necessary lifestyle adjustments associated with these systems. They should also have access to resources and support networks to address any concerns or challenges that may arise during the course of therapy [28-30].

Long-term follow-up and research

Long-term follow-up studies are essential to evaluate the durability, safety, and effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems over extended periods. Continued research and collaboration among healthcare professionals, researchers, and manufacturers are necessary to further refine the technology, optimize patient selection criteria, and identify strategies to minimize complications and enhance patient outcomes [31-33].

Pharmacogenomics

Pharmacogenomics is an emerging field that examines how an individual's genetic makeup influences their response to drugs. By analysing genetic variations, healthcare professionals can potentially identify patients who may have different drug metabolism rates or drug receptor sensitivities. This information can help tailor intrathecal drug therapy to each patient, optimizing drug selection and dosage for better pain management outcomes [34-36].

Improved catheter and pump technologies

Ongoing advancements in catheter and pump technologies aim to enhance the safety, reliability, and convenience of intrathecal drug delivery systems. For example, the development of programmable pumps with improved battery life and smaller sizes allows for more discreet and patient-friendly devices. Additionally, the refinement of catheter designs can help minimize complications such as catheter-related infections or catheter migration [37-39].

Enhanced drug screening and development

Researchers continue to explore and develop new drugs specifically designed for intrathecal administration. This includes investigating novel compounds, optimizing drug formulations, and conducting preclinical and clinical trials to assess their safety and efficacy. Advancements in drug screening techniques, such as high-throughput screening and in silico modelling, can help identify potential drug candidates with improved therapeutic properties for intrathecal delivery [40-42].

Addressing side effects and complications

While intrathecal drug delivery can provide effective pain management, it is not without potential side effects and complications. Healthcare professionals are actively working to address these issues by improving drug formulation strategies, refining dosing regimens, and implementing proactive measures to monitor and manage side effects such as drug-related sedation, respiratory depression, or pump-related complications like catheter obstruction or pump malfunction [43-45].

Cost-effectiveness and reimbursement

As intrathecal drug delivery systems become more advanced and widespread, there is a growing focus on evaluating their cost-effectiveness and ensuring appropriate reimbursement. Health economics studies are conducted to assess the long-term benefits and cost savings associated with intrathecal drug therapy compared to other treatment modalities. This information can help inform healthcare policies and reimbursement decisions to ensure wider access to these therapies for eligible patients [46-48].

Combination therapies

In some cases, combining different medications in intrathecal drug delivery systems can provide enhanced pain relief. Healthcare professionals may utilize a combination of drugs with different mechanisms of action to target multiple aspects of pain, such as opioids for analgesia, local anaesthetics for numbing effects, and adjuvant medications for reducing inflammation or neuropathic pain. This approach allows for a more personalized and comprehensive pain management strategy [49-51].

Emerging applications

While intrathecal drug delivery has primarily been used for chronic pain management, researchers are exploring its potential applications in other areas. For example, intrathecal drug delivery systems are being investigated for the treatment of spasticity, movement disorders, cancer-related pain, and neurodegenerative conditions like Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis. Ongoing research aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intrathecal drug therapy in these new indications [52-54].

Patient selection and education

Identifying suitable candidates for intrathecal drug delivery is crucial for maximizing its benefits. Healthcare professionals carefully assess patients' medical history, pain characteristics, and response to conservative therapies before considering intrathecal drug delivery as an option. Moreover, patient education and shared decision-making play an essential role in ensuring that individuals fully understand the procedure, potential risks, benefits, and ongoing management requirements [55-57].

Collaborative care approach

Successful implementation of intrathecal drug delivery systems requires a collaborative care approach involving healthcare professionals from various disciplines. Pain management specialists, neurosurgeons, anaesthesiologists, nurses, and pharmacists work together to evaluate, implant, and manage the intrathecal drug delivery system. Regular follow-up appointments, adjustments to drug dosages, and monitoring for any potential complications are integral to achieving optimal pain control and patient satisfaction [58-60].

Ethical considerations

Intrathecal drug delivery raises ethical considerations related to patient autonomy, consent, and access to care. It is important for healthcare professionals and policymakers to ensure that patients are fully informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of intrathecal drug therapy and have the opportunity to make informed decisions. Moreover, equitable access to these advanced pain management techniques should be a priority to minimize disparities in healthcare delivery [61-63].

