• Eur J Pain · Jan 2000

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical Trial

    Pain and quality of life in patients with critical limb ischaemia: results of a randomized controlled multicentre study on the effect of spinal cord stimulation. ESES study group.

    • G H Spincemaille, H M Klomp, E W Steyerberg, and J D Habbema.
    • Dept. of Neurosurgery, Academic Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands. gspi@snch.azm.nl
    • Eur J Pain. 2000 Jan 1;4(2):173-84.

    AbstractWe carried out an assessment of pain and quality of life of patients with critical limb ischaemia during the follow-up of a multicentre randomized trial in more detail than previously reported. In a multicentre clinical trial 120 patients were randomized between medical treatment and medical treatment plus spinal cord stimulation. Patients were selected on the basis of clinical symptoms and macrocirculatory data as described in the European consensus document on critical limb ischaemia. Data were collected at intake and then 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18 months later. Primary outcome measures were limb salvage, pain relief and quality of life. Patient and limb survival was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Pain was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), the McGill pain questionnaire, the pain score of the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and the use of analgesics. Quality of life was evaluated using the NHP, the EuroQol and mobility subscore of the Sickness Impact Profile. The 2-year limb survival was 52% for SCS treatment and 46% for standard treatment (p =0.47). Pain relief was considerable in both treatment strategies (p<0.005) with no significant differences between the strategies. The improvement occurred within the first few months and remained stable during further follow-up. Patients with SCS used fewer non-narcotic and narcotic drugs (p<0.001 at t=1 and t=3, p<0.002 at t=6). The overall scores of quality of life improved significantly (p<0.05), with no difference in score between treatments. The subscores of mobility and energy of the NHP in non-amputated patients was significantly better in the SCS group (p<0.005). Amputation had a negative effect on mobility, resulting in a difficult rehabilitation but relieved pain substantially (p<0. 05). In contrast to the existing literature, the randomized trial revealed no major difference in overall pain and quality of life assessment between treatment groups. The effect on energy and mobility was significantly better in patients treated with SCS, who also used substantially fewer analgesics.Copyright 2000 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain.

      Pubmed     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…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.