Literature DB >> 16961078

Failure modes of spinal cord stimulation hardware.

Joshua M Rosenow1, Michael Stanton-Hicks, Ali R Rezai, Jaimie M Henderson.   

Abstract

OBJECT: Epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective at treating refractory pain. The failure modes of the implanted hardware, however, have not been well studied. A better understanding of this could aid in improving the current procedure or designing future devices.
METHODS: The authors reviewed electronic charts and operative reports of 289 patients who had undergone SCS implantation between 1998 and 2002 at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation. Data were collected on demographics, type of hardware, date of implantation procedure, indication for treatment, time to failure, and failure mode. Data were then analyzed to identify significant differences. A total of 577 procedures were performed, 43.5% of which involved revision or removal of SCS hardware. The most common indication was complex regional pain syndrome 1, and this was followed by failed-back surgery syndrome. The median number of procedures per patient was two. Approximately 80% of all leads were the percutaneous type. The majority (62%) of leads were placed in the thoracic region, and 33.5% of all leads required revision. Poor pain relief coverage was the most common indication for revision. Surgically implanted leads broke twice as often as percutaneous leads. In 46% of the patients, hardware revision was required, and multiple revisions were necessary in 22.5%. Three-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in failure mode rates according to location (cervical compared with thoracic, p = 0.037) and failure modes (p = 0.019). Laminotomy leads tended to break and migrate sooner than percutaneous leads. Thoracic leads became infected sooner than cervical leads.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis of SCS hardware failures may be used as a basis for refining surgical technique and designing the next generation of SCS hardware.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16961078     DOI: 10.3171/spi.2006.5.3.183

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine        ISSN: 1547-5646


  12 in total

Review 1.  Spinal cord stimulation: a review.

Authors:  Aaron K Compton; Binit Shah; Salim M Hayek
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2012-02

Review 2.  Advanced neurotechnologies for chronic neural interfaces: new horizons and clinical opportunities.

Authors:  Daryl R Kipke; William Shain; György Buzsáki; E Fetz; Jaimie M Henderson; Jamille F Hetke; Gerwin Schalk
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2008-11-12       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 3.  Spinal cord stimulation in cluster headache.

Authors:  Tilman Wolter; Holger Kaube
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2013-04

4.  Mitigating Spinal Cord Stimulator Lead Migration Complications in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Technical Note.

Authors:  John P Walsh; Juan Jimenez
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-03-20

5.  Reoperation Rates of Percutaneous and Paddle Leads in Spinal Cord Stimulator Systems: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

Authors:  Devin D Antonovich; Willy Gama; Alexandra Ritter; Bethany Jacobs Wolf; Ryan H Nobles; Meron A Selassie; M Gabriel Hillegass
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 3.637

Review 6.  Spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain: current perspectives.

Authors:  Tilman Wolter
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2014-11-18       Impact factor: 3.133

7.  Treatment of chronic axial back pain with 60-day percutaneous medial branch PNS: Primary end point results from a prospective, multicenter study.

Authors:  Christopher A Gilmore; Mehul J Desai; Thomas J Hopkins; Sean Li; Michael J DePalma; Timothy R Deer; Warren Grace; Abram H Burgher; Puneet K Sayal; Kasra Amirdelfan; Steven P Cohen; Meredith J McGee; Joseph W Boggs
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2021-07-27       Impact factor: 3.079

8.  Twelve-Month results from multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and traditional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic intractable back pain and leg pain.

Authors:  Michael Fishman; Harold Cordner; Rafael Justiz; David Provenzano; Christopher Merrell; Binit Shah; Julian Naranjo; Philip Kim; Aaron Calodney; Jonathan Carlson; Richard Bundschu; Mahendra Sanapati; Vipul Mangal; Ricardo Vallejo
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 3.079

9.  Evaluation of intradural stimulation efficiency and selectivity in a computational model of spinal cord stimulation.

Authors:  Bryan Howell; Shivanand P Lad; Warren M Grill
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Twiddler's syndrome in spinal cord stimulation.

Authors:  Rafid Al-Mahfoudh; Yuen Chan; Hsu Pheen Chong; Jibril Osman Farah
Journal:  Acta Neurochir (Wien)       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 2.216

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.