4.7 Article

Spinal Cord Stimulation and Pain Relief in Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Prospective Two-Center Randomized Controlled Trial

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 37, Issue 11, Pages 3016-3024

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc14-0684

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Medtronic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus. Unfortunately, pharmacological treatment is often partially effective or accompanied by unacceptable side effects, and new treatments are urgently needed. Small observational studies suggested that spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may have positive effects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We performed a multicenter randomized clinical trial in 36 PDPN patients with severe lower limb pain not responding to conventional therapy. Twenty-two patients were randomly assigned to SCS in combination with the best medical treatment (BMT) (SCS group) and 14 to BMT only (BMT group). The SCS system was implanted only if trial stimulation was successful. Treatment success was defined as >= 50% pain relief during daytime or nighttime or (very) much improved for pain and sleep on the patient global impression of change (PGIC) scale at 6 months. RESULTS Trial stimulation was successful in 77% of the SCS patients. Treatment success was observed in 59% of the SCS and in 7% of the BMT patients (P < 0.01). Pain relief during daytime and during nighttime was reported by 41 and 36% in the SCS group and 0 and 7% in the BMT group, respectively (P < 0.05). Pain and sleep were (very) much improved in 55 and 36% in the SCS group, whereas no changes were seen in the BMT group, respectively (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05). One SCS patient died because of a subdural hematoma. CONCLUSIONS Treatment success was shown in 59% of patients with PDPN who were treated with SCS over a 6-month period, although this treatment is not without risks.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available