Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consistent application of gate control theory in the screening and selection of patients for implantable therapy

  • Published:
Current Review of Pain Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide pragmatic instruction in the identification of favorable candidates for implantable devices. Protocol for psychological assessment and decisionmaking is submitted with particular attention to the consistent application of gate control theory. Strategies are discussed with reference to the influence of culture in the decision-making process,multidisciplinary assessment and treatment, pain management rather than cure, dynamic rather than one-time decisions, and psychological selection criteria.The holistic paradigm is highlighted as an explanatory model from which procedures can evolve. A template is submitted in the structuring of recommendations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Melzack Rl, Wall PD: Pain mechanisms: A new theory. Science 1965, 150:971–979.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rychlak J: Introduction to Personality and Psychotherapy, end 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1973:10,11.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cassidy CM: Unravelling the ball of string: Reality, paradigms, and the study of alternative medicine. Adv J Mind-Body Health 1994, 10:5–31. Salient differences between the reductionistic and holistic paradigms are highlighted. A holistically based model for the structuring of health care is outlined, from which the present authors have borrowed heavily.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Doleys DM, Olson K: Psychological Assessment and Intervention in Implantable Pain Therapies Minneapolis, MN: Medtronic Corp; 1997. This paper outlines pragmatic steps in the psychological assessment of chronic pain and necessary steps in selecting appropriate patients for implantable therapy.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Turk D, Rudy T: Towards a comprehensive assessment of chronic pain patients. Behav Res Ther 1987, 25:237–249.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Main CJ, Waddell G: Personality assessment in the management of low back pain. Clin Rehabil 1987, 1:139–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Helmes EL: What type of useful information do the MMPI and MMPI-2 provide on patients with chronic pain? APS Bull 1994, 4:1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gamsa A: The role of psychological factors in chronic pain. Part I: A half century study. Pain 1994, 57:5–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Randolph P: psychologically based selection criteria for spinal cord stimulation: following the lead of gate control theory. Pain Digest 1998, 8:286–291. This paper was a commentary on David Nelson and colleagues’ proposal for exclusionary criteria in the appropriate selection of patients for spinal cord stimulation. Many of the present authors’ views were developed in this paper.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heisenberg W: Development of concepts in the history of quantum theory. Am J Physics 1973, 43:389–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Walsh R: The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: questions of comparison and assessment. Am J Psychiatry 1980, 137:663–673.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. North RB, Kidd DH, Zahurak M, et al.: Prognostic value of psychological testing in patients undergoing spinal cord stimulation: A prospective study. Neurosurgery 1996, 39:301–311.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kumar D, Toth C, Nath RK: Spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain in peripheral neuropathy. Surg Neurol 1996, 46:4;363–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lang P: The treatment of chronic pain by epidural spinal cord stimulation—a 15-year follow up; present status. Axone 1997, 18:4:71–73.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rainov NG, Heidecke V, Burkert W: Short test-period spinal cord stimulation for failed back surgery syndrome. Minim Invasiv Neurosurgery 1996, 39:2:41–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ohnmeiss DD, Rashbaum RF, Bogdanffy GM: Prospective outcome evaluation of spinal cord stimulation in patients with intractable leg pain. Spine 1996, 21:11:1344–1350; discussion: 1351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Arensberg C, Niehoff A: American Cultural Values. The Nacirema, Readings in American Culture. Boston: Little Brown & Co; 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Randolph PD, Racz G: Consider the uncertainty: Holistic and reductionist considerations in spinal cord stimulation trial and permanent implantation. Pain Forum 1996, 5:107–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nelson DV, Kennington M, Novy D, Squitieri P: Psychological selection criteria for implantable spinal cord stimulators. Pain Forum 1996, 5:93–103. Psychologically based exclusionary criteria were first proposed and developed in this novel paper.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. North RB: Psychological criteria are outcome measures as well as prognostic factors. Pain Forum 1996, 5:111–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kupers RC, Van den Oever R, Van Houdenhove B. et al.: Spinal cord stimulation in Belgium; A nation-wide survey on the incidence, indications, and therapeutic efficacy by the health insurer. Pain 1994, 56:211–216.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Atkinson JH, Slater MA, Patterson TL, et al.: Prevalence, onset, and risk of psychiatric disorders in men with chronic low back pain: a controlled study. Pain 1991, 45:111–121.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Magni G, Moreschi C, Rigatti-Luchini S, Merksey H: Prospective study on the relationship between depressive symptoms and chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain 1994, 56:289–297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gamsa A, Vikis-Freibergs V: Psychological events are both risk factors in and consequences of chronic pain. Pain 1991, 44:271–277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McMahon MJ, Gatchel RJ, Polatin PB, Mayer TG: Early childhood abuse in chronic spinal disorder patients: A major barrier to treatment success. Spine 1997, 22:20:2408–2415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bradley LA, Haile JM, Jaworski TM: Assessment of psychological status using interview and self-report instruments. In Handbook of Pain Assessment. Edited by Turk DC, Melzack R. New York: Guilford Press; 1992:193–213.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wickramasekera I, Davies TE, Davies SM: Applied psychophysiology: A bridge between the biomedical model and the biopsychosocial model in family medicine. Prof Psych Res Practice. 1996, 27(suppl):221–233. A multidimensional model of somatization was proposed and supported, with particular support for the role that psychosocial factors play in its expression. This encouraged the present authors to propose triggers and buffers as mediating factors in the consideration of appropriate candidates for implantable therapy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Livengood JM, Johnson B: Personality disorders in chronic pain patients. Pain Digest 1998, 8:277–281.

