Long-Term Real-World Outcomes Study on Patients Implanted With a Neurostimulator (REALITY)

The REALITY study is a prospective, post-market, non-randomized, multi-center, single-arm, open-label study intended to collect short- and long-term safety and effectiveness data on various populations implanted with Abbott's neurostimulation systems.

Study Overview

• Status: Recruiting
• Conditions: Chronic Pain
• Intervention / Treatment: Device: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS); Device: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG)

Detailed Description

This study has broad inclusion criteria and minimal exclusion criteria to ensure the results are representative of the real-world use of these devices. Enrollment caps will be implemented to ensure patients from approved indications are represented. Individuals who are scheduled to receive an implantable Abbott neurostimulation system are eligible for study consideration. The study will enroll up to 2,000 subjects from up to 100 participating centers. Subject enrollment is expected to be completed within 7 years; subjects will be followed for 5 years. The total duration of the study is expected to be 13 years, including enrollment, data collection from all subjects, and study close out.

• Study Type: Observational
• Enrollment (Estimated): 2000

Contacts and Locations

• Study Contact: Name: Bram Blomme; Phone Number: +32 474 74 83 10; Email: bram.blomme@abbott.com
• Study Contact Backup: Name: Sonar Pradhan; Phone Number: +1 818-282-6456; Email: sonar.pradhan@abbott.com

