Loading…
Utilization of Leads After Permanent Implant in Spinal Cord Stimulator Systems
Objective The goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical indications associated with implantation of single vs. dual percutaneous lead spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems and to look further into how these leads are utilized for treatment. Materials and Methods A retrospective c...
Saved in:
Published in: | Pain practice 2018-06, Vol.18 (5), p.562-567 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3554-671ea19c3a6a1a3d0b5ef632c29beefe529fb41c3b7e605f2070a9d79d4e7f053 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3554-671ea19c3a6a1a3d0b5ef632c29beefe529fb41c3b7e605f2070a9d79d4e7f053 |
container_end_page | 567 |
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 562 |
container_title | Pain practice |
container_volume | 18 |
creator | Sanders, Rebecca A. Hoelzer, Bryan C. Bendel, Markus A. Lamer, Tim J. Pittelkow, Thomas P. Eldrige, Jason S. Pingree, Matthew J. Moeschler, Susan M. Gazelka, Halena M. Mauck, W. David Rho, Richard H. |
description | Objective
The goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical indications associated with implantation of single vs. dual percutaneous lead spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems and to look further into how these leads are utilized for treatment.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing SCS implantation between January 2001 and December 2013 with a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow‐up was performed. Number of trial leads and implanted leads was recorded. For patients with dual‐lead systems, it was noted if and when the second lead was used, along with the clinical indication for lead activation.
Results
In the 259‐patient cohort, 15.8% (n = 41) patients underwent placement of a single‐lead system, 83.0% (n = 215) underwent placement of a dual‐lead system, and 1.2% (n = 3) underwent placement of 3‐lead systems. Placement of dual‐lead systems was similar among all indication groups. Of those patients with a dual‐lead system in place, 88.1% utilized both leads and average time to programming of the second lead was 2.3 months. The most common reason to activate the second lead was inadequate stimulation coverage. Five of the 41 patients with single‐lead systems underwent an additional surgery to implant a second lead due to inadequate stimulation with 1 lead.
Conclusions
To our knowledge this is the first descriptive analysis of the frequency of single‐ and dual‐lead SCS systems. This report indicates that dual‐lead systems are most often placed and both leads are required for optimal patient therapy. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/papr.12644 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1942713974</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1942713974</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3554-671ea19c3a6a1a3d0b5ef632c29beefe529fb41c3b7e605f2070a9d79d4e7f053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKw0AUQAdRbK1u_ACZpQip88x0lqX4KBQt1q7DJLkDI3k5kyD1602b6tK7uXdxOFwOQteUTGk_941p_JSyWIgTNKaS84hJQk4PN4kUmckRugjhgxCqNOfnaMRmWlAq5Bi9bFtXuG_TurrCtcUrMHnAc9uCx2vwpamgavGybArTb1fhTeMqU-BF7XO8aV3ZFaatPd7sQgtluERn1hQBro57graPD--L52j1-rRczFdRxqUUUawoGKozbmJDDc9JKsHGnGVMpwAWJNM2FTTjqYKYSMuIIkbnSucClCWST9Dt4G18_dlBaJPShQyK_kuou5BQLZiiXCvRo3cDmvk6BA82abwrjd8llCT7fsm-X3Lo18M3R2-XlpD_ob_BeoAOwJcrYPePKlnP12-D9AeJcHsQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1942713974</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Utilization of Leads After Permanent Implant in Spinal Cord Stimulator Systems</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Sanders, Rebecca A. ; Hoelzer, Bryan C. ; Bendel, Markus A. ; Lamer, Tim J. ; Pittelkow, Thomas P. ; Eldrige, Jason S. ; Pingree, Matthew J. ; Moeschler, Susan M. ; Gazelka, Halena M. ; Mauck, W. David ; Rho, Richard H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Rebecca A. ; Hoelzer, Bryan C. ; Bendel, Markus A. ; Lamer, Tim J. ; Pittelkow, Thomas P. ; Eldrige, Jason S. ; Pingree, Matthew J. ; Moeschler, Susan M. ; Gazelka, Halena M. ; Mauck, W. David ; Rho, Richard H.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
The goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical indications associated with implantation of single vs. dual percutaneous lead spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems and to look further into how these leads are utilized for treatment.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing SCS implantation between January 2001 and December 2013 with a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow‐up was performed. Number of trial leads and implanted leads was recorded. For patients with dual‐lead systems, it was noted if and when the second lead was used, along with the clinical indication for lead activation.
