• Pain physician · Sep 2021

    Multicenter Study Observational Study

    24-month Real-World Study of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Failed Back Surgery Patients with Refractory Pain.

    • Concepcion Perez, Elena Rojo, Cesar Margarit, Noelia Sanchez, Tania Blanco, Manuel Munoz, Carlos Crespo, and Dolores Ochoa.
    • Pain Unit, La Princesa University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
    • Pain Physician. 2021 Sep 1; 24 (6): 479-488.

    BackgroundFailed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) causes disability and lowers health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients. Many patients become refractory to Conventional Medical Management (CMM) and Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is advised. However, comparative effectiveness research of both clinical approaches still lacks further evidence.ObjectivesThis study describes Comparative Effectiveness Research of CMM versus SCS to provide real world evidence regarding the appropriate means for FBSS management, in terms of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures.Study DesignNaturalistic, pragmatic, prospective observational multicenter SEFUDOCE-study.SettingFBSS patients attending clinical programmed visits in Pain Unit at Hospital Universitario de La Princesa and at Hospital General Universitario de Alicante (Spain).MethodsStudy evaluates the impact on pain, functional limitation, and HRQoL of CMM versus SCS in the management of FBSS. Patients completed Pain Detect Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D-3L, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Longitudinal data were analysed with repeated-measures one-way analysis of variance adjusting by confounders.ResultsEighty-five adults patients with FBSS receiving treatment according to current clinical practice were assessed. After 24 months, the PainDETECT Questionnnaire showed that CMM patients maintained similar scores, while SCS patients reduced their overall score (current pain: 6 CMM versus 4.21 SCS, P = 0.0091; intensity strongest pain: 7.77 CMM versus 6.07 SCS, P = 0.0103; average pain: 6.46 CMM versus 4.75 SCS, P = 0.0012). For the Oswestry Disability Index, the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale no significant inter-group differences were found. EQ-5D utility improved in SCS patients from baseline (baseline: 0.32 CMM versus 0.22 SCS; 24-month: 0.37 CMM versus 0.63 SCS, P = 0.026). Twenty-four month follow-up showed unlikely presence of neuropathic pain and moderate disability in SCS patients, whereas the CMM patients maintained baseline health state.LimitationsGiven the nature of the intervention, conducting a blinded study was not considered practically feasible. A larger sample could also overcome having younger patients in the SCS arm.ConclusionsSCS may improve the HRQoL and functionality of FBSS patients with refractory pain in the long-term compared to CMM alone.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…