Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: A randomized, controlled trial

Richard B. North, David H. Kidd, Farrokh Farrokhi, Steven A. Piantadosi

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE: Persistent or recurrent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery is often associated with nerve root compression and is treated by repeated operation or, as a last resort, by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to test our hypothesis that SCS is more likely than reoperation to result in a successful outcome by standard measures of pain relief and treatment outcome, including subsequent use of health care resources. METHODS: For an average of 3 years postoperatively, disinterested third-party interviewers followed 50 patients selected for reoperation by standard criteria and randomized to SCS or reoperation. If the results of the randomized treatment were unsatisfactory, patients could cross over to the alternative. Success was based on self-reported pain relief and patient satisfaction. Crossover to the alternative procedure was an outcome measure. Use of analgesics, activities of daily living, and work status were self-reported. RESULTS: Among 45 patients (90%) available for follow-up, SCS was more successful than reoperation (9 of 19 patients versus 3 of 26 patients, P <0.01). Patients initially randomized to SCS were significantly less likely to cross over than were those randomized to reoperation (5 of 24 patients versus 14 of 26 patients, P = 0.02). Patients randomized to reoperation required increased opiate analgesics significantly more often than those randomized to SCS (P <0.025). Other measures of activities of daily living and work status did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: SCS is more effective than reoperation as a treatment for persistent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery, and in the great majority of patients, it obviates the need for reoperation.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)98-106
    Number of pages9
    JournalNeurosurgery
    Volume56
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jan 2005

    Fingerprint

    Spinal Cord Stimulation
    Chronic Pain
    Spine
    Reoperation
    Randomized Controlled Trials
    Pain
    Activities of Daily Living
    Analgesics
    Opiate Alkaloids
    Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
    Radiculopathy
    Health Resources
    Patient Satisfaction
    Interviews
    Delivery of Health Care

    Keywords

    • Chronic pain
    • Electrical stimulation
    • Failed back surgery syndrome
    • Low back pain
    • Lumbar radiculopathy
    • Randomized controlled trial
    • Spinal cord stimulation

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Clinical Neurology
    • Surgery

    Cite this

    Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain : A randomized, controlled trial. / North, Richard B.; Kidd, David H.; Farrokhi, Farrokh; Piantadosi, Steven A.

    In: Neurosurgery, Vol. 56, No. 1, 01.2005, p. 98-106.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    North, Richard B. ; Kidd, David H. ; Farrokhi, Farrokh ; Piantadosi, Steven A. / Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain : A randomized, controlled trial. In: Neurosurgery. 2005 ; Vol. 56, No. 1. pp. 98-106.
    @article{55ea2e692ffa452fa63f1715069c895d,
    title = "Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: A randomized, controlled trial",
    abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Persistent or recurrent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery is often associated with nerve root compression and is treated by repeated operation or, as a last resort, by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to test our hypothesis that SCS is more likely than reoperation to result in a successful outcome by standard measures of pain relief and treatment outcome, including subsequent use of health care resources. METHODS: For an average of 3 years postoperatively, disinterested third-party interviewers followed 50 patients selected for reoperation by standard criteria and randomized to SCS or reoperation. If the results of the randomized treatment were unsatisfactory, patients could cross over to the alternative. Success was based on self-reported pain relief and patient satisfaction. Crossover to the alternative procedure was an outcome measure. Use of analgesics, activities of daily living, and work status were self-reported. RESULTS: Among 45 patients (90{\%}) available for follow-up, SCS was more successful than reoperation (9 of 19 patients versus 3 of 26 patients, P <0.01). Patients initially randomized to SCS were significantly less likely to cross over than were those randomized to reoperation (5 of 24 patients versus 14 of 26 patients, P = 0.02). Patients randomized to reoperation required increased opiate analgesics significantly more often than those randomized to SCS (P <0.025). Other measures of activities of daily living and work status did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: SCS is more effective than reoperation as a treatment for persistent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery, and in the great majority of patients, it obviates the need for reoperation.",
    keywords = "Chronic pain, Electrical stimulation, Failed back surgery syndrome, Low back pain, Lumbar radiculopathy, Randomized controlled trial, Spinal cord stimulation",
    author = "North, {Richard B.} and Kidd, {David H.} and Farrokh Farrokhi and Piantadosi, {Steven A.}",
    year = "2005",
    month = "1",
    doi = "10.1227/01.NEU.0000144839.65524.E0",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "56",
    pages = "98--106",
    journal = "Neurosurgery",
    issn = "0148-396X",
    publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain

