Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 10 de 10
Filtrar
1.
Pain Pract ; 20(8): 937-945, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32543118

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Despite major advancements in features and capabilities of the implantable pulse generator (IPG), real-life longevity and cost-effectiveness studies to guide pain specialists to make the appropriate choice between rechargeable and non-rechargeable IPG are limited. Our study aimed to compare the longevity and cost effectiveness of rechargeable vs. non-rechargeable IPG and SCS systems. METHODS: Data were collected for all SCS implantations performed between 1994 and 2018. The primary goal was to determine IPG longevity, defined as the time interval between IPG implantation and elective replacement due to IPG end of life (EOL). On the other hand, SCS system longevity was defined as the time between SCS implantation and its removal or revision for any reason other than IPG EOL. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess IPG and SCS system longevities. Cost analysis was performed for cost effectiveness. RESULTS: The median IPG longevity was significantly higher for rechargeable SCS devices than for non-rechargeable SCS devices (7.20 years and 3.68 years, respectively). The median cost per day was similar for both IPGs, $13.90 and $13.81 for non-rechargeable and rechargeable, respectively. The median cost for SCS systems was higher for the rechargeable group ($60.70) compared with the non-rechargeable group ($31.38). CONCLUSIONS: Rechargeable IPG had increased longevity compared to their non-rechargeable counterparts, yet there was no significant difference in the actual longevity due to premature revisions or explantations between both SCS systems. Furthermore, non-rechargeable SCS systems were found to be the more cost-effective option when compared with rechargeable SCS systems.


Assuntos
Estimulação da Medula Espinal/economia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/instrumentação , Análise Custo-Benefício , Falha de Equipamento , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino
2.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 2020 Jan 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31932490

RESUMO

Contemporary nonmalignant pain treatment algorithms commence with conservative non-invasive strategies, later progressing from minimally invasive interventions to invasive techniques or implantable devices. The most commonly used implantable devices are spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems or targeted drug delivery (TDD) devices. Historically, SCS had been considered in advance of TDD, positioning TDD behind SCS failures. Following Institutional Review Board approval, data were extracted from electronic medical records of patients who underwent SCS trial in the Department of Pain Management at Cleveland Clinic from 1994 to 2013. The sample size was analyzed in two cohorts: those who succeeded with SCS and those who failed SCS and consequently proceeded to TDD. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and a predictive formula for successful outcomes was created. 945 patients were included in the cohort of which 119 (12.6%) subjects achieved adequate pain relief with TDD after failure of SCS. Gender, age, depression and primary pain diagnosis were significantly different in this subgroup. Males were 52% less likely to experience pain relief with SCS. The odds of SCS success decreased as age increased by 6% per year. Patients with comorbid depression, interestingly, were 63% more likely to succeed with SCS. A logistic model was created to predict SCS success which was used to create a predictive formula. Older male patients diagnosed with spine-related pain were more likely to benefit from TDD than SCS. This observation potentially identifies a subgroup in whom consideration for TDD in advance of SCS failure could prove more efficient and cost effective. These retrospective findings warrant prospective comparative studies to validate this derived predictive formula.

3.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 43(7): 768-775, 2018 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30192304

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the observation that select nicotine receptor agonists have analgesic effects, smokers report higher pain scores and more functional impairments than lifelong nonsmokers, attributable to exaggerated stress responses, receptor desensitization, and altered pharmacokinetics compounded by accelerated structural damage resulting from impaired bone healing, osteoporosis, and advancement of disk disease. We hypothesized that smoking diminishes the analgesic response to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with chronic spine-related pain conditions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at Cleveland Clinic by collecting and assessing data of 213 patients who had been implanted with SCS for spine-pain indications. History of tobacco smoking was subcategorized into 3 categories: past (former smoker), present (current smoker), or those who had never previously smoked (lifelong nonsmokers), and a multivariable linear regression was run to measure the correlation, if any, between smoking status and numerical rating scale pain score. In addition, opioid consumption at baseline and 12-month follow-up, expressed in milligram oral morphine equivalents, was collected and compared. RESULTS: Adjusted for differences, at 1-year follow-up, current smokers (n = 62) reported numerical rating scale pain score of 7.0, which is 1.93 (P < 0.001) and 1.32 (P = 0.001) points higher than those of lifelong nonsmokers (n = 77) and former smokers (n = 74), respectively. Opioid intake was 2.4 times higher (P = 0.004) in smokers than in lifelong nonsmokers. CONCLUSIONS: Among our SCS-implanted sample, a positive correlation was observed between tobacco use and degree of pain reduction as early as 12 months postimplant; this was evident by the reported higher pain scores and opioid use in current smokers in comparison with former smokers and lifelong nonsmokers.


