在老年人群中应用恢复性神经刺激治疗慢性机械性腰背痛,并进行两年随访。

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ardeshir Ardeshiri, Marco Amann, Simon Thomson, Christopher J Gilligan
{"title":"在老年人群中应用恢复性神经刺激治疗慢性机械性腰背痛,并进行两年随访。","authors":"Ardeshir Ardeshiri, Marco Amann, Simon Thomson, Christopher J Gilligan","doi":"10.1136/rapm-2023-105032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Data on the Medicare-aged population show that older patients are major consumers of low back pain (LBP) interventions. An effective approach for patients with mechanical LBP that has been refractory to conservative management is restorative neurostimulation. The efficacy of restorative neurostimulation has been demonstrated in multiple prospective studies, with published follow-up over 4 years, showing a consistent durable effect.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To further examine the effect of restorative neurostimulation in an older demographic, data from three clinical studies were aggregated: ReActiv8-B prospectively followed 204 patients, ReActiv8-C study prospectively followed 87 patients and ReActiv8-PMCF prospectively followed 42 patients.Two hundred and sixty-one patients were identified with complete 2-year follow-up and divided into cohorts of equal size based of age quartiles.At 2 years from device activation, patients in either cohort were classified by change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) or change in pain score(NRS/VAS) and assessed as proportion of patients per group at each time point. Additionally, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ5D-5L) was longitudinally compared with baseline. Differences in proportions were assessed using χ<sup>2</sup> and continuous variables by repeated measures analysis of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The oldest quartile (n=65) had a median age of 60 (56-82) years compared with the entire population (n=261) who had a median age of 49 (22-82) years. The completer analysis on patients with 2 years of continuous data showed improvement of a 50% in pain was achieved by 62% and 65% and a 15-point ODI improvement in 48% and 60% in the oldest quartile and entire population, respectively. HRQoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension) improved from baselines of 0.568 and 0.544 to 0.763 and 0.769 in the oldest quartile and entire population respectively. All age quartiles improved statistically and clinically over baseline.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This aggregate analysis of three independent studies provides insight into the performance of restorative neurostimulation in an older population. Patients derived significant and clinically meaningful benefit in disability, pain and HRQoL. When compared with a similarly indicated cohort of younger patients, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":54503,"journal":{"name":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"231-236"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Application of restorative neurostimulation for chronic mechanical low back pain in an older population with 2-year follow up.\",\"authors\":\"Ardeshir Ardeshiri, Marco Amann, Simon Thomson, Christopher J Gilligan\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/rapm-2023-105032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Data on the Medicare-aged population show that older patients are major consumers of low back pain (LBP) interventions. An effective approach for patients with mechanical LBP that has been refractory to conservative management is restorative neurostimulation. The efficacy of restorative neurostimulation has been demonstrated in multiple prospective studies, with published follow-up over 4 years, showing a consistent durable effect.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To further examine the effect of restorative neurostimulation in an older demographic, data from three clinical studies were aggregated: ReActiv8-B prospectively followed 204 patients, ReActiv8-C study prospectively followed 87 patients and ReActiv8-PMCF prospectively followed 42 patients.Two hundred and sixty-one patients were identified with complete 2-year follow-up and divided into cohorts of equal size based of age quartiles.At 2 years from device activation, patients in either cohort were classified by change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) or change in pain score(NRS/VAS) and assessed as proportion of patients per group at each time point. Additionally, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ5D-5L) was longitudinally compared with baseline. Differences in proportions were assessed using χ<sup>2</sup> and continuous variables by repeated measures analysis of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The oldest quartile (n=65) had a median age of 60 (56-82) years compared with the entire population (n=261) who had a median age of 49 (22-82) years. The completer analysis on patients with 2 years of continuous data showed improvement of a 50% in pain was achieved by 62% and 65% and a 15-point ODI improvement in 48% and 60% in the oldest quartile and entire population, respectively. HRQoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension) improved from baselines of 0.568 and 0.544 to 0.763 and 0.769 in the oldest quartile and entire population respectively. All age quartiles improved statistically and clinically over baseline.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This aggregate analysis of three independent studies provides insight into the performance of restorative neurostimulation in an older population. Patients derived significant and clinically meaningful benefit in disability, pain and HRQoL. When compared with a similarly indicated cohort of younger patients, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"231-236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-105032\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2023-105032","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:医疗保险适龄人群的数据显示,老年患者是腰背痛(LBP)干预措施的主要消费者。对于保守治疗无效的机械性腰背痛患者来说,恢复性神经刺激是一种有效的治疗方法。恢复性神经刺激的疗效已在多项前瞻性研究中得到证实,发表的随访时间超过 4 年,显示出一致的持久效果:为了进一步研究恢复性神经刺激在老年人群中的效果,我们汇总了三项临床研究的数据:在设备激活 2 年后,根据残疾变化(Oswestry 残疾指数 (ODI))或疼痛评分变化(NRS/VAS)对两个队列中的患者进行分类,并评估每个时间点每组患者的比例。此外,还将健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)(EQ5D-5L)与基线进行纵向比较。比例差异采用χ2评估,连续变量采用重复测量方差分析:结果:最年长的四分位数(n=65)的中位年龄为 60(56-82)岁,而整个人群(n=261)的中位年龄为 49(22-82)岁。对连续提供 2 年数据的患者进行的完成者分析表明,在年龄最大的四分位组和整个人群中,分别有 62% 和 65% 的患者疼痛改善了 50%,48% 和 60% 的患者 ODI 改善了 15 点。在最年长的四分位组和全部人群中,HRQoL(EuroQol 5维)分别从基线0.568和0.544提高到0.763和0.769。与基线相比,所有年龄四分位数在统计和临床方面都有所改善:通过对三项独立研究的综合分析,我们可以深入了解恢复性神经刺激在老年人群中的表现。患者在残疾、疼痛和 HRQoL 方面获得了有临床意义的明显改善。与类似的年轻患者群体相比,在统计或临床方面均无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Application of restorative neurostimulation for chronic mechanical low back pain in an older population with 2-year follow up.

