Key result
Spinal cord stimulation did not improve a composite of reduced opioid use and improved leg pain and function compared to alternative treatments at 12 or 24 months (<10% success in each group).
Why the study?
Questions remain concerning the effectiveness and risks of spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain after spine surgery in workers' compensation recipients.
Does spinal cord stimulation improve pain, function, and opioid use in workers' compensation recipients with failed back surgery syndrome?
Cohort (n=158)
Does spinal cord stimulation improve pain, function, and opioid use in workers' compensation recipients with failed back surgery syndrome?
Spinal cord stimulation does not provide sustained improvement in pain, function, or opioid use compared to alternative treatments in workers' compensation patients with failed back surgery syndrome.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
SCS outcomes in FBSS workers' compensation patients remain uncertain; leaves open need for RCTs before practice change.
Questions remain concerning effectiveness and risks of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic back and leg pain after spine surgery ("failed back surgery syndrome" [FBSS]). This prospective, population-based controlled cohort study evaluated outcomes of workers' compensation recipients with FBSS who received at least a trial of SCS (SCS group, n=51) versus those who (1) were evaluated at a multidisciplinary pain clinic and did not receive SCS (Pain Clinic, n=39) or (2) received neither SCS nor pain clinic evaluation (Usual Care, n=68). Patients completed measures of pain, function, medication use, and work status at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months later. We also examined work time loss compensation over 24 months. Few (<10%) patients in any group achieved success at any follow-up on the composite primary outcome encompassing less than daily opioid use and improvement in leg pain and function. At 6 months, the SCS group showed modestly greater improvement in leg pain and function, but with higher rates of daily opioid use. These differences disappeared by 12 months. Patients who received a permanent spinal cord stimulator did not differ from patients who received some pain clinic treatment on the primary outcome at any follow-up (<10% successful in each group at each follow-up) and 19% had them removed within 18 months. Both trial and permanent SCS were associated with adverse events. In sum, we found no evidence for greater effectiveness of SCS versus alternative treatments in this patient population after 6 months.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Turner et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) (n=158). Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) vs. Multidisciplinary pain clinic evaluation without SCS, or usual care was evaluated on Composite primary outcome encompassing less than daily opioid use and improvement in leg pain and function. Spinal cord stimulation did not improve a composite of reduced opioid use and improved leg pain and function compared to alternative treatments at 12 or 24 months (<10% success in each group).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: