Literature DB >> 33502508

Treatment Strategies for Generator Pocket Pain.

Jonathan Bao1, Olga Khazen1, Zachary T Olmsted1, Guy Gechtman1, Miriam M Shao1, Marisa DiMarzio1, Gregory Topp1, Vishad V Sukul2, Michael D Staudt2, Julie G Pilitsis1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Generator site pain is a relatively common phenomenon in patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation (SCS) that complicates management and effective pain relief. This pain may be managed conservatively, with repositioning of the battery and, in some cases, with explant. Here we explore our experience with management of generator site pain ("pocket pain") in a large single-center study.
METHODS: All SCS permanent implants and implantable pulse generator (IPG) placements over 9 years were reviewed. Of 785 cases, we identified 43 patients with pocket pain (5.5%). Demographics and treatments of the pocket pain cohort were analyzed.
RESULTS: The mean age (± SEM) of the pocket pain cohort was 46.86 ± 1.06, and there were 10/33 males/females. Females were overrepresented in pocket pain cohort (76.7%) when compared with the total SCS cohort (59.0%) (X2 = 5.93, P = 0.015). Diagnosis included failed back surgery syndrome (51.2%), complex regional pain syndrome (23.3%), and chronic neuropathic pain (25.5%). No patients improved with conservative therapy. All patients either went on to revision (n = 23) or explant (n = 20). Time from initial surgery to development of pocket pain was 7.5 months (range: 0.3-88) and from pocket pain to revision surgery was 4.5 months (range: 0.4-26). In addition, significantly more pocket pain patients (65.1%) had workers' compensation (WC) insurance compared with patients without pocket pain (24.9%) (X2 = 33.3, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: In our institutional experience, pocket pain was inadequately managed with conservative treatments. Being female and having SCS filed under WC increased risk of pocket pain. Future work will explore the nuances in device placement based on body shape and manual activity responsibilities.
© The Author(s) 2021. 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:  Chronic Pain; Complications; Failed Back Surgery Syndrome; Neuropathic Pain; Pocket Neuritis; Pocket Pain; Spinal Cord Stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33502508      PMCID: PMC8185558          DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnab007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Med        ISSN: 1526-2375            Impact factor:   3.750


  43 in total

Review 1.  Complications of Spinal Cord Stimulation and Peripheral Nerve Stimulation Techniques: A Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Sam Eldabe; Eric Buchser; Rui V Duarte
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 3.750

2.  Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Pain Reduces Opioid Use and Results in Superior Clinical Outcomes When Used Without Opioids.

Authors:  Lucy Gee; Heather C Smith; Zohal Ghulam-Jelani; Hirah Khan; Julia Prusik; Paul J Feustel; Sarah E McCallum; Julie G Pilitsis
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 4.654

3.  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

Review 4.  A systematic literature review of psychological characteristics as determinants of outcome for spinal cord stimulation therapy.

Authors:  Elizabeth Sparkes; Jon H Raphael; Rui V Duarte; Karen LeMarchand; Craig Jackson; Robert L Ashford
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2010-06-17       Impact factor: 6.961

5.  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

Review 6.  Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications.

Authors:  Judith A Turner; John D Loeser; Richard A Deyo; Stacy B Sanders
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 6.961

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

Authors:  Krishna Kumar; 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
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2007-09-12       Impact factor: 6.961

8.  Return to Work of Patients Treated With Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Maarten Moens; Lisa Goudman; Raf Brouns; Alexis Valenzuela Espinoza; Mats De Jaeger; Eva Huysmans; Koen Putman; Jan Verlooy
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2018-08-17

9.  Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement.

Authors:  Roy Hwang; Nicholas Field; Vignessh Kumar; Steven Paniccioli; Rachel Grey; Michael Briotte; Vishad Sukul; Julie G Pilitsis
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2018-11-16

10.  Women in neuromodulation.

Authors:  Robert M Levy
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2014-02
View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Restoring Successful Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy for a Patient with Severe Pocket Pain Utilizing Nalu Micro-Implantable Pulse Generator.

Authors:  Jamal Hasoon; Ivan Urits; Syed Mahmood; Alan D Kaye
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2022-05-31
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.