Study Locations

• Australia
  • Victoria
    • Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3168
      • Terminated
      • Metro Pain Group
    • Kew, Victoria, Australia, 3101
      • Terminated
      • Precision Brain, Spine & Pain Centre
• Belgium
  • Eflndrs
    • Sint-Niklaas, Eflndrs, Belgium, 9100
      • Terminated
      • AZ Nikolaas
  • West Flanders
    • Roeselare, West Flanders, Belgium, 8800
      • Terminated
      • AZ Delta vzw
• Germany
  • Bad-wur
    • Tübingen, Bad-wur, Germany, 72076
      • Terminated
      • Universitäts Klinikum Tübingen
  • Bavaria
    • Ingolstadt, Bavaria, Germany, 85049
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Klinikum Ingolstadt GmbH
  • Koln
    • Cologne, Koln, Germany, 51149
      • Recruiting
      • Krankenhaus Porz am Rhein
      • Principal Investigator: Thomas May
  • N. RHIN
    • Duisburg, N. RHIN, Germany, 47055
      • Terminated
      • Klinikum Duisburg GmbH
    • Düsseldorf, N. RHIN, Germany, 40225
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Universitaetsklinikum Duesseldorf
    • Mönchengladbach, N. RHIN, Germany, 41066
      • Terminated
      • Krankenhaus Neuwerk Maria von den Aposteln
  • North Rhine-Westphalia
    • Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, 51109
      • Terminated
      • Kliniken der Stadt Köln-Merheim
  • Schleswig-Holstein
    • Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, 23538
      • Terminated
      • Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein
  • Thuringia
    • Gera, Thuringia, Germany, 07548
      • Terminated
      • Hospital Gera -Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Schmerztherapie
• Italy
  • Campani
    • Napoli, Campani, Italy, 80131
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Azienda Ospedaliera Monaldi
  • Lombard
    • Pavia, Lombard, Italy, 27100
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri
• Netherlands
  • S Holln
    • Rotterdam, S Holln, Netherlands, 3015
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Erasmus MC
  • Utrecht
    • Nieuwegein, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3435 CM
      • Terminated
      • St. Antonius Ziekenhuis
• Spain
  • Cstleon
    • Salamanca, Cstleon, Spain, 37007
      • Terminated
      • Hospital Universitario de Salamanca
  • Madrid
    • Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain, 28222
      • Terminated
      • Hospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro
  • Valencia
    • Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 46026
      • Terminated
      • Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe
• Switzerland
  • Valais
    • Sion, Valais, Switzerland, 1951
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Hôpital du Valais
• United Kingdom
  • England
    • Norwich, England, United Kingdom, NR4 7UY
      • Terminated
      • Norfolk and Norwich Hospital
  • North West England
    • Liverpool, North West England, United Kingdom, L9 7LJ
      • Terminated
      • The Walton Centre
  • Sowest
    • Bristol, Sowest, United Kingdom, BS10 5NB
      • Terminated
      • Southmead Hospital
  • Yorkshire and the Humber
    • Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber, United Kingdom, LS14 6UH
      • Terminated
      • Seacroft Hospital
• United States
  • Arizona
    • Phoenix, Arizona, United States, 85021
      • Terminated
      • Phoenician Centers for Research & Innovation
    • Tucson, Arizona, United States, 85718
      • Terminated
      • Pain Institute of Southern Arizona
  • California
    • Larkspur, California, United States, 94939
      • Terminated
      • California Orthopedics & Spine
    • Orange, California, United States, 92868
      • Terminated
      • Restore Orthopedics & Spine Center
    • Pomona, California, United States, 91767
      • Terminated
      • Foothills Pain Management Clinic
    • Santa Rosa, California, United States, 95403
      • Terminated
      • Pacific Research Institute
  • Florida
    • Gainesville, Florida, United States, 32610
      • Terminated
      • University of Florida Department of Anesthesia
  • Illinois
    • Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60637
      • Active, not recruiting
      • University of Chicago
    • Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60612
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Rush University Medical Center
  • Indiana
    • Indianapolis, Indiana, United States, 46032
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Goodman Campbell Brain and Spine
  • Minnesota
    • Edina, Minnesota, United States, 55435
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Nura
    • Edina, Minnesota, United States, 55439
      • Terminated
      • Twin Cities Pain Clinic
    • Rochester, Minnesota, United States, 55905
      • Terminated
      • Mayo Clinic
  • Missouri
    • Chesterfield, Missouri, United States, 63017
      • Terminated
      • Saint Louis Pain Consultants
  • Nevada
    • Henderson, Nevada, United States, 89052
      • Terminated
      • Advanced Pain Care
    • Reno, Nevada, United States, 89511
      • Terminated
      • Nevada Advanced Pain Specialists
  • New York
    • New York, New York, United States, 10022
      • Terminated
      • Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management
    • Rochester, New York, United States, 14626
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Unity Spine Center
    • Staten Island, New York, United States, 10305
      • Active, not recruiting
      • The Spine & Pain Institute of New York
  • North Carolina
    • Asheville, North Carolina, United States, 28803
      • Terminated
      • Premier Pain Solutions
  • Ohio
    • Chillicothe, Ohio, United States, 45601
      • Withdrawn
      • Adena Bone and Joint Center
    • Loveland, Ohio, United States, 45140
      • Withdrawn
      • Premier Pain Treatment Institute
  • Oregon
    • Eugene, Oregon, United States, 97401
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Pacific Sports & Spine
    • Tualatin, Oregon, United States, 97062
      • Terminated
      • Spinal Diagnostics
  • Pennsylvania
    • Exton, Pennsylvania, United States, 19341
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Center for Interventional Pain & Spine
  • Texas
    • Houston, Texas, United States, 77079
      • Active, not recruiting
      • Expert Pain
    • Killeen, Texas, United States, 76542
      • Terminated
      • Integrated Pain Associates
    • Killeen, Texas, United States, 76542
      • Terminated
      • Central Texas Pain Institute
    • Round Rock, Texas, United States, 78664
      • Terminated
      • Advanced Pain Care
  • West Virginia
    • Charleston, West Virginia, United States, 25301
      • Active, not recruiting
      • The Spine & Nerve Center of St Francis Hospital

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: 18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: N/A

• Sampling Method: Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

This clinical investigation will enroll adult male and female individuals scheduled to have an Abbott neurostimulation system implanted. Subjects must meet all eligibility criteria and provide written informed consent prior to conducting any investigation-specific procedures not considered standard of care.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Subject must provide written informed consent prior to any clinical investigation related procedure.
2. Subject is at least 18 years (or the minimum age required by local law to consent for participation in a clinical investigation) or older at the time of enrollment.
3. Subject is scheduled to have an Abbott neurostimulation system implanted within 60 days of baseline.
4. Subject has a baseline (with no stimulation) pain NRS of ≥ 6.

