Literature DB >> 28370989

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

Syed Mohammed Qasim Hussaini1, Kelly Ryan Murphy1, Jing L Han1, Aladine A Elsamadicy1, Siyun Yang2, Alykhan Premji1, Beth Parente1, Jichun Xie2, Promila Pagadala1, Shivanand P Lad1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has emerged as an appropriate modality of treatment for intractable chronic pain. The present study examines variations in SCS trial-to-permanent conversion rates based on provider types performing the procedure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a large, retrospective analysis using the Truven MarketScan data base analyzing adult SCS patients with provider information available, with or without IPG implantation from the years 2007-2012. Patients were categorized based on provider type performing the implantation including anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R). Univariate and multivariate models identified factors associated with successful conversion.
RESULTS: A total of 7667 unique instances of SCS implants were identified across five providers. Overall, 4842 (63.2%) of those receiving trials underwent permanent SCS system implantation. Anesthesiology performed the majority of implants (62.8%), followed by neurosurgery (22.0%), orthopedic surgery (10.2%), and PM&R (5.3%). Compared to anesthesiologists, both neurosurgeons (OR 10.99, 95% CI [9.11, 13.25]; p < 0.001) and orthopedic surgeons (OR 4.64, 95% CI [3.81, 5.65]; p < 0.001) had significantly higher conversion rates, while PM&R (OR 0.71, 95% CI [0.58, 0.87]; p = 0.001) had significantly lower. Percutaneous implants comprised 5473 (71.4%) of all implants. Neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons performed a significantly greater number of paddle implants among the different providers (p < 0.0001). Explant rates were similar across all cohorts analyzed (average 11.6%; p = 0.546).
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide analysis, our results suggest that over a recent five-year period, conversion rates are highest when SCS trials are performed by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons. The study has important implications for establishing uniform guidelines for training, patient selection, and education of physicians across multiple disciplines.
© 2017 International Neuromodulation Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chronic pain; costs; outcomes; provider type; spinal cord stimulator; trial conversion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28370989      PMCID: PMC5464972          DOI: 10.1111/ner.12582

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


  28 in total

1.  Relation of surgical volume to outcome in eight common operations: results from the VA National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Authors:  S F Khuri; J Daley; W Henderson; K Hur; M Hossain; D Soybel; K W Kizer; J B Aust; R H Bell; V Chong; J Demakis; P J Fabri; J O Gibbs; F Grover; K Hammermeister; G McDonald; E Passaro; L Phillips; F Scamman; J Spencer; J F Stremple
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 12.969

Review 2.  Opioid therapy for chronic pain.

Authors:  Jane C Ballantyne; Jianren Mao
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-11-13       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Procedure volume as a predictor of surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Edward H Livingston; Jing Cao
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard B North; David H Kidd; Farrokh Farrokhi; Steven A Piantadosi
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 4.654

5.  The cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome.

Authors:  Rod S Taylor; James Ryan; Ruairi O'Donnell; Sam Eldabe; Krishna Kumar; Richard B North
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.442

6.  Spinal cord stimulation versus reoperation for failed back surgery syndrome: a cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis based on a randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard B North; David Kidd; Jane Shipley; Rod S Taylor
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 4.654

7.  Epidural spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic pain--some predictors of success. A 15-year experience.

Authors:  K Kumar; C Toth; R K Nath; P Laing
Journal:  Surg Neurol       Date:  1998-08

8.  State of the field survey: spinal cord stimulator use by academic pain medicine practices.

Authors:  Christopher Gharibo; Gary Laux; Brian R Forzani; Christopher Sellars; Eric Kim; Shengping Zou
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2013-10-18       Impact factor: 3.750

Review 9.  Treatment-Limiting Complications of Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulator Implants: A Review of Eight Years of Experience From an Academic Center Database.

Authors:  Salim M Hayek; Elias Veizi; Michael Hanes
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2015-06-05

10.  Spinal cord stimulation in pain management: a review.

Authors:  Young Hoon Jeon
Journal:  Korean J Pain       Date:  2012-06-28
View more
  2 in total

1.  Acute thoracic disc heralded by change in spinal cord stimulation pattern: illustrative case.

Authors:  Faraz Behzadi; Edvin Telemi; Tarek R Mansour; Thomas M Zervos; Muwaffak M Abdulhak; Ellen L Air
Journal:  J Neurosurg Case Lessons       Date:  2021-11-15

2.  Use of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Elderly Patients with Multi-Factorial Chronic Lumbar and Non-Radicular Lower Extremity Pain.

Authors:  Michelle Granville; Aldo F Berti; Robert E Jacobson
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-11-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.