Feasibility and Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Tubular Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead Placement.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Allyster B T Klassen, Christine D Potvin, Peggy A Flynn, Vibha Gaonkar, Murray Hong, Susan H Morris, Sean D Christie, Lutz M Weise
{"title":"Feasibility and Long-term Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Tubular Spinal Cord Stimulation Lead Placement.","authors":"Allyster B T Klassen, Christine D Potvin, Peggy A Flynn, Vibha Gaonkar, Murray Hong, Susan H Morris, Sean D Christie, Lutz M Weise","doi":"10.1016/j.neurom.2025.02.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study primarily addressed the feasibility of implanting a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) electrode in a minimally invasive tubular approach and the required frequency of escalating to a second tube or an open approach. It secondarily addressed the electrode placement in relation to the midline or to the side of the predominant pain, in addition to the long-term clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective chart review was conducted in patients who underwent minimally invasive tubular surgery with paddle electrodes for neuropathic pain between January 2017 and December 2023 in Halifax, Canada. Midline placement was assessed anatomically and physiologically with intraoperative imaging and compound muscle action potentials, respectively. Clinical outcomes were described by pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores, patient satisfaction, and adverse reactions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 25 participants were identified, and all surgeries proceeded without escalation. Anatomically, all but one electrode was placed fully or partially on the spinal midline. Physiologically, muscle activation favored the midline or the predominant pain side in 90% of cases. Four adverse reactions were reported within one year after surgery, one of which was classified as serious. Pre- and postoperative pain scores were significantly reduced from 7.2 ± 1.8 to 4.2 ± 2.5 (p < 0.001); 82.6% of the patients were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied and still using their device one year after surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Minimally invasive tubular placement of SCS electrodes is shown here to be feasible, achieving satisfactory alignment and clinical outcomes. The lack of surgical escalation supports the minimally invasive claim. Midline placement was indicated anatomically and physiologically in most cases, and clinical decisions for impactful pain coverage accounted for most nonmidline placements. Clinically, patient-reported outcomes were largely positive.</p>","PeriodicalId":19152,"journal":{"name":"Neuromodulation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuromodulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurom.2025.02.006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study primarily addressed the feasibility of implanting a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) electrode in a minimally invasive tubular approach and the required frequency of escalating to a second tube or an open approach. It secondarily addressed the electrode placement in relation to the midline or to the side of the predominant pain, in addition to the long-term clinical outcomes.

Materials and methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in patients who underwent minimally invasive tubular surgery with paddle electrodes for neuropathic pain between January 2017 and December 2023 in Halifax, Canada. Midline placement was assessed anatomically and physiologically with intraoperative imaging and compound muscle action potentials, respectively. Clinical outcomes were described by pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores, patient satisfaction, and adverse reactions.

Results: In total, 25 participants were identified, and all surgeries proceeded without escalation. Anatomically, all but one electrode was placed fully or partially on the spinal midline. Physiologically, muscle activation favored the midline or the predominant pain side in 90% of cases. Four adverse reactions were reported within one year after surgery, one of which was classified as serious. Pre- and postoperative pain scores were significantly reduced from 7.2 ± 1.8 to 4.2 ± 2.5 (p < 0.001); 82.6% of the patients were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied and still using their device one year after surgery.

Conclusions: Minimally invasive tubular placement of SCS electrodes is shown here to be feasible, achieving satisfactory alignment and clinical outcomes. The lack of surgical escalation supports the minimally invasive claim. Midline placement was indicated anatomically and physiologically in most cases, and clinical decisions for impactful pain coverage accounted for most nonmidline placements. Clinically, patient-reported outcomes were largely positive.

微创管状脊髓刺激导线植入术的可行性和长期疗效。
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
Neuromodulation
Neuromodulation 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.60%
发文量
978
审稿时长
54 days
期刊介绍: Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface is the preeminent journal in the area of neuromodulation, providing our readership with the state of the art clinical, translational, and basic science research in the field. For clinicians, engineers, scientists and members of the biotechnology industry alike, Neuromodulation provides timely and rigorously peer-reviewed articles on the technology, science, and clinical application of devices that interface with the nervous system to treat disease and improve function.
×
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