Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 158, Issue 5, pp 999–1003 | Cite as

Younger age predicts greater effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain

  • Ido Strauss
  • Karim Taha
  • Vibhor Krishna
  • Mojgan Hodaie
Clinical Article - Functional
  • 270 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an accepted surgical treatment for neuropathic pain in failed back syndrome or complex regional pain syndrome. However, even in the best selected surgical cases the predictors of adequate pain control are not well defined. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of outcome in patients who underwent SCS in our center.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of our neurosurgical database for patients who underwent SCS over the last 8 years in an attempt to identify factors predictive of outcome.

Results

Forty-one patients underwent implantation of epidural electrodes, 34 patients had a successful stimulation trial and received permanent devices. Nine patients experienced a late failure at a median time of 7.8 months (range, 4.5–19 months) after implantation. Age was significantly associated with outcome. Younger patients had a significantly lower rate of treatment failure, and none of the patients above 65 years had a successful long-term outcome.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that younger age is associated with greater long-term effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation and therefore age may influence the success of SCS therapy with older patients having a greater tendency to failure. Earlier intervention may be beneficial in these chronic pain patients.

Keywords

Neuropathic pain Spinal cord stimulation SCS 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Hodaie has received an honorarium grant from Medtronic and research support from St. Jude. All the other authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers' bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Babu R, Hazzard MA, Huang KT, Ugiliweneza B, Patil CG, Boakye M, Lad SP (2013) Outcomes of percutaneous and paddle lead implantation for spinal cord stimulation: a comparative analysis of complications, reoperation rates, and health-care costs. Neuromodulation 16(5):418–426, discussion 426–427 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barolat G (1999) A Prospective Multicenter Study to Assess the Efficacy of Spinal Cord Stimulation Utilizing a Multi-channel Radio-frequency System for the Treatment of Intractable Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain. Initial Considerations and Methodology. Neuromodulation 2(3):179–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burchiel KJ, Anderson VC, Brown FD, Fessler RG, Friedman WA, Pelofsky S, Weiner RL, Oakley J, Shatin D (1996) Prospective, multicenter study of spinal cord stimulation for relief of chronic back and extremity pain. Spine 21(23):2786–2794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Celestin J, Edwards RR, Jamison RN (2009) Pretreatment psychosocial variables as predictors of outcomes following lumbar surgery and spinal cord stimulation: a systematic review and literature synthesis. Pain Med 10(4):639–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De La Cruz P, Fama C, Roth S, Haller J, Wilock M, Lange S, Pilitsis J (2015) Predictors of Spinal Cord Stimulation Success. Neuromodulation. doi: 10.1111/ner.12325 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards RR, Fillingim RB, Ness TJ (2003) Age-related differences in endogenous pain modulation: a comparison of diffuse noxious inhibitory controls in healthy older and younger adults. Pain 101(1–2):155–165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farrell M, Gibson S (2007) Age interacts with stimulus frequency in the temporal summation of pain. Pain Med 8(6):514–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frey ME, Manchikanti L, Benyamin RM, Schultz DM, Smith HS, Cohen SP (2009) Spinal cord stimulation for patients with failed back surgery syndrome: a systematic review. Pain Physician 12(2):379–397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gureje O, Simon GE, Von Korff M (2001) A cross-national study of the course of persistent pain in primary care. Pain 92(1–2):195–200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L et al (2007) Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain 132(1–2):179–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kumar K, Toth C, Nath RK, Laing P (1998) Epidural spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic pain--some predictors of success. A 15-year experience. Surg Neurol 50(2):110–120, discussion 120–121 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Melzack R, Wall PD (1965) Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science 150(3699):971–979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meyerson BA, Linderoth B (2000) Mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain. Neurol Res 22(3):285–292PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    North RB, Kidd DH, Farrokhi F, Piantadosi SA (2005) Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery 56(1):98–106, discussion 106–107 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    North RB, Kidd DH, Olin JC, Sieracki JM (2002) Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes-part I: technical outcomes. Neurosurgery 51(2):381–389, discussion 389–390 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sindou MP, Mertens P, Bendavid U, García-Larrea L, Mauguière F (2003) Predictive value of somatosensory evoked potentials for long-lasting pain relief after spinal cord stimulation: practical use for patient selection. Neurosurgery 52(6):1374–1383, discussion 1383–1384 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor RS, Desai MJ, Rigoard P, Taylor RJ (2013) Predictors of Pain Relief Following Spinal Cord Stimulation in Chronic Back and Leg Pain and Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis. Pain Pract. doi: 10.1111/papr.12095 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Turner JA, Hollingworth W, Comstock BA, Deyo RA (2010) Spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome: outcomes in a workers’ compensation setting. Pain 148(1):14–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Eijs F, Smits H, Geurts JW, Kessels AGH, Kemler MA, van Kleef M, Joosten EAJ, Faber CG (2010) Brush-evoked allodynia predicts outcome of spinal cord stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome type 1. Eur J Pain 14(2):164–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wall PD, Sweet WH (1967) Temporary abolition of pain in man. Science 155(3758):108–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Washington LL, Gibson SJ, Helme RD (2000) Age-related differences in the endogenous analgesic response to repeated cold water immersion in human volunteers. Pain 89(1):89–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ido Strauss
    • 1
  • Karim Taha
    • 2
  • Vibhor Krishna
    • 1
  • Mojgan Hodaie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Division of NeurosurgeryUniversity of Toronto, Toronto Western HospitalTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations