Comparative efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation through combination trialing for cancer pain - A retrospective case series.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain Practice Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1111/papr.70010
Matthew Chung, Alaa Abd-Elsayed
{"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
脊髓闭环刺激与背根神经节刺激联合试验治疗癌性疼痛的疗效比较——回顾性病例系列。
目的:比较闭环脊髓刺激(CL-SCS)和背根神经节刺激(DRG)治疗慢性癌症相关疼痛的疗效。材料/方法:对4例接受联合刺激试验的癌症相关疼痛患者进行了回顾性研究。患者接受CL-SCS和DRG刺激8-10天的试验,评估疼痛缓解、功能改善、睡眠改善、止痛药变化和总体满意度。结果:所有4例患者均报告了CL-SCS和DRG刺激的显著缓解和功能改善。在试验期间,CL-SCS提供了1290 - 1960万的调整范围。神经给药的中位剂量比为1.35,中位剂量精度为4.9 μV。患者1-3首选CL-SCS进行基于感觉异常的刺激,具有扩大疼痛覆盖范围的潜力,全身MRI兼容性和实时自动调节功能。患者4偏爱DRG,因为它能够在疼痛区域的一个方面提供稍大的缓解,尽管其覆盖范围与CL-SCS相当。结论:一致和适应性的CL-SCS递送可能弥合DRG治疗在历史上复杂和局灶性疾病的疗效上与传统背柱刺激疗法的差距,这需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Practice
Pain Practice ANESTHESIOLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.80%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Comparative efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation through combination trialing for cancer pain - A retrospective case series. Factors associated with patient no-show rates in an academic pain management practice. Signing your contract: What do you need to know. Wearable, noninvasive, pulsed shortwave (radiofrequency) therapy for postoperative analgesia: A randomized, double-masked, sham-controlled pilot study. Objective, physiologic, biometrically driven spinal cord stimulation trialing is a necessity-The length of the trial is not.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1