Spinal cord stimulation and return to work of patients with failed back surgery syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain has a substantial negative impact on work-related outcomes, which underlines the importance of interventions to reduce the burden. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) efficiently relieves pain in specific chronic pain syndromes and is recommended for treating failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or post-surgical chronic back pain that is refractory to other treatments. To examine the impact of SCS in patients with FBSS on the return to work (RTW), we determined the RTW rate and the factors positively associated with the RTW. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 106 patients with FBSS who benefitted from SCS at a single institution in France between September 1999 and March 2010, we retrospectively included 59 who had stopped work at the time of SCS because of disability or sick leave and evaluated the RTW (rate and predictors, estimating odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]). RESULTS: The mean (SD) post-surgery follow-up for the 59 patients (34 men; mean [SD] age 46.9 [7.4] years) was 7.5 (3.6) years (range 5-15). The RTW rate was 30.5%, with a median [IQR] recovery time of 5.5 months [3-8.5]. RTW was improved with functional improvement evolution (OR 1.1, 95% CI [1.01-1.1], p = 0.02) and was reduced with unemployment > 3 years (OR 0.1, 95% CI [0.01-0.7], p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our protocol for SCS for patients with FBSS, including a strict selection of patients and a multidisciplinary approach, led to good results, especially for the RTW. RTW should be a therapeutic goal, directly affecting indirect costs related to FBSS.

How Should we Use Multicolumn Spinal Cord Stimulation to Optimize Back Pain Spatial Neural Targeting? A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial (ESTIMET Study).

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have highlighted multicolumn spinal cord stimulation (SCS) efficacy, hypothesizing that optimized spatial neural targeting provided by new-generation SCS lead design or its multicolumn programming abilities could represent an opportunity to better address chronic back pain (BP). OBJECTIVE: To compare multicolumn vs. monocolumn programming on clinical outcomes of refractory postoperative chronic BP patients implanted with SCS using multicolumn surgical lead. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve centers included 115 patients in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. After randomization, leads were programmed using only one or several columns. The primary outcome was change in BP visual analogic scale (VAS) at six months. All patients were then programmed using the full potential of the lead up until 12-months follow-up. RESULTS: At six months, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes whether the SCS was programmed using a mono or a multicolumn program. At 12 months, in all patients having been receiving multicolumn SCS for at least six months (n = 97), VAS decreases were significant for global pain (45.1%), leg pain (55.8%), and BP (41.5%) compared with baseline (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The ESTIMET study confirms the significant benefit experienced on chronic BP by patients implanted with multicolumn SCS, independently from multicolumn lead programming. These good clinical outcomes might result from the specific architecture of the multicolumn lead, giving the opportunity to select initially the best column on a multicolumn grid and to optimize neural targeting with low-energy requirements. However, involving more columns than one does not appear necessary, once initial spatial targeting of the "sweet spot" has been achieved. Our findings suggest that this spatial concept could also be transposed to cylindrical leads, which have drastically improved their capability to shape the electrical field, and might be combined with temporal resolution using SCS new modalities.

Comparison of the time to extubation after use of remifentanil or sufentanil in combination with propofol as anesthesia in adults undergoing nonemergency intracranial surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthetics with a short context-sensitive half-time (ie, the time required for the effect-site concentration of an IV drug to decrease by 50% at steady state), such as the opioids remifentanil and sufentanil, are suitable for anesthesia when early neurologic assessment is desired to detect postoperative complications. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety profile of remifentanil and sufentanil in combination with propofol for anesthesia in adult patients undergoing nonemergency intracranial surgery. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study in adults aged 18 to 75 years who were scheduled to undergo a supratentorial neurosurgical procedure with a maximum anticipated duration of 480 minutes. Eligible patients had no incapacitating severe systemic disease (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class 1-3), and only those in whom immediate postoperative extubation was planned were included. Anesthesia was induced with propofol and either remifentanil 1 microg/kg or sufentanil 0.25 microg/kg. Propofol was continued using a target-controlled infusion (TCI) system. Maintenance infusion rates for remifentanil and sufentanil were 0.25 and 0.0025 microg.kg-1.min-1, respectively. The opioid and propofol infusions were adjusted based on hemodynamic parameters (mean arterial blood pressure, heart rate). The primary end point was the time to extubation. Secondary end points were hemodynamic stability (defined as the number of anesthetic adjustments required to maintain intraoperative hemodynamic parameters within 20% of preinduction values), postoperative IV morphine requirement, postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV), and intraoperative anesthetic costs. RESULTS: Sixty adults (29 remifentanil, 31 sufentanil) were included in the study. The 2 groups were similar with respect to sex, weight, indication for surgery, and duration of anesthesia. The sufentanil group was significantly older than the remifentanil group (55.3 vs 45.7 years, respectively; P=0.001). The median extubation time was similar in the remifentanil and sufentanil groups (10 minutes [interquartile range, 5-19 minutes] and 16 minutes [interquartile range, 10-30 minutes], respectively). Remifentanil was associated with the need for significantly fewer adjustments to maintain hemodynamic stability compared with sufentanil (0.8 vs 2.1; P=0.037), greater use of postoperative morphine (44.8% vs 22.6% of patients, P=0.01; mean IV morphine dose per patient: 4 vs 1.3 mg, P=0.016), and higher intraoperative opioid costs per patient euro vs euro P<0.001). The incidence of PONV did not differ significantly between groups. The total cost of intraoperative anesthetics per patient was similar in the 2 groups euro and euro as was the cost of propofol euro vs euro CONCLUSION: In these adults undergoing nonemergency intracranial surgery, there was no significant difference in extubation time between those receiving remifentanil and sufentanil infusions adjusted based on hemodynamic parameters in combination with propofol administered by TCI.