Improved Pain Relief With Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation for Two Weeks in Patients Using Tonic Stimulation: Results From a Small Clinical Study

Peter Courtney, Anthony Espinet, Bruce Mitchell, Marc Russo, Andrew Muir, Paul Verrills, Kristina Davis, Peter Courtney, Anthony Espinet, Bruce Mitchell, Marc Russo, Andrew Muir, Paul Verrills, Kristina Davis

Abstract

Objectives: Conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) delivers a tonic waveform with consistent stream of pulses; burst delivers groups of pulses separated by short pulse-free periods. The current study compared the short-term safety and efficacy of burst with tonic stimulation in subjects already receiving SCS.

Materials and methods: At 4 IRB-approved sites, 22 subjects previously implanted with an SCS device for intractable, chronic pain gave informed consent and received burst stimulation for 14 days. Subjects reported average daily Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall, trunk, and limb pain using tonic stimulation and after 7 and 14 days of burst stimulation. Thoughts about pain were assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. Areas of paresthesia were assessed during tonic and burst stimulation using body maps. Assessment of patient satisfaction and preferred stimulation occurred after 14 days of burst.

Results: Average daily overall VAS reduced 46% from a mean of 53.5 (±20.2) mm during tonic SCS to 28.5 (±18.1) mm during burst (p < 0.001); trunk and limb VAS scores were also reduced by 33% and 51%, respectively. During burst, 16 subjects (73%) reported no paresthesia, 5 (23%) reported a reduction, and 1 (4%) reported increased paresthesia. After 14 days, 21 subjects (95%) reported being very satisfied or satisfied with burst. Burst was preferred by 20 subjects (91%), tonic by 1 (5%), and 1 (5%) reported no preference. Better pain relief was the most common reason cited for preference.

Conclusions: A majority of subjects reported improved pain relief using burst compared with tonic stimulation. Most subjects experienced less paresthesia during burst and preferred burst citing better pain relief.

Keywords: Burst stimulation; chronic pain; spinal cord stimulation; tonic stimulation.

© 2015 The Authors. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Neuromodulation Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
VAS Scores at Baseline, 7 days, and 14 days. Mean VAS scores (±SD) during baseline tonic stimulation, after 7 days of burst stimulation, and after 14 days of burst stimulation. * indicates statistically significant difference compared with baseline tonic stimulation (p < 0.05).

References

    1. Taylor RS. Spinal cord stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome and refractory neuropathic back and leg pain/failed back surgery syndrome: Results of a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage 2006;31 (4 Suppl.):S13–S19.
    1. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: A multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain 2007;132:179–188.
    1. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L et al. The effects of spinal cord stimulation in neuropathic pain are sustained: a 24‐month follow‐up of the prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial of the effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation. Neurosurgery 2008;63:762–770.
    1. Oakley JC, Weiner RL. Spinal cord stimulation for complex regional pain syndrome: a prospective study of 19 patients at two centers. Neuromodulation 1999;2:47–50.
    1. DeRidder D, Vanneste S, Plazier M, van der Loo E, Menovsky T. Burst spinal cord stimulation: toward paresthesia‐free pain suppression. Neurosurgery 2010;66:986–990.
    1. Schu S, Slotty PJ, Bara G, von Knop M, Edgar D, Vesper J. A prospective, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study to examine the effectiveness of burst spinal cord stimulation patterns for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Neuromodulation 2014;17:443–450. doi:
    1. Lopez‐Garcia JA, King AE. Membrane properties of physiologically classified rat dorsal horn neurons in vitro: correlation with cutaneous sensory afferent input. Eur J Neurosci 1994;6:998–1007.
    1. Eriksson MB, Sjölund BH, Nielzén S. Long term results of peripheral conditioning stimulation as an analgesic measure in chronic pain. Pain 1979;6:335–347.
    1. Mannheimer C, Carlsson CA. The analgesic effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TNS) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. A comparative study of different pulse patterns. Pain 1979;6:329–334.
    1. De Ridder D, Plazier M, Kamerling N, Menovsky T, Vanneste S. Burst spinal cord stimulation for limb and back pain. World Neurosurg 2013;80:642–649.
    1. de Vos CC, Bom MJ, Vanneste S, Lenders MW, de Ridder D. Burst spinal cord stimulation evaluated in patients with failed back surgery syndrome and painful diabetic neuropathy. Neuromodulation 2013;17:152–159.
    1. Sullivan MJL, Bishop S, Pivik J. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale: Development and validation. Psychol Assess 1995;7:524–532.
    1. Wertli MM, Eugster R, Held U, Steurer J, Kofmehl R, Weiser S. Catastrophizing—a prognostic factor for outcome in patients with low back pain: A systematic review. Spine J 2014;14:2639–2657. doi:
    1. Aicher B, Peil H, Peil B, Diener HC. Pain measurement: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) in clinical trials with OTC analgesics in headache. Cephalalgia 2012;32:185–197.
    1. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Wyrwich KW et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain 2008;9:105–121.
    1. Jenson MP, Chen C, Brugger AM. Interpretation of visual analog scale ratings and change scores: A reanalysis of two clinical trials of postoperative pain. J Pain 2003;4:407–414.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir