Search

Objective: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a widely employed technique in treating chronic pain, however, it still fails in significantly reducing pain in one-out-of-three cases. Poor consensus exists on the most predictive factors of SCS outcomes. Although psychological criteria such as emotional stability are recommended for this treatment, it is not well understood if the perception of patients’ own health may impact the SCS success. Therefore, we retrospectively examine factors associated with the patient's subjective conditions, to investigate their relationship with SCS success. Methods: Before the implantation of an SCS trial per routine clinical decision-making, and independently from the implanted devices, patients treated in our clinical practice underwent an extensive evaluation of pain, disability, depression and the overall quality of life. In those patients with successful SCS trials, the pain level was also evaluated at the end of the trial period. Regression analyses were performed to investigate factors predicting successful trial stimulation. Results: Successful trial stimulation was effective in 15 patients (75%). Perceived disability, pain and general health resulted as independent predictive factors on SCS trial outcome. Further investigation showed perceived disability (i.e. Oswestry Disability Index) as a crucial factor, and ROC curve analysis identifies a cut-off of 38 as a predictive score of success. Conclusions: Although preliminary, these findings suggest that standardized scales examining the overall patients’ perceived health status, particularly the disability index may help shed light on predicting SCS trial success. Thus, it is argued the potential application of self-administered scales in SCS patients’ selection in routine clinical practice.

Objective: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a widely employed technique in treating chronic pain, however, it still fails in significantly reducing pain in one-out-of-three cases. Poor consensus exists on the most predictive factors of SCS outcomes. Although psychological criteria such as emotional stability are recommended for this treatment, it is not well understood if the perception of patients’ own health may impact the SCS success. Therefore, we retrospectively examine factors associated with the patient's subjective conditions, to investigate their relationship with SCS success. Methods: Before the implantation of an SCS trial per routine clinical decision-making, and independently from the implanted devices, patients treated in our clinical practice underwent an extensive evaluation of pain, disability, depression and the overall quality of life. In those patients with successful SCS trials, the pain level was also evaluated at the end of the trial period. Regression analyses were performed to investigate factors predicting successful trial stimulation. Results: Successful trial stimulation was effective in 15 patients (75%). Perceived disability, pain and general health resulted as independent predictive factors on SCS trial outcome. Further investigation showed perceived disability (i.e. Oswestry Disability Index) as a crucial factor, and ROC curve analysis identifies a cut-off of 38 as a predictive score of success. Conclusions: Although preliminary, these findings suggest that standardized scales examining the overall patients’ perceived health status, particularly the disability index may help shed light on predicting SCS trial success. Thus, it is argued the potential application of self-administered scales in SCS patients’ selection in routine clinical practice.