10 research outputs found
Pain patterns in patients with polycystic kidney disease
Pain patterns in patients with polycystic kidney disease.BackgroundPain is a common problem in patients with polycystic kidney disease (PKD), but patterns have not been characterized as to frequency and severity. Physicians should be aware of pain problems so an approach to chronic pain management can be pursued.MethodsOne hundred seventy-one completed questionnaires out of 300 distributed to PKD patients whose renal function ranged from normal to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) were analyzed. Age at diagnosis of PKD was documented, and patients noted how the diagnosis was made. Location, severity, and frequency of pain were characterized. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to measure pain intensity.ResultsThere were 94 females and 77 male respondents, with a mean age of 47.4 years. Initial diagnosis of PKD occurred at a mean age of 31.6 years. Caucasians comprised 92.2% of the respondents. Patients' symptoms, a family history of PKD, and discovery of PKD during evaluation for hypertension or hematuria were the most frequent factors that led to the diagnosis. Order of frequency of pain was: low back pain, abdominal pain, headache, chest pain, and leg pain. Severity of pain, documented by the VAS intensity, was 4 to 5/10 in the majority of patients.ConclusionPain, which can be diffuse, is the most frequent symptom that led to the diagnosis of PKD in patients who responded to this questionnaire, and occurs with greater frequency than generally appreciated. Physicians need to obtain a detailed history about pain in their PKD population so as to allow an approach to pain management
Recommended from our members
Detailed analysis of allergic cutaneous reactions to spinal cord stimulator devices
The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) devices to treat chronic, refractory neuropathic pain continues to expand in application. While device-related complications have been well described, inflammatory reactions to the components of these devices remain underreported. In contrast, hypersensitivity reactions associated with other implanted therapies, such as endovascular and cardiac rhythm devices, have been detailed. The purpose of this case series is to describe the clinical presentation and course of inflammatory reactions as well as the histology of these reactions. All patients required removal of the entire device after developing inflammatory reactions over a time course of 1–3 months. Two patients developed a foreign body reaction in the lead insertion wound as well as at the implantable pulse generator site, with histology positive for giant cells. One patient developed an inflammatory dermatitis on the flank and abdomen that resolved with topical hydrocortisone. “In vivo” testing with a lead extension fragment placed in the buttock resulted in a negative reaction followed by successful reimplantation of an SCS device. Inflammatory reactions to SCS devices can manifest as contact dermatitis, granuloma formation, or foreign body reactions with giant cell formation. Tissue diagnosis is essential, and is helpful to differentiate an inflammatory reaction from infection. The role of skin patch testing for 96 hours may not be suited to detect inflammatory giant cell reactions that manifest several weeks post implantation