Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping With Anatomic Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Long-Term Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover CRISP Study

被引:12
|
作者
Al-Kaisy, Adnan [1 ]
Baranidharan, Ganesan [2 ]
Sharon, Haggai [1 ,3 ,4 ]
Palmisani, Stefano [1 ]
Pang, David [1 ]
Will, Onita [1 ]
Wesley, Samuel [1 ]
Crowther, Tracey [2 ]
Ward, Karl [2 ]
Castino, Paul [2 ]
Raza, Adil [5 ]
Pathak, Yagna J. [5 ]
Agnesi, Filippo [5 ]
Yearwood, Thomas [1 ]
机构
[1] Guys & St Thomas NHS Fdn Trust, Pain & Neuromodulat Acad Res Ctr, London, England
[2] Leeds Teaching Hosp NHS Trust, Pain Management, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
[3] Tel Aviv Sourasky Med Ctr, Pain Management, Tel Aviv, Israel
[4] Tel Aviv Univ, Fac Med, Tel Aviv, Israel
[5] Abbott, Plano, TX USA
来源
NEUROMODULATION | 2022年 / 25卷 / 01期
关键词
Burst; burst spinal cord stimulation; failed back surgery syndrome; implant techniques; neuropathic pain; BACK;
D O I
10.1111/ner.13467
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Objectives Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for chronic intractable pain. Conventional SCS involves electrode placement based on intraoperative paresthesia mapping; however, newer paradigms like burst may allow for anatomic placement of leads. Here, for the first time, we report the one-year safety and efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead placed with conventional, paresthesia mapping, or anatomic placement approach in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Materials and Methods Subjects with CLBP were implanted with two leads. The first lead was placed to cross the T8/T9 disc and active contacts for this lead were chosen through paresthesia mapping. The second lead was placed at the T9/T10 spinal anatomic landmark. Subjects initially underwent a four-week, double-blinded, crossover trial with a two-week testing period with burst SCS delivered through each lead in a random order. At the end of trial period, subjects expressed their preference for one of the two leads. Subsequently, subjects received burst SCS with the preferred lead and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months. Pain intensity (visual analog scale), quality-of-life (EuroQol-5D instrument), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) were evaluated at baseline and follow-up. Results Forty-three subjects successfully completed the trial. Twenty-one preferred the paresthesia mapping lead and 21 preferred the anatomic placement lead. Anatomic placement lead was activated in one subject who had no preference. The pain scores (for back and leg) significantly improved from baseline for both lead placement groups at all follow-up time points, with no significant between-group differences. Conclusions This study demonstrated that equivalent clinical benefits could be achieved with burst SCS using either paresthesia mapping or anatomic landmark-based approaches for lead placement. Nonparesthesia-based approaches, such as anatomic landmark-based lead placement investigated here, have the potential to simplify implantation of SCS and improve current surgical practice.
引用
收藏
页码:85 / 92
页数:8
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [21] Long-Term Effect of Peripheral Nerve Field Stimulation as Add-On Therapy to Spinal Cord Stimulation to Treat Low Back Pain in Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Patients: A 12-Month Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Study
    van Gorp, Eric-Jan J. A. A.
    Teernstra, Onno
    Aukes, Hans J.
    Hamm-Faber, Tanja
    Burger, Katja
    Kallewaard, Jan Willem
    Spincemaille, Geert
    Schapendonk, Johannes W. L. C.
    Vonhogen, Leon
    Bronkhorst, Ewald
    Vissers, Kris C. P.
    NEUROMODULATION, 2019, 22 (08): : 970 - 977