This monograph may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising.

No abstract

BackgroundChronic pain clinics aim to improve challenging conditions, and although numerous studies have evaluated specific aspects of therapies and outcomes in this context, data concerning service impact on outcome measures in a general pain population are sparse. In addition, current trends in commissioning increasingly warrant services to provide evidence for their effectiveness. While a plethora of outcome measures, such as pain-intensity or improvement scores, exist for this purpose, it remains surprisingly unclear which one to use. It also remains uncertain what variables predict treatment success.ObjectivesThis cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate clinic performance employing different tools (pain scores, pain categories, responder analysis, subjective improvement, satisfaction), and to determine predictors of outcome measures.Patients and methodsPatients attending scheduled clinic follow-up appointments were approached. They were asked to complete the modified short-form Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-SF) that also included assessments for satisfaction and subjective improvement. Comparisons were made with BPI-SF responses that were completed by each patient on admission. Nonparametric tests were employed to evaluate service impact and to determine predictors for outcome.ResultsData of 118 patients were analyzed. There was considerable variation in impact of pain clinics depending on the outcome measure employed. While median pain scores did not differ between admission and follow-up, scores improved individually in 30% of cases, such that more patients had mild pain on follow-up than on admission (relative risk 2.7). Furthermore, while only 41% reported at least moderate subjective improvement after admission to the service, the majority (83%) were satisfied with the service. Positive treatment responses were predicted by “number of painful regions” and “changes in mood”, whereas subjective improvement was predicted by “helpfulness of treatments”.ConclusionDepending on the outcome measure employed, pain clinics showed varying degrees of impact on patients’ pain experiences. This calls into question the current practice of using nonstandardized outcome reporting for evaluation of service performances.

Aim: The availability of long-term (>2 years) safety outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) remains limited. We evaluated safety in a global SCS registry for chronic pain. Methods: Participants were prospectively enrolled globally at 79 implanting centers and followed out to 3 years after device implantation. Results: Of 1881 participants enrolled, 1289 received a permanent SCS implant (1776 completed trial). The annualized rate of device explant was 3.5% (all causes), and 1.1% due to inadequate pain relief. Total incidence of device explantation >3 years was 7.6% (n = 98). Of these, 32 subjects (2.5%) indicated inadequate pain relief as cause for removal. Implant site infection (11 events) was the most common device-related serious adverse event (<1%). Conclusion: This prospective, global, real-world study demonstrates a high-level of safety for SCS with low rate of explant/serious adverse events. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01719055 ( ClinicalTrials.gov )

No abstract