STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, controlled, clinical trial comparing single and dual percutaneous electrodes in the treatment of axial low back pain from failed back surgery syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To clarify technical requirements and test the hypothesis that placing two linear arrays in parallel, thereby doubling the number of contacts, improves outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Technical improvements have enhanced outcomes of spinal cord stimulation for chronic axial low back pain. Dual, parallel electrodes reportedly improve these outcomes. METHODS: Acting as their own controls, 20 patients who passed screening with single, 4-contact electrodes received permanent dual, 4-contact electrodes with 7- or 10-mm intercontact distances at the same vertebral level(s). We quantified and compared the technical and clinical results of the single and dual electrodes, adjusting stimulation parameters to specific psychophysical thresholds. RESULTS: Single electrodes provided significant (P < 0.01) advantages in patient- and computer-calculated ratings of pain coverage by paresthesias and in the scaled amplitude necessary to cover the low back, compared with dual 7-mm electrodes. Slight advantages without statistical significance were observed for the single over the dual 10-mm electrodes. Amplitude requirements were significantly lower for the single electrode than for either dual electrode. At long-term follow-up, 53% of patients met the criteria for clinical success. CONCLUSIONS: While we observed disadvantages for dual electrodes in treating axial low back pain, we achieved technical success with single or dual electrodes in most patients and maintained this success clinically with dual electrodes in 53%.
RCT Entities:
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, controlled, clinical trial comparing single and dual percutaneous electrodes in the treatment of axial low back pain from failed back surgery syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To clarify technical requirements and test the hypothesis that placing two linear arrays in parallel, thereby doubling the number of contacts, improves outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Technical improvements have enhanced outcomes of spinal cord stimulation for chronic axial low back pain. Dual, parallel electrodes reportedly improve these outcomes. METHODS: Acting as their own controls, 20 patients who passed screening with single, 4-contact electrodes received permanent dual, 4-contact electrodes with 7- or 10-mm intercontact distances at the same vertebral level(s). We quantified and compared the technical and clinical results of the single and dual electrodes, adjusting stimulation parameters to specific psychophysical thresholds. RESULTS: Single electrodes provided significant (P < 0.01) advantages in patient- and computer-calculated ratings of pain coverage by paresthesias and in the scaled amplitude necessary to cover the low back, compared with dual 7-mm electrodes. Slight advantages without statistical significance were observed for the single over the dual 10-mm electrodes. Amplitude requirements were significantly lower for the single electrode than for either dual electrode. At long-term follow-up, 53% of patients met the criteria for clinical success. CONCLUSIONS: While we observed disadvantages for dual electrodes in treating axial low back pain, we achieved technical success with single or dual electrodes in most patients and maintained this success clinically with dual electrodes in 53%.
Authors: Devin D Antonovich; Willy Gama; Alexandra Ritter; Bethany Jacobs Wolf; Ryan H Nobles; Meron A Selassie; M Gabriel Hillegass Journal: Pain Med Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.637
Authors: John A Hatheway; Vipul Mangal; Michael A Fishman; Philip Kim; Binit Shah; Rainer Vogel; Vincent Galan; Steven Severyn; Tristan E Weaver; David A Provenzano; Eric Chang; Michael H Verdolin; Gregory Howes; Armando Villarreal; Steven Falowski; Kelly Hendrickson; Katherine Stromberg; Lachlan Davies; Lisa Johanek; Matthew T Kelly Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2020-12-09
Authors: Philippe Rigoard; Mehul J Desai; Richard B North; Rod S Taylor; Lieven Annemans; Christine Greening; Ye Tan; Carine Van den Abeele; Jane Shipley; Krishna Kumar Journal: Trials Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 2.279