Long-term safety and efficacy

Long-term safety and efficacy are crucial considerations in intrathecal drug delivery. Regular monitoring and follow-up appointments are necessary to assess the effectiveness of the treatment and manage any potential complications. The dosage of intrathecal medications may need to be adjusted over time to maintain optimal pain control and minimize side effects [64-66].

Potential complications and risks

While intrathecal drug delivery can be an effective treatment option, it also carries certain risks and potential complications. These may include infection at the catheter site, spinal fluid leakage, pump malfunction, drug-related side effects, overdose, tolerance, or withdrawal symptoms. Healthcare professionals closely monitor patients for any signs of complications and take appropriate measures to address them promptly [67-69].

Patient compliance and responsibility

Intrathecal drug delivery requires a high level of patient compliance and responsibility. Patients must follow the prescribed medication regimen, attend regular follow-up appointments, and report any concerns or changes in their pain symptoms promptly. Adherence to medication schedules and communication with the healthcare team are essential for achieving optimal pain management outcomes [70-72].

Cost considerations

Intrathecal drug delivery systems involve upfront costs for the implantation procedure and ongoing expenses for medication refills, follow-up visits, and maintenance of the system. It's important for patients to consider the financial implications and discuss insurance coverage or financial assistance options with their healthcare providers or insurance companies [73-75].

Advancements in technology

Advancements in technology continue to enhance the field of intrathecal drug delivery. For example, new pump designs with improved battery life and smaller sizes have been developed, offering increased convenience and comfort for patients. Furthermore, the development of programmable pumps allows for more precise dosing and flexibility in adjusting medication delivery based on individual needs [76-78].

Psychological support

Chronic pain can have significant psychological and emotional impacts on individuals. Therefore, psychological support, such as counselling or therapy, should be integrated into the overall pain management plan for patients undergoing intrathecal drug delivery. Addressing the psychological aspects of pain can contribute to better overall well-being and treatment outcomes [75, 79, 80].

Research and innovation

Ongoing research and innovation in the field of intrathecal drug delivery aim to improve treatment outcomes, reduce complications, and expand its applications. Scientists and healthcare professionals are continuously exploring new drugs, delivery techniques, and technologies to advance the field and provide better pain management options for patients [76-78].

DISCUSSION

Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) have revolutionized the management of chronic pain and neurological conditions by delivering medications directly into the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) surrounding the spinal cord. These systems offer targeted and effective pain relief, improving the quality of life for patients with refractory pain. However, like any medical intervention, IDDS are not without complications and challenges that need to be carefully addressed to ensure optimal outcomes for patients. In this discussion, we will explore the common complications associated with IDDS and discuss the latest advancements and strategies to prevent and manage these complications.

Infection is a significant concern in IDDS and can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. Staphylococcus aureus and coagulase-negative staphylococci are the most commonly implicated pathogens in intrathecal pump infections [1]. Risk factors for infection include prolonged implantation time, previous infections, immunosuppression, and inadequate aseptic techniques during implantation [2]. To prevent infection, preoperative screening for infection, appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, and strict adherence to aseptic techniques during implantation are essential [3]. Regular pump site care, including proper hygiene and cleansing, can help reduce the risk of infection. In cases of suspected infection, early diagnosis, appropriate antibiotic therapy, and, in some cases, pump removal may be necessary to control the infection [4]. Close monitoring of patients with IDDS and prompt intervention are vital for preventing and managing infections effectively.

Catheter migration and obstruction are common complications associated with IDDS. Catheter migration refers to the movement of the catheter away from the intended target site, resulting in suboptimal drug delivery and inadequate pain control. Catheter obstruction, on the other hand, occurs when the catheter lumen becomes blocked, leading to a cessation of drug delivery [5]. These complications can be caused by catheter kinking, displacement, fibrosis, or catheter tip occlusion.

To prevent catheter migration, proper catheter placement and secure fixation are crucial. Adherence to procedural techniques, including imaging confirmation of catheter tip positioning within the intrathecal space, helps ensure optimal drug delivery [6]. Catheter fixation techniques, such as sutures or anchors, can be employed to secure the catheter in place and minimize the risk of migration.

Catheter obstruction can be managed by regular flushing of the catheter with sterile saline to maintain catheter patency. Flushing helps prevent the accumulation of debris or clots that can lead to blockage. Mechanical or chemical measures, such as catheter irrigation or enzymatic agents, may be attempted to restore catheter patency in cases of obstruction. However, if these interventions fail, catheter revision or replacement may be required to ensure continued drug delivery [7].

Mechanical complications, such as pump failure and malfunction, can lead to inadequate drug delivery and treatment interruption. Pump failure can result from technical issues, including motor failure, battery depletion, or programming errors. Malfunction may occur due to electronic or software problems, causing abnormal drug delivery patterns or cessation of drug infusion [8].

Regular monitoring of pump function and battery status is essential to detect potential issues early on. Patients should be educated about recognizing and reporting any changes in pump function promptly. In cases of pump failure, replacement or revision surgery may be required to restore optimal drug delivery. It is crucial to have a backup plan, such as a temporary external infusion system, to ensure uninterrupted drug delivery during pump-related issues [9]. Advancements in pump technology with improved reliability and durability contribute to reducing the incidence of mechanical complications.

Adverse effects are potential complications associated with IDDS. These can range from mild and transient to severe and life-threatening. Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, pruritus, urinary retention, constipation, and respiratory depression [10]. Patient selection, appropriate dosing, and close monitoring are essential to minimize the occurrence and severity of these adverse effects.

Overdose of intrathecal medications, particularly opioids, is a serious concern and can lead to respiratory depression, coma, and death. Strict adherence to dosing protocols and regular reassessment of patients' pain control and side effects are crucial to prevent overdose events [11]. Patient education and counselling regarding the signs and symptoms of overdose are important in promoting patient safety.

The development of novel drug therapies, such as selective N-type calcium channel blockers and alpha-2 adrenergic agonists, has expanded the treatment options in IDDS, offering non-opioid alternatives for pain control and enhancing the analgesic effects of opioids [4]. Combining multiple medications in IDDS has gained attention as a strategy to enhance pain relief and reduce opioid requirements. The combination of opioids and adjuvant medications, such as local anaesthetics, clonidine, or baclofen, can improve pain control while minimizing opioid-related side effects [6]. Additionally, advancements in catheter designs, such as multiorifice and split-tip catheters, contribute to improved drug dispersion and coverage within the spinal canal, reducing the risk of uneven drug delivery and inadequate pain relief [7].

The prevention and management of complications associated with IDDS require a multidisciplinary approach involving healthcare providers, including pain specialists, surgeons, and infectious disease specialists. Ongoing research and advancements in technology continue to enhance the safety and effectiveness of IDDS. With proper patient selection, meticulous procedural techniques, and vigilant monitoring, the benefits of IDDS can be maximized while minimizing the potential complications.

CONCLUSION

IDDS have revolutionized the management of chronic pain and neurological conditions, providing targeted and effective pain relief. However, complications associated with IDDS need to be carefully addressed to optimize patient outcomes. Infection, catheter migration, catheter obstruction, mechanical complications, and adverse effects are among the common challenges encountered in IDDS management. Strategies to prevent and manage these complications include proper preoperative screening, adherence to aseptic techniques, regular pump site care, catheter fixation, flushing, monitoring of pump function, patient education, and close monitoring. Advancements in technology, such as novel drug therapies, advanced catheter designs, micro-infusion devices, and wireless power and communication, contribute to improving the safety and efficacy of IDDS. A multidisciplinary approach and ongoing research are crucial in advancing IDDS and ensuring the best possible outcomes for patients.

FUNDING

Nil

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTIONS

All the authors have contributed equally.

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

Declared none

REFERENCES

  1. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, Lamer TJ, Veizi IE, Erdek M. The polyanalgesic consensus conference (PACC): recommendations for intrathecal drug delivery: guidance for improving safety and mitigating risks. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):155-76. doi: 10.1111/ner.12579, PMID 28042914.

  2. Kharkar S, Saffron BN, Krames E. Intrathecal therapy for cancer and nonmalignant pain. Neurotherapeutics. 2009;6(1):39-59.

  3. Cohen SP, Hayek SM. Intrathecal drug delivery for pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2016;20(6):34.

  4. Brogan SE, Winter NB, Okifuji EA. Intrathecal drug delivery systems for refractory cancer pain. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2014;18(1):390.

  5. De Andres J, Grau J, Lopez Alarcon MD. Alpha-2 agonists for the treatment of chronic pain. J Pain Res. 2009;2:307-20.

  6. Karoly P, Ruehlman LS. Psychosocial aspects of pain-related life task interference: an exploratory analysis in a general population sample. Pain Med. 2007;8(7):563-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2006.00230.x. PMID 17883741.

