PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16902666

Spinal cord stimulation.

Milan P Stojanovic·Salahadin Abdi
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Spinal cord stimulation is the most common mode of neuromodulation used in managing chronic low back pain. It is minimally invasive and reversible as opposed to nerve ablation. The basic scientific background of the initial spinal cord stimulation trials was based on the gate control theory of Melzack and Wall. It has been demonstrated in multiple studies that dorsal horn neuronal activity caused by peripheral noxious stimuli could be inhibited by concomitant stimulation of the dorsal columns. Various other mechanisms, which may play a significant role in the mechanism of action of spinal cord stimulation, include the suppressive effect of spinal cord stimulation on tactile allodynia, increased dorsal horn inhibitory action of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), prevention or abolition of peripheral ischemia, and effects on human brain activity. Spinal cord stimulation is indicated in low back pain with radiculopathy, failed back surgery syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, peripheral vascular disease, and ischemic heart disease. There is substantial scientific evidence on the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation for treatment of low back and lower extremity pain of neuropathic nature. Clinical studies revealed a success rate of from 50% to 70% with spinal cord stimulation, with decreased pain intensity scores, functional improvement and decreased medication usage. This review discusses multiple aspects of spinal cord stimulation, including pathophysiology and mechanism of action, rationale, indications, technique, clinical effectiveness, and controversial aspects.

Explore related subjects

Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Milan P Stojanovic, Salahadin Abdi. 2002. Spinal cord stimulation.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16902666/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2027

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