Literature DB >> 21992834

Assessment of patient preference for constant voltage and constant current spinal cord stimulation.

Cristy M Schade1, John Sasaki, David M Schultz, Nancy Tamayo, Gary King, Lisa M Johanek.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation devices control energy by generating either constant voltage (CV) pulses or constant current (CC) pulses. This study aimed to investigate: 1) whether patients feel differences between CV and CC stimulation; 2) if patients prefer CV or CC stimulation.
METHODS: Fourteen patients blinded to the type of pulse generation received 20 randomized pairs of 15-sec pulse trains (CC-CV, CV-CC, CV-CV, or CC-CC). Patients identified whether the pairs were the same or different, and if they preferred the first or second train.
RESULTS: There was no difference in charge-per-pulse input between CV and CC modes. Patients performed at chance level in identifying identical pairs (55.7 ± 24.1% correct, 10 trials), and slightly better in identifying different pairs (67.1 ± 25.2% correct, 10 trials). No patients correctly identified all pairs. Patients were categorized based on their performance in this task. Only three patients fell into a category where preference could be established with some confidence with respect to the group averages. Two of these patients preferred CV, while one patient preferred CC.
CONCLUSION: The lack of patient ability to discriminate in this preliminary investigation suggests that patient preference for a stimulation type should not be the key determining factor in choosing a spinal cord stimulation system.
© 2010 International Neuromodulation Society.

Entities:  

Year:  2010        PMID: 21992834     DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2010.00284.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuromodulation        ISSN: 1094-7159


  5 in total

1.  Long-lasting increase in axonal excitability after epidurally applied DC.

Authors:  Elzbieta Jankowska; Dominik Kaczmarek; Francesco Bolzoni; Ingela Hammar
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 2.  Spinal stimulation for pain: future applications.

Authors:  Konstantin V Slavin
Journal:  Neurotherapeutics       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 7.620

3.  Spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain: evidence and theory for mechanisms of action.

Authors:  Jacob Caylor; Rajiv Reddy; Sopyda Yin; Christina Cui; Mingxiong Huang; Charles Huang; Rao Ramesh; Dewleen G Baker; Alan Simmons; Dmitri Souza; Samer Narouze; Ricardo Vallejo; Imanuel Lerman
Journal:  Bioelectron Med       Date:  2019-06-28

Review 4.  Spinal cord stimulation programming: a crash course.

Authors:  Breanna Sheldon; Michael D Staudt; Lucian Williams; Tessa A Harland; Julie G Pilitsis
Journal:  Neurosurg Rev       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 3.042

Review 5.  Electrical epidural stimulation of the cervical spinal cord: implications for spinal respiratory neuroplasticity after spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Ian G Malone; Rachel L Nosacka; Marissa A Nash; Kevin J Otto; Erica A Dale
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 2.974

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.