Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2023 Jun;48(6):273-287. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2022-104097. Epub 2023 Mar 30.
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.
脊髓刺激(SCS)已被证明对神经性疼痛有效。不幸的是,一些患者报告长期疼痛缓解不足。这种治疗强调患者选择;然而,现有的选择技术,包括 SCS 试验的预后能力和部署策略,一直受到质疑。在美国区域麻醉和疼痛医学学会董事会批准后,成立了一个指导委员会,制定患者选择和 SCS 试验作用的循证指南。邀请具有临床专业知识的专业组织代表作为委员会成员参加。指导委员会进行了全面的文献回顾,并将结果组织成叙述报告,分发给所有委员会成员。指导委员会制定了每个七个部分内的个人陈述和建议,并分发给成员进行投票。我们使用了一种改良的 Delphi 方法,其中草案以盲目的方式分发给每个成员进行投票。将意见纳入随后的修订版中,并重新分发给成员进行投票以达成共识。七个部分共 39 项建议获得所有成员 100%的一致通过。这些章节包括 SCS 试验的定义和术语;SCS 试验的益处;心理社会特征的筛查;患者对 SCS 治疗和试验使用的看法;SCS 治疗的其他患者预测因素;SCS 试验的进行;以及 SCS 试验的评估,包括成功的最低标准。建议包括,除非是心绞痛(B 级),否则在进行确定性 SCS 植入之前应进行 SCS 试验。所有患者都必须使用客观的经过验证的心理社会因素仪器进行筛查,其中必须包括抑郁(B 级)。尽管存在一些局限性,但试验有助于患者选择,并为患者提供体验治疗的机会。这些建议预计将指导执业医生和其他利益相关者,不应将其误认为是实践标准。医生应继续根据患者的个体情况和偏好做出最佳判断。