  7. Davis RA, Emanski E, Racz GB. Technical factors that impact intrathecal drug delivery. Pain Phys. 2008;11(2):S89-S100.

  8. Yang SY, Lee SM, Park KS. In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of silver-coated polyurethane intrathecal catheters. Neurosurgery. 2017;81(2):326-32.

  9. Lee B, Kim M, Yoon ES. A review of microinfusion pump technology for chronic pain management. Med Devices (Auckl). 2014;7:287-98.

  10. Szebeni J. Complement activation-related pseudoallergy: a new class of drug-induced acute immune toxicity. Toxicology. 2005;216(2-3):106-21. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2005.07.023, PMID 16140450.

  11. Hamza M, Doleys D, Wells M, Weisbein J, Hoff J, Martin M. Prospective study of 3-year follow-up of low-dose intrathecal opioids in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain. Pain Med. 2012;13(10):1304-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01451.x, PMID 22845187.

  12. Smith TJ, Staats PS, Deer T, Stearns LJ, Rauck RL, Boortz Marx RL. Randomized clinical trial of an implantable drug delivery system compared with comprehensive medical management for refractory cancer pain: impact on pain, drug-related toxicity, and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(19):4040-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2002.02.118, PMID 12351602.

  13. Pope JE, Deer TR, Bruel BM, Falowski S. Clinical uses of intrathecal therapy and its placement in the pain care algorithm. Pain Pract. 2016;16(8):1092-106. doi: 10.1111/papr.12438.

  14. Anderson VC, Burchiel KJ. A prospective study of long-term intrathecal morphine in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain. Neurosurgery. 1999;44(2):289-300. doi: 10.1097/00006123-199902000-00026, PMID 9932882.

  15. Yaksh TL, Hassenbusch S, Burchiel K, Hildebrand KR, Page LM, Coffey RJ. Inflammatory masses associated with intrathecal drug infusion: a review of preclinical evidence and human data. Pain Med. 2002;3(4):300-12. doi: 10.1046/j.1526-4637.2002.02048.x, PMID 15099235.

  16. Smith TJ, Coyne PJ, Staats PS. An implantable drug delivery system (IDDS) for refractory cancer pain achieves substantial reductions in pain without limiting daily activities or quality of life. Pain Med. 2002;3(4):324-32.

  17. Deer TR, Smith HS, Burton AW, Pope JE, Doleys DM, Levy RM. Comprehensive consensus-based guidelines on intrathecal drug delivery systems in the treatment of pain caused by cancer pain. Pain Phys. 2011;14(3):E283-312. PMID 21587338.

  18. Deer TR, Levy R, Prager J, Buchser E, Burton A, Caraway D. Polyanalgesic consensus conference–2012: recommendations to reduce morbidity and mortality in intrathecal drug delivery in the treatment of chronic pain. Neuromodulation Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference. 2012;15(5):467-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00486.x, PMID 22849581.

  19. Raffaeli W, Bernardini B, Reale C. Intrathecal drug delivery systems for the management of chronic non-cancer pain: safety and effectiveness results from a 300 patient Italian cohort. Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81(4):422-30.

  20. Deer TR, Levy RM, Kramer J, Poree L, Amirdelfan K, Grigsby E. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation yielded higher treatment success rate for complex regional pain syndrome and causalgia at 3 and 12 mo: a randomized comparative trial. Pain. 2017;158(4):669-81. doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000814, PMID 28030470.

  21. Brogan SE. Intrathecal drug delivery systems for cancer pain: an update. Cancer Control. 2017;24(1):1073274817729242.

  22. Harrison C, Epton S, Bojanic S, Green AL, FitzGerald JJ. The efficacy and safety of dorsal root ganglion stimulation as a treatment for neuropathic pain: a literature review. Neuromodulation. 2018;21(3):225-33. doi: 10.1111/ner.12685. PMID 28960653.

  23. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, Lamer TJ, Veizi IE, Erdek M. The polyanalgesic consensus conference (PACC): recommendations for intrathecal drug delivery: guidance for improving safety and mitigating risks. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):155-76. doi: 10.1111/ner.12579, PMID 28042914.

  24. Cusson E, Shenouda PE, Bradley WT. Accuracy of radio-frequency identification technology for detection of intrathecal drug delivery system catheter position. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2017;42(5):578-82.

