Single Institutional Cross-Sectional Phone Survey Study: Evaluation of Causes for Loss to Follow-up After Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Pain physician Pub Date : 2024-09-01
Kyle Kang, Michael Glicksman, Johnson Ho, Kevin Hoang, Anh Phung, Sravya Madabhushi, Jamal Hasoon, Cyrus Yazdi, Alexandra Cg Fonseca, Alan D Kaye, Michael E Schatman, Jatinder Gill, Thomas Simopoulos, Christopher L Robinson
{"title":"Single Institutional Cross-Sectional Phone Survey Study: Evaluation of Causes for Loss to Follow-up After Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation.","authors":"Kyle Kang, Michael Glicksman, Johnson Ho, Kevin Hoang, Anh Phung, Sravya Madabhushi, Jamal Hasoon, Cyrus Yazdi, Alexandra Cg Fonseca, Alan D Kaye, Michael E Schatman, Jatinder Gill, Thomas Simopoulos, Christopher L Robinson","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is often an option of last resort for patients with post-laminectomy syndrome or an alternative option for patients with complex regional pain syndrome, chronic nonsurgical low back pain, or painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy when conservative management has failed. Although SCS is a helpful option, it is not without complications that can frequently lead to explantation of the SCS device and dissatisfaction with the treatment. Furthermore, as with any technology, SCS has potential issues that may lead to patient frustration and ultimately result in patient noncompliance and lack of follow-up visits.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The goals of this study are to explore the magnitude of and reasons for patient loss to follow-up after SCS device implantation.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A cross-sectional phone survey.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A tertiary-care academic hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional phone survey was performed on 49 patients who were deemed lost to follow-up when they did not return to the clinic one month after being implanted with permanent SCS devices at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Patients were administered an institutional review board-approved questionnaire exploring their reasons for not returning to the clinic.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over a 5-year period, 257 patients underwent full implantation of an SCS device. Of the 49 patients lost to follow-up, 24 were able to be contacted, and they completed the questionnaire. Twenty of the patients continued to use the SCS device but were lost to follow-up for the following reasons: 58% (14/24) due to improvement of pain, 13% (3/24) due to minimal improvement in pain control, 4% (1/24) due to other urgent health conditions, and 8% (2/24) due to patient noncompliance and missing follow-up appointments (4/24). Four patients discontinued using the SCS device after an average of 1.5 years +/- one year, 12% (3/24) due to inadequate pain control and 4% (1/24) due to inability to recharge the device (1/24). Of these patients, 2 of the 4 contacted their SCS representatives for help with troubleshooting prior to discontinuation. None of the patients was explanted.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The main limitation of this study was the incompletion rate, which was 51.0% (25 out of 49 patients).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This paper, the first cross-sectional study of loss to follow-up among patients who are implanted with SCS devices, identifies that up to 19% of patients are quickly lost to follow-up after implantation. Only half of the patients in this study could be reached, with most successfully using their device for meaningful pain control, but a substantial number of patients likely required additional device optimization for pain relief.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is often an option of last resort for patients with post-laminectomy syndrome or an alternative option for patients with complex regional pain syndrome, chronic nonsurgical low back pain, or painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy when conservative management has failed. Although SCS is a helpful option, it is not without complications that can frequently lead to explantation of the SCS device and dissatisfaction with the treatment. Furthermore, as with any technology, SCS has potential issues that may lead to patient frustration and ultimately result in patient noncompliance and lack of follow-up visits.

Objectives: The goals of this study are to explore the magnitude of and reasons for patient loss to follow-up after SCS device implantation.

Study design: A cross-sectional phone survey.

Setting: A tertiary-care academic hospital.

Methods: A cross-sectional phone survey was performed on 49 patients who were deemed lost to follow-up when they did not return to the clinic one month after being implanted with permanent SCS devices at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Patients were administered an institutional review board-approved questionnaire exploring their reasons for not returning to the clinic.

Results: Over a 5-year period, 257 patients underwent full implantation of an SCS device. Of the 49 patients lost to follow-up, 24 were able to be contacted, and they completed the questionnaire. Twenty of the patients continued to use the SCS device but were lost to follow-up for the following reasons: 58% (14/24) due to improvement of pain, 13% (3/24) due to minimal improvement in pain control, 4% (1/24) due to other urgent health conditions, and 8% (2/24) due to patient noncompliance and missing follow-up appointments (4/24). Four patients discontinued using the SCS device after an average of 1.5 years +/- one year, 12% (3/24) due to inadequate pain control and 4% (1/24) due to inability to recharge the device (1/24). Of these patients, 2 of the 4 contacted their SCS representatives for help with troubleshooting prior to discontinuation. None of the patients was explanted.

Limitations: The main limitation of this study was the incompletion rate, which was 51.0% (25 out of 49 patients).

Conclusions: This paper, the first cross-sectional study of loss to follow-up among patients who are implanted with SCS devices, identifies that up to 19% of patients are quickly lost to follow-up after implantation. Only half of the patients in this study could be reached, with most successfully using their device for meaningful pain control, but a substantial number of patients likely required additional device optimization for pain relief.

单一机构横断面电话调查研究:评估脊髓刺激器植入术后失去随访的原因。
背景:脊髓刺激(SCS)通常是椎板切除术后综合征患者的最后选择,也是复杂区域疼痛综合征、慢性非手术腰背痛或糖尿病周围神经病变患者在保守治疗失败后的替代选择。尽管 SCS 是一种有用的选择,但它并非没有并发症,这些并发症经常会导致 SCS 装置的拆卸和治疗效果的不满意。此外,与任何技术一样,SCS 也存在潜在问题,可能会导致患者产生挫败感,最终导致患者不配合治疗和缺乏随访:本研究旨在探讨 SCS 装置植入后患者失去随访机会的程度和原因:研究设计:横断面电话调查:研究设计:横断面电话调查:对49名患者进行了横断面电话调查,这些患者在贝斯以色列女执事医疗中心植入永久性SCS装置一个月后未返回诊所,被视为失去随访。患者接受了机构审查委员会批准的问卷调查,以了解他们未返回诊所的原因:在5年时间里,共有257名患者接受了SCS装置的完全植入手术。在失去随访的 49 名患者中,有 24 人能够联系上,并完成了问卷调查。其中 20 名患者继续使用 SCS 装置,但由于以下原因失去了随访机会:58%(14/24)的患者因疼痛有所改善,13%(3/24)的患者因疼痛控制改善甚微,4%(1/24)的患者因其他紧急健康状况,8%(2/24)的患者因不遵守规定和错过随访预约(4/24)。有四名患者在平均 1.5 年 +/- 一年后停止使用 SCS 装置,12%(3/24)是由于疼痛控制不佳,4%(1/24)是由于无法给装置充电(1/24)。在这些患者中,4 人中有 2 人在停用前联系了 SCS 代表,请求帮助排除故障。这些患者中没有一人被切除脊髓:本研究的主要局限性在于未完成率,为 51.0%(49 名患者中有 25 名未完成):本文是首次对植入 SCS 装置的患者失去随访机会进行的横断面研究,发现高达 19% 的患者在植入 SCS 装置后很快失去了随访机会。在这项研究中,只有一半的患者可以得到随访,其中大多数患者成功地使用了他们的装置来有效控制疼痛,但也有相当一部分患者可能需要额外的装置优化来缓解疼痛。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信