Assuntos
Dor nas Costas/terapia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Fumar Cigarros/tendências , Medição da Dor/tendências , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/tendências , Adulto , Idoso , Dor nas Costas/diagnóstico , Dor nas Costas/epidemiologia , Dor Crônica/diagnóstico , Dor Crônica/epidemiologia , Fumar Cigarros/efeitos adversos , Fumar Cigarros/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição da Dor/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento
4.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 43(4): 391-406, 2018 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29481371

RESUMO

To assess the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for each indication, one must critically assess each specific clinical outcome to identify outcomes that benefit from SCS therapy. To date, a comprehensive review of clinically relevant outcome-specific evidence regarding SCS has not been published. We aimed to assess all randomized controlled trials from the world literature for the purpose of evaluating the clinical outcome-specific efficacy of SCS for the following outcomes: perceived pain relief or change pain score, quality of life, functional status, psychological impact, analgesic medication utilization, patient satisfaction, and health care cost and utilization. Interventions were SCS, without limitation to the type of controls or the type of SCS in the active arms. For each study analyzed, a quality assessment was performed using a validated scale that assesses reporting, external validity, bias, confounding, and power. Each outcome was assessed specific to its indication, and the primary measure of each abovementioned outcome was a summary of the level of evidence. Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were analyzed (7 for trunk and limb pain, inclusive of failed back surgery syndrome; 8 for refractory angina pectoris; 1 for cardiac X syndrome; 3 for critical limb ischemia; 2 for complex regional pain syndrome; and 2 for painful diabetic neuropathy). Evidence assessments for each outcome for each indication were depicted in tabular format. Outcome-specific evidence scores were established for each of the abovementioned indications, providing both physicians and patients with a summary of evidence to assist in choosing the optimal evidence-based intervention. The evidence presented herein has broad applicability as it encompasses a breadth of patient populations, variations of SCS therapy, and comparable controls that, together, reflect comprehensive clinical decision making.


Assuntos
Manejo da Dor/tendências , Medição da Dor/tendências , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/tendências , Humanos , Dor/diagnóstico , Dor/epidemiologia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Medição da Dor/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
5.
Pain Pract ; 18(3): 305-313, 2018 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28520273

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal targeted drug delivery systems historically required physician office visits for dose adjustment to manage fluctuating pain. A wireless device now enables patients to supplement their basal intrathecal infusion with a programmed on-demand bolus dose. We sought to quantify the change in oral breakthrough opioid need associated with the use of an intrathecal bolus in comparison to those treated with the basal infusion alone. METHODS: Demographic, dosage, bolus usage and longevity data were extracted from the historical medical record of 69 patients (18/51 bolus/nonbolus) followed continuously at our center. Medication consumption and Pain Disability Index measures were obtained at baseline and most recent follow-up. RESULTS: Among patients with the bolus option, only 2 (11%; confidence interval [CI] 0% to 26%) continued to require oral opiates to manage breakthrough pain compared to 29 (57%; CI 43% to 71%) without the bolus option. The Pain Disability Index score decreased by 19% in patients with the bolus option and by 25% in those with the basal infusion. Total daily intrathecal opioid intake was 34% lower in the group with the bolus device. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing an intrathecal bolus to treat incident pain was a safe way to manage unpredictable breakthrough pain and may represent a cost-saving opportunity by eliminating the need for oral analgesic medications.