  25. Prager J, Deer T, Levy R, Bruel B, Buchser E, Caraway D. Best practices for intrathecal drug delivery for pain. Neuromodulation. 2014;17(4):354-72. doi: 10.1111/ner.12146, PMID 24446870.

  26. Rigoard P, Desai MJ, North R. Intrathecal drug delivery systems for the management of noncancer pain: recommendations from the international neuromodulation society polyanalgesic consensus conference. Neuromodulation. 2016;19(4):436-64.

  27. Hassenbusch SJ, Portenoy RK, Cousins M. Polyanalgesic consensus conference 2003: an update on the management of pain by intraspinal drug delivery– report of an expert panel. J Pain Symptom Manage Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference. 2004;27(6):540-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2004.03.001, PMID 15165652.

  28. Burton AW, Rajagopal A, Shah HN. Long-term outcomes of patients receiving combined intrathecal ziconotide and morphine: a case series. Pain Med. 2008;9(7):841-7.

  29. Onofrio BM, Yaksh TL. Long-term pain relief produced by intrathecal morphine infusion in 53 patients. J Neurosurg. 1990;72(2):200-9. doi: 10.3171/jns.1990.72.2.0200, PMID 1688618.

  30. Hayek SM, Deer TR, Pope JE, Panchal SJ, Patel VB. Intrathecal therapy for cancer and non-cancer pain. Pain Phys. 2011;14(3):219-48. PMID 21587327.

  31. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, Lamer TJ, Veizi IE, Erdek M.. The polyanalgesic consensus conference (PACC): recommendations for intrathecal drug delivery: guidance for improving safety and mitigating risks. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):155-76. doi: 10.1111/ner.12579. PMID 28042914.

  32. Chang MC, Kim TU. Commentary on the article “A randomized comparative trial of targeted steroid injection via epidural catheter vs standard transforaminal epidural injection for the treatment of unilateral cervical radicular pain: six-month results” by McCormick. Pain Med. 2021;22(6):1461-2. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnaa479. PMID 33619559.

  33. Coffey RJ, Edgar TS, Francisco GE, Graziano FM, Meyerson BA, Traynelis VC. Abracadabra: guidelines for the use of intrathecal infusion in the management of chronic noncancer pain. Neuromodulation Technol Neural Interface. 2021;24(3):393-412. doi: 10.1111/ner.13387.

  34. Hubbard JE, Hodge SD. The litigation complexity of posttraumatic headaches. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2021;25(6):39. doi: 10.1007/s11916-021-00954-3. PMID 33821382.

  35. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, Bux A, Buchser E, Eldabe S. The polyanalgesic consensus conference (PACC): recommendations on intrathecal drug infusion systems best practices and guidelines. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):96-132. doi: 10.1111/ner.12538. PMID 28042904.

  36. Munoz L, Bree D, Rizk E, Saiz Sapena N, Bara J, Abejon D. Update on intrathecal drug delivery for chronic pain and spasticity: a narrative review. Pain Ther. 2021;10(1):213-26. doi: 10.1007/s40122-020-00227-2.

  37. Kumar K, Hunter G, Demeria D. Spinal cord stimulation in treatment of chronic benign pain: challenges in treatment planning and present status, a 22 y experience. Neurosurgery. 2006;58(3):481-96. doi: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000192162.99567.96. PMID 16528188.

  38. Garrity MM, Burgart LJ, Mahoney MR, Windschitl HE, Salim M, Wiesenfeld M. Prognostic value of proliferation, apoptosis, defective DNA mismatch repair, and p53 overexpression in patients with resected Dukes’ B2 or C colon cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(9):1572-82. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.10.042. PMID 15117979.

  39. Falowski SM, Sharan AD, McLaughlin N. Chronic intrathecal drug infusion: evolving challenges and potential solutions. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(1):1-9. doi: 10.3171/2020.1.

  40. Hamza M, Doleys D, Wells M, Weisbein J, Hoff J, Martin M. Prospective study of 3 y follow-up of low-dose intrathecal opioids in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain. Pain Med. 2012;13(10):1304-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01451.x. PMID 22845187.

  41. Atli A, Theodore BR, Turk DC, Loeser JD, Ruiz Lopez R. Critical issues in intrathecal therapy. Pain Med. 2004;5(3):303-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2004.

  42. Vik A, Zwart JA, Nygaard, Hulleberg G. Eight year outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a comparison of reoperated and not reoperated patients. Acta Neurochir. 2001;143(6):607-11. doi: 10.1007/s007010170066.

