Reoperation Rates of Percutaneous and Paddle Leads in Spinal Cord Stimulator Systems: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

被引:20
|
作者
Antonovich, Devin D. [1 ]
Gama, Willy [1 ]
Ritter, Alexandra [1 ]
Wolf, Bethany Jacobs [1 ]
Nobles, Ryan H. [1 ]
Selassie, Meron A. [1 ]
Hillegass, M. Gabriel [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ South Carolina, Dept Anesthesia & Perioperat Med, Charleston, SC 29425 USA
关键词
Spinal Cord Stimulation; Paddle Leads; Percutaneous Leads; Lead Revisions; Spinal Cord Stimulator Complications; Spinal Cord Stimulator Revisions; LAMINECTOMY ELECTRODES; CHRONIC PAIN; COMPLICATIONS; OUTCOMES; SURGERY; DESIGN; COHORT; BACK;
D O I
10.1093/pm/pnaa215
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Objective. We hypothesize that reoperation rates of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) systems utilizing percutaneous leads are comparable to those utilizing paddle leads. We attempt here to characterize causes for those reoperations and identify any related patient characteristics. Design and Subjects. This study is a single-center retrospective chart review of 291 subjects (410 operations) who underwent at least one permanent SCS implantation utilizing percutaneous or paddle leads over a 10-year period at the Medical University of South Carolina. Methods. Charts were reviewed for height, weight, body mass index, gender, race, age, stimulator type, type of reoperation, diabetes status, history and type of prior back surgery, top lead location, and number of leads placed. Comparisons of patient and procedural characteristics were conducted using a two-sample t test (continuous variables), chi-square, or Fisher exact approach (categorical variables). Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were developed, identifying associations between patient characteristics, SCS characteristics, reoperation rates, and time to reoperation. Results. Thirty point five eight percent of subjects (89/291), required at least one reoperation. The reoperation rate was 27.84% for percutaneous systems (N = 54/194) and 27.78% for percutaneous systems (N = 60/216). Time to reoperation also did not differ between the two systems (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.70-1.60). Of all factors examined, younger age at time of placement was the only factor associated with risk of reoperation (HR 1/4 0.73, 95% CI 1/4 0.62-0.87, P< 0.001). Conclusions. Our data suggest that reoperation rates and time to reoperation between percutaneous and paddle leads are clinically similar; therefore, rates of reoperation should have no bearing on which system to choose.
引用
收藏
页码:34 / 40
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Revision and Replacement of Spinal Cord Stimulator Paddle Leads
    Harland, Tessa A.
    Topp, Gregory
    Shao, Kevin
    Pilitsis, Julie G.
    NEUROMODULATION, 2022, 25 (05): : 753 - 757
  • [2] Long-term Outcomes After Replacement of Percutaneous Leads With Paddle Leads in a Retrospective Cohort of Patients With Spinal Cord Stimulation Systems
    Matias, Caio M.
    Amit, Amit
    Lempka, Scott F.
    Ozinga, John G.
    Nagel, Sean J.
    Lobel, Darlene A.
    Machado, Andre G.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2014, 75 (04) : 430 - 436
  • [3] Paddle Versus Cylindrical Leads for Percutaneous Implantation in Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Single-Center Trial
    Kinfe, Thomas M.
    Quack, Florian
    Wille, Christian
    Schu, Stefan
    Vesper, Jan
    JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY PART A-CENTRAL EUROPEAN NEUROSURGERY, 2014, 75 (06) : 467 - 473
  • [4] Explantation of Percutaneous Spinal Cord Stimulator Devices: A Retrospective Descriptive Analysis of a Single-Center 15-Year Experience
    Simopoulos, Thomas
    Aner, Moris
    Sharma, Sanjiv
    Ghosh, Priyanka
    Gill, Jatinder S.
    PAIN MEDICINE, 2019, 20 (07) : 1355 - 1361
  • [5] Outcomes of Percutaneous and Paddle Lead Implantation for Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Comparative Analysis of Complications, Reoperation Rates, and Health-Care Costs
    Babu, Ranjith
    Hazzard, Matthew A.
    Huang, Kevin T.
    Ugiliweneza, Beatrice
    Patil, Chirag G.
    Boakye, Maxwell
    Lad, Shivanand P.
    NEUROMODULATION, 2013, 16 (05): : 418 - 426
  • [6] Is Thoracic Paddle Lead Spinal Cord Stimulator Implantation Safe in an Ambulatory Surgery Center?
    Monk, Steve H.
    O'Brien, Matthew
    Bernard, Joe D.
    Kim, Paul K.
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 170 : 436 - 440
  • [7] Analysis of spinal canal diameter in the placement of thoracic spinal cord stimulator paddle leads
    Ragel, Brian T.
    Riedman, Tressa
    Mcgehee, Matthew
    Raslan, Ahmed M.
    PAIN PRACTICE, 2024, 24 (01) : 91 - 100
  • [8] Spinal Cord Stimulator Explantation: Motives for Removal of Surgically Placed Paddle Systems
    Dupre, Derrick A.
    Tomycz, Nestor
    Whiting, Donald
    Oh, Michael
    PAIN PRACTICE, 2018, 18 (04) : 500 - 504
  • [9] Outcomes of Percutaneous and Paddle Lead Implantation for Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Comparative Analysis of Complications, Reoperation Rates, and Health-Care Costs COMMENTS
    Hayek, Salim
    McRoberts, William Porter
    NEUROMODULATION, 2013, 16 (05): : 426 - 427
  • [10] The Use of Intraoperative Electrophysiology for the Placement of Spinal Cord Stimulator Paddle Leads Under General Anesthesia
    Mammis, Antonios
    Mogilner, Alon Y.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2012, 70 (06) : 230 - 236