Alan D Kaye, Joseph R Archer, Shivam Shah, Coplen D Johnson, Lexa R Herron, Amy E Brouillette, Catherine J Armstrong, Peyton Moore, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sahar Shekoohi, Azem A Chami
{"title":"脊髓刺激治疗腰背痛:系统性综述。","authors":"Alan D Kaye, Joseph R Archer, Shivam Shah, Coplen D Johnson, Lexa R Herron, Amy E Brouillette, Catherine J Armstrong, Peyton Moore, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sahar Shekoohi, Azem A Chami","doi":"10.1007/s11916-024-01336-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and debilitating condition affecting millions worldwide. Among emerging interventions, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has gained attention as a potential alternative for managing chronic LBP, particularly when alternative approaches fail to provide adequate relief.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>This systematic review focuses on both residual pain levels and ability to perform daily tasks after treatment with SCS. The present investigation includes a systematic search for studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, and Embase. Sources were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were published from 2010 to present (May 1, 2024). 8 studies involving a total of 1,172 patients were evaluated. This systematic review demonstrated that SCS is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for both short and long-term pain relief, functionality, psychological well-being, and opioid dependency. Furthermore, newer SCS approaches, such as high frequency (HF), differential target multiplexed (DTM), and multiphase SCS all demonstrated improved efficacy over traditional SCS for pain relief and functionality scores. Adverse event rates for all trials were low and represent the safety of SCS treatments. The present investigation provides insight into the capabilities of both traditional SCS and HF SCS, DTM SCS, and multiphase SCS as compared to baseline pain and functionality as well as conventional medical management (CMM). This review grants physicians a broader picture of the applicability of SCS, its safety profile, and the opportunities it offers for pain reduction and functionality over CMM.</p>","PeriodicalId":50602,"journal":{"name":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","volume":"29 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Alan D Kaye, Joseph R Archer, Shivam Shah, Coplen D Johnson, Lexa R Herron, Amy E Brouillette, Catherine J Armstrong, Peyton Moore, Shahab Ahmadzadeh, Sahar Shekoohi, Azem A Chami\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11916-024-01336-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and debilitating condition affecting millions worldwide. Among emerging interventions, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has gained attention as a potential alternative for managing chronic LBP, particularly when alternative approaches fail to provide adequate relief.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>This systematic review focuses on both residual pain levels and ability to perform daily tasks after treatment with SCS. The present investigation includes a systematic search for studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, and Embase. Sources were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were published from 2010 to present (May 1, 2024). 8 studies involving a total of 1,172 patients were evaluated. This systematic review demonstrated that SCS is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for both short and long-term pain relief, functionality, psychological well-being, and opioid dependency. Furthermore, newer SCS approaches, such as high frequency (HF), differential target multiplexed (DTM), and multiphase SCS all demonstrated improved efficacy over traditional SCS for pain relief and functionality scores. Adverse event rates for all trials were low and represent the safety of SCS treatments. The present investigation provides insight into the capabilities of both traditional SCS and HF SCS, DTM SCS, and multiphase SCS as compared to baseline pain and functionality as well as conventional medical management (CMM). This review grants physicians a broader picture of the applicability of SCS, its safety profile, and the opportunities it offers for pain reduction and functionality over CMM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Pain and Headache Reports\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Pain and Headache Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-024-01336-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Pain and Headache Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-024-01336-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Spinal Cord Stimulation for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.
Purpose of review: Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent and debilitating condition affecting millions worldwide. Among emerging interventions, spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has gained attention as a potential alternative for managing chronic LBP, particularly when alternative approaches fail to provide adequate relief.
Recent findings: This systematic review focuses on both residual pain levels and ability to perform daily tasks after treatment with SCS. The present investigation includes a systematic search for studies from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane, and Embase. Sources were eligible for inclusion in the review if they were published from 2010 to present (May 1, 2024). 8 studies involving a total of 1,172 patients were evaluated. This systematic review demonstrated that SCS is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for both short and long-term pain relief, functionality, psychological well-being, and opioid dependency. Furthermore, newer SCS approaches, such as high frequency (HF), differential target multiplexed (DTM), and multiphase SCS all demonstrated improved efficacy over traditional SCS for pain relief and functionality scores. Adverse event rates for all trials were low and represent the safety of SCS treatments. The present investigation provides insight into the capabilities of both traditional SCS and HF SCS, DTM SCS, and multiphase SCS as compared to baseline pain and functionality as well as conventional medical management (CMM). This review grants physicians a broader picture of the applicability of SCS, its safety profile, and the opportunities it offers for pain reduction and functionality over CMM.
期刊介绍:
This journal aims to review the most important, recently published clinical findings regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and management of pain and headache. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by international experts, the journal intends to serve all those involved in the care and prevention of pain and headache.
We accomplish this aim by appointing international authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as anesthetic techniques in pain management, cluster headache, neuropathic pain, and migraine. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. An international Editorial Board reviews the annual table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their country/region, and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research. Commentaries from well-known figures in the field are also provided.