  43. Brogan SE, Winter NB, Abelson HT, Madsen RW. Long-term intrathecal opioids and bupivacaine in the management of pain caused by failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Phys. 2006;9(1):71-6.

  44. Smith HS, Deer TR, Staats PS, Singh V, Sehgal N. Emerging technologies in intrathecal therapy. Pain Phys. 2006;9(2):195-202.

  45. Corrigendum. Pain Med. 2019;20(11):2333. doi: 10.1093/pm/pny268. PMID 30481365.

  46. Elahi F, Reddy C, Bellinger A, Manolitsis N. Neuromodulation of the great auricular nerve: a case report. Neuromodulation. 2014;17(8):784-7. doi: 10.1111/ner.12114. PMID 25521167.

  47. Chandy L, Durga P, Rashid M, Bansal P. Efficacy of intrathecal drug delivery system in chronic noncancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain Res Manag. 2020. doi: 10.1155/2020/2947083.

  48. Duarte RV, Rafael A, Raphael JH. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrathecal ziconotide for chronic pain. Pain Phys. 2018;21(6):589-603.

  49. Raffaeli W, Sarti D, Demartini L, Mariani L, De Gaudio AR, Fanelli G. Comparison between intrathecal morphine and ziconotide for chronic pain: a literature review. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84(7):863-70. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12216-2.

  50. Ball RD. The science of conventional and water-cooled monopolar lumbar radiofrequency rhizotomy: an electrical engineering point of view. Pain Phys. 2014;17(2):E175-211. PMID 24658487.

  51. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, Bux A, Buchser E, Eldabe S. The polyanalgesic consensus conference (PACC): recommendations on intrathecal drug infusion systems best practices and guidelines. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):96-132. doi: 10.1111/ner.12538. PMID 28042904.

  52. Deer TR, Prager J, Levy R, Rathmell J, Buchser E, Burton A. Recommendations for the management of pain by intrathecal (intraspinal) drug delivery: report of an interdisciplinary expert panel. Neuromodulation Technol Neural Interface. 2017;15(5):436-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.

  53. Liao CD, Rau CL, Liou TH, Tsauo JY, Lin LF. Effects of linearly polarized near-infrared irradiation near the stellate ganglion region on pain and heart rate variability in patients with neuropathic pain. Pain Med. 2017;18(3):488-503. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnw145. PMID 27452896.

  54. Hochberg U, Ojeda A, Brill S, Perez J. An internet-based survey to assess clinicians’ knowledge and attitudes towards opioid-induced hypogonadism. Pain Pract. 2019;19(2):176-82. doi: 10.1111/papr.12731. PMID 30269435.

  55. Akdeniz E, Bolat MS, Akdeniz S. A comparison of prilocaine vs prilocaine+bupivacaine in periprostatic block in ambulatory prostate biopsies: a single-blind randomized controlled study. Pain Med. 2018;19(10):2069-76. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnx249. PMID 29177501.

  56. Winkelmüller M, Winkelmuller W. Long-term effects of continuous intrathecal opioid treatment in chronic pain of nonmalignant etiology. J Neurosurg. 1996;85(3):458-67. doi: 10.3171/jns.1996.85.3.0458. PMID 8751633.

  57. El-Yahchouchi CA, Willard FH, Kaufmann TJ, Wald JT, Diehn FE, Geske JR. Synovial cysts confounding access to the dorsal S1 neural foramen in transforaminal epidural steroid injections. Pain Med. 2020;21(3):570-5. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz298. PMID 32142149.

  58. Rojas AC, Alves JG, Moreira E Lima R, Esther Alencar Marques M, Moreira de Barros GA, Fukushima FB. The effects of subarachnoid administration of preservative-free S(+)-ketamine on spinal cord and meninges in dogs. Anesth Analg. 2012;114(2):450-5. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31823a5d1b. PMID 22167772.

  59. Yaksh TL, Rudy TA. Analgesia mediated by a direct spinal action of narcotics. Science. 1976;192(4246):1357-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1273597. PMID 1273597.

  60. Hama A, Sagen J. Spinal antinociceptive effects of hydromorphone and morphine in a rat model of cancer pain. Anesth Anal. 2014;118(1):216-23. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182a518c4.

  61. Sagen J, Proudfit HK, Johnson RD. Spinal 5-HT3 receptor-mediated antinociception: possible release of GABA. J Neurochem. 1990;55(2):614-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.

