Basildon and Thurrock General Hospitals NHS Trust, Pain Management Services, Orsett Hospital, Essex, United Kingdom.
Neuromodulation. 2002 Jul;5(3):137-44. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1403.2002.02023.x.
The objective of this study was to follow up patients considered for spinal cord stimulation and assess outcomes and patient selection factors associated with outcome. A retrospective study of patients considered for spinal cord stimulation was performed. This included three groups: A) those who did not have a temporary trial of stimulation, B) those who did not go on to have long-term stimulation after a trial, and C) those who did go on to have long-term stimulation after a trial. Patient notes were obtained, a structured telephone interview conducted, and patients returned a questionnaire. VAS scores, percentage pain reduction reported, quality of life reports, Oswestry Disability Index and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Indices were recorded. Fifty-two percent of patients who had long-term stimulation reported 50% or greater pain reduction. In the subset of these patients with the diagnosis of failed back surgical syndrome, 51% reported 50% or greater pain reduction. Significant improvements in VAS, Oswestry Disability Index, and depression were reported pre and post long-term stimulation. There were significant differences in the quality-of-life reports between the patients who received long-term stimulation (who showed a positive outcome) and those who did not (who showed a negative outcome); 80% of patients receiving long-term stimulation reported an improvement in their quality of life. Follow-up of a cohort of patients receiving long-term stimulation demonstrated some reduction of treatment efficacy. Use of a psychological interview aided patient selection, but no other factors showed a correlation with reported pain reduction. No serious adverse effects were demonstrated. A revision rate of 23.5% occured in long-term stimulated patients. We conclude that spinal cord stimulation is an efficacious therapy which is not associated with serious side effects. There is some reduction in therapeutic efficacy over time. Patients deteriorate without treatment.
本研究的目的是随访考虑脊髓刺激的患者,并评估与结果相关的结局和患者选择因素。对考虑脊髓刺激的患者进行了回顾性研究。这包括三组:A)未进行临时刺激试验的患者,B)临时刺激试验后未进行长期刺激的患者,C)临时刺激试验后进行长期刺激的患者。获取患者病历,进行结构化电话访谈,并让患者返回问卷。记录 VAS 评分、报告的疼痛减轻百分比、生活质量报告、Oswestry 残疾指数和医院焦虑和抑郁指数。52%接受长期刺激的患者报告疼痛减轻 50%或以上。在这些诊断为失败的背部手术综合征的患者亚组中,51%报告疼痛减轻 50%或以上。长期刺激前后报告 VAS、Oswestry 残疾指数和抑郁显著改善。接受长期刺激的患者(表现出积极结果)和未接受长期刺激的患者(表现出消极结果)之间的生活质量报告存在显著差异;80%接受长期刺激的患者报告生活质量有所改善。对接受长期刺激的患者队列的随访表明,治疗效果有些降低。使用心理访谈有助于患者选择,但没有其他因素与报告的疼痛减轻相关。未显示出严重的不良反应。长期刺激患者的修订率为 23.5%。我们的结论是,脊髓刺激是一种有效的治疗方法,不会引起严重的副作用。随着时间的推移,治疗效果会有所降低。不治疗患者会恶化。