Journal of neurosurgery. Spine
-
Spinal cord stimulation has been shown to improve pain relief and reduce narcotic analgesic use in cases of complex refractory pain syndromes. However, a subset of patients ultimately undergoes removal of the spinal cord stimulator (SCS) system, presumably because of surgical complications or poor efficacy. This retrospective study addresses the paucity of evidence regarding risk factors and underlying causes of spinal cord stimulation failures that necessitate this explantation. ⋯ The authors' findings provide insight regarding the mechanisms of spinal cord stimulation failure that resulted in total removal of the implanted system. The relationship between spinal cord stimulation failure and certain psychiatric disorders, such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety, is highlighted. Ultimately, this work may shed light on potential avenues to reduce morbidity and improve patient outcomes.
-
The authors believe that the standardized and systematic study of immobilization techniques, diagnostic modalities, medical and surgical treatment strategies, and ultimately outcomes and outcome measurement after cervical spinal trauma and cervical spinal fracture injuries, if performed using well-designed medical evidence-based comparative investigations with meaningful follow-up, has both merit and the remarkable potential to identify optimal strategies for assessment, characterization, and clinical management. However, they recognize that there is inherent difficulty in attempting to apply evidence-based medicine (EBM) to identify ideal treatment strategies for individual cervical fracture injuries. First, there is almost no medical evidence reported in the literature for the management of specific isolated cervical fracture subtypes; specific treatment strategies for specific fracture injuries have not been routinely studied in a rigorous, comparative way. ⋯ It should be embraced and used to drive and shape investigations of the management and treatment strategies offered patients. It should not be abandoned because it is not convenient or it does not support popular practice bias or patterns. It is the authors' view that the science of EBM is essential and necessary and, furthermore, that it has great potential as clinician scientists treat and study the many variations and complexities of patients who sustain acute cervical spine fracture injuries.