OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a widely used treatment option for a variety of pain conditions. Substantial variability exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS and patient selection is a topic of expanding interest and importance. However, few studies have examined the potential benefits of dynamic quantitative sensory testing (QST) to develop objective measures of SCS outcomes or as a predictive tool to help patient selection. Psychological characteristics have been shown to play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may aid in predicting responses to SCS. Static laboratory pain-induction measures have also been examined in their capacity for predicting SCS outcomes. METHODS: The current study evaluated clinical, psychological and laboratory pain measures at baseline, during trial SCS lead placement, as well as 1 month and 3 months following permanent SCS implantation in chronic pain patients who received SCS treatment. Several QST measures were conducted, with specific focus on examination of dynamic models (central sensitization and conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) and their association with pain outcomes 3 months post SCS implantation. RESULTS: Results suggest few changes in QST over time. However, central sensitization and CPM at baseline were significantly associated with clinical pain at 3 months following SCS implantation, controlling for psycho/behavioral factors and pain at baseline. Specifically, enhanced central sensitization and reduced CPM were associated with less self-reported pain 3 months following SCS implantation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a potentially important role for dynamic pain assessment in individuals undergoing SCS, and hint at potential mechanisms through which SCS may impart its benefit. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has become a widely used treatment option for a variety of pain conditions. Substantial variability exists in the degree of benefit obtained from SCS and patient selection is a topic of expanding interest and importance. However, few studies have examined the potential benefits of dynamic quantitative sensory testing (QST) to develop objective measures of SCS outcomes or as a predictive tool to help patient selection. Psychological characteristics have been shown to play an important role in shaping individual differences in the pain experience and may aid in predicting responses to SCS. Static laboratory pain-induction measures have also been examined in their capacity for predicting SCS outcomes. METHODS: The current study evaluated clinical, psychological and laboratory pain measures at baseline, during trial SCS lead placement, as well as 1 month and 3 months following permanent SCS implantation in chronic painpatients who received SCS treatment. Several QST measures were conducted, with specific focus on examination of dynamic models (central sensitization and conditioned pain modulation [CPM]) and their association with pain outcomes 3 months post SCS implantation. RESULTS: Results suggest few changes in QST over time. However, central sensitization and CPM at baseline were significantly associated with clinical pain at 3 months following SCS implantation, controlling for psycho/behavioral factors and pain at baseline. Specifically, enhanced central sensitization and reduced CPM were associated with less self-reported pain 3 months following SCS implantation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a potentially important role for dynamic pain assessment in individuals undergoing SCS, and hint at potential mechanisms through which SCS may impart its benefit. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: M A Kemler; J P Reulen; G A Barendse; M van Kleef; H C de Vet; F A van den Wildenberg Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Elon Eisenberg; Misha-Miroslav Backonja; Roger B Fillingim; Dorit Pud; Daniela E Hord; Gary W King; Milan P Stojanovic Journal: Pain Pract Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Claudia M Campbell; Gyasi Moscou-Jackson; C Patrick Carroll; Kasey Kiley; Carlton Haywood; Sophie Lanzkron; Matthew Hand; Robert R Edwards; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite Journal: J Pain Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Luana Colloca; Taylor Ludman; Didier Bouhassira; Ralf Baron; Anthony H Dickenson; David Yarnitsky; Roy Freeman; Andrea Truini; Nadine Attal; Nanna B Finnerup; Christopher Eccleston; Eija Kalso; David L Bennett; Robert H Dworkin; Srinivasa N Raja Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Jacob Caylor; Rajiv Reddy; Sopyda Yin; Christina Cui; Mingxiong Huang; Charles Huang; Rao Ramesh; Dewleen G Baker; Alan Simmons; Dmitri Souza; Samer Narouze; Ricardo Vallejo; Imanuel Lerman Journal: Bioelectron Med Date: 2019-06-28
Authors: Shannon M Smith; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk; Ralf Baron; Michael Polydefkis; Irene Tracey; David Borsook; Robert R Edwards; Richard E Harris; Tor D Wager; Lars Arendt-Nielsen; Laurie B Burke; Daniel B Carr; Amy Chappell; John T Farrar; Roy Freeman; Ian Gilron; Veeraindar Goli; Juergen Haeussler; Troels Jensen; Nathaniel P Katz; Jeffrey Kent; Ernest A Kopecky; David A Lee; William Maixner; John D Markman; Justin C McArthur; Michael P McDermott; Lav Parvathenani; Srinivasa N Raja; Bob A Rappaport; Andrew S C Rice; Michael C Rowbotham; Jeffrey K Tobias; Ajay D Wasan; James Witter Journal: J Pain Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Kelly E Dunn; Cecilia L Bergeria; Andrew S Huhn; Traci J Speed; Chung Jung Mun; Ryan Vandrey; Claudia M Campbell Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Thomas Kinfe; Nico von Willebrand; Andreas Stadlbauer; Michael Buchfelder; Thomas L Yearwood; Sajjad Muhammad; Shafqat R Chaudhry; Sascha Gravius; Thomas Randau; Klemens Winder; Christian Maihöfner; Nadine Gravius; Walter Magerl Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 5.531