Short- and long-term effects of conventional spinal cord stimulation on chronic pain and health perceptions: A longitudinal controlled trial.
Journal
European journal of pain (London, England)
ISSN: 1532-2149
Titre abrégé: Eur J Pain
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
revised:
03
06
2022
received:
18
01
2022
accepted:
25
06
2022
pubmed:
29
6
2022
medline:
14
9
2022
entrez:
28
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The effectiveness and long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are not fully established, especially considering that data from patients who withdrew from the trial are rarely analysed, which may lead to overestimation of SCS efficacy. We evaluated short- and long-term effects of SCS on chronic pain and perceived health, beyond natural variability in these outcomes. In a prospective design, 176 chronic pain patients referred to SCS were evaluated five times (baseline; retest ~6 weeks later; post-SCS trial; 8 and 28 weeks post-permanent implantation). Patients whose SCS trial failed (Temp group) were followed up and compared to those who underwent permanent SCS (Perm group). Analyses revealed a non-linear (U-shaped) trend significantly different between the two groups. In the Perm group, a significant improvement occurred post-SCS implantation in pain severity, pain interference, health-related quality of life and self-rated health, which was followed by gradual worsening and return to baseline values at end of follow-up. In the Temp group, only minor changes occurred in these outcomes over time. On average, baseline and end of follow-up values in the Perm and Temp groups were similar: ~40% in each group exhibited an increase in pain severity over time and 38% and 33%, respectively, exhibited reductions in pain severity over time. Since the greatest improvement in the outcome measures occurred from baseline to post-SCS trial (T1-T3) followed by a gradual decline in the effect, it appears that SCS may not be effective for the majority of chronic pain patients. This longitudinal study evaluated short and long term effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on chronic pain outcome measures, beyond their natural variation in time. Despite significant short term improvements, by the end of the seven months' follow-up, the outcomes in the treatment group (people who received the permanent implantation) were similar to those of the control group (people whose SCS trial failed and did not continue to permanent implantation) suggesting SCS may not be cost-effective for chronic pain patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness and long-term outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) are not fully established, especially considering that data from patients who withdrew from the trial are rarely analysed, which may lead to overestimation of SCS efficacy. We evaluated short- and long-term effects of SCS on chronic pain and perceived health, beyond natural variability in these outcomes.
METHODS
In a prospective design, 176 chronic pain patients referred to SCS were evaluated five times (baseline; retest ~6 weeks later; post-SCS trial; 8 and 28 weeks post-permanent implantation). Patients whose SCS trial failed (Temp group) were followed up and compared to those who underwent permanent SCS (Perm group).
RESULTS
Analyses revealed a non-linear (U-shaped) trend significantly different between the two groups. In the Perm group, a significant improvement occurred post-SCS implantation in pain severity, pain interference, health-related quality of life and self-rated health, which was followed by gradual worsening and return to baseline values at end of follow-up. In the Temp group, only minor changes occurred in these outcomes over time. On average, baseline and end of follow-up values in the Perm and Temp groups were similar: ~40% in each group exhibited an increase in pain severity over time and 38% and 33%, respectively, exhibited reductions in pain severity over time.
CONCLUSIONS
Since the greatest improvement in the outcome measures occurred from baseline to post-SCS trial (T1-T3) followed by a gradual decline in the effect, it appears that SCS may not be effective for the majority of chronic pain patients.
SIGNIFICANCE
This longitudinal study evaluated short and long term effects of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on chronic pain outcome measures, beyond their natural variation in time. Despite significant short term improvements, by the end of the seven months' follow-up, the outcomes in the treatment group (people who received the permanent implantation) were similar to those of the control group (people whose SCS trial failed and did not continue to permanent implantation) suggesting SCS may not be cost-effective for chronic pain patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35761769
doi: 10.1002/ejp.2002
pmc: PMC9543320
doi:
Types de publication
Controlled Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1849-1862Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.
Références
Transl Perioper Pain Med. 2019;6(3):81-90
pubmed: 31687422
Pain. 2020 Jan;161(1):24-35
pubmed: 31453983
Pain. 1975 Sep;1(3):277-299
pubmed: 1235985
Neuromodulation. 2019 Apr;22(3):280-289
pubmed: 30536545
J Health Soc Behav. 1997 Mar;38(1):21-37
pubmed: 9097506
Eur J Pain. 2019 May;23(5):1031-1044
pubmed: 30597719
Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2014 Mar;18(3):398
pubmed: 24500636
Pain Res Manag. 2005 Autumn;10(3):159-64
pubmed: 16175252
Neuromodulation. 2011 Jul-Aug;14(4):312-8; discussion 318
pubmed: 21992424
Spinal Cord. 2020 Oct;58(10):1049-1059
pubmed: 32576946
Neuromodulation. 2021 Jan;24(1):76-85
pubmed: 32929834
Pain Pract. 2014 Jul;14(6):489-505
pubmed: 23834386
J Neurophysiol. 1992 Sep;68(3):818-32
pubmed: 1432050
J Pain. 2021 Feb;22(2):127-142
pubmed: 32574787
Eur J Pain. 2021 Nov;25(10):2212-2225
pubmed: 34196075
J Pain. 2008 Feb;9(2):105-21
pubmed: 18055266
Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2021;99(2):123-134
pubmed: 33249416
Acta Cardiol. 2015 Apr;70(2):233-43
pubmed: 26148385
Pain. 2020 Dec;161(12):2820-2829
pubmed: 32618875
Eur J Pain. 2019 Apr;23(4):652-659
pubmed: 30407696
Pain Pract. 2017 Apr;17(4):533-545
pubmed: 27739179
J Pain Res. 2021 Sep 24;14:3025-3032
pubmed: 34611433
Postgrad Med. 2020 Nov;132(sup3):17-21
pubmed: 32403963
Pain. 2017 May;158(5):771-774
pubmed: 28106667
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Mar;13(17):iii, ix-x, 1-154
pubmed: 19331797
Neuromodulation. 2016 Jun;19(4):429-36
pubmed: 27121447
J Neurophysiol. 1988 Feb;59(2):607-22
pubmed: 3351576
Neuromodulation. 2018 Jul;21(5):495-503
pubmed: 29566313
Neuromodulation. 2008 Jan;11(1):66-73
pubmed: 22150994
Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018;139:357-378
pubmed: 30146054
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
Pain Med. 2009 May-Jun;10(4):639-53
pubmed: 19638142
Pain. 2014 Nov;155(11):2426-31
pubmed: 25180016
Pain. 2019 Jun;160(6):1410-1420
pubmed: 30720582
Pain Med. 2011 Aug;12(8):1142-53
pubmed: 21749636
Pain Pract. 2011 Mar-Apr;11(2):148-53
pubmed: 21371254
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Dec 2;12:CD013756
pubmed: 34854473
Eur J Pain. 2022 Oct;26(9):1849-1862
pubmed: 35761769
J Headache Pain. 2017 Oct 4;18(1):101
pubmed: 28980171
Neurosurgery. 2008 Oct;63(4):762-70; discussion 770
pubmed: 18981888