4.3 Article

Analgesic Efficacy of Burst and Tonic (500 Hz) Spinal Cord Stimulation Patterns: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Crossover Study

Journal

NEUROMODULATION
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 471-478

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ner.13321

Keywords

Burst stimulation; randomized double‐ blind crossover trial; sham stimulation; spinal cord stimulation; tonic sub‐ threshold stimulation

Funding

  1. Medtronic Ltd.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the efficacy of burst and tonic sub-threshold stimulation at 500 Hz versus sham stimulation in reducing pain intensity in adult subjects with chronic back and leg pain using a spinal cord stimulation device. Results showed that T500 stimulation was significantly more effective than sham stimulation, while BST stimulation was practically equivalent to sham stimulation in patients habituated to tonic SCS.
Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy in reducing pain intensity in adult subjects suffering from chronic back and leg pain of burst (BST) and tonic sub-threshold stimulation at 500 Hz (T500) vs. sham stimulation delivered by a spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity. Materials and Methods A multicentre randomized double-blind, three-period, three-treatment, crossover study was undertaken at two centers in the United Kingdom. Patients who had achieved stable pain relief with a conventional SCS capable of automated postural adjustment of current intensity were randomized to sequences of BST, T500, and sham SCS with treatment order balanced across the six possible sequences. A current leakage was programmed into the implantable pulse generator (IPG) in the sham period. The primary outcome was patient reported pain intensity using a visual analog scale (VAS). Results Nineteen patients were enrolled and randomized. The mean reduction in pain with T500 was statistically significantly greater than that observed with either sham (25%; 95% CI, 8%-38%; p = 0.008) or BST (28%; 95% CI, 13%-41%; p = 0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in pain VAS for BST versus Sham (5%; 95% CI, -13% to 27%; p = 0.59). Exploratory sub-group analyses by study site and sex were also conducted for the T500 vs. sham and BST versus sham comparisons. Conclusions The findings suggest a superior outcome versus sham from T500 stimulation over BST stimulation and a practical equivalence between BST and sham in a group of subjects with leg and back pain habituated to tonic SCS and having achieved a stable status with stimulation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available