Dorsal Column Stimulation

2016 ◽  
pp. 101-124
Author(s):  
Brendan McGinn ◽  
Ziev B. Moses ◽  
Travis S. Tierney
2000 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 4-5

Abstract Spinal cord (dorsal column) stimulation (SCS) and intraspinal opioids (ISO) are treatments for patients in whom abnormal illness behavior is absent but who have an objective basis for severe, persistent pain that has not been adequately relieved by other interventions. Usually, physicians prescribe these treatments in cancer pain or noncancer-related neuropathic pain settings. A survey of academic centers showed that 87% of responding centers use SCS and 84% use ISO. These treatments are performed frequently in nonacademic settings, so evaluators likely will encounter patients who were treated with SCS and ISO. Does SCS or ISO change the impairment associated with the underlying conditions for which these treatments are performed? Although the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) does not specifically address this question, the answer follows directly from the principles on which the AMA Guides impairment rating methodology is based. Specifically, “the impairment percents shown in the chapters that consider the various organ systems make allowance for the pain that may accompany the impairing condition.” Thus, impairment is neither increased due to persistent pain nor is it decreased in the absence of pain. In summary, in the absence of complications, the evaluator should rate the underlying pathology or injury without making an adjustment in the impairment for SCS or ISO.


1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshio Hosobuchi ◽  
John E. Adams ◽  
Philip R. Weinstein

✓ Percutaneous dorsal column stimulation was done as a screening procedure in 34 candidates before implantation of a permanent dorsal column stimulator for the treatment of intractable pain. This procedure was useful in forecasting the tolerance of the patient to the “vibratory sensation” produced by a dorsal column stimulator, and the efficacy of the device in relieving pain. Eight patients termed the “vibratory sensation” intolerable. Sixteen found it unpleasant but preferable to the pain, and two found it actually pleasant.


Neurosurgery ◽  
1980 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 564-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis M. Feeney ◽  
Gerald N. Gold

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-23
Author(s):  
Toru Matsui ◽  
Satoru Fujiwara ◽  
Hiroshi Takahashi ◽  
Toshiyuki Shiogai ◽  
Morikazu Ueda ◽  
...  

Pain ◽  
1990 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
pp. S228 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Linderoth ◽  
B. Gazellus ◽  
J. Franck ◽  
E. Brodin

Neurosurgery ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald F. Young

Abstract Dorsal column stimulation (DCS) was used in the treatment of chronic intractable pain in 51 patients. Twenty-five of the patients had back and leg pain secondary to the treatment of intervertebral disc disease; 11 had postoperative pain after general or thoracic surgical procedures. The remainder suffered pain related to multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, carcinoma, and peripheral vascular disease. Pain had been present for a mean of 24 months. Thirty-seven patients underwent DCS electrode placement by open laminectomy, and 11 had percutaneous epidural DCS electrode placement. Three patients first underwent epidural DCS electrode implantation and subsequently had DCS electrode implantation by laminectomy. No major complications were noted, although multiple lesser complications required 33 additional operative procedures for correction. Follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 67 months, with a mean of 38 months. Immediately after implantation. 47% of the patients reported that they had essentially complete pain relief, but 3 years later this had decreased to 8%. No patient followed for 4 years or longer reported complete pain relief. Thirty-three per cent of the patients discontinued the regular use of narcotics for pain relief after DCS electrode implantation. Unfortunately, only 16% were able to return to gainful employment or full physical activity after DCS. Based on these data and a review of the literature, the following conclusions are made: (a) assessment of success in the treatment of chronic pain is strongly dependent on the criteria used for patient evaluation: (b) with the criteria of this report, DCS is a relatively ineffective treatment for chronic pain; (c) epidural percutaneous DCS systems are no more effective than are those placed by laminectomy, and, because of technical problems with epidural systems (mainly lead breakage and migration), the latter may actually be less effective; and (d) at present DCS seems to play a minor role in the treatment of chronic intractable pain.


1972 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 590-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blaine S. Nashold ◽  
Harry Friedman

✓ Thirty patients with chronic intractable pain have had dorsal column implants and a trial of subsequent electrical self-stimulation to relieve the pain. Burning pain originating from damage to the CNS was most often relieved, while chronic bone, joint, and disc pain responded less well. Patients with severe psychiatric factors should be excluded, but preoperative selection is still difficult because of the lack of objective clinical tests. The long-term effect of the implant on the tissues of the dorsal column is still unknown and requires further evaluation. Although relief of pain has been reported for as long as 3 years, much longer follow-ups are necessary to evaluate the efficiency of this system in patients with chronic pain. Direct stimulation of the spinal cord raises a number of interesting questions in regard to perception and sensory phenomena in man but, as yet, there are no answers as to how dorsal column stimulation effects its relief of pain.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document