Improved Pain Control with Combination Spinal Cord Stimulator Therapy Utilizing Sub-perception and Traditional Paresthesia Based Waveforms: A Pilot Study.
Back Pain
Chronic Pain
Combination Multi-wave Form
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
Failed Back Surgery Syndrome
Paresthesia, Subperception Neurostimulation
Spinal Cord Stimulation
Journal
Anesthesiology and pain medicine
ISSN: 2228-7523
Titre abrégé: Anesth Pain Med
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101585412
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
19
01
2021
accepted:
10
02
2021
entrez:
5
7
2021
pubmed:
6
7
2021
medline:
6
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Chronic back and neck pain affects 20% of Americans. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for otherwise refractory chronic pain. Traditional SCS relies on low-frequency stimulus in the 40 - 60 Hz range causing robust paresthesia in regions overlapping with painful dermatomes. This study aims to determine the effect of superimposing sub-perception stimulation in patients who previously had good long-term relief with paresthesia. This is a prospective observational trial examining patients who had previously been implanted with paresthesia based SCS for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). These patients presented for implantable pulse generator (IPG) replacement based on battery depletion with an IPG capable of combined sub-perception and paresthesia based SCS therapy. Patients were assessed immediately following the exchange and four weeks later using a telephone survey. Their pain was assessed on each follow up using a Numerical Rating scale (NRS); the primary outcome was the change in NRS after four weeks from the exchange day. Secondary outcomes included paresthesia changes, which included the subjective quality of sensation generated, the overall subjective coverage of the painful region, subjective variation of coverage with positional changes, and global perception of the percentage improvement in pain. Based on our clinic registry, 30 patients were eligible for IPG exchange, 16 were consented for follow up and underwent an exchange, and 15 were available for follow up four weeks following. The average NRS decreased from 7.47 with traditional SCS to 4.5 with combination therapy. 80% of patients reported an improvement in the quality of paresthesia over traditional SCS therapy, and in most patients, this translated to significantly improved pain control. Our findings suggest improved pain relief in patients who had previously had good results with paresthesia based therapy and subsequently underwent IPG exchange to a device capable of delivering combined sub-perception stimulation. The mechanism of action is unclear though there may be an additive and/or synergistic effect of the two waveforms delivered. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to elucidate the durability of pain relief and the precise mechanism by which combined subperception and paresthesia based SCS may improve overall patient outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Chronic back and neck pain affects 20% of Americans. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for otherwise refractory chronic pain. Traditional SCS relies on low-frequency stimulus in the 40 - 60 Hz range causing robust paresthesia in regions overlapping with painful dermatomes.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to determine the effect of superimposing sub-perception stimulation in patients who previously had good long-term relief with paresthesia.
METHODS
METHODS
This is a prospective observational trial examining patients who had previously been implanted with paresthesia based SCS for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). These patients presented for implantable pulse generator (IPG) replacement based on battery depletion with an IPG capable of combined sub-perception and paresthesia based SCS therapy. Patients were assessed immediately following the exchange and four weeks later using a telephone survey. Their pain was assessed on each follow up using a Numerical Rating scale (NRS); the primary outcome was the change in NRS after four weeks from the exchange day. Secondary outcomes included paresthesia changes, which included the subjective quality of sensation generated, the overall subjective coverage of the painful region, subjective variation of coverage with positional changes, and global perception of the percentage improvement in pain.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Based on our clinic registry, 30 patients were eligible for IPG exchange, 16 were consented for follow up and underwent an exchange, and 15 were available for follow up four weeks following. The average NRS decreased from 7.47 with traditional SCS to 4.5 with combination therapy. 80% of patients reported an improvement in the quality of paresthesia over traditional SCS therapy, and in most patients, this translated to significantly improved pain control.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest improved pain relief in patients who had previously had good results with paresthesia based therapy and subsequently underwent IPG exchange to a device capable of delivering combined sub-perception stimulation. The mechanism of action is unclear though there may be an additive and/or synergistic effect of the two waveforms delivered. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to elucidate the durability of pain relief and the precise mechanism by which combined subperception and paresthesia based SCS may improve overall patient outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34221951
doi: 10.5812/aapm.113089
pmc: PMC8241823
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e113089Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021, Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Pain Med. 2017 Aug 1;18(8):1534-1548
pubmed: 28108641
Anesth Pain Med. 2015 Aug 22;5(4):e29716
pubmed: 26484298
Hong Kong Med J. 2017 Oct;23(5):517-23
pubmed: 29026048
J Comp Neurol. 2013 Aug 15;521(12):2719-41
pubmed: 23386329
Pain Pract. 2018 Nov;18(8):1048-1067
pubmed: 29526043
JAMA. 2016 Dec 27;316(24):2627-2646
pubmed: 28027366
Neuromodulation. 2005 Jan;8(1):14-27
pubmed: 22151379
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2020 Sep;17(9):951-957
pubmed: 32883126
Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Nov 30;10(6):e110515
pubmed: 34150578
Neuromodulation. 2018 Jan;21(1):67-76
pubmed: 29220121
Eur J Pain. 2019 Apr;23(4):652-659
pubmed: 30407696
Neuromodulation. 2020 Jan;23(1):102-108
pubmed: 31265205
Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Mar 04;10(1):e100308
pubmed: 32337173
Anesth Pain Med. 2012 Winter;1(3):155-6
pubmed: 24904784
J Pain Res. 2020 Apr 30;13:873-875
pubmed: 32431535
Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Apr 13;10(2):e96418
pubmed: 32754427
Neuromodulation. 2011 Sep-Oct;14(5):423-6; discussion 426-7
pubmed: 21854493
Case Rep Womens Health. 2020 Jan 11;25:e00171
pubmed: 31956516