The Predicted Outcome of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With a Psychopathological Disorder and Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2: A Systematic Review From 2009 to 2021.

OBJECTIVES: Psychologic screening is often included as a mandatory component of evaluation of the impact of psychopathology disorders on the predicted outcome of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for patients with chronic pain due to persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS type 2). The conclusion of such screenings can influence the decision to offer SCS therapy to a patient. However, evidence on the impact of psychopathology on SCS outcomes is still scarce. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To address this knowledge gap, we systematically reviewed the literature from 2009 to 2021 to explore the correlation between the presence of a psychopathological disorder and the predicted outcome of SCS in patients with PSPS type 2. The literature search was conducted using various online data bases with "failed back surgery syndrome," "psychopathology," and "spinal cord stimulation" used as essential keywords. The identified studies were organized in a Rayyan AI data base, and the quality was analyzed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. RESULTS: Our search generated the identification of 468 original articles, of which two prospective and four retrospective studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies reported pain relief, a reduction of symptoms of anxiety and depression, and an improvement in rumination on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale in patients with PSPS type 2 after SCS therapy. The studies also found contradictory outcomes measured using the Oswestry Disability Index, and in terms of the impact of psychopathological disorder on the clinical outcome and revision rate of the SCS system. CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, we found no convincing evidence that the presence of a psychopathological disorder affects the predicted outcome of SCS therapy in patients with PSPS type 2.

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: to Trial or Not to Trial?

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a recommended therapy to treat failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). A trial period is practiced to enhance patient selection. However, its fundamental evidence is limited, especially concerning long-term benefit and therapy safety. We compared the long-term (5.3 ± 4.0 years) clinical outcome and therapy safety of a trialed and nontrialed implantation strategy, including multidimensional variables and pain intensity fluctuations over time. A multicenter cohort analysis was performed in 2 comparable groups of FBSS patients. Regarding eligibility, patients had to be treated with SCS for at least 3 months. While the Trial group comprised patients who underwent an SCS implantation after a successful trial, the No-Trial group encompassed patients who underwent complete implantation within 1 session. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity scores and complications. The Trial and No-Trial groups consisted of 194 and 376 patients (N = 570), respectively. A statistically but not clinically significant difference in pain intensity (P = .003; effect = 0.506 (.172-.839)) was found in favor of the Trial group. No interaction between a time dependency effect and pain intensity was noted. Whereas trialed SCS patients were more likely to cease opioid usage (P = .003; OR = .509 (.326-.792)), patients in the No-Trial group endured fewer infections (P = .006; proportion difference = .43 (.007-.083)). Although the clinical relevance of our findings should be proven in future studies, this long-term real-world data study indicates that patient-centered assessments on whether an SCS trial should be performed have to be investigated. According to the current ambiguous evidence, SCS trials should be considered on a case-by-case basis. PERSPECTIVE: The currently available comparative evidence, together with our results, remains ambiguous on which SCS implantation strategy might be deemed superior. An SCS trial should be considered on a case-by-case basis, for which further investigation of its clinical utility in certain patient populations or character traits is warranted.

Qualitative Evaluation of the Influence of Acute Oxaliplatin-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy on Quality of Life and Activities of Daily Life.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Oxaliplatin often causes acute or chronic peripheral neuropathy in patients with an intestinal or pancreatic tumor, but in-depth insights in its influence on quality of life (QoL) are lacking. We explored the influence of acute oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) on daily QoL in these patients. METHODS: We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of patients receiving oxaliplatin and possibly experiencing acute OIPN. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two researchers. Data were analyzed by using the constant comparative method for content analysis with ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: After nine patients, saturation took place. In total, 11 patients were interviewed. Four themes were extracted from the data: (1) adverse effects, (2) physical (un)well-being, (3) emotional aspects, and (4) treatment aspects. All participants were suffering from acute OIPN to a certain extent, leading to restrictions in daily activities such as household chores, but also to a decrease in mobility and independency. Other adverse effects such as general malaise and gastrointestinal side effects also influenced the participants' well-being, as did the diagnosis and prognosis of their disease. CONCLUSION: Acute OIPN, together with other side effects of chemotherapeutic treatment and the difficulties that come with the diagnosis of cancer and its prognosis, largely influences patients' daily QoL. Managing expectations (by patient education) seems important.