Literature DB >> 22150994

Successful long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation despite limited pain relief during temporary trialing.

John C Oakley1, Elliot S Krames, John Stamatos, Allison M Foster.   

Abstract

Objectives.  In spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy, limited pain relief during the temporary trial period is generally considered to be predictive of poor long-term benefit. To validate or refute this perception, the long-term outcomes of subjects who reported less than 50% pain relief during a temporary SCS trial were examined. Materials and Methods.  Twelve subjects with intractable pain underwent implantation of trial SCS systems. After a trial period in which they reported less than 50% pain relief, they each received a permanent SCS implant. Pain ratings and complications were tracked for 6-18 months. Results.  At the end of the temporary trial period, the average pain relief was 21%; no subject reported 50% or better pain relief. More favorable outcomes were reported after activation of the permanent system, however. At all follow-up time points, at least a third of the subjects reported better than 50% pain relief, and the average pain relief varied over time between 44% and 83%. All complications were readily resolved and no subjects withdrew from the study. Conclusions.  Although SCS provided limited pain relief during the trial period, efficacy was more satisfactory after permanent implantation. Several subjects went on to experience nearly complete pain relief for up to 18 months (the maximum follow-up visit for study purposes), and no subject chose to discontinue SCS therapy. SCS appears to be a viable treatment option for patients who fail trials, raising some doubt as to the predictive sensitivity and specificity of the trial period. Thus, although outcome of a temporary trial period may be suggestive of later efficacy with SCS, it may not be the sole predictor of success. Alternatively, the arbitrary benchmark of 50% pain relief that is typically used to define the success of a temporary trial may be too stringent and unreliable.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 22150994     DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2007.00145.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuromodulation        ISSN: 1094-7159


  10 in total

1.  Short- and long-term effects of conventional spinal cord stimulation on chronic pain and health perceptions: A longitudinal controlled trial.

Authors:  Silviu Brill; Ruth Defrin; Itay Goor Aryeh; Adva Meseritz Zusman; Yael Benyamini
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 3.651

Review 2.  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

3.  Explantation Rates and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Jing L Han; Kelly R Murphy; Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini; Siyun Yang; Beth Parente; Jichun Xie; Promila Pagadala; Shivanand P Lad
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2017-02-15

4.  Does a Screening Trial for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Pain of Neuropathic Origin have Clinical Utility and Cost-Effectiveness? (TRIAL-STIM Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sam Eldabe; Ashish Gulve; Simon Thomson; Ganesan Baranidharan; Rui Duarte; Susan Jowett; Harbinder Sandhu; Raymond Chadwick; Morag Brookes; Anisah Tariq; Jenny Earle; Jill Bell; Anu Kansal; Shelley Rhodes; Rod S Taylor
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-11-16       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Trial Versus No Trial of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: Cost Analysis in United Kingdom National Health Service.

Authors:  Rui V Duarte; Simon Thomson
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2018-12-10

6.  Redefining Spinal Cord Stimulation "Trials": A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Single-Stage Wireless Permanent Implantable Devices.

Authors:  Richard B North; Aaron Calodney; Robert Bolash; Konstantin V Slavin; Michael Creamer; Richard Rauck; Payam Vahedifar; Ira Fox; Cuneyt Özaktay; Sunil Panchal; Niek Vanquathem
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2019-06-03

7.  Case report: The promising application of dynamic functional connectivity analysis on an individual with failed back surgery syndrome.

Authors:  Jingya Miao; Isaiah Ailes; Laura Krisa; Kristen Fleming; Devon Middleton; Kiran Talekar; Peter Natale; Feroze B Mohamed; Kevin Hines; Caio M Matias; Mahdi Alizadeh
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 5.152

8.  Specialty-Based Variations in Spinal Cord Stimulation Success Rates for Treatment of Chronic Pain.

Authors:  Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini; Kelly Ryan Murphy; Jing L Han; Aladine A Elsamadicy; Siyun Yang; Alykhan Premji; Beth Parente; Jichun Xie; Promila Pagadala; Shivanand P Lad
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2017-04-02

9.  The Volume-Outcome Effect: Impact on Trial-to-Permanent Conversion Rates in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Kelly Ryan Murphy; Jing L Han; Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini; Siyun Yang; Beth Parente; Jichun Xie; Shivanand P Lad
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2016-10-03

10.  Cost-Effectiveness Model Shows Superiority of Wireless Spinal Cord Stimulation Implantation Without a Separate Trial.

Authors:  Richard B North; Harish S Parihar; Shawn D Spencer; Arthur F Spalding; Jane Shipley
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2020-02-17
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.