    T2 - A randomized, controlled trial

    AU - North, Richard B.

    AU - Kidd, David H.

    AU - Farrokhi, Farrokh

    AU - Piantadosi, Steven A.

    PY - 2005/1

    Y1 - 2005/1

    N2 - OBJECTIVE: Persistent or recurrent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery is often associated with nerve root compression and is treated by repeated operation or, as a last resort, by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to test our hypothesis that SCS is more likely than reoperation to result in a successful outcome by standard measures of pain relief and treatment outcome, including subsequent use of health care resources. METHODS: For an average of 3 years postoperatively, disinterested third-party interviewers followed 50 patients selected for reoperation by standard criteria and randomized to SCS or reoperation. If the results of the randomized treatment were unsatisfactory, patients could cross over to the alternative. Success was based on self-reported pain relief and patient satisfaction. Crossover to the alternative procedure was an outcome measure. Use of analgesics, activities of daily living, and work status were self-reported. RESULTS: Among 45 patients (90%) available for follow-up, SCS was more successful than reoperation (9 of 19 patients versus 3 of 26 patients, P <0.01). Patients initially randomized to SCS were significantly less likely to cross over than were those randomized to reoperation (5 of 24 patients versus 14 of 26 patients, P = 0.02). Patients randomized to reoperation required increased opiate analgesics significantly more often than those randomized to SCS (P <0.025). Other measures of activities of daily living and work status did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: SCS is more effective than reoperation as a treatment for persistent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery, and in the great majority of patients, it obviates the need for reoperation.

    AB - OBJECTIVE: Persistent or recurrent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery is often associated with nerve root compression and is treated by repeated operation or, as a last resort, by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to test our hypothesis that SCS is more likely than reoperation to result in a successful outcome by standard measures of pain relief and treatment outcome, including subsequent use of health care resources. METHODS: For an average of 3 years postoperatively, disinterested third-party interviewers followed 50 patients selected for reoperation by standard criteria and randomized to SCS or reoperation. If the results of the randomized treatment were unsatisfactory, patients could cross over to the alternative. Success was based on self-reported pain relief and patient satisfaction. Crossover to the alternative procedure was an outcome measure. Use of analgesics, activities of daily living, and work status were self-reported. RESULTS: Among 45 patients (90%) available for follow-up, SCS was more successful than reoperation (9 of 19 patients versus 3 of 26 patients, P <0.01). Patients initially randomized to SCS were significantly less likely to cross over than were those randomized to reoperation (5 of 24 patients versus 14 of 26 patients, P = 0.02). Patients randomized to reoperation required increased opiate analgesics significantly more often than those randomized to SCS (P <0.025). Other measures of activities of daily living and work status did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: SCS is more effective than reoperation as a treatment for persistent radicular pain after lumbosacral spine surgery, and in the great majority of patients, it obviates the need for reoperation.

    KW - Chronic pain

    KW - Electrical stimulation

    KW - Failed back surgery syndrome

    KW - Low back pain

    KW - Lumbar radiculopathy

    KW - Randomized controlled trial

    KW - Spinal cord stimulation

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=11144221468&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=11144221468&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1227/01.NEU.0000144839.65524.E0

    DO - 10.1227/01.NEU.0000144839.65524.E0

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 15617591

    AN - SCOPUS:11144221468

    VL - 56

    SP - 98

    EP - 106

    JO - Neurosurgery

    JF - Neurosurgery

    SN - 0148-396X

    IS - 1

    ER -