Hi Teresa, welcome to our community. Many people within this community have had IDETS (and many had multiple level IDETS in the same proecure). I'd like to see some studies showing long-term efficacy; but many patients SEEM to eventually require surgical intervention after IDETS. There are many other procedures that may be better for you long-term; so you are wise to seek a highly experienced surgeon. There are many, many here in the states, but we can talk about this option too. Give me a buzz when you can.
In the meantime, here is one of many articles you can find on the subject.
______________________________
doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2003.07.010
Copyright © 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Clinical study
Intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) for chronic low back pain in active-duty soldiers: 2-year follow-up*1
abaabaBrett A. Freedman CPT, MC, , Steven P. Cohen LTC, MC, Timothy R. Kuklo LTC, MC, Ronald A. Lehman CPT, MC, Peter Larkin MAJ, MC and Jeffrey R. Giuliani 2LT, MC
aDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation and bDepartment of General Surgery, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC 20307, USA
Received 3 February 2003; accepted 9 July 2003. Available online 4 November 2003.
Abstract
Background context
Intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) is a new treatment option for chronic discogenic low back pain that is minimally invasive and has demonstrated success rates equal to or better than those for spinal fusion at short-term follow-up.
Purpose
To report our experience with IDET in the management of chronic discogenic low back pain in active-duty soldiers.
Study design/setting
Consecutive case series at a US Army medical center.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome measured was a reported 50% or greater reduction in pain at latest follow-up. Additional outcomes measured included analog pain scores, satisfaction, complications, duty status and subsequent spinal surgery.
Methods
Between 1999 and 2001, 41 active-duty soldiers (34 men, 7 women) underwent IDET for chronic discogenic low back pain unresponsive to nonoperative therapy. Data were collected through clinic chart review and follow-up questionnaires. Success was defined as a stated “50% decrease in pain” from baseline.
Results
During the study period, 36 of 41 patients underwent a single trial of IDET, and the remaining 5 underwent two trials of IDET. Only the results of the 36 patients who underwent one trial of IDET were used for statistical analysis. All 36 patients were available for follow-up at 6 months, whereas only 31 patients (86%) were reached for final follow-up (average, 29.7 months; range, 24 to 46). The success rate was 47% (17 of 36) at 6 months and 16% (5 of 31 patients) at latest follow-up. Although overall success rates were low, 20 of 31 soldiers (65%) had a persistent decrease in their analog pain score (average decrease of 2.5±1.6 on a 10-point scale), with 52% having 2-point or greater decrease. Nineteen of 31 soldiers (61%) were still on active duty at a minimum of 24 months after IDET. There were five transient complications (16%) from IDET, all reported within the first month. Seven of 31 soldiers (23%), all male, went on to spinal surgery within 24 months of failed IDET.
Conclusions
IDET is not a substitute for spinal fusion in the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain in active-duty soldiers. Our reasonable early results diminished with time and up to 20% of patients report worsening of baseline symptoms at final follow-up. IDET will prove its role in the treatment of chronic discogenic low back pain as more outcome data are obtained, but for now we consider it, at best, an antecedent rather than alternative to spinal fusion.
Author Keywords: IDET; Intradiscal electrothermal therapy; Degenerative disc disease; Discogenic; Low back pain; Outcomes
Corresponding author. 4425 Rosedale Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA. Tel.: (301) 652-3932; fax: (202) 782-6845.
*1 FDA device/drug status: approved for this indication: Spine CATH Intradiscal Catheter and Thermal Regulating Unit.
Support in whole or in part was received from Walter Reed Army Department of Clinical Investigation under Grant 01-24005.
The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or as reflecting the views of the United States Army or the Department of Defense. The authors are employees of the United States government. This work was prepared as part of their official duties and, as such, there is no copyright to be transferred. The Department of Clinical Investigation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center has supported this protocol and manuscript.
The Spine Journal
Volume 3, Issue 6, November-December 2003, Pages 502-509