+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Efficacy and Complications Profile of Surgically Implanted Versus Percutaneously Implanted Spinal Cord Stimulation Systems



Efficacy and Complications Profile of Surgically Implanted Versus Percutaneously Implanted Spinal Cord Stimulation Systems



Anesthesiology Abstracts of Scientific Papers Annual Meeting: Abstract No. A-928



INTRODUCTION: Spinal cord stimulation is an effective treatment for intractable chronic pain. Earlier, comparisons of percutaneous and surgical approaches showed better long-term effect of the surgically implanted leads1,2. Recently, with the improvement in lead design and extensive experience percutaneous techniques of stimulation may be more efficacious. METHODS: 34 patients who underwent percutaneous placement (P-SCS) and 28 who had placement of the insulated four-contact array by laminectomy/laminotomy surgery (S-SCS) were retrospectively studied. All of them completed trial of SCS with decrease of their pains of more than 50%. Mean follow-up was 24.6 months. Patients average ages were 47 and 47.2 years, respectively. Chart review and interviews were used to asses efficacy, complications and narcotic use. RESULTS: Of 34 P-SCS patients 27 still used their stimulators (80%), while 22 of 28 (78.5%) S-SCS patients continued to use SCS at the time of last follow-up. 27 P-SCS patients who continued using their SCS system had a VAS mean change from 9.2 to 4.3 at 1 year following implant while in S-SCS patients scores decreased in average from 9 to 4.3. Both methods produced more than 50% pain relief and were not statistically different. Area of the SCS paresthesias subjectively covered the painful area by 84.4% in P-SCS group and 87.9% in S-SCS group and that area decreased in size 1 year following implant by 13.1% and 6.8%, respectively which was not significantly different. At the same time decrease of the opioid use of 50% or more was noted in 74 % of P-SCS patients and 59% of S-SCS patients. There was only one perioperatively recorded complication in each of the groups. Postoperatively 37 % of the P-SCS patients suffer from any of the complications (most frequent lead migration and headache) and 45% of the S-SCS patients (most frequent nonfunctioning lead and infection). Of those who still used SCS system 11 of 27 in P-SCS group and 11 of 22 in S-SCS group needed to undergo second surgical procedure for either revision or generator replacement. DISCUSSION: Although there is a significant patient population requiring surgical placement of the lead for SCS via laminectomy/laminotomy route, majority of the patients may have comparable results when leads implanted percutaneously. P-SCS is as effective as S-SCS, however, it is associated with less morbidity and shorter hospital stay.

Accession: 034833010

Download citation: RISBibTeXText


Related references

Spinal Cord Stimulation Electrode Design: A Prospective, Randomized Trial of Percutaneous versus Surgically Implanted, Insulated Electrode Arrays. Neurosurgery 45(3): 722-722, 1999

Spontaneous lead breakage in implanted spinal cord stimulation systems. Korean Journal of Pain 23(1): 78-81, 2010

Prevention of mechanical failures in implanted spinal cord stimulation systems. Neuromodulation 9(3): 183-191, 2006

Evaluation of a dual quadripolar surgically implanted spinal cord stimulation lead for failed back surgery patients with chronic low back and leg pain. Neuromodulation 8(4): 219-224, 2005

Implanted functional neuromuscular stimulation systems for individuals with cervical spinal cord injuries: Clinical case reports. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 77(11): 1119-1128, 1996

Comparative protein-profile analysis of implanted versus non-implanted human blastocysts. Human Reproduction 23(9): 1993-2000, 2008

The effect of surgically implanted bullet fragments on the spinal cord in a rabbit model. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 83(6): 884-890, 2001

An algorithmic programming approach for back pain symptoms in failed back surgery syndrome using spinal cord stimulation with a multicolumn surgically implanted epidural lead: a multicenter international prospective study. Pain Practice 15(3): 195-207, 2015

Outcome of implanted spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain: arachnoiditis versus single nerve root injury and mononeuropathy. Brief clinical note. Clinical Journal of Pain 5(2): 189-193, 1989

Surgically implanted and non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation: a review of efficacy, safety and tolerability. European Journal of Neurology 22(9): 1260-1268, 2015

Longitudinal performance of a surgically implanted neuroprosthesis for lower-extremity exercise, standing, and transfers after spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 93(5): 896-904, 2012

Technique, indications, and immediate complications of percutaneously implanted catheters. Pathologie-Biologie 47(3): 266-268, 1999

Stimulation characteristics, complications, and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation systems in patients with refractory angina: a prospective feasibility study. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 17(11 Pt 1): 1751-1760, 1994

Technique, indications, and immediate complications of percutaneously implanted venous access devices. Pathologie Biologie 47(3): 266-268, 1999

Percutaneously implanted markers in peripheral lung tumours: report of complications. Acta Oncologica 52(6): 1225-1228, 2013