Results
In the 259‐patient cohort, 15.8% (n = 41) patients underwent placement of a single‐lead system, 83.0% (n = 215) underwent placement of a dual‐lead system, and 1.2% (n = 3) underwent placement of 3‐lead systems. Placement of dual‐lead systems was similar among all indication groups. Of those patients with a dual‐lead system in place, 88.1% utilized both leads and average time to programming of the second lead was 2.3 months. The most common reason to activate the second lead was inadequate stimulation coverage. Five of the 41 patients with single‐lead systems underwent an additional surgery to implant a second lead due to inadequate stimulation with 1 lead.
Conclusions
To our knowledge this is the first descriptive analysis of the frequency of single‐ and dual‐lead SCS systems. This report indicates that dual‐lead systems are most often placed and both leads are required for optimal patient therapy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1530-7085</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1533-2500</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/papr.12644</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28941145</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>pain ; spinal cord stimulation ; therapeutic uses ; therapeutics</subject><ispartof>Pain practice, 2018-06, Vol.18 (5), p.562-567</ispartof><rights>2017 World Institute of Pain</rights><rights>2017 World Institute of Pain.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3554-671ea19c3a6a1a3d0b5ef632c29beefe529fb41c3b7e605f2070a9d79d4e7f053</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3554-671ea19c3a6a1a3d0b5ef632c29beefe529fb41c3b7e605f2070a9d79d4e7f053</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28941145$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Rebecca A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoelzer, Bryan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bendel, Markus A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamer, Tim J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pittelkow, Thomas P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eldrige, Jason S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pingree, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moeschler, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gazelka, Halena M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mauck, W. David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rho, Richard H.</creatorcontrib><title>Utilization of Leads After Permanent Implant in Spinal Cord Stimulator Systems</title><title>Pain practice</title><addtitle>Pain Pract</addtitle><description>Objective
The goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical indications associated with implantation of single vs. dual percutaneous lead spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems and to look further into how these leads are utilized for treatment.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing SCS implantation between January 2001 and December 2013 with a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow‐up was performed. Number of trial leads and implanted leads was recorded. For patients with dual‐lead systems, it was noted if and when the second lead was used, along with the clinical indication for lead activation.
Results
In the 259‐patient cohort, 15.8% (n = 41) patients underwent placement of a single‐lead system, 83.0% (n = 215) underwent placement of a dual‐lead system, and 1.2% (n = 3) underwent placement of 3‐lead systems. Placement of dual‐lead systems was similar among all indication groups. Of those patients with a dual‐lead system in place, 88.1% utilized both leads and average time to programming of the second lead was 2.3 months. The most common reason to activate the second lead was inadequate stimulation coverage. Five of the 41 patients with single‐lead systems underwent an additional surgery to implant a second lead due to inadequate stimulation with 1 lead.
Conclusions
To our knowledge this is the first descriptive analysis of the frequency of single‐ and dual‐lead SCS systems. This report indicates that dual‐lead systems are most often placed and both leads are required for optimal patient therapy.</description><subject>pain</subject><subject>spinal cord stimulation</subject><subject>therapeutic uses</subject><subject>therapeutics</subject><issn>1530-7085</issn><issn>1533-2500</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtKw0AUQAdRbK1u_ACZpQip88x0lqX4KBQt1q7DJLkDI3k5kyD1602b6tK7uXdxOFwOQteUTGk_941p_JSyWIgTNKaS84hJQk4PN4kUmckRugjhgxCqNOfnaMRmWlAq5Bi9bFtXuG_TurrCtcUrMHnAc9uCx2vwpamgavGybArTb1fhTeMqU-BF7XO8aV3ZFaatPd7sQgtluERn1hQBro57graPD--L52j1-rRczFdRxqUUUawoGKozbmJDDc9JKsHGnGVMpwAWJNM2FTTjqYKYSMuIIkbnSucClCWST9Dt4G18_dlBaJPShQyK_kuou5BQLZiiXCvRo3cDmvk6BA82abwrjd8llCT7fsm-X3Lo18M3R2-XlpD_ob_BeoAOwJcrYPePKlnP12-D9AeJcHsQ</recordid><startdate>201806</startdate><enddate>201806</enddate><creator>Sanders, Rebecca A.</creator><creator>Hoelzer, Bryan C.</creator><creator>Bendel, Markus A.</creator><creator>Lamer, Tim J.</creator><creator>Pittelkow, Thomas P.</creator><creator>Eldrige, Jason S.</creator><creator>Pingree, Matthew J.