IntroductionSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is recommended for the treatment of postsurgical chronic back and leg pain refractory to other treatments. We wanted to estimate the incidence and predictive factors of SCS treatment in our lumbar surgery cohort.Patients and methodsThree questionnaires (a self-made questionnaire, the Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, and the Beck Depression Inventory) were sent to patients aged 18–65 years with no contraindications for the use of SCS, and who had undergone non-traumatic lumbar spine surgery in the Oulu University Hospital between June 2005 and May 2008. Patients who had a daily pain intensity of ≥5/10 with predominant radicular component were interviewed by telephone.ResultsAfter exclusions, 814 patients remained in this cohort. Of those, 21 patients had received SCS by the end of June 2015. Fifteen (71%) of these received benefit and continued with the treatment. Complications were rare. The number of patients who replied to the postal survey were 537 (66%). Eleven of them had undergone SCS treatment after their reply. Features predicting SCS implantation were daily or continuous pain, higher intensities of pain with predominant radicular pain, more severe pain-related functional disability, a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms, and reduced benefit from pain medication. The mean waiting time was 65 months (26–93 months). One hundred patients were interviewed by telephone. Fourteen seemed to be potential SCS candidates. From the eleven patients who underwent SCS after responding to the survey, two were classified as potential candidates in the phone interview, while nine were other patients. Twelve patients are still waiting for treatment to commence.ConclusionIn our region, the SCS treatment is used only for very serious pain conditions. Waiting time is too long and it may be the reason why this treatment option is not offered to all candidates.
Background and aimNo studies have been published regarding the results of lumbar spine surgery a in population-based setting in Finland. Our objective was to investigate functional capacity and quality of life after lumbar spine surgery in a population-based cohort in Northern Finland, focusing on working-age patients.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional postal survey. Three questionnaires (a self-made questionnaire, the Oswestry Low Back Disability Questionnaire and the SF-36) were sent the patients aged 18-65 years who had undergone lumbar spine surgery due to disc herniation, instability or spinal stenosis in the Oulu University Hospital between June 2005 and May 2008.ResultsThe postal survey was sent to 814 patients, of whom 537 patients (66%) replied. Of these, 361 (67%) underwent disc surgery, 85 (16%) stabilizing surgery and 91 (17%) decompression. Pain was absent or present only occasional in 51% in the disc surgery group, whereas it was present daily in 59% in the stabilizing surgery group and in 58% in the decompression group (P < 0.001). Axial pain was slightly more intense than radicular pain. Pain was milder in the disc surgery group compared with the stabilizing surgery and decompression groups: mean (SD) axial pain with 0-10 NRS was 4.0 (2.3), 4.7 (2.4) and 4 (2.3) respectively (P = 0.002) and radicular pain 3.5 (2.6), 4.2 (2.8), 4.5 (2.6) respectively (P < 0.001). The total ODI score (mean, SD) was 20 (17) in the disc surgery group, 35 (17) in the stabilizing surgery group and 32 (17) in the decompression group (P < 0.001). The physical dimension sum score from the SF-was 42 (11) in the disc surgery group and 34 (10) in the stabilizing surgery and decompression grou (P < 0.001). Mental sum scores did not vary significantly between the groups.Conclusions and ImplicationsOutcome was good after lumbar disc operations but less favourable after stabilizing surgery and decompression regarding pain, functional capacity and quality of life. Implications. This study offers important information about outcome after lumbar spine surgery in Oulu University Hospital. It also brings out that in Finland we need systematic national spine register, with accurate pre-and postoperative data.
MR guidance is an accurate and safe method for celiac plexus ablation with positive therapeutic effect.
Background and purpose Pulsed radiofrequency (PRF) is widely used for the treatment of chronic pain, although its mechanism of action is not known. The evidence of efficacy of PRF for neuropathic pain (NP) conditions is limited. A double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled parallel study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRF in the treatment of peripheral posttraumatic NP. Methods Forty-five patients with peripheral posttraumatic NP in their upper or lower limb were randomly assigned to receive PRF or sham treatment to the injured peripheral nerve (s) causing peripheral posttraumatic NP. Only patients whose pain intensity was at least 5 on numerical rating scale (NRS) 0-10 and who had suffered from their NP for at least 6 months were included. All patients had dynamic mechanical allodynia or pinprick hyperalgesia in their painful area. They had achieved temporary pain relief of at least 50% with a local nerve block performed at a previous visit. The primary efficacy variable was the difference in 3-day mean pain intensity score from the baseline to 3 months. Other variables included response defined as ≥30% reduction in mean pain intensity at 3 months compared to baseline, Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS) results, health related quality of life (SF-36) and adverse effects. The skin was anesthetized with 1% lidocaine. A radiofrequency needle was introduced through the skin, and then guided to a SMK cannula (52, 100 or 144mm depending on the target nerve) with 4 or 5mm active tip (SMK-C5-4, SMK-C10-5, SMK-C15-5, Radionics®, Burlington, MA, USA). The nerve was located accurately by stimulating at 50 Hz (threshold <0.5 V). Sham treatment or PRF was applied for 120s 1-4 times at each treatment point (Radionics®, Burlington, MA, USA). The total treatment time was up to 8 min. Both patients and clinicians were blinded during the whole treatment and follow-up period. Results Forty-three patients were included in the analyses. There was no statistically significant difference between PRF and sham treatment for the primary outcome efficacy variable. Seven patients (3 in PRF group and 4 in sham treatment group) achieved ≥30% pain relief (difference between groups was not significant). There was no statistically significant difference in the NPS or any dimension of SF-36 between the treatments. Eighteen patients reported adverse effects. They were mild and did not necessitate any treatment. Transient pain was reported by 17 patients, local irritation by 5 patients and local inflammation by 1 patient. There was no significant difference between the groups in the presence of adverse effects. Conclusions PRF was well tolerated, but this study failed to show efficacy of PRF over sham treatment for peripheral posttraumatic NP. Implications Based on our results, we do not recommend PRF for peripheral posttraumatic NP. More research of the possible use of PRF for various pain conditions is needed to determine its role in the management of prolonged pains.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.