Goudman Lisa, Russo Marc, Pilitsis Julie G, Eldabe Sam, Duarte Rui V, Billot Maxime, Roulaud Manuel, Rigoard Philippe, Moens Maarten
STIMULUS research group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Department of Neurosurgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Commun Med (Lond). 2025 Mar 5;5(1):63. doi: 10.1038/s43856-025-00778-x.
Appropriate management of patients with Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome Type 2 (PSPS-T2) remains challenging. The need for robust evidence for treatment modalities is urgently pressing. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare different treatment modalities for patients with PSPS-T2 on pain intensity.
The study protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO;CRD42022360160). Four different databases were consulted from database inception to December 18th, 2023. Randomised controlled trials of interventions for PSPS-T2 were included. The revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess risk of bias. A NMA with standardized mean differences was calculated with pairwise comparisons between all treatment modalities.
Here we include 49 studies in the systematic review and 13 in NMA. A high risk of bias is indicated for 65.3% of the studies. Half of the studies investigate neuromodulation (mainly Spinal Cord Stimulation), 16 explore minimal invasive treatment options (predominantly epidural injections), 6 studies focus on conservative treatments (physiotherapy/cognitive training and medication) and 2 on reoperation. Comparison of neuromodulation versus a combination of conservative and minimal invasive options results in an effect size of 0.45 (95% CI: 0.14-0.76), clearly favouring neuromodulation (z = 2.88; p = 0.004). Additionally, neuromodulation results in a standardised mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI: 0.18-0.53) compared to placebo/sham (z = 4.03; p < 0.0001). No statistically significant difference is found between conservative options and neuromodulation.
Neuromodulation, followed by conservative treatment options, seems to be the most effective treatment option to obtain pain relief in patients with PSPS-T2. Nevertheless, a personalized approach tailored to individual patient needs is essential for optimizing outcomes, since interventions should be adjusted based on the failure or success of prior therapies.
对2型持续性脊柱疼痛综合征(PSPS-T2)患者进行适当管理仍然具有挑战性。迫切需要强有力的证据来支持治疗方式。本系统评价和网状Meta分析(NMA)的目的是比较针对PSPS-T2患者的不同治疗方式在疼痛强度方面的效果。
该研究方案已前瞻性注册(PROSPERO;CRD42022360160)。从数据库建立到2023年12月18日,查阅了四个不同的数据库。纳入了针对PSPS-T2干预措施的随机对照试验。使用修订后的Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。通过对所有治疗方式进行成对比较,计算了具有标准化均数差的NMA。
我们在系统评价中纳入了49项研究,在NMA中纳入了13项研究。65.3%的研究显示存在高偏倚风险。一半的研究调查神经调节(主要是脊髓刺激),16项研究探索微创治疗选择(主要是硬膜外注射),6项研究关注保守治疗(物理治疗/认知训练和药物治疗),2项研究关注再次手术。神经调节与保守和微创选择相结合的比较得出效应大小为0.45(95%CI:0.14 - 0.76),明显有利于神经调节(z = 2.88;p = 0.004)。此外,与安慰剂/假手术相比,神经调节的标准化均数差为0.36(95%CI:0.18 - 0.53)(z = 4.03;p < 0.0001)。保守治疗选择与神经调节之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。
神经调节,其次是保守治疗选择,似乎是使PSPS-T2患者获得疼痛缓解的最有效治疗选择。然而,由于应根据先前治疗的失败或成功情况调整干预措施,因此针对个体患者需求的个性化方法对于优化治疗结果至关重要。