Lamer, Tim J.

AbstractObjectiveThe 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 MethodsA 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsTo 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.

AbstractBackgroundNew advances in spinal cord stimulation have led to improved treatment of patients suffering from chronic pain. While the overall safety of newer stimulation devices has been established, no published reports exist regarding safety considerations when these devices are implanted in patients with a preexisting cardiac device.Case ReportAn 83‐year‐old man with a history of out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest secondary to an episode of ventricular fibrillation underwent automated implantable cardiac defibrillator placement. Concomitantly, he suffered from intractable chronic low axial back pain and was deemed a candidate for high‐frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Cardiac monitoring during SCS trial and implantation was performed with no interference noted. Following high‐frequency SCS implantation, the patient was observed to have significant pain relief with functional improvement.DiscussionWhile others have reported safety during traditional SCS in patients with implanted cardiac devices, this is the first case report to describe safe and effective use of high‐frequency SCS in a patient with an implanted cardiac device.

Abstract Objectives. Our purpose was to determine the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) in cancer patients receiving an intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) and compare that rate with the incidence of SSI in the general population receiving an IDDS or spinal cord stimulator. We attempted to describe risk factors for SSIs in cancer patients treated with IDDS in terms of exposure to cancer treatments. Design. Retrospective review. Setting. Large tertiary care center. Patients. Cancer patients receiving an IDDS in 2006–2013. Methods. The incidence of SSI was determined according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Medication regimens and current cancer treatment were investigated to identify immunocompromised patients during IDDS placement. Microbacteriology, treatment, and overall outcomes were investigated. Results. Sixty-four patients had an IDDS implanted in 2006–2013. SSI developed in four patients (6.2%). All four patients had received chemotherapy or radiotherapy within three months before implantation. Three of the three were receiving dexamethasone, and three of the four required explantation of the IDDS. Conclusion. The incidence of SSI was at the upper end of the published infection rates for IDDS. The risk of SSI may be increased in this population because of factors that alter the patient’s immune status, including concomitant corticosteroid use, radiotherapy near the SSI, and presence of immunomodulators. The identification and mitigation of certain risk factors for this population may prevent infection in future patients.

AbstractIntroductionSpinal cord stimulators (SCS) are used to treat various chronic pain states. Establishing patient outcomes in terms of pain control, opioid medication use, and overall satisfaction is vital in maintaining SCS's role in clinical practice.MethodsAll patients who underwent SCS implantation between January 2001 and December 2011 at a tertiary academic pain medicine center were included if he or she underwent permanent cervical or thoracolumbar dorsal column SCS implantation and age was 18 or greater. For the 199 patients who met inclusion criteria, data were collected retrospectively. Preimplant information included indication for implantation, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score, and dose in oral morphine equivalents (OME). Postimplant NRS score was recorded at 6 months and 1 year. OME requirement and patient satisfaction were determined at 1 year postimplantation.ResultsThis data set showed an overall decrease in OME requirements and NRS scores at both 6 months and 1 year. These differences were statistically significant (P < 0.01) compared to preimplantation values. Additionally, 84.27% of patients were satisfied with their implants at 1 year. Patient outcomes were analyzed further in respect to implant indication; groups included failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), angina, and other. For all groups, there were statistically significant (P < 0.01) decreases in NRS scores at 6 months and 1 year. In the FBSS and CRPS groups, statistically significant (P < 0.02) decreases in OME usage existed.ConclusionRetrospective review of patients with spinal cord stimulators revealed OME reduction at 1 year for those patients in the FBSS and CRPS groups; patient satisfaction at 1 year and NRS score reduction at 6 months and 1 year were statistically significant for all groups.