Factors Associated With Implantable Pulse Generator Site Pain: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.
Deep brain stimulation
implantable pulse generator
implantable pulse generator site pain
outcome assessment (health care)
sacral nerve stimulation
spinal cord stimulation
Journal
Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society
ISSN: 1525-1403
Titre abrégé: Neuromodulation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9804159
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
revised:
25
09
2020
received:
23
08
2020
accepted:
12
10
2020
pubmed:
23
11
2020
medline:
18
12
2021
entrez:
22
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Implantable pulse generator (IPG) site pain following neuromodulation procedures is a recognized complication. The site of the IPG placement varies depending on the neuromodulation type and physician preference. The incidence of IPG site pain as a function of the site of IPG implantation has not been studied systematically. We performed a multicenter cross-sectional survey of the incidence, severity, and quality of IPG site pain, location of the IPG, the pain management needs, functional impairment, and cosmetic appearance related to the IPG placement. Contingency table analysis was conducted for categorical variables, and logistic regression analysis and linear regression model was used. The survey response rate was 60.5% (n = 510). Overall, 31.0% of patients reported pain at the IPG site in the last 72 hours with 31.4% reporting moderate to severe pain and 7.6% reporting severe pain. Older age was inversely associated with IPG-related pain (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96-0.99, p = 0.001). IPG implantation site did not have a statistically significant interaction with IPG site pain (p > 0.05). The most important factor for IPG site-associated pain was having a spinal cord stimulator implanted as compared to a deep brain stimulator, or sacral nerve stimulator. Most subjects reported no functional impairment related to IPG site pain (91%), found the IPG site pain as expected (80%), and found IPG site cosmetic appearance as expected (96%). The incidence of IPG site pain is an important complication of invasive neuromodulation. The anatomic location of the IPG placement does not appear to affect the incidence or severity of IPG site pain. However, the presence of a pre-implant chronic pain disorder does appear to affect the frequency and severity of IPG site pain.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33222364
doi: 10.1111/ner.13317
pii: S1094-7159(21)06912-9
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1351-1356Informations de copyright
© 2020 International Neuromodulation Society.
Références
Cameron T. Safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain: a 20-year literature review. J Neurosurg 2004;100:254-252.
North RB, Kidd DH, Farrokhi F, Piantadosi SA. Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2005;56:98-106.
Kumar K, Hunter G, Demeria D. Spinal cord stimulation in treatment of chronic benign pain: challenges in treatment planning and present status, a 22-year experience. Neurosurgery 2006;58:481-496.
de Vos CC, Meier K, Zaalberg PB et al. Spinal cord stimulation in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy: a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Pain 2014;155:2426-2431.
Slangen R, Schaper NC, CG F et al. Spinal cord stimulation and pain relief in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a prospective two-center randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care 2014;37:3016-3024.
Brazzelli M, Murray A, Fraser C. Efficacy and safety of sacral nerve stimulation for urinary urge incontinence: a systematic review. J Urol 2006;175:835-841.
Turner JA, Loeser JD, Deyo RA, Sanders SB. Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of effectiveness and complications. Pain 2004;108:137-147.
Eldabe S, Buchser E, Duarte RV. Complications of spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation techniques: a review of the literature. Pain Med 2016;17:325-336. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnv025.
Dietvorst S, Decramer T, Lemmens R, Morlion B, Nuttin B, Theys T. Pocket pain and neuromodulation: negligible or neglected. Neuromodulation. 2017;20:600-605.
Hong J, Ridgway EB. Submammary placement with Mastopexy for implantable pulse generator site pain in thin women. Neuromodulation. 2015;18:754-756.
Sheepens WA, Weil EHJ, Van Koeveringe GA, Rohrmann D, Hedlund HEM. Buttock placement of the implantable complications. Pain 2004;108:137-147.
Spinelli M, Giardiello G, Arduini A, van den Hombergh U. New percutaneous technique of sacral nerve stimulation has high initial success rate: preliminary results. Eur Urol 2003;43:70-74.
Scheepens WA, Weil EH, van Koeveringe GA et al. Buttock placement of the implantable pulse generator: a new implantation technique for sacral Neuromodulation- a multicenter study. Eur Urol 2001;40:434-438.
Turner JA, Loeser JD, Deyo RA, Sanders SB. Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed Back surgery syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome: a systemic review of effectiveness and complications. Pain 2004;108:137-147.
Alo KM, Redko V, Charnov J. Four year follow-up of dual electrode spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain. Neuromodulation 2002;5:79-88.
Mekhail NA, Mathews M, Nageeb F, Guirguis M, Mekhail MN, Cheng J. Retrospective review of 707 cases of spinal cord stimulation: indications and complications. Pain Pract 2011;11:148-153.
Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L et al. The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation. Neurosurgery 2008;63:762-770.
Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Balk GA, Stewart RE. Cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain on the visual analogue scale for pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain 2014;155:2545-2550.
Melzack R. The McGill pain questionnaire: from description to measurement. Anesthesiology 2005;103:199-202.