Increased pain catastrophizing associated with lower pain relief during spinal cord stimulation: results from a large post-market study.

BACKGROUND: Pain catastrophizing is a negative cognitive distortion to actual or anticipated pain. Our aim was to determine if greater catastrophizing has a deleterious relationship with pain intensity and efficacy outcomes in patients receiving SCS. METHODS: As part of an ongoing Institutional Review Board-approved, multi-site, single arm post-market study, 386 patients were implanted with an Eon Mini™ SCS system and had follow-up visits at 3, 6, and 12 months post-implant. Outcomes collected during the study included, but were not limited to pain intensity using the numeric rating scale (NRS), patient reported pain relief (PRP), satisfaction with their SCS system, quality of life (QOL), pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) and state-trait anxiety index (STAI). RESULTS: NRS scores were associated with higher PCS scores at six months (r = 0.50, p < 0.001). The PCS was a strong predictor of the NRS when controlled for known confounders. Patients with PCS ≥30 at 6-months post-implant had a lower six-month PRP (p < 0.001) and were five times more likely to report dissatisfaction with their SCS device (p < 0.001, OR = 5.46, 95% CI: 2.51-6.35). Additionally, at six months, those who were clinically catastrophizing were three times more likely to report deterioration in QOL (p < 0.002, OR = 3.12, 95% CI: 1.62-5.51). These findings were similar at the 12 months follow visit. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that patients with greater catastrophizing, post-implant, were more likely to report higher pain intensity and lower pain relief, quality of life and satisfaction with SCS. These results indicate that associations between pain intensity and pain-related mental health may contribute to influence the overall efficacy of SCS.

Use of a newly developed delivery device for percutaneous introduction of multiple lead configurations for spinal cord stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: The Epiducer lead delivery system is a novel lead delivery device that can be used to percutaneously implant S-Series paddle leads (St. Jude Medical, Plano, TX, USA) as well as multiple percutaneous leads obviating the need for laminectomy and/or multiple needle sticks, respectively. This study evaluates the safety and usage of the Epiducer lead delivery system. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board-approved observational data collection study was conducted to evaluate usage patterns of the Epiducer system. In addition to the number and frequency of different lead configurations, the following procedural aspects of the surgery were recorded during the evaluation: angle of entry, distance from entry to final lead placement, and physician feedback. Descriptive statistics on adverse events, procedural aspects, and patient outcomes were compiled. RESULTS: Data were collected from 163 patients across 25 investigational sites. Physicians successfully implanted patients using the Epiducer during 89% of the procedures. Seven possible lead configurations were implanted. There were 96% and 92% of physicians "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with accessing the epidural space and placing multiple leads with the Epiducer delivery system, respectfully. Eighty-nine percent of physicians were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with implanting an S-Series paddle lead using the Epiducer delivery system. Ninety-five percent of physicians were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the Epiducer delivery system overall. Ten patients (6%) experienced adverse events. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the Epiducer delivery system allows for the safe and successful percutaneous implantation of paddle leads and/or multiple lead configurations. Furthermore, physicians are satisfied with the Epiducer delivery system.