Neurochirurgie
-
Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) results from a cascade of medical and surgical events that lead to or leave the patient with chronic back and radicular pain. This concept is extremely difficult to understand, both for the patient and for the therapist. The difficulty is related to the connotations of failure and blame directly associated with this term. The perception of the medical situation varies enormously according to the background and medical education of the clinician who manages this type of patient. Eight health system experts (2 pain physicians, 1 orthopaedic spine surgeon, 1 neuro spine surgeon, 1 functional neurosurgeon, 1 physiatrist, 1 psychologist and one health-economic expert) were asked to define and share their specialist point of view concerning the management of postoperative back and radicular pain. Ideally, it could be proposed that the patient would derive optimal benefit from systematic confrontation of these various points of view in order to propose the best treatment option at a given point in time to achieve the best possible care pathway. ⋯ The initial pejorative connotation of FBSS suggesting failure or blame must now be replaced to direct the patient and therapists towards a temporal concept focusing on the future rather than the past. In addition to the redefinition of an optimised care pathway, a consensus based on consultation would allow redefinition and renaming of this syndrome in order to ensure a more positive approach centered on the patient.
-
The current definition of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) has a pejorative and restrictive connotation of blame and failure. Optimally, the evaluation of FBSS patients might be based on a multidimensional approach, involving an array of practitioners including spine surgeons, pain physicians, physiotherapists and behavioural specialists. Even though these clinical interactions should lead to a unique approach, one main problem comes from the fact that FBSS definition has varied over time and remains extremely controversial. There is now a need for global consensus about what we call FBSS, why, when and how. Discussing the name of this syndrome appears to be a logical starting point. ⋯ We propose to replace the FBSS acronym by POPS. The ultimate goal of this redefinition would be to guide the patient towards the future rather than the past and to reach a consensus, based on network discussions, concerning the following items: integrate pain mechanisms into the diagnostic process; implement the notion of a predominant ratio between mechanical/neuropathic pain mechanisms, which defines the potential target for treatment options; create a network supported by a database, to prospectively pool and analyse data, using homogeneous evaluation tools and ultimately define outcome predictors in this population.
-
Conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) generates paraesthesia, as the efficacy of this technique is based on the relationship between the paraesthesia provided by SCS on the painful zone and an analgesic effect on the stimulated zone. Although this basic postulate is based on clinical evidence, it is clear that this relationship has never been formally demonstrated by scientific studies. There is a need for objective evaluation tools ("transducers") to transpose electrical signals to clinical effects and to guide therapeutic choices. ⋯ The Neuro-Mapping Locator (NML) software is dedicated to patients with failed back surgery syndrome, candidates for SCS lead implantation, to actively participate in the implantation procedure. Real-time geographical localization of the paraesthesia generated by percutaneous or multicolumn surgical SCS lead implanted under awake anaesthesia allows intraoperative lead programming and possibly lead positioning to be modified with the patient's cooperation. Software updates should enable us to refine objectives related to the use of this tool and minimize observational biases. The ultimate goals of NML software should not be limited to optimize one specific device implantation in a patient but also allow to compare instantaneously various stimulation strategies, by characterizing new technical parameters as "coverage efficacy" and "device specificity" on selected subgroups of patients. Another longer-term objective would be to organize these predictive factors into computer science ontologies, which could constitute robust and helpful data for device selection and programming of tomorrow's neurostimulators.