Assuntos
Analgesia Controlada pelo Paciente/métodos , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Dor Irruptiva/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Adulto , Idoso , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Humanos , Bombas de Infusão Implantáveis , Injeções Espinhais , Estudos Longitudinais , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos
6.
Neuromodulation ; 20(6): 553-557, 2017 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28726312

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Surgical site infection is a potential complication of spinal cord stimulator (SCS) implantation. Current understanding of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of these infections is based largely on small clinical studies, many of which are outdated. Evidence-based guidelines for management of SCS-related infections thus rely instead on expert opinion, case reports, and case series. In this study, we aim to provide a large scale retrospective study of infection management techniques specifically for SCS implantation. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study of SCS implants performed over a seven-year period at 11 unique academic and non-academic institutions in the United States. All infections and related complications in this cohort were analyzed. RESULTS: Within our study of 2737 SCS implant procedures, we identified all procedures complicated by infection (2.45%). Localized incisional pain and wound erythema were the most common presenting signs. Laboratory studies were performed in the majority of patients, but an imaging study was performed in less than half of these patients. The most common causative organism was Staphylococcus aureus and the IPG pocket was the most common site of an SCS-related infection. Explantation was ultimately performed in 52 of the 67 patients (77.6%). Non-explantation salvage therapy was attempted in 24 patients and was successful in resolving the infection in 15 patients without removal of SCS hardware components. DISCUSSION: This study provides current data regarding SCS related infections, including incidence, diagnosis, and treatment.


Assuntos
Contaminação de Equipamentos , Próteses e Implantes/efeitos adversos , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/efeitos adversos , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/instrumentação , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/diagnóstico , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Contaminação de Equipamentos/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Próteses e Implantes/microbiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Infecções Estafilocócicas/diagnóstico , Infecções Estafilocócicas/epidemiologia , Infecções Estafilocócicas/terapia , Staphylococcus aureus/isolamento & purificação , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/tratamento farmacológico , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/epidemiologia
7.
Neuromodulation ; 20(6): 558-562, 2017 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28493599

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation is an evidence-based treatment for a number of chronic pain conditions. While this therapy offers improvement in pain and function it is not without potential complications. These complications include device failure, migration, loss of therapeutic paresthesia, and infection. This article looked to establish a modern infection rate for spinal cord stimulators, assess the impact of known risk factors for surgical site infections and to determine the impact of certain preventative measures on the rate of infection. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, a multisite, retrospective review was conducted on 2737 unique implants or revisions of SCS systems. Patient demographics, risk factors including diabetes, tobacco use, obesity, revision surgery, trial length, implant location, implant type, surgeon background, prophylactic antibiotic use, utilization of a occlusive dressing, and post-operative antibiotic use were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: The overall infection rate was 2.45% (n = 67). Diabetes, tobacco use, and obesity did not independently increase the rate of infection. Revision surgeries had a trend toward higher infection rate; however, this did not meet statistical significance. There was no difference in the rate of infection between implants performed by physicians of different base specialties, cylinder leads vs. paddle leads, or between different prophylactic antibiotics. Implants performed at academic centers had a higher rate of infection when compared to implants performed in nonacademic settings. When patients received an occlusive dressing or post-operative antibiotics they had a lower rate of infection. CONCLUSIONS: The infection rate (2.45%) reported in this study is lower than the previously reported rates (3-6%) and are on par with other surgical specialties. This study did not show an increased rate of infection for patients that used tobacco, had diabetes or were obese. It's possible that given the low overall infection rate a larger study is needed to establish the true impact of these factors on infection. In addition, this study did not address the impact of poorly controlled diabetes mellitus (elevated hemoglobin A1c) vs. well-controlled diabetes. It can be concluded from this study that utilizing an occlusive dressing over the incision in the post-operative period decreases the rate of infection and should become the standard of care. This study also demonstrated the positive impact of post-operative antibiotics in decreasing the rate of infection. Studies in other surgical specialties have not shown this impact which would suggest that further research is needed.