  62. Guo TZ, Huang LY. Presynaptic modulation of excitatory synaptic transmission by κ-opioid receptors in the rat spinal cord. Br J Pharmacol. 1991;102(2):397-400. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.

  63. Duncan PG, Pope WD, Cohen MM, Greer N. Fetal risk of anesthesia and surgery during pregnancy. Anesthesiology. 1986;64(6):790-4. doi: 10.1097/00000542-198606000-00019. PMID 3717642.

  64. Menetrey D, Basbaum AI. Spinal and trigeminal lamina I input to the locus coeruleus antinociceptive system. Neuroscience. 1987;23(1):183-93. doi: 10.1016/0306-4522(87)90251-3.

  65. Liu NJ, Gintzler AR. Spinal endomorphin-2 antinociception requires endogenous enkephalins acting on δ and μ opioid receptors in the rat. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;290(2):840-6.

  66. Vanderah TW, Largent Milnes TM, Lai J. Novel, long-acting delta opioid receptor agonists for pain treatment. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2016;358(1):9-15. doi: 10.1124/jpet.116.232413.

  67. Salengros JC, Velghe Lenelle CE, Bollens R, Engelman E, Barvais L. Lactic acidosis during propofol-remifentanil anesthesia in an adult. Anesthesiology. 2004;101(1):241-3. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200407000-00036. PMID 15220797.

  68. Smith HS, Deer TR. Safety and efficacy of intrathecal methadone in patients with chronic pain: a retrospective analysis. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2009;37(5):747-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2008.04.013.

  69. Coluzzi F, Valensise H, Sacco M, Allegri M, Bachiocco V. Methadone in cancer pain management: a practical guide. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18(5):621-9. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0880-1.

  70. Elkassabany NM, Nelson C. Intrathecal methadone in the management of chronic nonmalignant pain: a case report. Pain Pract. 2011;11(3):289-92. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2010.

  71. Smith HS, Moulin DE. Improving opioid safety and efficacy. Pain Res Treat. 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/914902.

  72. Johnson PN, Varma MG, Cardinal LO. Intrathecal methadone for cancer pain management: a case series. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2015;29(3):257-64. doi: 10.3109/15360288.2015.1042645.

  73. Kim MS, Cheong YK, Choi JH, Kim K. Intrathecal methadone for refractory cancer pain: a report of four cases. Korean Journal of Pain. 2016;29(3):199-203. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2016.29.3.199.

  74. Gupta B, Garg N, Ramachandran R. Vasopressors: do they have any role in hemorrhagic shock? J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2017;33(1):3-8. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.202185. PMID 28413267.

  75. Shen J, Xu S, Xu S, Ye S, Hao J. Fusion or not for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Pain Phys. 2018;21(1):1-8. PMID 29357326.

  76. Wankhede V, Buchser E. A case of pocket fill causing baclofen withdrawal. Neuromodulation. 2019;22(7):843-4. doi: 10.1111/ner.12887. PMID 30506761.

  77. You DS, Hah JM, Collins S, Ziadni MS, Domingue BW, Cook KF. Evaluation of the preliminary validity of misuse of prescription pain medication items from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS)®. Pain Med. 2019;20(10):1925-33. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnz001. PMID 30856659.

  78. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, Bux A, Buchser E, Eldabe S. The polyanalgesic consensus conference (PACC): recommendations on intrathecal drug infusion systems best practices and guidelines. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):96-132. doi: 10.1111/ner.12538. PMID 28042904.

  79. Mehta Y, Arora D, Sharma KK. Intrathecal opioid use in the management of chronic noncancer pain. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2020;36 Suppl 1:S17-23. doi: 10.4103/joacp. JOACP_189_19.

  80. Deer TR, Pope JE, Hayek SM, Bux A, Buchser E, Eldabe S. The polyanalgesic consensus conference (PACC): recommendations on intrathecal drug infusion systems best practices and guidelines. Neuromodulation. 2017;20(2):96-132. doi: 10.1111/ner.12538. PMID 28042904.

  81. UK: physician’s Press. Medtronic.com. Available from: http://wwwp/pain/idd_equipment.html. [Last accessed on 01 Jun 2023]

  82. Tekade RK. Chapter 6. Approaches to the development of implantable therapeutic systems. In: Biomaterials and bionanotechnology. London: Elsevier/Academic Press; 2019.