Suppr超能文献

对比爆发式脊髓刺激的感觉异常图与解剖定位:前瞻性、多中心、随机、双盲、交叉 CRISP 研究的长期结果。

Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping With Anatomic Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Long-Term Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover CRISP Study.

机构信息

Pain & Neuromodulation Academic Research Centre, Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Pain Management, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

出版信息

Neuromodulation. 2022 Jan;25(1):85-93. doi: 10.1111/ner.13467.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for chronic intractable pain. Conventional SCS involves electrode placement based on intraoperative paresthesia mapping; however, newer paradigms like burst may allow for anatomic placement of leads. Here, for the first time, we report the one-year safety and efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead placed with conventional, paresthesia mapping, or anatomic placement approach in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects with CLBP were implanted with two leads. The first lead was placed to cross the T8/T9 disc and active contacts for this lead were chosen through paresthesia mapping. The second lead was placed at the T9/T10 spinal anatomic landmark. Subjects initially underwent a four-week, double-blinded, crossover trial with a two-week testing period with burst SCS delivered through each lead in a random order. At the end of trial period, subjects expressed their preference for one of the two leads. Subsequently, subjects received burst SCS with the preferred lead and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months. Pain intensity (visual analog scale), quality-of-life (EuroQol-5D instrument), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) were evaluated at baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

Forty-three subjects successfully completed the trial. Twenty-one preferred the paresthesia mapping lead and 21 preferred the anatomic placement lead. Anatomic placement lead was activated in one subject who had no preference. The pain scores (for back and leg) significantly improved from baseline for both lead placement groups at all follow-up time points, with no significant between-group differences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that equivalent clinical benefits could be achieved with burst SCS using either paresthesia mapping or anatomic landmark-based approaches for lead placement. Nonparesthesia-based approaches, such as anatomic landmark-based lead placement investigated here, have the potential to simplify implantation of SCS and improve current surgical practice.

摘要

目的

脊髓刺激(SCS)是一种治疗慢性顽固性疼痛的有效方法。传统的 SCS 涉及基于术中感觉异常映射的电极放置;然而,新的模式如爆发可能允许对导联进行解剖放置。在这里,我们首次报告了在慢性下腰痛(CLBP)患者中使用常规、感觉异常映射或解剖定位方法放置导联进行爆发 SCS 的一年安全性和有效性。

材料和方法

CLBP 患者植入了两个导联。第一个导联放置在 T8/T9 椎间盘处,通过感觉异常映射选择该导联的活动触点。第二个导联放置在 T9/T10 脊柱解剖标志处。受试者最初接受了为期四周的双盲交叉试验,为期两周的测试期内,通过每个导联以随机顺序分别进行爆发 SCS 治疗。在试验结束时,受试者表达了对两个导联中的一个的偏好。随后,受试者使用首选导联接受爆发 SCS 治疗,并在 3、6 和 12 个月时进行随访。在基线和随访时评估疼痛强度(视觉模拟评分)、生活质量(EuroQol-5D 工具)和残疾(Oswestry 残疾指数)。

结果

43 名受试者成功完成了试验。21 名受试者更喜欢感觉异常映射导联,21 名更喜欢解剖定位导联。一名没有偏好的受试者激活了解剖定位导联。在所有随访时间点,两种导联放置组的疼痛评分(背部和腿部)均较基线显著改善,且两组间无显著差异。

结论

这项研究表明,使用感觉异常映射或解剖标志为导联定位的爆发 SCS 可以实现等效的临床获益。非感觉异常为基础的方法,如本研究中调查的解剖标志为基础的导联放置,有可能简化 SCS 的植入并改善当前的手术实践。

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