Survival analysis of occipital nerve stimulator leads placed under fluoroscopic guidance with and without ultrasonography

James Harvey Jones, Alison Brown, Daniel Moyse, Wenjing Qi, Lance Roy

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Background: Electrical stimulation of the greater occipital nerves is performed to treat pain secondary to chronic daily headaches and occipital neuralgia. The use of fluoroscopy alone to guide the surgical placement of electrodes near the greater occipital nerves disregards the impact of tissue planes on lead stability and stimulation efficacy. Objective: We hypothesized that occipital neurostimulator (ONS) leads placed with ultrasonography combined with fluoroscopy would demonstrate increased survival rates and times when compared to ONS leads placed with fluoroscopy alone. Study Design: A 2-arm retrospective chart review. Setting: A single academic medical center. Methods: This retrospective chart review analyzed the procedure notes and demographic data of patients who underwent the permanent implant of an ONS lead between July 2012 and August 2015. Patient data included the diagnosis (reason for implant), smoking tobacco use, disability, and age. ONS lead data included the date of permanent implant, the imaging modality used during permanent implant (fluoroscopy with or without ultrasonography), and, if applicable, the date and reason for lead removal. A total of 21 patients (53 leads) were included for the review. Chi-squared tests, Fishers exact tests, 2-sample t-tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare fluoroscopy against combined fluoroscopy and ultrasonography as implant methods with respect to patient demographics. These tests were also used to evaluate the primary aim of this study, which was to compare the survival rates and times of ONS leads placed with combined ultrasonography and fluoroscopy versus those placed with fluoroscopy alone. Survival analysis was used to assess the effect of implant method, adjusted for patient demographics (age, smoking tobacco use, and disability), on the risk of lead explant. Results: Data from 21 patients were collected, including a total of 53 ONS leads. There was no statistically significant difference in the lead survival rate or time, disability, or patient age with respect to the implant method with or without ultrasonography. There was a statistically significant negative effect on the risk of explant with regards to lead removal in smoking patients compared to non-smoking patients (hazard ratio 0.36). There was also a statistically significant difference in smoking tobacco use with respect to the implant method, such that a greater number of patients whose leads were placed with combined fluoroscopy and ultrasonography had a history of smoking (P = 0.048). Limitations: This study is a retrospective chart review that had statistically significant differences in the patient groups and a small sample size. Conclusion: This study assessed the survival rates and times of ONS leads placed with ultrasonography and fluoroscopy versus fluoroscopy alone. We did not observe an effect to suggest that the incremental addition of ultrasound guidance to fluoroscopy as the intraoperative imaging modality used during the permanent implant of ONS leads yields statistically significant differences in lead survival rate or time. Medical comorbidities, including age and smoking status, may play a role in determining the risk of surgical revision and should be considered in future studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)E1115-E1121
JournalPain Physician
Volume20
Issue number7
StatePublished - Nov 1 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Fluoroscopy
Survival Analysis
Ultrasonography
Smoking
Survival Rate
Tobacco Use
Demography
Nonparametric Statistics
Headache Disorders
Neuralgia
Reoperation
varespladib methyl
Sample Size
Electric Stimulation
Comorbidity
Electrodes
Lead

Keywords

  • Chronic daily headaches
  • Neuromodulation
  • Occipital nerve stimulation
  • Occipital neuralgia
  • Peripheral nerve stimulation
  • Ultrasonography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Survival analysis of occipital nerve stimulator leads placed under fluoroscopic guidance with and without ultrasonography. / Jones, James Harvey; Brown, Alison; Moyse, Daniel; Qi, Wenjing; Roy, Lance.

