Yellowstone Neurosurgical Associates, Billings, MT, USA; Pacific Pain Treatment Center, San Francisco, CA, USA; North Shore University Hospital, Syosset, NY, USA; and Boston Scientific Neuromodulation, Valencia, CA, USA.
Neuromodulation. 2008 Jan;11(1):66-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2007.00145.x.
Objectives. In spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy, limited pain relief during the temporary trial period is generally considered to be predictive of poor long-term benefit. To validate or refute this perception, the long-term outcomes of subjects who reported less than 50% pain relief during a temporary SCS trial were examined. Materials and Methods. Twelve subjects with intractable pain underwent implantation of trial SCS systems. After a trial period in which they reported less than 50% pain relief, they each received a permanent SCS implant. Pain ratings and complications were tracked for 6-18 months. Results. At the end of the temporary trial period, the average pain relief was 21%; no subject reported 50% or better pain relief. More favorable outcomes were reported after activation of the permanent system, however. At all follow-up time points, at least a third of the subjects reported better than 50% pain relief, and the average pain relief varied over time between 44% and 83%. All complications were readily resolved and no subjects withdrew from the study. Conclusions. Although SCS provided limited pain relief during the trial period, efficacy was more satisfactory after permanent implantation. Several subjects went on to experience nearly complete pain relief for up to 18 months (the maximum follow-up visit for study purposes), and no subject chose to discontinue SCS therapy. SCS appears to be a viable treatment option for patients who fail trials, raising some doubt as to the predictive sensitivity and specificity of the trial period. Thus, although outcome of a temporary trial period may be suggestive of later efficacy with SCS, it may not be the sole predictor of success. Alternatively, the arbitrary benchmark of 50% pain relief that is typically used to define the success of a temporary trial may be too stringent and unreliable.
在脊髓刺激(SCS)治疗中,临时试验期间疼痛缓解有限通常被认为是长期获益不佳的预测因素。为了验证或反驳这一观点,我们检查了在临时 SCS 试验中报告疼痛缓解不足 50%的受试者的长期结果。
12 名患有难治性疼痛的患者接受了试验性 SCS 系统植入。在报告疼痛缓解不足 50%的临时试验期后,每位患者均接受了永久性 SCS 植入。对疼痛评分和并发症进行了 6-18 个月的跟踪。
在临时试验期末,平均疼痛缓解率为 21%;没有受试者报告疼痛缓解率达到 50%或更高。然而,在永久性系统激活后,报告的结果更为有利。在所有随访时间点,至少有三分之一的患者报告疼痛缓解率超过 50%,并且平均疼痛缓解率在 44%至 83%之间随时间变化。所有并发症均容易解决,没有患者退出研究。
尽管 SCS 在试验期间提供的疼痛缓解有限,但在永久性植入后疗效更为满意。几名患者在长达 18 个月的时间内(研究目的的最长随访时间)经历了几乎完全的疼痛缓解,没有患者选择停止 SCS 治疗。SCS 似乎是对试验失败的患者的可行治疗选择,这对试验期间的预测敏感性和特异性提出了一些质疑。因此,尽管临时试验期间的结果可能表明 SCS 的后期疗效,但它可能不是成功的唯一预测因素。或者,通常用于定义临时试验成功的 50%疼痛缓解的任意基准可能过于严格和不可靠。