Retrospective evaluation of 16 patients who underwent spinal cord stimulation

Year 2022, Volume: 39 Issue: 1, 80 - 83, 01.01.2022

Bora Uzuner , Dursun Türköz

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of patients who underwent Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in our clinic. In this study, records of 16 patients who underwent SCS in the Algology and Neurosurgery Clinic of the Ministry of Health, Health Sciences University, Samsun Training and Research Hospital between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively analysed. The pain levels of the patients before and after the procedure were evaluated with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The mean age of the patients was 54.25 ± 11.45 years. After the SCS procedure, it was found that pain levels determined by the VAS decreased significantly (p < 0.001). Eleven (68.7%) patients reported that they were quite satisfied or partially satisfied after SCS, and seven patients (43.8%) underwent revision due to hardware malfunctions and post-surgical complications. Based on our study results, we believe that SCS is an effective treatment method that can be used to reduce pain.

Keywords

neuromodulation, spinal cord stimulation, pain, VAS, CSF

References

• 1. Cameron T. Safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain: a 20-year literature review. J Neurosurg 2004;100(3):254-67.
• 2. Eldabe A, Buchsher E, Duarte RV. Complications of spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation techniques: a review of the literature. Pain. 2016;17(2):325-336.
• 3. Kumar K, North RB, Taylor RS, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management: a prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter study of patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS study). Neuromodulation. 2005;8(1-2):213-218.
• 4. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, Eldabe S, Meglio M, Molet J, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain 2007;132(1-2):179-8
• 5. Kumar K, Toth C. The role of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain postlaminectomy. Curr Pain HeadacheRep 1998;2:85-92.
• 6. Manchikanti L, Derby R, Wolfer L, Singh V, Datta S, Hirsch JA. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 7: systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Pain Physician 2009;12(6):929-63.
• 7. Mekhail NA, Mathews M, Nageeb F, Guirguis M, Mekhail MN, Cheng J. Retrospective review of 707 cases of spinal cord stimulation: indications and complications. Pain Pract 2011;11(2):148-53.
• 8. North RB, Kidd DH, Farrokhi F, Piantadosi SA. Spinal cord stimulation vs repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2005;56(1):98-107.
• 9. Özdemir İ, Akbaş M, Yeğin A, Dağıstan G, Erkan DÖ. Spinal kord stimülasyonu uygulanan 62 hastanın retrospektif değerlendirilmesi. Ağrı Dergisi 2017;29(1):25-32.
• 10. Pain SA, Raff M, Melvill R, Coetzee G, Smuts J. Spinal cord stimulation for the management of pain: Recommendations for best clinical practice. S Afr Med J 2013;103(6):423-30.
• 11. Sanders RA, Moeschler SM, Gazelka HM, Lamer TJ, Wang Z, Qu W, et al. Patient Outcomes and Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Retrospective Case Series Evaluating Patient Satisfaction, Pain Scores, and Opioid Requirements. Pain Pract 2016;16(7):899-904.
• 12. Taylor RS, Desai MJ, Rigoard P, Taylor RJ. Predictors of pain relief following spinal cord stimulation in chronic back and leg pain and failed back surgery syndrome: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Pain Pract 2014;14(6):489-505.