Assuntos
Eletrodos Implantados/tendências , Contaminação de Equipamentos , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/tendências , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/diagnóstico , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/etiologia , Adulto , Idoso , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Eletrodos Implantados/efeitos adversos , Eletrodos Implantados/microbiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/efeitos adversos , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/instrumentação , Infecção da Ferida Cirúrgica/tratamento farmacológico
8.
Pain Pract ; 17(5): 669-677, 2017 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27779368

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A recent multicenter study presented 52-week safety and efficacy results from an open-label extension of a randomized, sham-controlled trial for patients with chronic migraine (CM) undergoing peripheral nerve stimulation of the occipital nerves. We present the data from a single center of 20 patients enrolled at the Cleveland Clinic's Pain Management Department. METHODS: In this single center, 20 patients were implanted with a neurostimulation system, randomized to an active or control group for 12 weeks, and received open-label treatment for an additional 40 weeks. Outcomes collected included number of headache days, pain intensity, Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS), Zung Pain and Distress (PAD), direct patient reports of headache pain relief, quality of life, satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Headache days per month were reduced by 8.51 (±9.81) days (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients who achieved a 30% and 50% reduction in headache days and/or pain intensity was 60% and 35%, respectively. MIDAS and Zung PAD were reduced for all patients. Fifteen (75%) of the 20 patients at the site reported at least one AE. A total of 20 AEs were reported from the site. CONCLUSION: Our results support the 12-month efficacy of 20 CM patients receiving peripheral nerve stimulation of the occipital nerves in this single-center trial.


Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/terapia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Nervos Periféricos/fisiologia , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do Tratamento
9.
Pain Pract ; 16(8): 961-968, 2016 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26369502

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the medial branch nerves that innervate the facet joints is a well-established treatment modality; however, studies to determine the optimal radiofrequency ablation temperature are lacking. A wide range (70 to 90°C) has been used. This study aimed to compare outcomes with two set temperatures for the lumbar facet medial branch ablation, 90 and 80°C. METHODS: This retrospective study compared the degree of patient self-reported functional improvement relief, postoperative opioid dose changes, as well as duration among lumbar facet medial branch (RFA) patients who had the procedures performed at 80 or 90°C. RESULTS: Patients who underwent the procedure at 90°C had 3.1 (95% CI 1.7, 6.5) times the odds (P = 0.0004) of reporting functional improvement of at least 50% when compared to those who underwent neurotomy at 80°C. For self-reported functional improvement greater or equal to 75%, the results were sustained with an odds ratio of 2.8 (95% CI 1.2, 5.7) favoring those with 90°C temperature neurotomy (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: There seems to be significant functional improvement associated with temp of 90°C compared to 80°C, with no added risk of complications. Randomized controlled studies are warranted.

10.
Reg Anesth Pain Med ; 40(6): 674-80, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26469369

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cervical transforaminal epidural steroid injections (CTFESIs) may help decrease pain and restore function in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Evidence of the injections' effectiveness, however, remains controversial, and multiple case reports have identified potential complications. Such reports have led to diminished interest in including the procedure in patient care algorithms. OBJECTIVES: Our retrospective analysis aims to evaluate the CTFESI-associated pain relief and possible decreased need for spine surgery, along with its potential predictive role in determining cervical surgical outcomes. Finally, our study intends to estimate associated complications. METHODS: A pain management database registry was used to identify patients who were referred by spine surgeons for diagnostic CTFESIs in preparation for possible surgery between January 2001 and December 2009. Outcomes were defined as the incidence of cervical surgery after diagnostic injection and the associated pain relief. A Poisson distribution was used to obtain a 95% confidence interval for the incidence of complications. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After diagnostic CTFESIs, 45 (70.3%) of the observed 64 patients did not require cervical spine surgery whereas 19 (29.7%) still did. The mean pain reduction was 4.4 units on the numeric rating scale, with no observed complications. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis further demonstrates the safety, diagnostic value, and possible therapeutic role of CTFESIs. A larger, controlled, randomized study is needed to assess definitively the procedure's efficacy and safety.


Assuntos
Vértebras Cervicais , Injeções Epidurais/métodos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Radiculopatia/diagnóstico , Radiculopatia/tratamento farmacológico , Esteroides/administração & dosagem , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Sistema de Registros , Estudos Retrospectivos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA