• Devin D Antonovich, Willy Gama, Alexandra Ritter, Bethany Jacobs Wolf, Ryan H Nobles, Meron A Selassie, and M Gabriel Hillegass.
• Department of Anesthesia & Perioperative Medicine, The Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
• Pain Med. 2021 Feb 4; 22 (1): 34-40.

ObjectiveWe 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 SubjectsThis 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.MethodsCharts 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.ResultsThirty 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 = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsOur 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.© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

13 keywords...

hide…