Advertisement

Comparison of Characteristics, Inpatient Outcomes, and Trends in Percutaneous vs Open Placement of Spinal Cord Stimulators

Published:October 03, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurom.2022.08.456

      Abstract

      Objectives

      Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment modality for chronic pain conditions for which other treatment modalities have failed to provide relief. Ample prospective studies exist supporting its indications for use and overall efficacy. However, less is known about how SCS is used at the population level. Our objective is to understand the demographics, clinical characteristics, and utilization patterns of open and percutaneous SCS procedures.

      Materials and Methods

      The Nationwide Inpatient Sample data base of 2016–2019 was queried for cases of percutaneous or open placement (through laminotomy/laminectomy) of SCS (excluding SCS trials) using International Classification of Disease (ICD), 10th revision, procedure coding system. Baseline demographic characteristics, complications, ICD-Clinical Modification, Diagnosis Related Group, length of stay (LOS), and yearly implementation data were collected. Complications and outcomes were evaluated in total and between the open and percutaneous SCS groups.

      Results

      A total of 2455 inpatients had an SCS placed, of whom 1970 (80.2%) received SCS through open placement. Placement of open SCS was associated with Caucasian race (odds ratio [OR] = 1.671, p < 0.001), private insurance (OR = 1.332, p = 0.02), and age more than 65 years (OR = 1.25, p = 0.034). The most common diagnosis was failed back surgery syndrome (23.8%). Patients with percutaneous SCS were more likely to have a hospital stay of < 1 day (OR = 2.318; 95% CI, 1.586–3.387; p < 0.001). Implant complications during the inpatient stay were positively associated with open SCS placement and reported in 9.4% of these cases (OR = 3.247, p < 0.001).

