4.6 Article

The predictive value of sympathetic block for the success of spinal cord stimulation

Journal

NEUROSURGERY
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 626-632

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1227/01.NEU.0000080061.26321.8D

Keywords

causalgia; complex regional region pain syndrome; reflex sympathetic dystrophy; spinal cord stimulation; sympathetic block

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the predictive value of response to sympathetic blockade (SB) on the success rate of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in patients with complex regional pain syndrome. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on 23 patients with complex regional pain syndrome who underwent both SB and subsequent SCS trials in the past 3 years at the Massachusetts General Hospital Pain Center, Boston, MA, and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC. Fifteen of these patients underwent permanent placement of an SCS device, and pain relief at 1- and 9-month follow up was recorded. Results: Among the 23 patients included in the study, those having transient pain relief with SB were more likely to have a positive SCS trial: all 13 with positive SB had good pain relief during the trial, compared with only 3 of the 10 with negative SB (100% versus 30%, p < 0.001). Among the 10 patients with negative SB, 7 noted poor pain relief during the trial despite adequate coverage, and they did not undergo placement of a permanent device. Among the patients who underwent permanent placement of the SCS device, those who received good pain relief with SB were more likely to have greater than 50% pain relief at 1 month follow-up (100% versus 33%, p = 0.029) and 9-month follow-up (87.5% versus 33.3%, P = 0.15). Conclusion: We conclude that patients with good response to SB before SCS are more likely to have a positive response during their SCS trial and long-term pain relief after placement of permanent SCS device.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available