Suppr超能文献

一项关于强直性与爆发性脊髓刺激的双中心对比研究:反应者数量及疼痛抑制程度

A 2-center comparative study on tonic versus burst spinal cord stimulation: amount of responders and amount of pain suppression.

作者信息

De Ridder Dirk, Lenders Mathieu W P M, De Vos Cecile C, Dijkstra-Scholten Cindy, Wolters Rian, Vancamp Tim, Van Looy Pieter, Van Havenbergh Tony, Vanneste Sven

机构信息

*Brai2n & Department of Neurosurgery, Sint Augustinus Hospital, Brussels, Belgium †Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Neurosurgery, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Otago, New Zealand ∥Department of Translational Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium ‡Department of Neurosurgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente §The Neurobionics Foundation, Enschede, The Netherlands ¶School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, The University of Texas, Dallas, TX.

出版信息

Clin J Pain. 2015 May;31(5):433-7. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000129.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord stimulation is a safe and effective procedure applied for medically intractable neuropathic pain and failed back surgery syndrome. Recently, a novel stimulation paradigm was developed, called burst stimulation consisting of intermittent packets of closely spaced high-frequency stimuli. The design consists of 40 Hz burst mode with 5 spikes at 500 Hz per burst, with a pulse width of 1 ms and 1 ms interspike interval delivered in constant current mode.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A retrospective analysis is performed looking at 102 patients from 2 neuromodulation centers, 1 in Belgium and 1 in the Netherlands. This consisted of 2 groups, 1 group who had become failures to tonic (conventional) stimulation and 1 group who still responded to tonic stimulation. All patients were switched from tonic to burst stimulation and the amount of responders as well as the amount of pain suppression was assessed.

RESULTS

Overall burst stimulation was significantly better than tonic stimulation and baseline. On average the pain on numeric rating scale (NRS) improved from 7.8 at baseline to 4.9 with tonic to 3.2 with burst stimulation. For the Belgian and Dutch centers combined, 62.5% of nonresponders to tonic stimulation did respond to burst stimulation, on average, with 43% pain suppression. Most responders to tonic further improved with burst stimulation; on average, pain suppression improved from 50.6% to 73.6.3%. The results (from both centers) did not differ for the amount of obtained pain suppression, only for the amount of responders, which could be related to the different profile of the 2 participating centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Burst seems to be significantly better than tonic stimulation. It can rescue an important amount of nonresponders to tonic stimulation and can further improve pain suppression in responders to tonic stimulation.

摘要

引言

脊髓刺激是一种用于治疗药物难治性神经性疼痛和腰椎手术失败综合征的安全有效的方法。最近,一种新的刺激模式被开发出来,称为爆发式刺激,它由间隔紧密的高频刺激的间歇性脉冲包组成。该设计包括40Hz的爆发模式,每次爆发有5个500Hz的尖峰,脉冲宽度为1ms,尖峰间隔为1ms,以恒流模式输出。

方法和材料

对来自比利时和荷兰的2个神经调节中心的102例患者进行回顾性分析。这包括2组,1组是对强直性(传统)刺激无效的患者,1组是对强直性刺激仍有反应的患者。所有患者都从强直性刺激转换为爆发式刺激,并评估反应者的数量以及疼痛抑制的程度。

结果

总体而言,爆发式刺激明显优于强直性刺激和基线水平。平均而言,数字评分量表(NRS)上的疼痛从基线时的7.8分在强直性刺激下改善到4.9分,在爆发式刺激下改善到3.2分。对于比利时和荷兰的中心合并来看,62.5%对强直性刺激无反应的患者对爆发式刺激有反应,平均疼痛抑制率为43%。大多数对强直性刺激有反应的患者在爆发式刺激下进一步改善;平均而言,疼痛抑制率从50.6%提高到73.6%。两个中心的结果在获得的疼痛抑制程度上没有差异,只是在反应者数量上有差异,这可能与两个参与中心的不同情况有关。

结论

爆发式刺激似乎明显优于强直性刺激。它可以挽救大量对强直性刺激无反应的患者,并可以进一步改善对强直性刺激有反应的患者的疼痛抑制情况。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验