Comparison of external system and implanted system in intrathecal therapy for refractory cancer pain in China: A retrospective study

IntroductionIntrathecal therapy (ITT) via an implanted system was demonstrated for the treatment of refractory cancer pain for decades. Recently, the dissemination of ITT is enhanced in an external system way in Asia for a lower implantation cost. This study compares the efficacy, safety, and cost of the two ITT systems in refractory cancer pain patients in China. MethodsOne hundred and thirty-nine cancer pain patients who underwent implantation of the ITT system were included. One hundred and three patients received ITT via the external system (external group), while 36 patients received ITT via the implanted system (implanted group). A 1:2 propensity score matching procedure was used to yield a total of 89 patients for the final analysis. Medical records of included patients were retrospectively reviewed and pain scores, incidences of complications, and costs were compared. ResultsITT via the external system provided pain relief as potent as ITT via the implanted system but was less time-consuming in the implantation phase (13 vs. 19 days, p < .01). Nausea/vomiting and urinary retention were the most frequent adverse events in both external and implanted groups (32.14%, 16.07% vs. 36.36%, 21.21%). No significant difference was found in the incidences of all kinds of complications. Compared to the implanted group, the external group cost less for the initial implantation (7268 vs. 26,275 US dollar [USD], p < .001) but had a significant higher maintenance cost (606.62 vs. 20.23 USD calculated monthly, p < .001). ConclusionsITT via the external system is as effective and safe as that via the implanted system and has the advantage of being cheap in the upfront implantation but costs more during the maintenance process in China.

Automated summary

This study compares the efficacy, safety, and cost of externally and internally implanted systems for the treatment of refractory cancer pain in China. The results show that the externally implanted system provides similar pain relief to the internally implanted system, but with a shorter implantation time. There is no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two systems. However, the externally implanted system has a lower initial implantation cost but higher maintenance costs.