Sensor driven-position adaptive versus conventional spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome: a retrospective case series

Creative Commons License

Akbaş M., Salem H. H., Emara T. H., Dinç B., Karslı B.

EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY PSYCHIATRY AND NEUROSURGERY, cilt.55, sa.1, 2019 (ESCI) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 55 Sayı: 1
  • Basım Tarihi: 2019
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1186/s41983-019-0131-6
  • Dergi Adı: EGYPTIAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY PSYCHIATRY AND NEUROSURGERY
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Neuromodulation, Spinal cord stimulation, Position adaptive stimulation, Failed back surgery syndrome, Chronic back pain, VAS score, NEUROPATHIC PAIN, FOLLOW-UP, MULTICENTER, MANAGEMENT, IMPACT, TRIAL
  • Akdeniz Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a common problem affecting 20-40% of cases undergoing spine surgeries. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been shown to be an efficient and relatively safe treatment in managing many intractable chronic pain syndromes. Objectives This study compares the efficacy and safety of MR-compatible sensor driven-position adaptive SCS and conventional SCS in treating FBSS. Methods This is a retrospective case series of 120 consecutive FBSS patients who underwent SCS between February 2011 and March 2018. Pain levels, analgesic/opioid use, and sleep problems were assessed before and 3 months after the procedure in patients who received either conventional SCS (group 1; n = 62) or sensor-driven position adaptive SCS (group 2; n = 34). The degree of patient satisfaction, the change in the activities of daily living (ADLs) together with the rate of complications were compared in both treatment groups. Results The two treatment groups were homogenous at baseline. Patients in both groups improved significantly regarding pain, opioid consumption, sleep, and ADLs. The magnitude of improvement was statistically higher in group 2. An absolute reduction of 6 points on the VAS in patients who received position adaptive SCS vs a 3.3 point reduction in conventional SCS cases (p < 0.0001). Half of the patients in group 2 (n = 17) showed excellent satisfaction after the procedure versus 14.5% of cases in group 1 (n = 9). Conclusion SCS is an efficient and reliable treatment in FBSS. MR-compatible sensor driven-position adaptive SCS can be a more effective treatment in this patient group.