Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Pain relief and quality-of-life improvement after spinal cord stimulation in painful diabetic polyneuropathy: a pilot study†  W.A. Pluijms, R. Slangen,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Pain relief and quality-of-life improvement after spinal cord stimulation in painful diabetic polyneuropathy: a pilot study†  W.A. Pluijms, R. Slangen,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Pain relief and quality-of-life improvement after spinal cord stimulation in painful diabetic polyneuropathy: a pilot study†  W.A. Pluijms, R. Slangen, M. Bakkers, C.G. Faber, I.S.J. Merkies, A.G. Kessels, C.D. Dirksen, E.A. Joosten, J.P.H. Reulen, R.T. van Dongen, N.C. Schaper, M. van Kleef  British Journal of Anaesthesia  Volume 109, Issue 4, Pages (October 2012) DOI: /bja/aes251 Copyright © 2012 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

2 Fig 1 Scores for daytime pain intensity (a), night pain intensity (b), and peak pain intensity (c). ITT analyses (blue bars) included all patients; RT analyses (green striped bars) includes all patients treated with SCS. Differences compared with the baseline (*P<0.05). Explanation of the various components of the box plots: the median (50th percentile) pain value corresponds with the horizontal line within the box. The box extends from the first quartile (25th percentile = x[25]) to the third quartile (75th percentile = x[75]), the so-called inter-quartile range (IQR). The vertical lines emerging from the box extend to the upper and lower adjacent values. The upper adjacent value is defined as the largest pain value less than or equal to x[75] × IQR. The lower adjacent value is defined as the smallest pain value greater than or equal to x[25] − 1.5 × IQR. Additional parts of this figure are available as online Supplementary material. British Journal of Anaesthesia  , DOI: ( /bja/aes251) Copyright © 2012 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

3 Fig 2 Patients’ global impression of change for pain (a) and for sleep (b). Follow-up data of SCS implanted patients. Additional parts of this figure are available as online Supplementary material. British Journal of Anaesthesia  , DOI: ( /bja/aes251) Copyright © 2012 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

4 Fig 3 Number of patients with the success of SCS assessed at 2 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Success was defined as ≥50% decrease in pain intensity at daytime or night time, and/or ≥50% decrease in peak pain intensity and/or significant improvement (‘completely resolved’ or ‘much improved’) of painful symptoms measured with the ‘patients global impression of change’ scale. British Journal of Anaesthesia  , DOI: ( /bja/aes251) Copyright © 2012 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions

5 Fig 4 Scores for EuroQol utility score. ITT analyses (blue bars) include all patients; RT analyses (green striped bars) include all patients treated with SCS. Differences compared with the baseline (*P<0.05). British Journal of Anaesthesia  , DOI: ( /bja/aes251) Copyright © 2012 The Author(s) Terms and Conditions


Download ppt "Pain relief and quality-of-life improvement after spinal cord stimulation in painful diabetic polyneuropathy: a pilot study†  W.A. Pluijms, R. Slangen,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google