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Subject is enrolled, or intends to participate, in a competing clinical study, as determined by Abbott.
2. Presence of other anatomic or comorbid conditions, or other medical, social, or psychological conditions that, in the investigator's opinion, could limit the subject's ability to participate in the clinical investigation or to comply with follow-up requirements.
3. Subject has or is scheduled to receive an intrathecal pump.
4. Subject is part of a vulnerable population.
5. Subject has an existing implanted neuromodulation device to address their chronic pain.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Observational Models: Other
• Time Perspectives: Prospective

Number of groups / cohorts

2

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort	Intervention / Treatment
Spinal cord stimulation (SCS); Subjects using Abbott SCS systems	Device: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS); Subjects will be implanted with market-released Abbott SCS systems
Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG); Subjects using Abbott DRG system	Device: Dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRG); Subjects will be implanted with market-released Abbott DRG system

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	Baseline
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	Permanent Implant Procedure
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be assessed via Telephone Calls and will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	9 months
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 Year
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be assessed via Telephone Calls and will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1.5 Years
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be assessed via Telephone Calls and will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2.5 Years
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be assessed via Telephone Calls and will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3.5 Years
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be assessed via Telephone Calls and will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4.5 Years
Rate of device and procedure related adverse events, deaths, and device deficiencies	Serious adverse device effects (SADEs), adverse device effects (ADEs), deaths, and device deficiencies will be summarized using counts, percentages or Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by PROMIS-29	The PROMIS-29 is used to estimate overall quality of life by assessing the following domains known to impact activities of daily living: physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, and social role satisfaction. The scale requires subjects to rate the frequency and/or severity of symptoms and experiences related to each of these domains. The final item is an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) by which the subject rates their average pain over the past 7 days. Subjects should read each item and check the one box that most closely represents their response. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by PROMIS-29	The PROMIS-29 is used to estimate overall quality of life by assessing the following domains known to impact activities of daily living: physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, and social role satisfaction. The scale requires subjects to rate the frequency and/or severity of symptoms and experiences related to each of these domains. The final item is an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) by which the subject rates their average pain over the past 7 days. Subjects should read each item and check the one box that most closely represents their response. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 Year
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by PROMIS-29	The PROMIS-29 is used to estimate overall quality of life by assessing the following domains known to impact activities of daily living: physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, and social role satisfaction. The scale requires subjects to rate the frequency and/or severity of symptoms and experiences related to each of these domains. The final item is an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) by which the subject rates their average pain over the past 7 days. Subjects should read each item and check the one box that most closely represents their response. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by PROMIS-29	The PROMIS-29 is used to estimate overall quality of life by assessing the following domains known to impact activities of daily living: physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, and social role satisfaction. The scale requires subjects to rate the frequency and/or severity of symptoms and experiences related to each of these domains. The final item is an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) by which the subject rates their average pain over the past 7 days. Subjects should read each item and check the one box that most closely represents their response. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by PROMIS-29	The PROMIS-29 is used to estimate overall quality of life by assessing the following domains known to impact activities of daily living: physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, and social role satisfaction. The scale requires subjects to rate the frequency and/or severity of symptoms and experiences related to each of these domains. The final item is an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) by which the subject rates their average pain over the past 7 days. Subjects should read each item and check the one box that most closely represents their response. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by PROMIS-29	The PROMIS-29 is used to estimate overall quality of life by assessing the following domains known to impact activities of daily living: physical function, sleep disturbance, depression, anxiety, fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, and social role satisfaction. The scale requires subjects to rate the frequency and/or severity of symptoms and experiences related to each of these domains. The final item is an 11-point pain intensity numerical rating scale (NRS) by which the subject rates their average pain over the past 7 days. Subjects should read each item and check the one box that most closely represents their response. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked by interviewing the subjects. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked to the subjects via telephone calls. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	9 months
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked by interviewing the subjects. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 year