</creator><creator>Moeschler, Susan M.</creator><creator>Gazelka, Halena M.</creator><creator>Mauck, W. David</creator><creator>Rho, Richard H.</creator><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201806</creationdate><title>Utilization of Leads After Permanent Implant in Spinal Cord Stimulator Systems</title><author>Sanders, Rebecca A. ; Hoelzer, Bryan C. ; Bendel, Markus A. ; Lamer, Tim J. ; Pittelkow, Thomas P. ; Eldrige, Jason S. ; Pingree, Matthew J. ; Moeschler, Susan M. ; Gazelka, Halena M. ; Mauck, W. David ; Rho, Richard H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3554-671ea19c3a6a1a3d0b5ef632c29beefe529fb41c3b7e605f2070a9d79d4e7f053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>pain</topic><topic>spinal cord stimulation</topic><topic>therapeutic uses</topic><topic>therapeutics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sanders, Rebecca A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hoelzer, Bryan C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bendel, Markus A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamer, Tim J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pittelkow, Thomas P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eldrige, Jason S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pingree, Matthew J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moeschler, Susan M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gazelka, Halena M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mauck, W. David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rho, Richard H.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pain practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sanders, Rebecca A.</au><au>Hoelzer, Bryan C.</au><au>Bendel, Markus A.</au><au>Lamer, Tim J.</au><au>Pittelkow, Thomas P.</au><au>Eldrige, Jason S.</au><au>Pingree, Matthew J.</au><au>Moeschler, Susan M.</au><au>Gazelka, Halena M.</au><au>Mauck, W. David</au><au>Rho, Richard H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Utilization of Leads After Permanent Implant in Spinal Cord Stimulator Systems</atitle><jtitle>Pain practice</jtitle><addtitle>Pain Pract</addtitle><date>2018-06</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>562</spage><epage>567</epage><pages>562-567</pages><issn>1530-7085</issn><eissn>1533-2500</eissn><abstract>Objective
The goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical indications associated with implantation of single vs. dual percutaneous lead spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems and to look further into how these leads are utilized for treatment.
Materials and Methods
A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing SCS implantation between January 2001 and December 2013 with a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow‐up was performed. Number of trial leads and implanted leads was recorded. For patients with dual‐lead systems, it was noted if and when the second lead was used, along with the clinical indication for lead activation.
Results
In the 259‐patient cohort, 15.8% (n = 41) patients underwent placement of a single‐lead system, 83.0% (n = 215) underwent placement of a dual‐lead system, and 1.2% (n = 3) underwent placement of 3‐lead systems. Placement of dual‐lead systems was similar among all indication groups. Of those patients with a dual‐lead system in place, 88.1% utilized both leads and average time to programming of the second lead was 2.3 months. The most common reason to activate the second lead was inadequate stimulation coverage. Five of the 41 patients with single‐lead systems underwent an additional surgery to implant a second lead due to inadequate stimulation with 1 lead.
Conclusions
To our knowledge this is the first descriptive analysis of the frequency of single‐ and dual‐lead SCS systems. This report indicates that dual‐lead systems are most often placed and both leads are required for optimal patient therapy.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>28941145</pmid><doi>10.1111/papr.12644</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1530-7085 |
ispartof | Pain practice, 2018-06, Vol.18 (5), p.562-567 |
issn | 1530-7085 1533-2500 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1942713974 |
source | Wiley |
subjects | pain spinal cord stimulation therapeutic uses therapeutics |
title | Utilization of Leads After Permanent Implant in Spinal Cord Stimulator Systems |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T19%3A57%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Utilization%20of%20Leads%20After%20Permanent%20Implant%20in%20Spinal%20Cord%20Stimulator%20Systems&rft.jtitle=Pain%20practice&rft.au=Sanders,%20Rebecca%20A.&rft.date=2018-06&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=562&rft.epage=567&rft.pages=562-567&rft.issn=1530-7085&rft.eissn=1533-2500&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/papr.12644&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1942713974%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3554-671ea19c3a6a1a3d0b5ef632c29beefe529fb41c3b7e605f2070a9d79d4e7f053%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1942713974&rft_id=info:pmid/28941145&rfr_iscdi=true |