Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Spinal cord stimulation for non-reconstructable chronic critical leg ischaemia

  1. Dirk T Ubbink1,*,
  2. Hester Vermeulen2

Editorial Group: Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group

Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 17 JAN 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004001.pub3


How to Cite

Ubbink DT, Vermeulen H. Spinal cord stimulation for non-reconstructable chronic critical leg ischaemia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004001. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004001.pub3.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Quality Assurance & Process Innovation, and Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  2. 2

    Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam & Amsterdam School of Health Professions, Department of Quality Assurance & Process Innovation, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands

*Dirk T Ubbink, Quality Assurance & Process Innovation, and Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, J1b-215 Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 9, PO Box 22700, Amsterdam, 1100 DE, Netherlands. d.ubbink@amc.uva.nl.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Stable (no update expected for reasons given in 'What's new')
  2. Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

SEARCH

[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Limb survival, Outcome 1 Amputations (12 months).
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Limb survival, Outcome 2 Amputation rate in non-hypertensives (18 months).
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Pain relief, Outcome 1 Change in VAS score (0-100; where 100 is worst) after 12 months.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Pain relief, Outcome 2 Change in Pain Rating Index (overall; where higher is worse) after 12 months.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Pain relief, Outcome 3 Change in VAS score (0-100; where 100 is worst) after 3 months.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Clinical improvement, Outcome 1 Reaching Fontaine stage II.
[Analysis 3.2]
Analysis 3.2. Comparison 3 Clinical improvement, Outcome 2 Reaching Fontaine stage III.
[Analysis 3.3]
Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3 Clinical improvement, Outcome 3 Ulcer healing and hypertension.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Ankle/brachial index, Outcome 1 Ankle/brachial pressure index increase after 12 months.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Quality of life, Outcome 1 Nottingham Health Profile (0-100; where 100 is worst) after 12 months.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Quality of life, Outcome 2 Euroqol (0-100; where 100 is worst) after 12 months.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 TcpO2, Outcome 1 TcpO2 after 12 months.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Complications, Outcome 1 Change in stimulation requiring reintervention (within 12 months).
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Complications, Outcome 2 Infection requiring removal.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Complications, Outcome 3 Battery: end of life.
[Analysis 7.4]
Analysis 7.4. Comparison 7 Complications, Outcome 4 Overall complications requiring re-intervention.
[Analysis 7.5]
Analysis 7.5. Comparison 7 Complications, Outcome 5 Initial implantation problems (not included in overall complications).