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked to the subjects via telephone calls. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1.5 years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked by interviewing the subjects. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked to the subjects via telephone calls. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2.5 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked by interviewing the subjects. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked to the subjects via telephone calls. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3.5 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked by interviewing the subjects. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked to the subjects via telephone calls. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4.5 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Numerical Rating Score (NRS)	The pain NRS consists of 1 question that will be asked by interviewing the subjects. Patients will be asked to rate, from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain), their pain at the time of study visit specific to the area(s) of chronic pain being treated. A higher score indicates greater pain intensity. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)	Pain Catastrophizing Scale is a validated scale that measures the magnitude of catastrophizing (negative thoughts and feelings while a patient is experiencing pain). Subjects answer questions about how they feel and what they think about when they are in pain (i.e., not at the current moment). The scale includes 13 statements concerning pain experiences that are rated on a scale between 0 'not at all' and 4 'all the time'. The scale is self-administered and takes 5 minutes to complete. A higher score indicates a higher level of catastrophizing. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)	Pain Catastrophizing Scale is a validated scale that measures the magnitude of catastrophizing (negative thoughts and feelings while a patient is experiencing pain). Subjects answer questions about how they feel and what they think about when they are in pain (i.e., not at the current moment). The scale includes 13 statements concerning pain experiences that are rated on a scale between 0 'not at all' and 4 'all the time'. The scale is self-administered and takes 5 minutes to complete. A higher score indicates a higher level of catastrophizing. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 Year
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)	Pain Catastrophizing Scale is a validated scale that measures the magnitude of catastrophizing (negative thoughts and feelings while a patient is experiencing pain). Subjects answer questions about how they feel and what they think about when they are in pain (i.e., not at the current moment). The scale includes 13 statements concerning pain experiences that are rated on a scale between 0 'not at all' and 4 'all the time'. The scale is self-administered and takes 5 minutes to complete. A higher score indicates a higher level of catastrophizing. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)	Pain Catastrophizing Scale is a validated scale that measures the magnitude of catastrophizing (negative thoughts and feelings while a patient is experiencing pain). Subjects answer questions about how they feel and what they think about when they are in pain (i.e., not at the current moment). The scale includes 13 statements concerning pain experiences that are rated on a scale between 0 'not at all' and 4 'all the time'. The scale is self-administered and takes 5 minutes to complete. A higher score indicates a higher level of catastrophizing. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)	Pain Catastrophizing Scale is a validated scale that measures the magnitude of catastrophizing (negative thoughts and feelings while a patient is experiencing pain). Subjects answer questions about how they feel and what they think about when they are in pain (i.e., not at the current moment). The scale includes 13 statements concerning pain experiences that are rated on a scale between 0 'not at all' and 4 'all the time'. The scale is self-administered and takes 5 minutes to complete. A higher score indicates a higher level of catastrophizing. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)	Pain Catastrophizing Scale is a validated scale that measures the magnitude of catastrophizing (negative thoughts and feelings while a patient is experiencing pain). Subjects answer questions about how they feel and what they think about when they are in pain (i.e., not at the current moment). The scale includes 13 statements concerning pain experiences that are rated on a scale between 0 'not at all' and 4 'all the time'. The scale is self-administered and takes 5 minutes to complete. A higher score indicates a higher level of catastrophizing. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)	The ODI is a 10-item scale that evaluates disability related to low-back and leg pain. It is widely used, validated, and has been translated into several languages. Each section in the scale covers a different domain (pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, sex life, social life, and traveling). Each item is scored on a scale from 0-5 with the first item scored a "0" and representing no disability. The final item is scored a "5" and represents the maximum level of disability. If more than one response in a section is checked, the highest score is chosen. The scores for each section are summed for a final score ranging from 0 to 50. If an item is not answered, the total score is instead calculated as a percentage of the total possible score for all items that were completed. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)	The ODI is a 10-item scale that evaluates disability related to low-back and leg pain. It is widely used, validated, and has been translated into several languages. Each section in the scale covers a different domain (pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, sex life, social life, and traveling). Each item is scored on a scale from 0-5 with the first item scored a "0" and representing no disability. The final item is scored a "5" and represents the maximum level of disability. If more than one response in a section is checked, the highest score is chosen. The scores for each section are summed for a final score ranging from 0 to 50. If an item is not answered, the total score is instead calculated as a percentage of the total possible score for all items that were completed. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 Year
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)	The ODI is a 10-item scale that evaluates disability related to low-back and leg pain. It is widely used, validated, and has been translated into several languages. Each section in the scale covers a different domain (pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, sex life, social life, and traveling). Each item is scored on a scale from 0-5 with the first item scored a "0" and representing no disability. The final item is scored a "5" and represents the maximum level of disability. If more than one response in a section is checked, the highest score is chosen. The scores for each section are summed for a final score ranging from 0 to 50. If an item is not answered, the total score is instead calculated as a percentage of the total possible score for all items that were completed. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)	The ODI is a 10-item scale that evaluates disability related to low-back and leg pain. It is widely used, validated, and has been translated into several languages. Each section in the scale covers a different domain (pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, sex life, social life, and traveling). Each item is scored on a scale from 0-5 with the first item scored a "0" and representing no disability. The final item is scored a "5" and represents the maximum level of disability. If more than one response in a section is checked, the highest score is chosen. The scores for each section are summed for a final score ranging from 0 to 50. If an item is not answered, the total score is instead calculated as a percentage of the total possible score for all items that were completed. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)	The ODI is a 10-item scale that evaluates disability related to low-back and leg pain. It is widely used, validated, and has been translated into several languages. Each section in the scale covers a different domain (pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, sex life, social life, and traveling). Each item is scored on a scale from 0-5 with the first item scored a "0" and representing no disability. The final item is scored a "5" and represents the maximum level of disability. If more than one response in a section is checked, the highest score is chosen. The scores for each section are summed for a final score ranging from 0 to 50. If an item is not answered, the total score is instead calculated as a percentage of the total possible score for all items that were completed. