Comparison of Tonic vs. Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation During Trial Period.


Journal

Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society
ISSN: 1525-1403
Titre abrégé: Neuromodulation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9804159

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Historique:
received: 22 12 2017
revised: 27 06 2018
accepted: 16 07 2018
pubmed: 18 10 2018
medline: 30 4 2019
entrez: 18 10 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-known treatment in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Burst stimulation is a recently developed stimulation modality that seems to be superior to tonic stimulation. This observational multicenter study compared tonic and burst stimulation during a trial period in patients with FBSS or radiculopathy. All the patients enrolled underwent two weeks of tonic stimulation followed by another two weeks of BurstDR stimulation, without randomization. The primary outcome was the reduction of pain in the legs and back. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) were assessed before and after the trial. Patients were reevaluated after 12 months. We recruited 23 patients, 57% of whom had FBSS and 43% had radiculopathies. Five patients failed both the tonic and burst stimulation trials. While tonic stimulation reduced leg pain (p < 0.05), the burst mode added an extra pain reduction (ΔNRS 1.2 ± 1.5) (p < 0.01). No significant reduction in back pain was found (p 0.29). Pain on movement was reduced only by BurstDR (p < 0.01). Both stimulation modalities increased EQ-5D and reduced PCS from the baseline (p < 0.0001). At the end of the SCS trial phase, 26% patients chose tonic SCS, while 74% preferred burst. On 12-month follow-up examination, the benefits recorded at the end of the trial were maintained. Burst stimulation confers a greater reduction in leg pain intensity at rest and on movement. Reducing axial pain is still a challenge. Further studies are needed in order to provide each patient with the most appropriate stimulation paradigm.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-known treatment in patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). Burst stimulation is a recently developed stimulation modality that seems to be superior to tonic stimulation.
METHODS METHODS
This observational multicenter study compared tonic and burst stimulation during a trial period in patients with FBSS or radiculopathy. All the patients enrolled underwent two weeks of tonic stimulation followed by another two weeks of BurstDR stimulation, without randomization. The primary outcome was the reduction of pain in the legs and back. Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) and the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) were assessed before and after the trial. Patients were reevaluated after 12 months.
RESULTS RESULTS
We recruited 23 patients, 57% of whom had FBSS and 43% had radiculopathies. Five patients failed both the tonic and burst stimulation trials. While tonic stimulation reduced leg pain (p < 0.05), the burst mode added an extra pain reduction (ΔNRS 1.2 ± 1.5) (p < 0.01). No significant reduction in back pain was found (p 0.29). Pain on movement was reduced only by BurstDR (p < 0.01). Both stimulation modalities increased EQ-5D and reduced PCS from the baseline (p < 0.0001). At the end of the SCS trial phase, 26% patients chose tonic SCS, while 74% preferred burst. On 12-month follow-up examination, the benefits recorded at the end of the trial were maintained.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Burst stimulation confers a greater reduction in leg pain intensity at rest and on movement. Reducing axial pain is still a challenge. Further studies are needed in order to provide each patient with the most appropriate stimulation paradigm.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30328646
doi: 10.1111/ner.12867
pii: S1094-7159(21)01907-3
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Multicenter Study Observational Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

327-332

Informations de copyright

© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.

Auteurs

Laura Demartini (L)

Pain Unit, Clinical Scientific Institutes Maugeri, Pavia, Italy.

Gaetano Terranova (G)

Pain Unit, Clinical Scientific Institutes Maugeri, Pavia, Italy.
Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Massimo A Innamorato (MA)

Pain Unit, Santa Maria delle Croci Hospital, AUSL Romagna, Ravenna, Italy.

Alessandro Dario (A)

Neurostimulation Center, Department of Neurosurgery, Macchi Foundation Hospital, Varese, Italy.

Michele Sofia (M)

ASST Rhodense, The Hospital of Garbagnate Milanese, Milanese, Italy.

Carlo Angelini (C)

ASST Rhodense, The Hospital of Garbagnate Milanese, Milanese, Italy.

Genni Duse (G)

Pain Managment Unit, S. Antonio Hospital, Padua, Italy.

Amedeo Costantini (A)

Pain Clinic, Ospedale Clinicizzato SS. Annunziata, Chieti, Italy.

Matteo L G Leoni (MLG)

Interventional Pain Unit, G. da Saliceto Hospital, Piacenza, Italy.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH