Spinal Cord Stimulation: A 20-Year Retrospective Analysis in 260 Patients

Reig, Enrique; Abejón, David

doi:10.1111/j.1525-1403.2009.00220.x

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The authors suggested that SCS should be considered as an important therapeutic approach in the management of patients with vascular pain or ulcers. 19 Peripheral arterial disease is common in patients with endstage renal disease who are on dialysis, and those who are not candidates for limb-preserving procedures have to undergo amputation. Brümmer and colleagues used SCS to treat 8 patients on hemodialysis and followed them for 12 months.…”

Section: Scs and Pvdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Limb Ischemia

Naoum

Arbid

2013

Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of chronic limb ischemia involves the restoration of pulsatile blood flow to the distal extremity. Some patients cannot be treated with endovascular means or with open surgery; some may have medical comorbidities that render them unfit for surgery, while others may have persistent ischemia or pain even in the face of previous attempts at reperfusion. In spinal cord stimulation (SCS), a device with electrodes is implanted in the epidural space to stimulate sensory fibers. This activates cell-signaling molecules that in turn cause the release of vasodilatory molecules, a decrease in vascular resistance, and relaxation of smooth muscle cells. SCS also suppresses sympathetic vasoconstriction and pain transmission. When patient selection is based on microcirculatory parameters, SCS therapy can significantly improve pain relief, halt the progression of ulcers, and potentially achieve limb salvage.

show abstract

Section: Scs and Pvdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Limb Ischemia

Naoum

Arbid

2013

Methodist DeBakey Cardiovascular Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,10–13 In a retrospective study of 260 patients undergoing SCS implantation, Reig et al reported an infection incidence of 5% with the majority of complications instead attributable to hardware complications. 10 Similarly, Cameron et al reported infection-related complications to be significantly less common than technical complications following SCS implantation in a retrospective literature review of 68 studies reporting SCS outcomes. 11 In this review, an infection rate of 3.4% was reported among the overall population of 3,679 patients receiving SCS devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a retrospective, 20-year-long study of 260 patients with SCS implants, Reig et al found that hardware complication due to lead migration, lead breakage, or generator failure accounted for 39% of the observed complications. 10 Similarly, in a systematic review of available literature studying the use of SCS to treat FBSS, Turner et al reported that the most common complications that afflicted 30% of patients were related to hardware malfunction. 13 Zan et al also reported prominent technological problems that led to a 16.7% revision rate in a retrospective study of 24 patients with implantable SCS devices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drivers and Risk Factors of Unplanned 30-Day Readmission Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation

Elsamadicy

Sergesketter

Ren

et al. 2018

Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our study suggests that infectious and mechanical complications are the primary drivers of unplanned 30-day readmission after SCS implantation, with obesity as an independent predictor of unplanned readmission. Given the technological advancements in SCS, repeated studies are necessary to identify factors associated with unplanned 30-day readmission rates after SCS implantation to improve patient outcomes and reduce associated costs.

show abstract

“…Even so, appropriate patient selection requires psychological screening and clearance [84]. Complications must also be considered, most commonly lead migration or breakage (22% of cases) causing lack of appropriate paresthesia coverage but also including nerve injury, paralysis, and death [85,86,87]. Permanent implantation of spinal cord stimulator is an outpatient surgery performed under local anesthesia and sedation.…”

Section: Invasive Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Basic science and clinical management of painful and non-painful chemotherapy-related neuropathy

Kim¹,

Dougherty²,

Abdi³

2015

Gynecologic Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a dose-limiting toxicity of several chemotherapeutics used in the treatment of all the most common malignancies. There are several defined mechanisms of nerve damage that take place along different areas of the peripheral and the central nervous system. Treatment is based on symptom management and there are several classes of medications found to be efficacious in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Neuropathic pain that persists despite appropriate pharmacotherapy may respond to interventional procedures that span a range of invasiveness. The purpose of this review article is to examine the basic science of neuropathy and currently available treatment options in the context of chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy.

show abstract

Spinal Cord Stimulation: A 20-Year Retrospective Analysis in 260 Patients

Cited by 26 publications

References 41 publications

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Limb Ischemia

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Limb Ischemia

Drivers and Risk Factors of Unplanned 30-Day Readmission Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation

Basic science and clinical management of painful and non-painful chemotherapy-related neuropathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About