Spinal Cord Stimulators and Intrathecal Pain Pump Removal Versus Retention During Posterior Lumbar Fusion

Author:

McDonald Christopher L.1,Alsoof Daniel1,Anderson George2,Johnson Keir2,Daniels Alan H.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery

2. Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To determine risks associated with posterior lumbar arthrodesis after spinal cord stimulator (SCS) and intrathecal pain pump (IPP) insertion. Summary of Background Data: SCS and IPPs aid in the management of chronic back and radicular pain. Little is known regarding the risks of subsequent fusion with these devices in place. Methods: The PearlDiver Mariner database was queried for spinal fusion between 2010 and 2020. Study groups were created for indwelling SCS or IPP and matched to a separate cohort without SCS or IPP. Subgroups were created for those who had their device removed and those who retained their device at the time of surgery. Complications up to 2 years postoperatively were reviewed and confounding variables were controlled using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Four thousand five hundred three patients had an indwelling SCS/IPP and underwent posterior lumbar fusion. Compared with patients without history of an SCS/IPP, patients undergoing a lumbar fusion with an SCS/IPP which was removed or retained had higher rates of revision surgery at 1 year [7.3% vs. 5.0%, odds ratio (OR) =1.48, P<0.001] and 2 year (10.8% vs. 7.0%, OR =1.59, P<0.001). For all time intervals, there were higher odds of instrumentation failure (2 y: OR =1.65, P<0.001), and pulmonary complications (2 y: OR =1.18, P<0.001). At 2 years, there were higher odds of surgical site complications (OR 1.15, P=0.02) and urinary complications (OR=1.07, P=0.04). There were no differences in complications up to 2 years postoperatively in patients with an SCS/IPP who had their devices retained or removed (P>0.05). Conclusions: Patients with a history of spinal cord stimulators and intrathecal pain pumps are at increased risk of mechanical complications and revision fusion compared with patients without these devices. Patients with an SCS or IPP have similar rates of complications during lumbar fusion whether the device is removed or retained.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Neurology (clinical),Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

Reference17 articles.

1. Implantable intrathecal pumps for chronic pain: highlights and updates;Knight;Croat Med J,2007

2. Spinal cord stimulation via percutaneous and open implantation: systematic review and meta-analysis examining complication rates;Blackburn;World Neurosurg,2021

3. Spinal cord stimulation: clinical efficacy and potential mechanisms;Sdrulla;Pain Pract,2018

4. Current perspectives on intrathecal drug delivery;Christo;J Pain Res,2014

5. Intrathecal pain pumps;Bolash;Neurosurg Clin N Am,2014

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3