Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Vicki and Jack Farber Institute for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Department of Neurosurgery, Vicki and Jack Farber Institute for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
World Neurosurg. 2019 Nov;131:264-274.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.167. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
In the United States, chronic low back pain affects up to 37% of adults and is a multibillion dollar health care expenditure. Spinal cord simulation (SCS) has been established as an effective treatment alternative for chronic neuropathic low back and leg pain, especially for patients with failed back surgery syndrome or chronic regional pain syndrome. The field of SCS has rapidly advanced such that analgesia can now be achieved through numerous different waveforms, each claiming to offer improved outcomes. These waveforms include traditional paresthesia-based SCS (<100 Hz), paresthesia-free high-frequency SCS (5-10 kHz), burst SCS, and subperception SCS (1-5 kHz). Level 1 evidence critically evaluating the efficacy of these different waveforms is lacking. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify all randomized controlled trials of SCS in the treatment of chronic neuropathic low back and leg pain, failed back surgery syndrome, or chronic regional pain syndrome. Of 38 eligible studies reviewed, 13 randomized controlled trials were finally included in our systematic review. We reviewed evidence from randomized controlled trials in the field of SCS that have established paresthesia-based SCS, paresthesia-free high-frequency SCS, burst SCS, and subperception SCS as viable treatment options for chronic neuropathic low back and leg pain. We critically evaluated evidence that claims to support the use of one waveform over another and reviewed the literature on patient preference for different waveforms.
在美国,慢性下背痛影响多达 37%的成年人,是数十亿美元的医疗保健支出。脊髓刺激 (SCS) 已被确立为慢性神经性下背痛和腿痛的有效治疗选择,特别是对于失败的背部手术综合征或慢性区域性疼痛综合征患者。SCS 领域发展迅速,现在可以通过多种不同的波形实现镇痛,每种波形都声称可以提供更好的结果。这些波形包括传统基于感觉异常的 SCS(<100 Hz)、无感觉异常的高频 SCS(5-10 kHz)、爆发 SCS 和感知下 SCS(1-5 kHz)。缺乏批判性评估这些不同波形疗效的一级证据。我们按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南对文献进行了系统评价,以确定所有关于 SCS 治疗慢性神经性下背痛和腿痛、失败的背部手术综合征或慢性区域性疼痛综合征的随机对照试验。在审查的 38 项合格研究中,最终有 13 项随机对照试验被纳入我们的系统评价。我们审查了 SCS 领域的随机对照试验证据,这些证据确立了基于感觉异常的 SCS、无感觉异常的高频 SCS、爆发 SCS 和感知下 SCS 是慢性神经性下背痛和腿痛的可行治疗选择。我们批判性地评估了声称支持使用一种波形而不是另一种波形的证据,并审查了不同波形患者偏好的文献。