4.3 Article

Spinal Cord Stimulation-Naive Patients vs Patients With Failed Previous Experiences With Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation: Two Distinct Entities or One

Journal

NEUROMODULATION
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 157-163

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.neurom.2022.04.037

Keywords

Clustering; discriminant analysis; failed back surgery syndrome; machine learning; persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that it is not possible to distinguish between SCS-naive patients and patients with previous SCS experience based on routine clinical parameters, which has significant implications for research and clinical settings.
Introduction: Nowadays, the success of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is evaluated separately in patients who have previous experiences with standard SCS and in SCS-naive patients. Nevertheless, it is yet to be evaluated whether both patient groups are effectively distinct patient groups. Therefore, the aims of this study are twofold: 1) Are there clusters in the data to distinguish between both patient groups? 2) Can we discriminate both patient groups based on routinely collected clinical parameters?Materials and Methods: Baseline data from the Discover study were used, in which 263 patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 were included (185 neurostimulation-naive patients and 78 patients with previous SCS experience). Pain intensity scores for low back and leg pain, functional disability, medication use, and health-related quality of life utility scores were used in the analysis. Model-based clustering was performed on standardized data. Discriminant analysis was performed with linear and quadratic discriminant analysis, with leave-one-out cross-validation to evaluate model performance.Results: Model-based clustering revealed two different clusters in the data. None of the clusters clearly separated SCS-naive patients from patients with previous SCS experience. Linear discriminant analysis resulted in a leave-one-out cross-validation error rate of 30.0% to discriminate between both patient groups, based on routinely collected clinical parameters.Conclusions: Clustering analysis did not result in clusters that separate SCS-naive patients from patients with previous SCS experience. This may suggest that both patient groups should not be considered as two different patient groups when comparing them on routine clinical parameters, with potentially profound implications for research and clinical settings.Clinical Trial Registration: The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number for the Discover study is NCT02787265.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available