Search

Introduction DeRidder's burst stimulation design has become a key spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveform because it reduces the intensity of pain as well as its associated emotional distress. The brain pathways underlying these outcomes may also allow for the effects of stimulation to carry over after stimulation is turned off, making it amenable to intermittent application. Here, the utility of intermittently cycled burst was evaluated using data from two large real-world prospective studies (TRIUMPH, REALITY). Materials and methods Subjects used intermittent dosing in a 1:3 ratio (30 sec on, 90 sec off; N = 100) in TRIUMPH and 1:12 ratio in REALITY (30-sec on, 360-sec off; N = 95) for six months. Pain intensity (0-10 numeric rating scale), pain-related emotions on the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS), and physical function on PROMIS questionnaires were compared with preimplant baseline ratings and by group. Results In both groups, mean pain intensity decreased by nearly 50% relative to baseline, PCS scores significantly decreased, and physical function improved. Importantly, no differences between the 1:3 and 1:12 groups were identified. A high proportion, 80% and 77% of the 1:3 and 1:12 groups, respectively, were considered responders on a multiple measures. No adverse events were associated with intermittent stimulation. Discussion Intermittent cycling of burst SCS lowers the overall electric charge delivered to the spinal cord and preserves battery consumption, without compromising pain relief and associated symptoms.

Multidisciplinary patient-reported outcomes are a critical part of assessing patients to better understand their well-being during treatment. The use of multidisciplinary patient-reported outcomes is recommended in many areas of medicine. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) has been utilized as a common measurement language across universally relevant domains, including pain, mood, sleep, social participation, and function. Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. Subjects were identified and consecutively enrolled upon entry into chronic pain centers across 24 sites in the United States. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 and the numerical rating scale (NRS) were recorded. The pain impact score and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI-3) were calculated. Statistical differences were assessed between genders and among age groups comprising subjects less than 40, 41–60, 61–80, and over 80 years of age. A total of 19,546 patients were assessed over the enrollment period from 2018 to 2020. The PROMIS-29 v2.1 was evaluated across the seven domains, along with the numerical rating sale (NRS). The mean scores of the population for PROMIS SF v1.0 Pain Interference 4a, PROMIS SF v1.0 Sleep Disturbance 4a, PROMIS SF v1.0 Fatigue 4a, PROMIS SF v1.0 Anxiety 4a, PROMIS SF V1.0 Depression 4a, PROMIS SF v2.0 Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities 4a, and PROMIS SF v1.0 Physical Function 4a, measuring pain interference, sleep disturbance, fatigue, anxiety, depression, social participation, and physical function, were 64.61, 57.19, 58.50, 53.94, 54.45, 40.06, and 36.23, respectively. Pain intensity was 6.38 on an 11-point NRS scale. The pain impact score (PIS) and health utilities index mark 3 (HUI-3) scores, calculated across the designated age groups, were 33.19 and 0.67, respectively. Statistical differences were observed for the domains of sleep disturbance and physical function for age groups less than 40 and greater than 80 years of age. This data set is the first published normative data set describing the PROMIS-29 assessment in the chronic pain population. The patient population is more homogeneous than expected, and females were found to have higher levels of dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare the trial success rate between anatomic lead placement (AP) and paresthesia-mapped (PM) lead placement techniques for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) using a nonlinear burst stimulation pattern. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eligible patients with back and/or leg pain with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score of ≥6 who had not undergone previous SCS were enrolled in the study. A total of 270 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to each treatment arm. In the AP group, one lead tip was placed at the mid-body of T8, and the other at the superior endplate of T9. In the PM group, physicians confirmed coverage of the patient's primary pain location. Trial success was a composite of the following: ≥50% patient-reported pain relief at the end of the minimum three-day trial period, physician's recommendation, and patient's interest in a permanent implant. RESULTS Trial success for AP vs. PM groups was equivalent to 84.4% and 82.3%, respectively. Physicians who performed both techniques preferred AP technique (70% vs. 30%). Procedure times for placement of two leads were 31% shorter in the AP group (p