Literature DB >> 28535555

Paresthesia-Independence: An Assessment of Technical Factors Related to 10 kHz Paresthesia-Free Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Giuliano De Carolis1, Mery Paroli1, Lara Tollapi1, Matthew W Doust2, Abram H Burgher3, Cong Yu4, Thomas Yang4, Donna M Morgan5, Kasra Amirdelfan6, Leonardo Kapural7, B Todd Sitzman8, Richard Bundschu9, Ricardo Vallejo10, Ramsin M Benyamin10, Thomas L Yearwood11, Bradford E Gliner12, Ashley A Powell13, Kerry Bradley13.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been successfully used to treat chronic intractable pain for over 40 years. Successful clinical application of SCS is presumed to be generally dependent on maximizing paresthesia-pain overlap; critical to achieving this is positioning of the stimulation field at the physiologic midline. Recently, the necessity of paresthesia for achieving effective relief in SCS has been challenged by the introduction of 10 kHz paresthesia-free stimulation. In a large, prospective, randomized controlled pivotal trial, HF10 therapy was demonstrated to be statistically and clinically superior to paresthesia-based SCS in the treatment of severe chronic low back and leg pain. HF10 therapy, unlike traditional paresthesia-based SCS, requires no paresthesia to be experienced by the patient, nor does it require paresthesia mapping at any point during lead implant or post-operative programming.
OBJECTIVES: To determine if pain relief was related to technical factors of paresthesia, we measured and analyzed the paresthesia responses of patients successfully using HF10 therapy. STUDY
DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, non-randomized, non-controlled interventional study.
SETTING: Outpatient pain clinic at 10 centers across the US and Italy.
METHODS: Patients with both back and leg pain already implanted with an HF10 therapy device for up to 24 months were included in this multicenter study. Patients provided pain scores prior to and after using HF10 therapy. Each patient's most efficacious HF10 therapy stimulation program was temporarily modified to a low frequency (LF; 60 Hz), wide pulse width (~470 mus), paresthesia-generating program. On a human body diagram, patients drew the locations of their chronic intractable pain and, with the modified program activated, all regions where they experienced LF paresthesia. Paresthesia and pain drawings were then analyzed to estimate the correlation of pain relief outcomes to overlap of pain by paresthesia, and the mediolateral distribution of paresthesia (as a surrogate of physiologic midline lead positioning).
RESULTS: A total of 61 patients participated across 11 centers. Twenty-eight men and 33 women with a mean age of 56 ± 12 years of age participated in the study. The average duration of implantable pulse generator (IPG) implant was 19 ± 9 months. The average predominant pain score, as measured on a 0 - 10 visual analog scale (VAS), prior to HF10 therapy was 7.8 ± 1.3 and at time of testing was 2.5 ± 2.1, yielding an average pain relief of 70 ± 24%. For all patients, the mean paresthesia coverage of pain was 21 ± 28%, with 43% of patients having zero paresthesia coverage of pain. Analysis revealed no correlation between percentage of LF paresthesia overlap of predominant pain and HF10 therapy efficacy (P = 0.56). Exact mediolateral positioning of the stimulation electrodes was not found to be a statistically significant predictor of pain relief outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Non-randomized/non-controlled study design; short-term evaluation; certain technical factors not investigated.
CONCLUSION: Both paresthesia concordance with pain and precise midline positioning of the stimulation contacts appear to be inconsequential technical factors for successful HF10 therapy application. These results suggest that HF10 therapy is not only paresthesia-free, but may be paresthesia-independent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28535555

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Physician        ISSN: 1533-3159            Impact factor:   4.965


  18 in total

1.  Long-term quality of life improvement for chronic intractable back and leg pain patients using spinal cord stimulation: 12-month results from the SENZA-RCT.

Authors:  Kasra Amirdelfan; Cong Yu; Matthew W Doust; Bradford E Gliner; Donna M Morgan; Leonardo Kapural; Ricardo Vallejo; B Todd Sitzman; Thomas L Yearwood; Richard Bundschu; Thomas Yang; Ramsin Benyamin; Abram H Burgher; Elizabeth S Brooks; Ashley A Powell; Jeyakumar Subbaroyan
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Review of Evidence for Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Natalie H Strand; Adam R Burkey
Journal:  J Diabetes Sci Technol       Date:  2021-11-29

3.  High-Frequency 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Improves Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Refractory Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: 12-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Erika A Petersen; Thomas G Stauss; James A Scowcroft; Elizabeth S Brooks; Judith L White; Shawn M Sills; Kasra Amirdelfan; Maged N Guirguis; Jijun Xu; Cong Yu; Ali Nairizi; Denis G Patterson; Kostandinos C Tsoulfas; Michael J Creamer; Vincent Galan; Richard H Bundschu; Neel D Mehta; Dawood Sayed; Shivanand P Lad; David J DiBenedetto; Khalid A Sethi; Johnathan H Goree; Matthew T Bennett; Nathan J Harrison; Atef F Israel; Paul Chang; Paul W Wu; Charles E Argoff; Christian E Nasr; Rod S Taylor; David L Caraway; Nagy A Mekhail
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes       Date:  2022-07-01

4.  Ten kilohertz SCS for Treatment of Chronic Upper Extremity Pain (UEP): Results from Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Abram Burgher; Peter Kosek; Steven Surrett; Steven M Rosen; Todd Bromberg; Ashish Gulve; Anu Kansal; Paul Wu; W Porter McRoberts; Ashish Udeshi; Michael Esposito; Bradford E Gliner; Mona Maneshi; Anand Rotte; Jeyakumar Subbaroyan
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 3.133

Review 5.  Spinal Cord Stimulation: Clinical Efficacy and Potential Mechanisms.

Authors:  Andrei D Sdrulla; Yun Guan; Srinivasa N Raja
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 3.183

6.  Retrospective Analysis of Real-World Outcomes of 10 kHz SCS in Patients with Upper Limb and Neck Pain.

Authors:  Dawood Sayed; John Salmon; Talal W Khan; Andrew M Sack; Ted Braun; Adele Barnard; Anand Rotte
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 3.133

Review 7.  Opioid-sparing effects of 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation: a review of clinical evidence.

Authors:  Adnan Al-Kaisy; Jean-Pierre Van Buyten; Kasra Amirdelfan; Bradford Gliner; David Caraway; Jeyakumar Subbaroyan; Anand Rotte; Leonardo Kapural
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 5.691

8.  Differential modulation of excitatory and inhibitory populations of superficial dorsal horn neurons in lumbar spinal cord by Aβ-fiber electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Wei Fan; Andrei D Sdrulla
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 7.926

9.  High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation at 10 kHz for the Treatment of Combined Neck and Arm Pain: Results From a Prospective Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Kasra Amirdelfan; Ricardo Vallejo; Ramsin Benyamin; Cong Yu; Thomas Yang; Richard Bundschu; Thomas L Yearwood; B Todd Sitzman; Bradford Gliner; Jeyakumar Subbaroyan; Anand Rotte; David Caraway
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 4.654

10.  Treatment of Chronic Abdominal Pain With 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation: Safety and Efficacy Results From a 12-Month Prospective, Multicenter, Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Leonardo Kapural; Mayank Gupta; Richard Paicius; Wyndam Strodtbeck; Kevin E Vorenkamp; Christopher Gilmore; Bradford Gliner; Anand Rotte; Jeyakumar Subbaroyan; Rose Province-Azalde
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 4.396

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.