Abstract
Preoperative evaluation and clearance is imperative to any surgical procedure. Due diligence must be paid to ensure the lowest chance of complication and the highest likelihood of success. This includes managing the patient’s expectations of the device and managing the procedure for its safe implementation. Tonic stimulation therapies require lead placement location optimization and intraoperative cogent patient feedback, highlighting the importance of optimizing preoperative education and expectations. In addition, optimization of disease comorbidities and procedural hematological and infectious risk avoidance are of equal importance. Given this unique set of considerations, one can see the preoperative assessment for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has several distinctive components.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Mekhail N, Mathews M, Nageeb F, Guirguis M, Mekhail N, Cheng J. Retrospective review of 707 cases of spinal cord stimulation: indications and complications. Pain Pract. 2011;11:148–53.
Doleys D, Brown J. MMPI Profile as an outcome “predictor” in the treatment of non cancer pain patients utilizing intraspinal opioid therapy. Neuromodulation. 2001;4:93–7.
Suggested Reading
Brook A, Georgy B, Olan WJ. Spinal cord stimulation: a basic approach. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;12:64–70.
Burton A, Fukshansky M, Brown J, Hassenbusch III SJ. Refractory insomnia in a patient with spinal cord stimulator lead migration. Neuromodulation. 2004;7:242–5.
Campbell C, Jamison R, Edwards R. Psychological screening/phenotyping as predictors for spinal cord stimulation. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2013;17:307.
Celestin J, Edwards R, Jamison R. Pretreatment psychosocial variables as predictors of outcomes following lumbar surgery and spinal cord stimulation: a systemic review and literature synthesis. Pain Med. 2009;10:639–53.
Chaudhry ZA, Najib U, Bajwa Z, Jacobs WC, Sheikh J, Simopoulos T. Detailed analysis of allergic cutaneous reactions to spinal cord stimulator devices. J Pain Res. 2013;6:617–23.
Levy R, Henderson J, Slavin K, et al. Incidence and avoidance of neurologic complications with paddle type spinal cord stimulation leads. Neuromodulation. 2011;14:412–22.
North R, Kidd D, Wimberly R, Edwin D. Prognostic value of psychological testing in patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation: a prospective study. Neurosurgery. 1996;39:301–10.
Oakley J. Spinal cord stimulation: patient selection, technique, and outcomes. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2003;14:365–80.
Ohnmeiss D. Patient satisfaction with spinal cord stimulation for predominant complaints of chronic, intractable low back pain. Spine J. 2001;1:1358–63.
Shealy C, Mortimer J, Reswick JB. Electrical inhibition of pain by stimulation of the dorsal columns: preliminary clinical report. Anesth Analg. 1967;46:489–91.
Sparkes E, Raphael J, Duarte R, LeMarchand K, Jackson C, Ashford R. A systemic literature review of psychological characteristics as determinants of outcome for spinal stimulation therapy. Pain. 2010;150:284–9.
Villavicencio A, Burneikiene S. Elements of the pre-operative workup. Case examples. Pain Med. 2006;7 Suppl 1:S35–46.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hunter, C.W., Lee, E.T., Deer, T.R. (2016). Preoperative Evaluation for Spinal Cord Stimulation. In: Deer, T., Pope, J. (eds) Atlas of Implantable Therapies for Pain Management. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2110-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2110-2_4
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2109-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2110-2
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)