In: Pain Physician, Vol. 20, No. 7, 01.11.2017, p. E1115-E1121.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Jones, James Harvey ; Brown, Alison ; Moyse, Daniel ; Qi, Wenjing ; Roy, Lance. / Survival analysis of occipital nerve stimulator leads placed under fluoroscopic guidance with and without ultrasonography. In: Pain Physician. 2017 ; Vol. 20, No. 7. pp. E1115-E1121.
@article{3fd1edb74a6a48b68cd20d08c6309c0f,
title = "Survival analysis of occipital nerve stimulator leads placed under fluoroscopic guidance with and without ultrasonography",
abstract = "Background: Electrical stimulation of the greater occipital nerves is performed to treat pain secondary to chronic daily headaches and occipital neuralgia. The use of fluoroscopy alone to guide the surgical placement of electrodes near the greater occipital nerves disregards the impact of tissue planes on lead stability and stimulation efficacy. Objective: We hypothesized that occipital neurostimulator (ONS) leads placed with ultrasonography combined with fluoroscopy would demonstrate increased survival rates and times when compared to ONS leads placed with fluoroscopy alone. Study Design: A 2-arm retrospective chart review. Setting: A single academic medical center. Methods: This retrospective chart review analyzed the procedure notes and demographic data of patients who underwent the permanent implant of an ONS lead between July 2012 and August 2015. Patient data included the diagnosis (reason for implant), smoking tobacco use, disability, and age. ONS lead data included the date of permanent implant, the imaging modality used during permanent implant (fluoroscopy with or without ultrasonography), and, if applicable, the date and reason for lead removal. A total of 21 patients (53 leads) were included for the review. Chi-squared tests, Fishers exact tests, 2-sample t-tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare fluoroscopy against combined fluoroscopy and ultrasonography as implant methods with respect to patient demographics. These tests were also used to evaluate the primary aim of this study, which was to compare the survival rates and times of ONS leads placed with combined ultrasonography and fluoroscopy versus those placed with fluoroscopy alone. Survival analysis was used to assess the effect of implant method, adjusted for patient demographics (age, smoking tobacco use, and disability), on the risk of lead explant. Results: Data from 21 patients were collected, including a total of 53 ONS leads. There was no statistically significant difference in the lead survival rate or time, disability, or patient age with respect to the implant method with or without ultrasonography. There was a statistically significant negative effect on the risk of explant with regards to lead removal in smoking patients compared to non-smoking patients (hazard ratio 0.36). There was also a statistically significant difference in smoking tobacco use with respect to the implant method, such that a greater number of patients whose leads were placed with combined fluoroscopy and ultrasonography had a history of smoking (P = 0.048). Limitations: This study is a retrospective chart review that had statistically significant differences in the patient groups and a small sample size. Conclusion: This study assessed the survival rates and times of ONS leads placed with ultrasonography and fluoroscopy versus fluoroscopy alone. We did not observe an effect to suggest that the incremental addition of ultrasound guidance to fluoroscopy as the intraoperative imaging modality used during the permanent implant of ONS leads yields statistically significant differences in lead survival rate or time. Medical comorbidities, including age and smoking status, may play a role in determining the risk of surgical revision and should be considered in future studies.",
keywords = "Chronic daily headaches, Neuromodulation, Occipital nerve stimulation, Occipital neuralgia, Peripheral nerve stimulation, Ultrasonography",
author = "Jones, {James Harvey} and Alison Brown and Daniel Moyse and Wenjing Qi and Lance Roy",
year = "2017",
month = "11",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "E1115--E1121",
journal = "Pain Physician",
issn = "1533-3159",
publisher = "Association of Pain Management Anesthesiologists",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Survival analysis of occipital nerve stimulator leads placed under fluoroscopic guidance with and without ultrasonography

