Pilot Program
A Robotic Hand Device Safety Study for People With Cervical Spinal Cord Injury
This study of the FES Hand Glove 200 device suggests possible efficacy in enhancing range of motion of various wrist and finger joints.
Casey A. Murphy, MDa,b,c; Randolph L. Roig, MDa,b,c; W. Bradley Trimbleb; Matthew Bennettb; and Justin Doughty, MDb
Correspondence: Casey Murphy (casey.murphy2@va.gov)
Author affiliations
aVeterans Affairs Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
bLouisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans
cTulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans
Author disclosures
The authors report no actual or potential conflicts of interest and no outside funding with regard to this article.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the US Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.
Ethics and consent
The Southeastern Louisiana Veterans Health Care System Institutional Review Board approved this study. Patients provided verbal consent prior to completing the survey.
Of the 90 SLVHCS patients who received an SCS implant between 2008 and 2020, 76 were reached by telephone and 65 had their responses recorded in the study. Of the 11 patients who were not included, 5 had the SCS removed; it is unclear whether these veterans would have recommended the treatment. Four were unable to quantify pain and/or SCS effects, and 2 were excluded due to a dementia diagnosis years after the implant. The mean (SD) age of participants was 63.9 (10.3) years. Forty percent of patients had a diabetes mellitus diagnosis and 1 had prediabetes. Patients’ most common qualifying diagnosis for SCS was PLS (47.7%) followed by chronic LBP (26.2%). A percutaneous 2-lead technique was the most common type of SCS type used (60.0%) followed by 1-lead (21.5%). The most common SCS manufacturer was Boston Scientific (87.7%)(Table 1). Most veterans (76.9%) recommended SCS to their peers; 13.8% did not recommend SCS; 9.2% were undecided and stated that they were unable to recommend because they did not want to persuade a peer to get SCS (Figure).
There was a statistically significant decrease in opioid use for the 40 veterans for whom pain medication was converted (P < .001)(Table 2). Six patients reported using opioids at some point but could not remember their dose, and no records were found in their chart review, so they were not included in the MMED analysis. In that group, 4 patients reported using opioids before SCS but discontinued the opioid use after SCS implantation, and 2 patients noted using opioids before SCS and concomitantly. Eighteen subjects reported no opioid use at any point before or after SCS (Table 3).
There were few life-threatening complications of SCS. Three veterans developed skin dehiscence; 2 had dehiscence at the battery/generator site, and 1 had dehiscence at the lead anchor site. Two patients with dehiscence also had morbid obesity, and the third had postoperative malnourishment. The dehiscence occurred 3 and 8 months postoperation. All 3 patients with dehiscence had the SCS explanted, though they were eager to get a new SCS implanted as soon as possible because SCS was their most successful treatment to date.
Twenty of the 64 veterans surveyed reported other complications of SCS, including lead migration, lack of pain coverage, paresthesia and numbness, soreness around generator site, SCS shocking patient when performing full thoracic spine flexion, and shingles at the battery site (Table 4). There were 11 explants among the 76 veterans contacted. The primary reason for explant was lack of pain coverage.
Patient concerns included pain with sitting in chairs due to tenderness around the implant, SCS helping with physical pain but not mental pain, SCS only working during the day and not helping with sleep, and patients lacking education regarding possible complications of SCS.
In this nonrandomized retrospective review, SCS was shown to be an effective treatment for intractable spine and/or extremity pain. Veterans’ pain levels were significantly reduced following SCS implantation, and more than three-fourths of veterans recommended SCS to their peers. We used the recommendation of SCS to peers as the most important metric regarding the effectiveness of SCS, as this measure was felt to be more valuable to share with future patients; furthermore, categorical analysis has been shown to be more valuable than ordinal pain scales to measure pain.14 In addition to wanting to expand the available research to the general public, we wanted a measure that we could easily relay to our patient population regarding SCS.
The explant rate of 14.5% among surveyed veterans falls at the higher end of the normal ranges found in previous studies of long-term SCS outcomes.15-17 One possible reason for the higher rate is that we did not differentiate based on the reason for the explant (ie, no benefit, further surgery needed for underlying medical condition, or SCS-specific complications). Another possible contributing factor to the higher than expected explant rate is the geographic location in the New Orleans metro area; New Orleans is considered to have one of the highest rates of obesity in the United States and obesity typically has other diseases associated with it such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| 30.67 KB |
This study of the FES Hand Glove 200 device suggests possible efficacy in enhancing range of motion of various wrist and finger joints.
Researchers developed a restless legs syndrome questionnaire using diagnostic criteria to assess its prevalence among veterans with spinal cord...