Cervical Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Vegetative State: A Preliminary Result of 12 Cases. Issue 3 (13th December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Xu, Yangyang; Li, Peng; Zhang, Shizhen; Wang, Yi; Zhao, Xiaoyan; Wang, Xin; Wang, Wei
• Is Part Of: Neuromodulaton. Volume 22:Issue 3(2019)
• Page Start: 347
• Page End: 354
• Publication Date: 2018-12-13
• Subjects: Cervical spinal cord stimulation -- prognosis -- vegetative state; Central nervous system -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Central nervous system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.8
• DOI: 10.1111/ner.12903
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1094-7159

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: Data on the treatment of the vegetative state (VS) with cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) are limited and prognostic factors are inconclusive. In this study, we present our experience of treating 12 VS patients with cSCS and discuss the prognostic factors. Methods: Twelve VS patients were enrolled. Preoperative assessments included CT/MRI, PET, brainstem auditory evoked potentials (BAEPs), somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), and electroencephalogram (EEG). cSCS surgeries were performed at West China Hospital. The electrode was implanted in the epidural space of the C2–4 vertebrae. Levels of consciousness were evaluated based on the Coma Recovery Scale‐Revised (CRS‐R) at baseline and during follow‐up. Results: The average follow‐up was 11.1 months. The average CRS‐R score at the last evaluation was 10.8, which was significantly improved compared with the baseline score (6.25). Five patients achieved responsive outcomes (three recovered and two evolved to a minimally conscious state) and seven achieved unresponsive outcomes (six remained in VS and one died). Age, preoperative CRS‐R score, the interval between acute comatose injury and cSCS, and the Vth wave of BAEPs did not differ significantly between the responsive group and the unresponsive group. Appearance of the N20 of SEPs and multifocal abnormalities on CT/MRI and PET were significantly associated with a better outcome, while the etiology of ischemia and anoxia (IAA) was significantly associated with a poor outcome. Conclusions: cSCS should be a glimmer of hope for VS patients. Patients whose N20 is elicited or whose CT/MRI or PET demonstrates multifocal abnormalities are more likely to benefit from cSCS, whereas those with an IAA etiology have a lower likelihood of recovery after cSCS.