» Articles » PMID: 31143246

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Pregnant Patients: Current Perspectives of Indications, Complications, and Results in Pain Control: A Systematic Review

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2019 May 31
PMID 31143246
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been described as a valuable neuromodulator procedure in the management of chronic medically untreated neuropathic pain. Although the use of this technique has been published in many papers, a question still remains regarding its applicability in pregnant patients. The goal of this paper is to discuss the risks, complications, and results as well as the prognosis of SCS in pregnant patients. We performed a systematic review from 1967 to 2018 using the databases MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, PubMed, and BIREME, utilizing language as selection criteria. Eighteen studies that met our criteria were found and tabulated. SCS is a reversible and adjustable surgical procedure, which results in patients that demonstrated a significant effect in the reduction of pain intensity in pregnant patients. The etiologies most frequent were complex regional pain and failed back pain syndromes, which together represented 94% of analyzed cases. The technical complications most frequent were lead migration (3%, = 1). Regarding the risks, the authors did not show significative factors among the categorical variables that can suggest a teratogenicity, while the maternal risks have been associated to the consequences of technical complications due to, among other factors, improvement of abdominal pressure during pregnancy and delivery. Finally, although there are not significative cohorts of pregnant patients, the procedure is still an effective surgical approach of neuropathic pain associated to lower rates of complications and significative improvement in the quality of life of patients during pregnancy.

Citing Articles

Successful spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section in a patient with a dorsal root ganglion stimulation implant: A case report.

van der Spek D, van der Marel C, de Vos C, Huygen F, Dirckx M Case Rep Womens Health. 2024; 44:e00652.

PMID: 39711604 PMC: 11662160. DOI: 10.1016/j.crwh.2024.e00652.

References
1.
Brent R . Reproductive and teratologic effects of low-frequency electromagnetic fields: a review of in vivo and in vitro studies using animal models. Teratology. 1999; 59(4):261-86. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9926(199904)59:4<261::AID-TERA12>3.0.CO;2-K. View

2.
Lacroix I, Damase-Michel C, Lapeyre-Mestre M, Montastruc J . Prescription of drugs during pregnancy in France. Lancet. 2000; 356(9243):1735-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03209-8. View

3.
Li D, Odouli R, Wi S, Janevic T, Golditch I, Bracken T . A population-based prospective cohort study of personal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage. Epidemiology. 2002; 13(1):9-20. DOI: 10.1097/00001648-200201000-00004. View

4.
Huggon I, Ghi T, Cook A, Zosmer N, Allan L, Nicolaides K . Fetal cardiac abnormalities identified prior to 14 weeks' gestation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 20(1):22-9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00733.x. View

5.
Lo W, Friedman J . Teratogenicity of recently introduced medications in human pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100(3):465-73. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02122-1. View