    Google Scholar 

  29. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, edn 4. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Getto CJ, Heaton RK, Lehman AW: PSPI: A standardized approach to the evaluation of psychosocial factors in chronic pain. Advances in Pain Research and Therapy. Vol 5. New York: Raven Press; 1983:885–889..

    Google Scholar 

  31. Maruta T, Swanson DW, Swenson WM: Chronic pain: Which patients may a pain management program help? Pain 1979, 7:321–329.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mayer T, Gatchel R: Functional Restoration for Spine Disorders: The Sports Medicine Approach Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1988:122.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sternbach, RA: Pain and "hassles" in the United States: Findings of the Nuprin Pain Report. Pain 1986, 26:69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Weinberger M, Hiner SL, Tierney WM: In support of the hassles as a measure of stress in predicting health outcomes. J Behav Med 1987, 19:19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D: Social relationships and health. Science 1988, 241:540–545.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lazarus RS, Folkman S: Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Stringer; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Fishbain DA, Cutler RB, Rosomoff HL, Steele-Rosomoff R: Pain facilities: A review of their effectiveness and referral selection criteria. Curr Rev Pain 1997, 1:107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Goodrich S, Cogan D, Randolph P, Racz G: The prediction of pain using measures of sleep quality. Pain Digest 1998, 8:23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Castello R, Hulsey T, Schoenfeld L, et al.: P-A-I-N: a four cluster MMPI typology for chronic pain. Pain 1987, 30:199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Burchiel KJ, Anderson VC, Wilson BJ, et al.: Prognostic factors of spinal cord stimulation for chronic back and leg pain. Neurosurgery 1995, 36:1101–1111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Blumetti AE, Modesti LM: Psychological predictor of success or failure of surgical intervention for intractable back pain. Adv Pain Res Ther 1976, 1:323–325.

    Google Scholar 

  42. McCreary C, Turner J, Dawson E, et al.: The MMPI as a predictor of response to conservative treatment for low back pain. J Clin Psychol 1979, 35:278–284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Olson KA, Bedder MD, Anderson VC, et al.: Psychological variables associated with outcome of spinal cord stimulation trials. Neuromodulation 1998, 1:6–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. McCreary CP: Psychological evaluation of chronic pain with the MMPI: Pain Digest 3(4):246–251, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pain Management Center, Psychological Services Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Dept. of Anesthesiology 3601 4th Street, Room IC-282, 79430, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Patrick D. Randolph PhD & Lynnette Greak MEd

Authors
  1. Patrick D. Randolph PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lynnette Greak MEd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Randolph, P.D., Greak, L. Consistent application of gate control theory in the screening and selection of patients for implantable therapy. Current Review of Pain 3, 48–60 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-999-0064-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11916-999-0064-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation