Literature DB >> 32747945

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

Devin D Antonovich1, Willy Gama1, Alexandra Ritter1, Bethany Jacobs Wolf1, Ryan H Nobles1, Meron A Selassie1, M Gabriel Hillegass1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesize that reoperation rates of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems utilizing percutaneous leads are comparable to those utilizing paddle leads. We attempt here to characterize causes for those reoperations and identify any related patient characteristics. DESIGN AND
SUBJECTS: This study is a single-center retrospective chart review of 291 subjects (410 operations) who underwent at least one permanent SCS implantation utilizing percutaneous or paddle leads over a 10-year period at the Medical University of South Carolina.
METHODS: Charts were reviewed for height, weight, body mass index, gender, race, age, stimulator type, type of reoperation, diabetes status, history and type of prior back surgery, top lead location, and number of leads placed. Comparisons of patient and procedural characteristics were conducted using a two-sample t test (continuous variables), chi-square, or Fisher exact approach (categorical variables). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were developed, identifying associations between patient characteristics, SCS characteristics, reoperation rates, and time to reoperation.
RESULTS: Thirty point five eight percent of subjects (89/291), required at least one reoperation. The reoperation rate was 27.84% for percutaneous systems (N = 54/194) and 27.78% for percutaneous systems (N = 60/216). Time to reoperation also did not differ between the two systems (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.70-1.60). Of all factors examined, younger age at time of placement was the only factor associated with risk of reoperation (HR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that reoperation rates and time to reoperation between percutaneous and paddle leads are clinically similar; therefore, rates of reoperation should have no bearing on which system to choose.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lead Revisions; Paddle Leads; Percutaneous Leads; Spinal Cord Stimulation; Spinal Cord Stimulator Complications; Spinal Cord Stimulator Revisions

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 32747945      PMCID: PMC8454196          DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnaa215

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Med        ISSN: 1526-2375            Impact factor:   3.637


  20 in total

1.  Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous with laminectomy electrodes: part II-clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Richard B North; David H Kidd; Loredana Petrucci; Michael J Dorsi
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 2.  Spinal cord stimulation: mechanisms of action.

Authors:  John C Oakley; Joshua P Prager
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Failure modes of spinal cord stimulation hardware.

Authors:  Joshua M Rosenow; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Ali R Rezai; Jaimie M Henderson
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2006-09

4.  Rates of lead migration and stimulation loss in spinal cord stimulation: a retrospective comparison of laminotomy versus percutaneous implantation.

Authors:  David D Kim; Rakesh Vakharyia; Henry R Kroll; Adam Shuster
Journal:  Pain Physician       Date:  2011 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Laminectomy versus percutaneous electrode placement for spinal cord stimulation.

Authors:  A T Villavicencio; J C Leveque; L Rubin; K Bulsara; J P Gorecki
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.654

Review 6.  Spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome: a systematic review and analysis of prognostic factors.

Authors:  Rod S Taylor; Jean-Pierre Van Buyten; Eric Buchser
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-01-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Triple leads programmed to perform as longitudinal guarded cathodes in spinal cord stimulation: a modeling study.

Authors:  Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Jan R Buitenweg; Jan Holsheimer; Peter Veltink
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2011-08-19

8.  Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes-part I: technical outcomes.

Authors:  Richard B North; David H Kidd; John C Olin; Jeffrey M Sieracki
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 4.654

9.  Transverse tripolar spinal cord stimulation: results of an international multicenter study.

Authors:  John C Oakley; Francisco Espinosa; Hans Bothe; John McKean; Peter Allen; Kim Burchiel; Gilbert Quartey; Geert Spincemaille; Bart Nuttin; Frans Gielen; Gary King; Jan Holsheimer
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2006-07

10.  Incidence of clinically significant percutaneous spinal cord stimulator lead migration.

Authors:  Halena M Gazelka; Eric D Freeman; W Michael Hooten; Jason S Eldrige; Bryan C Hoelzer; William D Mauck; Susan M Moeschler; Matthew J Pingree; Richard H Rho; Tim J Lamer
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2014-05-05
View more
  1 in total

1.  Real-World Outcomes Using a Spinal Cord Stimulation Device Capable of Combination Therapy for Chronic Pain: A European, Multicenter Experience.

Authors:  Jan Willem Kallewaard; Jose Francisco Paz-Solis; Pasquale De Negri; Maria Angeles Canós-Verdecho; Hayat Belaid; Simon J Thomson; David Abejón; Jan Vesper; Vivek Mehta; Philippe Rigoard; Paolo Maino; Sarah Love-Jones; Isaac F Peña; Simon Bayerl; Christophe Perruchoud; Renaud Bougeard; Cleo Mertz; Yu Pei; Roshini Jain
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-09-10       Impact factor: 4.964

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.