当代脊髓刺激治疗慢性原发性神经病理性疼痛的长期疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of neurosurgical sciences Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-03-21 DOI:10.23736/S0390-5616.23.05930-1
Kaneez Fatima, Syed O Javed, Aqsa Saleem, Shayan Marsia, Ramsha Zafar, Komal Noorani, Sahlish Kumar, Sara M Ali, Iqra Ismail, Insiya Hashim, Fatima A Ganatra
{"title":"当代脊髓刺激治疗慢性原发性神经病理性疼痛的长期疗效:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Kaneez Fatima, Syed O Javed, Aqsa Saleem, Shayan Marsia, Ramsha Zafar, Komal Noorani, Sahlish Kumar, Sara M Ali, Iqra Ismail, Insiya Hashim, Fatima A Ganatra","doi":"10.23736/S0390-5616.23.05930-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a modern neuromodulation technique extensively proven to be an effective modality for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. It has been mainly studied for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and recent data almost uniformly establishes its statistically significant positive therapeutic results. It has also been compared with other available treatment modalities across various studies. However, long term data on maintenance of its efficacious potential remains less explored. Few studies have reported data on long follow-up times (>= 12 months) and have compared its efficacy with other treatment options for chronic pain, respectively. Our study pools and analyzes the available data and compares SCS with other treatment options. It also analyzes the efficacy of SCS in long term management of patients with chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>We reviewed all the data available on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using a search strategy designed to fit our pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. Both single-arm and double-arm studies were included. The primary outcome was defined as decrease of visual analogue scale (VAS) by >50% at 6, 12 and/or 24 months after SCS.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>According to the pooled data of double-arm studies, SCS has unanimously proven its superiority over other treatment options at 6 months follow-up; however it fails to prove statistically significant difference in results at longer treatment intervals. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation, a relatively recent technique with the same underlying physiologic mechanisms as SCS, showed far more promising results than SCS. Single-arm studies show around 70% patients experiencing greater than 50% reduction in their VAS scores at 6 and 12 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SCS is a viable option for management of chronic neuropathic pain secondary to FBSS and CRPS. However, data available for its long term efficacy remains scarce and show no further statistically significant results.</p>","PeriodicalId":16504,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for chronic primary neuropathic pain in the contemporary era: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Kaneez Fatima, Syed O Javed, Aqsa Saleem, Shayan Marsia, Ramsha Zafar, Komal Noorani, Sahlish Kumar, Sara M Ali, Iqra Ismail, Insiya Hashim, Fatima A Ganatra\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0390-5616.23.05930-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a modern neuromodulation technique extensively proven to be an effective modality for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. It has been mainly studied for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and recent data almost uniformly establishes its statistically significant positive therapeutic results. It has also been compared with other available treatment modalities across various studies. However, long term data on maintenance of its efficacious potential remains less explored. Few studies have reported data on long follow-up times (>= 12 months) and have compared its efficacy with other treatment options for chronic pain, respectively. Our study pools and analyzes the available data and compares SCS with other treatment options. It also analyzes the efficacy of SCS in long term management of patients with chronic pain.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>We reviewed all the data available on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using a search strategy designed to fit our pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. Both single-arm and double-arm studies were included. The primary outcome was defined as decrease of visual analogue scale (VAS) by >50% at 6, 12 and/or 24 months after SCS.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>According to the pooled data of double-arm studies, SCS has unanimously proven its superiority over other treatment options at 6 months follow-up; however it fails to prove statistically significant difference in results at longer treatment intervals. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation, a relatively recent technique with the same underlying physiologic mechanisms as SCS, showed far more promising results than SCS. Single-arm studies show around 70% patients experiencing greater than 50% reduction in their VAS scores at 6 and 12 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>SCS is a viable option for management of chronic neuropathic pain secondary to FBSS and CRPS. However, data available for its long term efficacy remains scarce and show no further statistically significant results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16504,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of neurosurgical sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of neurosurgical sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.23.05930-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.23.05930-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介脊髓刺激(SCS)是一种现代神经调控技术,已被广泛证明是治疗慢性神经病理性疼痛的有效方法。研究主要针对复杂性区域疼痛综合征(CRPS)和背部手术失败综合征(FBSS),最近的数据几乎一致证实了其具有统计学意义的积极治疗效果。在各种研究中,它还与其他可用的治疗方式进行了比较。然而,有关其疗效潜力维持情况的长期数据仍然较少。很少有研究报告了长期随访(>= 12 个月)的数据,也很少有研究将其疗效与其他治疗慢性疼痛的方法进行比较。我们的研究汇集并分析了现有数据,并将 SCS 与其他治疗方案进行了比较。研究还分析了 SCS 在长期治疗慢性疼痛患者方面的疗效:我们采用符合预先设定的纳入和排除标准的检索策略,查阅了 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 上的所有可用数据。单臂和双臂研究均被纳入。主要结果定义为SCS治疗后6、12和/或24个月视觉模拟量表(VAS)下降>50%:根据双臂研究的汇总数据,在 6 个月的随访中,SCS 一致证明其优于其他治疗方案;但在更长的治疗间隔中,SCS 未能证明其结果具有显著的统计学差异。背根神经节刺激是一种相对较新的技术,其基本生理机制与 SCS 相同,但结果却比 SCS 乐观得多。单臂研究显示,约 70% 的患者在 6 个月和 12 个月后的 VAS 评分下降了 50%:结论:SCS 是治疗继发于 FBSS 和 CRPS 的慢性神经病理性疼痛的可行方案。结论:SCS 是治疗继发性 FBSS 和 CRPS 的慢性神经病理性疼痛的可行方案,但有关其长期疗效的数据仍然很少,而且没有进一步的显著统计结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Long-term efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for chronic primary neuropathic pain in the contemporary era: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a modern neuromodulation technique extensively proven to be an effective modality for treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. It has been mainly studied for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and recent data almost uniformly establishes its statistically significant positive therapeutic results. It has also been compared with other available treatment modalities across various studies. However, long term data on maintenance of its efficacious potential remains less explored. Few studies have reported data on long follow-up times (>= 12 months) and have compared its efficacy with other treatment options for chronic pain, respectively. Our study pools and analyzes the available data and compares SCS with other treatment options. It also analyzes the efficacy of SCS in long term management of patients with chronic pain.

Evidence acquisition: We reviewed all the data available on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL using a search strategy designed to fit our pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. Both single-arm and double-arm studies were included. The primary outcome was defined as decrease of visual analogue scale (VAS) by >50% at 6, 12 and/or 24 months after SCS.

Evidence synthesis: According to the pooled data of double-arm studies, SCS has unanimously proven its superiority over other treatment options at 6 months follow-up; however it fails to prove statistically significant difference in results at longer treatment intervals. Dorsal root ganglion stimulation, a relatively recent technique with the same underlying physiologic mechanisms as SCS, showed far more promising results than SCS. Single-arm studies show around 70% patients experiencing greater than 50% reduction in their VAS scores at 6 and 12 months.

Conclusions: SCS is a viable option for management of chronic neuropathic pain secondary to FBSS and CRPS. However, data available for its long term efficacy remains scarce and show no further statistically significant results.

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
Journal of neurosurgical sciences
Journal of neurosurgical sciences CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-SURGERY
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.30%
发文量
202
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences publishes scientific papers on neurosurgery and related subjects (electroencephalography, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropathology, stereotaxy, neuroanatomy, neuroradiology, etc.). Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of ditorials, original articles, review articles, special articles, letters to the Editor and guidelines. The journal aims to provide its readers with papers of the highest quality and impact through a process of careful peer review and editorial work.
×
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