Literature DB >> 17845835

Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.

Krishna Kumar1, Rod S Taylor, Line Jacques, Sam Eldabe, Mario Meglio, Joan Molet, Simon Thomson, Jim O'Callaghan, Elon Eisenberg, Germain Milbouw, Eric Buchser, Gianpaolo Fortini, Jonathan Richardson, Richard B North.   

Abstract

Patients with neuropathic pain secondary to failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) typically experience persistent pain, disability, and reduced quality of life. We hypothesised that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) in this patient population. We randomised 100 FBSS patients with predominant leg pain of neuropathic radicular origin to receive spinal cord stimulation plus conventional medical management (SCS group) or conventional medical management alone (CMM group) for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 50% or more pain relief in the legs. Secondary outcomes were improvement in back and leg pain, health-related quality of life, functional capacity, use of pain medication and non-drug pain treatment, level of patient satisfaction, and incidence of complications and adverse effects. Crossover after the 6-months visit was permitted, and all patients were followed up to 1 year. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months, 24 SCS patients (48%) and 4 CMM patients (9%) (p<0.001) achieved the primary outcome. Compared with the CMM group, the SCS group experienced improved leg and back pain relief, quality of life, and functional capacity, as well as greater treatment satisfaction (p<or=0.05 for all comparisons). Between 6 and 12 months, 5 SCS patients crossed to CMM, and 32 CMM patients crossed to SCS. At 12 months, 27 SCS patients (32%) had experienced device-related complications. In selected patients with FBSS, SCS provides better pain relief and improves health-related quality of life and functional capacity compared with CMM alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17845835     DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2007.07.028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  174 in total

Review 1.  [Epidural spinal cord stimulation for therapy of chronic pain. Summary of the S3 guidelines].

Authors:  V Tronnier; R Baron; F Birklein; S Eckert; H Harke; D Horstkotte; P Hügler; M Hüppe; B Kniesel; C Maier; G Schütze; R Thoma; R D Treede; V Vadokas
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 1.107

Review 2.  Spinal cord stimulation: a review.

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

Review 3.  Spinal cord stimulation: neurophysiological and neurochemical mechanisms of action.

Authors:  Yun Guan
Journal:  Curr Pain Headache Rep       Date:  2012-06

Review 4.  Evidence-based guideline for neuropathic pain interventional treatments: spinal cord stimulation, intravenous infusions, epidural injections and nerve blocks.

Authors:  Angela Mailis; Paul Taenzer
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.037

5.  Failed back surgery syndrome: a suggested algorithm of care.

Authors:  Praveen Ganty; Manohar Sharma
Journal:  Br J Pain       Date:  2012-11

6.  Failed back surgery syndrome: are our patients getting a fair deal?

Authors:  Sam Eldabe
Journal:  Br J Pain       Date:  2012-11

Review 7.  Implantable neurotechnologies: bidirectional neural interfaces--applications and VLSI circuit implementations.

Authors:  Elliot Greenwald; Matthew R Masters; Nitish V Thakor
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 8.  Spinal cord stimulation programming: a crash course.

Authors:  Breanna Sheldon; Michael D Staudt; Lucian Williams; Tessa A Harland; Julie G Pilitsis
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 3.042

9.  The appropriate management of persisting pain after spine surgery: a European panel study with recommendations based on the RAND/UCLA method.

Authors:  Volker M Tronnier; Sam Eldabe; Jörg Franke; Frank Huygen; Philippe Rigoard; Javier de Andres Ares; Richard Assaker; Alejandro Gomez-Rice; Marco La Grua; Maarten Moens; Lieven Moke; Christophe Perruchoud; Nasir A Quraishi; Dominique A Rothenfluh; Pedram Tabatabaei; Koen Van Boxem; Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp; Björn Zoëga; Herman J Stoevelaar
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-08-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Clinical neuroprosthetics: Today and tomorrow.

Authors:  Morgan B Lee; Daniel R Kramer; Terrance Peng; Michael F Barbaro; Charles Y Liu; Spencer Kellis; Brian Lee
Journal:  J Clin Neurosci       Date:  2019-07-30       Impact factor: 1.961

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.