AU - Jones, James Harvey

AU - Brown, Alison

AU - Moyse, Daniel

AU - Qi, Wenjing

AU - Roy, Lance

PY - 2017/11/1

Y1 - 2017/11/1

N2 - Background: Electrical stimulation of the greater occipital nerves is performed to treat pain secondary to chronic daily headaches and occipital neuralgia. The use of fluoroscopy alone to guide the surgical placement of electrodes near the greater occipital nerves disregards the impact of tissue planes on lead stability and stimulation efficacy. Objective: We hypothesized that occipital neurostimulator (ONS) leads placed with ultrasonography combined with fluoroscopy would demonstrate increased survival rates and times when compared to ONS leads placed with fluoroscopy alone. Study Design: A 2-arm retrospective chart review. Setting: A single academic medical center. Methods: This retrospective chart review analyzed the procedure notes and demographic data of patients who underwent the permanent implant of an ONS lead between July 2012 and August 2015. Patient data included the diagnosis (reason for implant), smoking tobacco use, disability, and age. ONS lead data included the date of permanent implant, the imaging modality used during permanent implant (fluoroscopy with or without ultrasonography), and, if applicable, the date and reason for lead removal. A total of 21 patients (53 leads) were included for the review. Chi-squared tests, Fishers exact tests, 2-sample t-tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare fluoroscopy against combined fluoroscopy and ultrasonography as implant methods with respect to patient demographics. These tests were also used to evaluate the primary aim of this study, which was to compare the survival rates and times of ONS leads placed with combined ultrasonography and fluoroscopy versus those placed with fluoroscopy alone. Survival analysis was used to assess the effect of implant method, adjusted for patient demographics (age, smoking tobacco use, and disability), on the risk of lead explant. Results: Data from 21 patients were collected, including a total of 53 ONS leads. There was no statistically significant difference in the lead survival rate or time, disability, or patient age with respect to the implant method with or without ultrasonography. There was a statistically significant negative effect on the risk of explant with regards to lead removal in smoking patients compared to non-smoking patients (hazard ratio 0.36). There was also a statistically significant difference in smoking tobacco use with respect to the implant method, such that a greater number of patients whose leads were placed with combined fluoroscopy and ultrasonography had a history of smoking (P = 0.048). Limitations: This study is a retrospective chart review that had statistically significant differences in the patient groups and a small sample size. Conclusion: This study assessed the survival rates and times of ONS leads placed with ultrasonography and fluoroscopy versus fluoroscopy alone. We did not observe an effect to suggest that the incremental addition of ultrasound guidance to fluoroscopy as the intraoperative imaging modality used during the permanent implant of ONS leads yields statistically significant differences in lead survival rate or time. Medical comorbidities, including age and smoking status, may play a role in determining the risk of surgical revision and should be considered in future studies.

AB - Background: Electrical stimulation of the greater occipital nerves is performed to treat pain secondary to chronic daily headaches and occipital neuralgia. The use of fluoroscopy alone to guide the surgical placement of electrodes near the greater occipital nerves disregards the impact of tissue planes on lead stability and stimulation efficacy. Objective: We hypothesized that occipital neurostimulator (ONS) leads placed with ultrasonography combined with fluoroscopy would demonstrate increased survival rates and times when compared to ONS leads placed with fluoroscopy alone. Study Design: A 2-arm retrospective chart review. Setting: A single academic medical center. Methods: This retrospective chart review analyzed the procedure notes and demographic data of patients who underwent the permanent implant of an ONS lead between July 2012 and August 2015. Patient data included the diagnosis (reason for implant), smoking tobacco use, disability, and age. ONS lead data included the date of permanent implant, the imaging modality used during permanent implant (fluoroscopy with or without ultrasonography), and, if applicable, the date and reason for lead removal. A total of 21 patients (53 leads) were included for the review. Chi-squared tests, Fishers exact tests, 2-sample t-tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare fluoroscopy against combined fluoroscopy and ultrasonography as implant methods with respect to patient demographics. These tests were also used to evaluate the primary aim of this study, which was to compare the survival rates and times of ONS leads placed with combined ultrasonography and fluoroscopy versus those placed with fluoroscopy alone. Survival analysis was used to assess the effect of implant method, adjusted for patient demographics (age, smoking tobacco use, and disability), on the risk of lead explant. Results: Data from 21 patients were collected, including a total of 53 ONS leads. There was no statistically significant difference in the lead survival rate or time, disability, or patient age with respect to the implant method with or without ultrasonography. There was a statistically significant negative effect on the risk of explant with regards to lead removal in smoking patients compared to non-smoking patients (hazard ratio 0.36). There was also a statistically significant difference in smoking tobacco use with respect to the implant method, such that a greater number of patients whose leads were placed with combined fluoroscopy and ultrasonography had a history of smoking (P = 0.048). Limitations: This study is a retrospective chart review that had statistically significant differences in the patient groups and a small sample size. Conclusion: This study assessed the survival rates and times of ONS leads placed with ultrasonography and fluoroscopy versus fluoroscopy alone. We did not observe an effect to suggest that the incremental addition of ultrasound guidance to fluoroscopy as the intraoperative imaging modality used during the permanent implant of ONS leads yields statistically significant differences in lead survival rate or time. Medical comorbidities, including age and smoking status, may play a role in determining the risk of surgical revision and should be considered in future studies.

KW - Chronic daily headaches

KW - Neuromodulation

KW - Occipital nerve stimulation

KW - Occipital neuralgia

KW - Peripheral nerve stimulation

KW - Ultrasonography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85035002612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85035002612&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

C2 - 29149156

AN - SCOPUS:85035002612

VL - 20

SP - E1115-E1121

JO - Pain Physician

JF - Pain Physician

SN - 1533-3159

IS - 7

ER -