Search

Objective: The success of neurostimulation depends partly on the amount of coverage of the neurostimulation-induced paresthesia of the painful area. This is often achieved by asking feedback from patients intraoperatively. If sedation analgesia is used, it is important that the patient is comfortable during sedation and easily arousable. If the patient is not well sedated or experiences residual effects of the sedation during testing, this can directly influence the ideal placement of the leads and indirectly the long-term effect of the treatment. It is our hypothesis that the quality of the sedation is directly coupled to the adequacy of lead placement and in this way in the result of the treatment. Dexmedetomidine is known for its easy production of arousable sedation. The aim of the present study was to compare the long-term effect of using dexmedetomidine versus propofol during the implantation of a neurostimulator. Materials and Methods: This is a post-trial follow-up analysis of the DexMedPro cohort. The primary outcome was global perceived effect (GPE). The secondary outcomes were the course of pain intensity, the emotional and physical functioning at the time of follow-up, and the course of neurostimulation treatment. In this study, we used the patient satisfaction with sedation as a measure for sedation quality. Results: Regarding the GPE, no statistically significant differences were found between the experimental groups in either subscale (ie, recovery (p=0.82) and satisfaction with the neurostimulation treatment at follow-up (p=0.06)). The same was found regarding the secondary parameters. A correlation was found between patient satisfaction with sedation during the lead implantation (side effects and procedural recall) and satisfaction at follow-up. Conclusion: Regarding the long-term efficacy of neurostimulation treatment, no statistically significant differences were found between the dexmedetomidine and the propofol group. We observed a trend towa