PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Asian J Neurosurg 2023; 18(01): 150-156
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1764121
Original Article

Paddle-Lead Spinal-Cord Stimulation Surgeries for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Single Surgeon Case-Series Outcome Analysis in Indian Population

Satyakam Baruah 
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Faridabad, Haryana, India
,
Anirban D. Banerjee
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Medanta Institute of Neurosciences, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Spinal-cord stimulation (SCS) for relief of chronic neuropathic pain is well established.

Objective The inherent limitations with conventional percutaneous lead SCS are lead migration, positional variations in stimulation, as well as possible nonreplication of benefits after permanent SCS implantation, which were experienced during a positive trial period. To circumvent these limitations, we analyzed five consecutive cases of chronic intractable neuropathic pain who underwent direct SCS paddle lead placement during the trial period for pain relief. In addition, during the process of placing a permanent paddle lead, the impediment created by prior epidural scarring in such chronic patients can be obviated mechanically thereby increasing the efficacy of the procedure.

Material and Methods The demographic details, diagnosis, preoperative visual analogue scale score (VAS), and follow-up VAS were recorded. Surgical procedure consisted of a standard dorsal laminotomy followed by placement of permanent paddle leads.

Results All patients reported significant improvement in their VAS scores. Mean duration of follow-up was 23.6 months (9–35 months). Mean preoperative VAS was 9.4 and 1.4 at the last follow-up. No major complications were found.

Conclusion With careful patient selection and appropriate surgical strategy, it was possible to implant permanent paddle leads during SCS trial itself in our five patients thereby replicating and sustaining the trial period pain relief. We argue that this can be a new cost-effective and reliable technique for the placement of SCS leads achieving excellent and sustained pain relief.

Keywords

spinal-cord stimulation - failed back surgery syndrome - permanent paddle leads - chronic neuropathic pain

Ethical Approval

Ethics approval was sought and was granted vide IRB 1224/2021.


Informed Consent

No patient identifiers have been disclosed. Further all patients have provided informed and written consents prior to the procedures.


Authors' Contributions

Both A.D.B. and S.B. are responsible for conception and design of the study. S.B. was responsible for acquisition and analysis of data. A.D.B. and S.B. were responsible for drafting the manuscript. A.D.B. as the senior surgeon is responsible for performing the surgical procedures and maintaining the records of all cases.


This work should be attributed to: Institute of Neurosciences, Medanta - The Medicity, Sector 38, Gurgaon, 122001, Haryana, India.




Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
31. März 2023

© 2023. Asian Congress of Neurological Surgeons. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Geurts JW, Smits H, Kemler MA, Brunner F, Kessels AG, van Kleef M. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome type I: a prospective cohort study with long-term follow-up. Neuromodulation 2013; 16 (06) 523-529 , discussion 529
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L. et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain 2007; 132 (1-2): 179-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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 (04) 762-770 , discussion 770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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 (01) 98-106 , discussion 106–107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cameron T. Safety and efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain: a 20-year literature review. J Neurosurg 2004; 100 (3, Suppl Spine): 254-267
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Hayek SM, Veizi E, Hanes M. Treatment-limiting complications of percutaneous spinal cord stimulator implants: a review of eight years of experience from an academic centre database. Neuromodulation 2015; 18 (07) 603-608 , discussion 608–609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jeon Y, Huh BK. Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain. Ann Acad Med Singap 2009; 38 (11) 998-1003
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jeon YH. Spinal cord stimulation in pain management: a review. Korean J Pain 2012; 25 (03) 143-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kay AD, McIntyre MD, Macrae WA, Varma TR. Spinal cord stimulation–a long-term evaluation in patients with chronic pain. Br J Neurosurg 2001; 15 (04) 335-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Villavicencio AT, Leveque JC, Rubin L, Bulsara K, Gorecki JP. Laminectomy versus percutaneous electrode placement for spinal cord stimulation. Neurosurgery 2000; 46 (02) 399-405 , discussion 405–406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 North RB, Kidd DH, Olin JC, Sieracki JM. Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes-part I: technical outcomes. Neurosurgery 2002; 51 (02) 381-389 , discussion 389–390
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 North RB, Kidd DH, Petrucci L, Dorsi MJ. Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous with laminectomy electrodes: part II-clinical outcomes. Neurosurgery 2005; 57 (05) 990-996 , discussion 990–996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shealy CN, Mortimer JT, Reswick JB. Electrical inhibition of pain by stimulation of the dorsal columns: preliminary clinical report. Anesth Analg 1967; 46 (04) 489-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 North RB, Lanning A, Hessels R, Cutchis PN. Spinal cord stimulation with percutaneous and plate electrodes: side effects and quantitative comparisons. Neurosurg Focus 1997; 2 (01) e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kemler MA, de Vet HC, Barendse GA, van den Wildenberg FA, van Kleef M. Spinal cord stimulation for chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy–five-year follow-up. N Engl J Med 2006; 354 (22) 2394-2396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bose R, Banerjee AD. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome type I with spinal myoclonus - a case report and review of literature. Br J Neurosurg 2019; 1–3: 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Zhu J, Falco F, Onyewu CO, Joesphson Y, Vesga R, Jari R. Alternative approach to needle placement in spinal cord stimulator trial/implantation. Pain Physician 2011; 14 (01) 45-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Manola L, Holsheimer J. Technical performance of percutaneous and laminectomy leads analyzed by modeling. Neuromodulation 2004; 7 (04) 231-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kumar K, North R, Taylor R. et al. Spinal cord stimulation vs. conventional medical management: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS Study). Neuromodulation 2005; 8 (04) 213-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Babu R, Hazzard MA, Huang KT. et al. Outcomes of percutaneous and paddle lead implantation for spinal cord stimulation: a comparative analysis of complications, reoperation rates, and health-care costs. Neuromodulation 2013; 16 (05) 418-426 , discussion 426–427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kumar K, Bishop S. Financial impact of spinal cord stimulation on the healthcare budget: a comparative analysis of costs in Canada and the United States. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 10 (06) 564-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Manca A, Kumar K, Taylor RS. et al. Quality of life, resource consumption and costs of spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management in neuropathic pain patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS trial). Eur J Pain 2008; 12 (08) 1047-1058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 North RB, Kidd D, Shipley J, Taylor RS. Spinal cord stimulation versus reoperation for failed back surgery syndrome: a cost effectiveness and cost utility analysis based on a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery 2007; 61 (02) 361-368 , discussion 368–369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Taylor RS, Van Buyten JP, Buchser E. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature and assessment of prognostic factors. Eur J Pain 2006; 10 (02) 91-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Pahapill PA. Surgical paddle-lead placement for screening trials of spinal cord stimulation. Neuromodulation 2014; 17 (04) 346-348 , discussion 348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar