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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Pain practice 2018-06, Vol.18 (5), p.562-567
Main Authors: 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.
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