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)	The ODI is a 10-item scale that evaluates disability related to low-back and leg pain. It is widely used, validated, and has been translated into several languages. Each section in the scale covers a different domain (pain intensity, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, sex life, social life, and traveling). Each item is scored on a scale from 0-5 with the first item scored a "0" and representing no disability. The final item is scored a "5" and represents the maximum level of disability. If more than one response in a section is checked, the highest score is chosen. The scores for each section are summed for a final score ranging from 0 to 50. If an item is not answered, the total score is instead calculated as a percentage of the total possible score for all items that were completed. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by pain condition-related medication usage	Pain condition-related medication usage (e.g. opioids, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, sleep aids, topicals) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by pain condition-related medication usage	Pain condition-related medication usage (e.g. opioids, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, sleep aids, topicals) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 Year
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by pain condition-related medication usage	Pain condition-related medication usage (e.g. opioids, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, sleep aids, topicals) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by pain condition-related medication usage	Pain condition-related medication usage (e.g. opioids, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, sleep aids, topicals) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by pain condition-related medication usage	Pain condition-related medication usage (e.g. opioids, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, sleep aids, topicals) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by pain condition-related medication usage	Pain condition-related medication usage (e.g. opioids, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, sleep aids, topicals) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2)	Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2)	Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 Year
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2)	Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2)	Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2)	Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Mean Change in Clinical improvement from baseline to each follow up visit assessed by Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2)	Transcutaneous Oxygen pressure measurement (TcPO2) will be summarized using mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, maximum, and a 95% confidence interval. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years
Rate of patient satisfaction	Patient satisfaction will be summarized using counts and percentages This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Rate of patient satisfaction	Patient satisfaction will be summarized using counts and percentages This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 Year
Rate of patient satisfaction	Patient satisfaction will be summarized using counts and percentages This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Rate of patient satisfaction	Patient satisfaction will be summarized using counts and percentages This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Rate of patient satisfaction	Patient satisfaction will be summarized using counts and percentages This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Rate of patient satisfaction	Patient satisfaction will be summarized using counts and percentages This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via an interview technique. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	6 months
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via telephone calls. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	9 months
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject'simpression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of thestudy treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overallchange in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall qualityof life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via an interview technique. The categories are as follows: 1-nochange, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1 Year
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via telephone calls. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	1.5 Year
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via an interview technique. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2 Years
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via telephone calls. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	2.5 Years
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via an interview technique. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3 Years
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via telephone calls. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	3.5 Years
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via an interview technique. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4 Years
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via telephone calls. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	4.5 Years
Rate of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) for global improvement of the patient.	The PGIC is a categorical rating scale used to evaluate the subject's impression of change in his/her condition since the beginning of the study treatment. The subject will be requested to rate their overall change in activity limitations, symptoms, emotions and overall quality of life related to his/her condition on a seven-point categorical scale via an interview technique. The categories are as follows: 1-no change, 2-almost the same, 3-a little better, 4-somewhat better, 5-moderatly better, 6-better, and 7-a great deal better. This study has no primary or secondary endpoints, all endpoints are of equal weight.	5 Years

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Abbott Medical Devices
• Investigators: Study Director: Devyani Nanduri, Abbott Medical Devices Neuromodulation

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): March 13, 2019
• Primary Completion (Estimated): June 1, 2029
• Study Completion (Estimated): December 1, 2029

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: March 12, 2019
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 13, 2019
• First Posted (Actual): March 15, 2019

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Estimated): January 7, 2026
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: January 5, 2026
• Last Verified: January 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Keywords: spinal cord stimulation; dorsal root ganglion stimulation
• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Pain; Neurologic Manifestations; Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms; Signs and Symptoms; Chronic Pain; Therapeutics; Physical Therapy Modalities; Rehabilitation; Electric Stimulation Therapy; Spinal Cord Stimulation
• Other Study ID Numbers: ABT-CIP-10279

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: Yes
• product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.: No