Higher Preimplantation Opioid Doses Associated With Long‐Term Spinal Cord Stimulation Failure in 211 Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

ObjectiveSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). We studied the effect of preimplantation opioid use on SCS outcome and the effect of SCS on opioid use during a two-year follow-up period.Materials and methodsThe study cohort included 211 consecutive FBSS patients who underwent an SCS trial from January 1997 to March 2014. Participants were divided into groups, which were as follows: 1) SCS trial only (n = 47), 2) successful SCS (implanted and in use throughout the two-year follow-up period, n = 131), and 3) unsuccessful SCS (implanted but later explanted or revised due to inadequate pain relief, n = 29). Patients who underwent explantation for other reasons (n = 4) were excluded. Opioid purchase data from January 1995 to March 2016 were retrieved from national registries.ResultsHigher preimplantation opioid doses associated with unsuccessful SCS (ROC: AUC = 0.66, p = 0.009), with 35 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day as the optimal cutoff value. All opioids were discontinued in 23% of patients with successful SCS, but in none of the patients with unsuccessful SCS (p = 0.004). Strong opioids were discontinued in 39% of patients with successful SCS, but in none of the patients with unsuccessful SCS (p = 0.04). Mean opioid dose escalated from 18 ± 4 MME/day to 36 ± 6 MME/day with successful SCS and from 22 ± 8 MME/day to 82 ± 21 MME/day with unsuccessful SCS (p < 0.001).ConclusionsHigher preimplantation opioid doses were associated with SCS failure, suggesting the need for opioid tapering before implantation. With continuous SCS therapy and no explantation or revision due to inadequate pain relief, 39% of FBSS patients discontinued strong opioids, and 23% discontinued all opioids. This indicates that SCS should be considered before detrimental dose escalation.     

Überregionale Public-Health-Akteure in Deutschland – eine Bestandsaufnahme und Kategorisierung

Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz - Akteure der öffentlichen Gesundheit (Public Health) tragen wesentlich zu Gesundheitsschutz, -förderung und...     

Evaluierung der NEF-Fehl- und Übergabeeinsätze im Raum Innsbruck

Die Anaesthesiologie - Die Qualität eines Rettungssystems zeichnet sich auch durch den effizienten Einsatz seiner personellen und Fahrzeugressourcen aus. So können im berechtigten Fall...     

Typische Veränderungen bei der „frozen shoulder“ in der bildgebenden MRT-Untersuchung

Die Unfallchirurgie - Zur Diagnostik von Schultergelenkerkrankungen wird routinemäßig die Magnetresonanztomographie (MRT) durchgeführt. Diese kann entsprechend der klinischen...     

Operative Behandlung von Rektumkarzinomen im Vergleich

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer shows morbidity and oncological safety comparable to the open approach, but morbidity increases after conversion to open resection. No oncological long-term results are available for the latter patients. METHODS: From 01/01/2000-31/12/2002, patients with curatively resected rectal cancer enrolled in a observational study were evaluated for morbidity, mortality, tumor- and local recurrence rate, paying attention to patients with conversion from laparoscopic to open resection. RESULTS: 237 (3.3%) of 7,189 patients underwent laparoscopic resection (ITT). These patients showed significantly more T1/2 tumors (P<0.001) in earlier UICC stages (P<0.001) than open resected patients. 35 (14.8%) of 237 laparoscopic procedures were converted. Compared with patients receiving complete laparoscopic or open resection, these patients showed significantly higher frequencies of intraoperative (P<0.001) and general postoperative complications (P=0.003) as well as the highest overall morbidity (P=0.031). After a median follow-up of 30.1 months, the highest 5-year local recurrence rate was found in the converted group (16.0%). The laparoscopically resected patients showed a local recurrence rate of 3.3%, patients with open resection of 12.4% (P=0.082). The disease-free survival rate did not differ between the groups (P=0.585). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer provides oncological results similar to open resection. After conversion, the short and oncological long-term outcomes were worse. Considering a conversion rate of 15%, only a strict indication for the laparoscopic approach can be allowed, and laparoscopic resection should be performed at centers.