Literature DB >> 29707900

An Observational Case Series of Spinal Cord Stimulation Waveforms Visualized on Intraoperative Neuromonitoring.

Steven M Falowski1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative neuromonitoring for spinal cord stimulation uses electromyography (EMG) responses to determine myotomal coverage as a marker for dermatomal coverage. These responses are utilized to determine the orientation of the electrode. Somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) collision testing can also be used in which sensory signals are decreased and/or eliminated when stimulation is activated.
METHODS: Fifteen patients were observed in the study. Each manufacturer had a minimum of three patients. Those included were Abbott BurstDR waveform, Boston Scientific burst stimulation, Medtronic high-dose stimulation, and Nevro high-frequency waveform. Efficacy of therapy was determined by a successful trial. Analysis performed during the permanent implant, included findings with traditional tonic stimulation, specific waveform and stimulation platforms, amplitude differences, and findings for both EMG responses and SSEP collision testing.
RESULTS: The Abbott BurstDR waveform produced the most findings. The amplitudes necessary to generate an observed EMG response were far lower than others, with a threshold of 10-20% of that seen in traditional tonic programming. The Medtronic high-dose programming and Nevro high-frequency waveform did not generate any observable EMG responses. Unique to Abbott BurstDR waveform was the onset of EMG activity in the distal muscle groups prior to proximal ones, as well as a hyperexcitability phenomenon acting as a primer generating signals at lower thresholds with more robust responses when returning to traditional tonic stimulation. EMG responses demonstrated propagation into one large EMG spike with BurstDR, while Boston Scientific burst stimulation had no propagation with separate spikes being consistent with traditional tonic stimulation.
CONCLUSION: This observational series demonstrated distinct differences between the waveforms and stimulation alluding to different mechanisms of action. Nevro high-frequency and Abbott BurstDR waveforms appear to be most different in action from traditional tonic stimulation while Abbotts BurstDR appears to be the most energy efficient generating signals at the lowest thresholds with a propagating effect that leads to a hyperexcitable or primed stimulation state.
© 2018 International Neuromodulation Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EMG; Electromyogram; SCS; SSEPS; somatosensory evoked potentials; spinal cord stimulation; waveforms

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29707900     DOI: 10.1111/ner.12781

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


  11 in total

1.  Single arm prospective multicenter case series on the use of burst stimulation to improve pain and motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Krishnan V Chakravarthy; Rahul Chaturvedi; Takashi Agari; Hirokazu Iwamuro; Rajiv Reddy; Ayano Matsui
Journal:  Bioelectron Med       Date:  2020-09-28

2.  Multicentre, clinical trial of burst spinal cord stimulation for neck and upper limb pain NU-BURST: a trial protocol.

Authors:  Adnan Al-Kaisy; Girish Vajramani; Sarah Love-Jones; Nikunj K Patel; Jonathan Royds; Stefano Palmisani; David Pang; Samuel Wesley; Hyun-Joo Park; Adil Raza; Filippo Agnesi
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.307

3.  Mechanism of Action in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Review and Recent Advances.

Authors:  Krishnan Chakravarthy; Michael A Fishman; Xander Zuidema; Corey W Hunter; Robert Levy
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.750

4.  Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Clinical Review.

Authors:  Terje Kirketeig; Carsten Schultheis; Xander Zuidema; Corey W Hunter; Timothy Deer
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.750

5.  Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Real-World Evidence and Outcomes Data.

Authors:  Krishnan Chakravarthy; Rudy Malayil; Terje Kirketeig; Timothy Deer
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.750

6.  The Evolution of Neuromodulation in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: Forward-Looking Perspectives.

Authors:  Michael A Fishman; Ajay Antony; Michael Esposito; Timothy Deer; Robert Levy
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 3.750

7.  Prospective Analysis Utilizing Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for the Evaluation of Inter-Burst Frequencies.

Authors:  Steven M Falowski; Alexander Benison
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 3.133

Review 8.  A Call to Action Toward Optimizing the Electrical Dose Received by Neural Targets in Spinal Cord Stimulation Therapy for Neuropathic Pain.

Authors:  Krishnan Chakravarthy; Rajiv Reddy; Adnan Al-Kaisy; Thomas Yearwood; Jay Grider
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2021-09-07       Impact factor: 2.832

9.  Improved Psychosocial and Functional Outcomes and Reduced Opioid Usage Following Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Steven M Falowski; Gregory A Moore; Eric G Cornidez; J Kelby Hutcheson; Kenneth Candido; Isaac Peña; Bram Blomme; Robyn A Capobianco
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2020-06-25

10.  Novel Intermittent Dosing Burst Paradigm in Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Authors:  Timothy R Deer; Denis G Patterson; Javid Baksh; Jason E Pope; Pankaj Mehta; Adil Raza; Filippo Agnesi; Krishnan V Chakravarthy
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2020-03-23
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.