      Conclusions

      Patients who underwent open SCS placement were more likely to be older, Caucasian, and privately insured. Open SCS placement showed greater LOS and implant-related complications during their hospital stay. These findings highlight both potential socioeconomic disparities in health care access for chronic pain relief and the importance of increasing age and medical comorbidities as important factors that can influence SCS implants in the inpatient setting.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Rock A.K.
        • Truong H.
        • Park Y.L.
        • Pilitsis J.G.
        Spinal cord stimulation.
        Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019; 30: 169-194
        • Chan A.K.
        • Winkler E.A.
        • Jacques L.
        Rate of perioperative neurological complications after surgery for cervical spinal cord stimulation.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2016; 25: 31-38
        • Petraglia 3rd, F.W.
        • Farber S.H.
        • Gramer R.
        • et al.
        The incidence of spinal cord injury in implantation of percutaneous and paddle electrodes for spinal cord stimulation.
        Neuromodulation. 2016; 19: 85-90
        • Kumar K.
        • Taylor R.S.
        • Jacques L.
        • et al.
        Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome.
        Pain. 2007; 132: 179-188
        • Kumar K.
        • Taylor R.S.
        • Jacques L.
        • et al.
        The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24-month follow-up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation.
        Neurosurgery. 2008; 63 ([discussion: 70]): 762-770
        • Kapural L.
        • Yu C.
        • Doust M.W.
        • et al.
        Comparison of 10-kHz high-frequency and traditional low-frequency spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain: 24-month results From a multicenter, randomized, controlled pivotal trial.
        Neurosurgery. 2016; 79: 667-677
        • Kapural L.
        • Yu C.
        • Doust M.W.
        • et al.
        Novel 10-kHz high-frequency therapy (HF10 therapy) is superior to traditional low-frequency spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic back and leg pain: the SENZA-RCT randomized controlled trial.
        Anesthesiology. 2015; 123: 851-860
        • Kapural L.
        • Jameson J.
        • Johnson C.
        • et al.
        Treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain with high-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz: 12-month results of a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2022; 37: 188-199
        • Patel N.
        • Calodney A.
        • Kapural L.
        • et al.
        High-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz for the treatment of nonsurgical refractory back pain: design of a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.
        Pain Pract. 2021; 21: 171-183
        • Deer T.
        • Slavin K.V.
        • Amirdelfan K.
        • et al.
        Success using neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) study: results From a prospective, randomized controlled trial using a novel burst waveform.
        Neuromodulation. 2018; 21: 56-66
        • Kinfe T.M.
        • Pintea B.
        • Link C.
        • et al.
        High frequency (10 kHz) or burst spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome patients With predominant back pain: preliminary data from a prospective observational study.
        Neuromodulation. 2016; 19: 268-275
        • Kumar K.
        • Rizvi S.
        Cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation therapy in management of chronic pain.
        Pain Med. 2013; 14: 1631-1649
        • Sdrulla A.D.
        • Guan Y.
        • Raja S.N.
        Spinal cord stimulation: clinical efficacy and potential mechanisms.
        Pain Pract. 2018; 18: 1048-1067
        • Linderoth B.
        • Foreman R.D.
        Conventional and novel spinal stimulation algorithms: hypothetical mechanisms of action and comments on outcomes.
        Neuromodulation. 2017; 20: 525-533
        • Saber M.
        • Schwabe D.
        • Park H.J.
        • et al.
        Tonic, burst, and burst-cycle spinal cord stimulation lead to differential brain activation patterns as detected by functional magnetic resonance imaging.
        Neuromodulation. 2022; 25: 53-63
        • Blackburn A.Z.
        • Chang H.H.
        • DiSilvestro K.
        • et al.
        Spinal cord stimulation via percutaneous and open implantation: systematic review and meta-analysis examining complication rates.
        World Neurosurg. 2021; 154: 132-143.e1
        • Kim D.D.
        • Vakharyia R.
        • Kroll H.R.
        • Shuster A.
        Rates of lead migration and stimulation loss in spinal cord stimulation: a retrospective comparison of laminotomy versus percutaneous implantation.
        Pain Phys. 2011; 14: 513-524
        • Orhurhu V.
        • Gao C.
        • Agudile E.
        • et al.
        Socioeconomic disparities in the utilization of spinal cord stimulation therapy in patients with chronic pain.
        Pain Pract. 2021; 21: 75-82
      1. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Method Series Report 2015-09. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.
        (Accessed April 5, 2022)
        • Doney B.
        • Hnizdo E.
        • Syamlal G.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among US working adults aged 40 to 70 years. National Health Interview Survey data 2004 to 2011.
        J Occup Environ Med. 2014; 56: 1088-1093
        • Xu G.
        • Liu B.
        • Sun Y.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of diagnosed type 1 and type 2 diabetes among US adults in 2016 and 2017: population based study.
        BMJ. 2018; 362: k1497
        • Muntner P.
        • Hardy S.T.
        • Fine L.J.
        • et al.
        Trends in blood pressure control Among US adults with hypertension, 1999–2000 to 2017–2018.
        JAMA. 2020; 324: 1190-1200
        • Bair M.J.
        • Robinson R.L.
        • Katon W.
        • Kroenke K.
        Depression and pain comorbidity: a literature review.
        Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163: 2433-2445
        • Stubbs B.
        • Eggermont L.
        • Mitchell A.J.
        • et al.
        The prevalence of pain in bipolar disorder: a systematic review and large-scale meta-analysis.
        Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2015; 131: 75-88
      2. Practice parameters for the use of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain. The Neuromodulation Foundation.
        Date accessed: July 2, 2022
        (Accessed July 2, 2022. https://www.neuromodfound.org/treatment_of_chronic_neuropathic_pain/patient_selection/contraindication/)
        • Villavicencio A.T.
        • Leveque J.C.
        • Rubin L.
        • Bulsara K.
        • Gorecki J.P.
        Laminectomy versus percutaneous electrode placement for spinal cord stimulation.
        Neurosurgery. 2000; 46 ([discussion: 405]): 399-405
        • Jones M.R.
        • Orhurhu V.
        • O'Gara B.
        • et al.
        Racial and socioeconomic disparities in spinal cord stimulation Among the Medicare population.
        Neuromodulation. 2021; 24: 434-440
        • Elsamadicy A.A.
        • Farber S.H.
        • Yang S.
        • et al.
        Impact of insurance provider on overall costs in failed back surgery syndrome: a cost study of 122,827 patients.
        Neuromodulation. 2017; 20: 354-360
        • Moens M.
        • Goudman L.
        • Brouns R.
        • et al.
        Return to work of patients treated with spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Neuromodulation. 2019; 22: 253-261
        • Kaijankoski H.
        • Nissen M.
        • Ikäheimo T.M.
        • von Und Zu Fraunberg M.
        • Airaksinen O.
        • Huttunen J.
        Effect of spinal cord stimulation on early disability pension in 198 failed back surgery syndrome patients: case-control study.
        Neurosurgery. 2019; 84: 1225-1232
        • Buckwalter J.A.
        Aging and degeneration of the human intervertebral disc.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995; 20: 1307-1314
        • Racz G.B.
        • McCarron R.F.
        • Talboys P.
        Percutaneous dorsal column stimulator for chronic pain control.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1989; 14: 1-4
        • Barbagallo G.M.
        • Yoder E.
        • Dettori J.R.
        • Albanese V.
        Percutaneous minimally invasive versus open spine surgery in the treatment of fractures of the thoracolumbar junction: a comparative effectiveness review.
        Evid Based Spine Care J. 2012; 3: 43-49
        • Chung A.S.
        • Ballatori A.
        • Ortega B.
        • et al.
        Is less really more? Economic evaluation of minimally invasive surgery.
        Glob Spine J. 2021; 11 (30S–6S)
        • Defino H.L.A.
        • Costa H.R.T.
        • Nunes A.A.
        • Nogueira Barbosa M.
        • Romero V.
        Open versus minimally invasive percutaneous surgery for surgical treatment of thoracolumbar spine fractures- a multicenter randomized controlled trial: study protocol.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019; 20: 397
        • Tang O.Y.
        • Pugacheva A.
        • Bajaj A.I.
        • Rivera Perla K.M.
        • Weil R.J.
        • Toms S.A.
        The national inpatient sample: a primer for neurosurgical big data research and systematic review.
        World Neurosurg. 2022; 162: e198-e217

      Comments