Introduction: Data on the Medicare-aged population show that older patients are major consumers of low back pain (LBP) interventions. An effective approach for patients with mechanical LBP that has been refractory to conservative management is restorative neurostimulation. The efficacy of restorative neurostimulation has been demonstrated in multiple prospective studies, with published follow-up over 4 years, showing a consistent durable effect.

Methods: To further examine the effect of restorative neurostimulation in an older demographic, data from three clinical studies were aggregated: ReActiv8-B prospectively followed 204 patients, ReActiv8-C study prospectively followed 87 patients and ReActiv8-PMCF prospectively followed 42 patients.Two hundred and sixty-one patients were identified with complete 2-year follow-up and divided into cohorts of equal size based of age quartiles.At 2 years from device activation, patients in either cohort were classified by change in disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) or change in pain score(NRS/VAS) and assessed as proportion of patients per group at each time point. Additionally, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EQ5D-5L) was longitudinally compared with baseline. Differences in proportions were assessed using χ2 and continuous variables by repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results: The oldest quartile (n=65) had a median age of 60 (56-82) years compared with the entire population (n=261) who had a median age of 49 (22-82) years. The completer analysis on patients with 2 years of continuous data showed improvement of a 50% in pain was achieved by 62% and 65% and a 15-point ODI improvement in 48% and 60% in the oldest quartile and entire population, respectively. HRQoL (EuroQol 5-Dimension) improved from baselines of 0.568 and 0.544 to 0.763 and 0.769 in the oldest quartile and entire population respectively. All age quartiles improved statistically and clinically over baseline.

Conclusions: This aggregate analysis of three independent studies provides insight into the performance of restorative neurostimulation in an older population. Patients derived significant and clinically meaningful benefit in disability, pain and HRQoL. When compared with a similarly indicated cohort of younger patients, there were no statistically or clinically significant differences.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
175
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, the official publication of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA), is a monthly journal that publishes peer-reviewed scientific and clinical studies to advance the understanding and clinical application of regional techniques for surgical anesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Coverage includes intraoperative regional techniques, perioperative pain, chronic pain, obstetric anesthesia, pediatric anesthesia, outcome studies, and complications. Published for over thirty years, this respected journal also serves as the official publication of the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy (ESRA), the Asian and Oceanic Society of Regional Anesthesia (AOSRA), the Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia (LASRA), the African Society for Regional Anesthesia (AFSRA), and the Academy of Regional Anaesthesia of India (AORA).
×
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