Comparative efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation through combination trialing for cancer pain - A retrospective case series.
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation through combination trialing for cancer pain - A retrospective case series.","authors":"Matthew Chung, Alaa Abd-Elsayed","doi":"10.1111/papr.70010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation in managing chronic cancer-related pain.</p><p><strong>Material/methods: </strong>A retrospective review was conducted with IRB exemption for four patients with cancer-related pain who underwent combination stimulator trials. Patients were trialed with both CL-SCS and DRG stimulation for 8-10 days, with assessments of pain relief, functional improvement, sleep improvement, pain medication changes, and overall satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All four patients reported significant relief and functional improvement with both CL-SCS and DRG stimulations. CL-SCS provided a range of 12.9-19.6 million adjustments during the trial period. Neural dose was delivered at a median dose ratio of 1.35 and median dose accuracy of 4.9 μV. Patients 1-3 preferred CL-SCS for paresthesia-based stimulation, having the potential to expand pain coverage, full-body MRI compatibility, and real-time automated adjustment features. Patient 4 favored DRG for its ability to provide slightly greater relief, over one aspect of his pain area, despite having comparable coverage with CL-SCS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The consistent and adaptable delivery of CL-SCS may bridge the gap in efficacy that DRG therapy has held over traditional dorsal column stimulation for historically complex and focal conditions that suggests further investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":19974,"journal":{"name":"Pain Practice","volume":"25 2","pages":"e70010"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/papr.70010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS) and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation in managing chronic cancer-related pain.
Material/methods: A retrospective review was conducted with IRB exemption for four patients with cancer-related pain who underwent combination stimulator trials. Patients were trialed with both CL-SCS and DRG stimulation for 8-10 days, with assessments of pain relief, functional improvement, sleep improvement, pain medication changes, and overall satisfaction.
Results: All four patients reported significant relief and functional improvement with both CL-SCS and DRG stimulations. CL-SCS provided a range of 12.9-19.6 million adjustments during the trial period. Neural dose was delivered at a median dose ratio of 1.35 and median dose accuracy of 4.9 μV. Patients 1-3 preferred CL-SCS for paresthesia-based stimulation, having the potential to expand pain coverage, full-body MRI compatibility, and real-time automated adjustment features. Patient 4 favored DRG for its ability to provide slightly greater relief, over one aspect of his pain area, despite having comparable coverage with CL-SCS.
Conclusions: The consistent and adaptable delivery of CL-SCS may bridge the gap in efficacy that DRG therapy has held over traditional dorsal column stimulation for historically complex and focal conditions that suggests further investigation.
期刊介绍:
Pain Practice, the official journal of the World Institute of Pain, publishes international multidisciplinary articles on pain and analgesia that provide its readership with up-to-date research, evaluation methods, and techniques for pain management. Special sections including the Consultant’s Corner, Images in Pain Practice, Case Studies from Mayo, Tutorials, and the Evidence-Based Medicine combine to give pain researchers, pain clinicians and pain fellows in training a systematic approach to continuing education in pain medicine. Prior to publication, all articles and reviews undergo peer review by at least two experts in the field.