Pain Unit, La Princesa University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Pain Unit, General University Hospital of Alicante, Comunitat Valenciana, Spain.
Pain Physician. 2021 Sep;24(6):479-488.
BACKGROUND: Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) causes disability and lowers health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients. Many patients become refractory to Conventional Medical Management (CMM) and Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) is advised. However, comparative effectiveness research of both clinical approaches still lacks further evidence. OBJECTIVES: This study describes Comparative Effectiveness Research of CMM versus SCS to provide real world evidence regarding the appropriate means for FBSS management, in terms of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures. STUDY DESIGN: Naturalistic, pragmatic, prospective observational multicenter SEFUDOCE-study. SETTING: FBSS patients attending clinical programmed visits in Pain Unit at Hospital Universitario de La Princesa and at Hospital General Universitario de Alicante (Spain). METHODS: Study evaluates the impact on pain, functional limitation, and HRQoL of CMM versus SCS in the management of FBSS. Patients completed Pain Detect Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, EQ-5D-3L, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at baseline and at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Longitudinal data were analysed with repeated-measures one-way analysis of variance adjusting by confounders. RESULTS: Eighty-five adults patients with FBSS receiving treatment according to current clinical practice were assessed. After 24 months, the PainDETECT Questionnnaire showed that CMM patients maintained similar scores, while SCS patients reduced their overall score (current pain: 6 CMM versus 4.21 SCS, P = 0.0091; intensity strongest pain: 7.77 CMM versus 6.07 SCS, P = 0.0103; average pain: 6.46 CMM versus 4.75 SCS, P = 0.0012). For the Oswestry Disability Index, the Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale no significant inter-group differences were found. EQ-5D utility improved in SCS patients from baseline (baseline: 0.32 CMM versus 0.22 SCS; 24-month: 0.37 CMM versus 0.63 SCS, P = 0.026). Twenty-four month follow-up showed unlikely presence of neuropathic pain and moderate disability in SCS patients, whereas the CMM patients maintained baseline health state. LIMITATIONS: Given the nature of the intervention, conducting a blinded study was not considered practically feasible. A larger sample could also overcome having younger patients in the SCS arm. CONCLUSIONS: SCS may improve the HRQoL and functionality of FBSS patients with refractory pain in the long-term compared to CMM alone.
背景:失败的腰椎手术综合征(FBSS)会导致患者残疾和降低与健康相关的生活质量(HRQoL)。许多患者对常规医疗管理(CMM)产生抗药性,建议使用脊髓刺激(SCS)。然而,这两种临床方法的比较有效性研究仍然缺乏进一步的证据。
目的:本研究描述了 CMM 与 SCS 的比较有效性研究,以提供关于 FBSS 管理的适当手段的真实世界证据,从患者报告的结果措施方面来看。
研究设计:自然主义、实用、前瞻性、多中心 SEFUDOCE 研究。
设置:在西班牙王子医院和阿利坎特综合大学医院的疼痛科参加临床编程就诊的 FBSS 患者。
方法:研究评估了 CMM 与 SCS 在 FBSS 管理中对疼痛、功能限制和 HRQoL 的影响。患者在基线和 3、6、12、18 和 24 个月时完成疼痛检测问卷、Oswestry 残疾指数、EQ-5D-3L、医疗结果研究睡眠量表和医院焦虑和抑郁量表。使用重复测量方差分析,根据混杂因素进行调整,对纵向数据进行分析。
结果:评估了 85 名接受当前临床实践治疗的 FBSS 成年患者。24 个月后,疼痛 DETECT 问卷显示,CMM 患者保持相似的评分,而 SCS 患者降低了他们的总体评分(当前疼痛:6 CMM 与 4.21 SCS,P = 0.0091;强度最强疼痛:7.77 CMM 与 6.07 SCS,P = 0.0103;平均疼痛:6.46 CMM 与 4.75 SCS,P = 0.0012)。对于 Oswestry 残疾指数、医疗结果研究睡眠量表和医院焦虑和抑郁量表,未发现组间有显著差异。SCS 患者的 EQ-5D 效用从基线开始改善(基线:0.32 CMM 与 0.22 SCS;24 个月:0.37 CMM 与 0.63 SCS,P = 0.026)。24 个月的随访显示,SCS 患者可能存在神经病理性疼痛和中度残疾,而 CMM 患者保持基线健康状况。
局限性:鉴于干预的性质,没有考虑进行盲法研究的实际可行性。更大的样本量也可以克服 SCS 臂中患者较年轻的问题。
结论:与单独使用 CMM 相比,SCS 可能会在长期内改善对疼痛有抗药性的 FBSS 患者的 HRQoL 和功能。
Global Spine J. 2023-5