Literature DB >> 35160325

Advances in Neuromodulation for Chronic Pain.

Maarten Moens1,2,3,4,5, Lisa Goudman1,2,3,4,6.   

Abstract

In the past decade, neuromodulation as a treatment option for pain took a huge interest in innovating and developing more effective paradigms to conquer chronic pain syndromes [...].

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 35160325      PMCID: PMC8836608          DOI: 10.3390/jcm11030874

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Med        ISSN: 2077-0383            Impact factor:   4.241


In the past decade, neuromodulation as a treatment option for pain took a huge interest in innovating and developing more effective paradigms to conquer chronic pain syndromes. Several device-developing companies introduced, in collaboration with clinical researchers and governmental authorities, randomized clinical and non-inferiority trials challenging their new paradigms over standard spinal cord stimulation [1,2,3,4,5,6]. These trials demonstrated impressive reductions in pain intensities by the new paradigms compared to the standard SCS, resulting in introducing terms such as “superiority” and “remitter”. Despite these monumental steps in the field of neuromodulation, predicting a good outcome for a single individual patient remains a challenge in daily practice. The challenge is not the know-how in introducing very specific statistical analyses in the world of neuromodulation but in defining what a good outcome means [7]. There are conflicting interests and definitions of success between patients, implanting physicians, companies, and authorities. For many years the primary outcome measurements in leading research were based on pain intensities and the amount of reducing painkillers. This oversimplification of a very complex syndrome, such as chronic pain, drove wedges between the different stakeholders. If we keep in mind that a personalized treatment for every chronic pain patient is the ultimate goal to reach for more independence for those patients, the definition of success by neuromodulation should be aligned to every stakeholder, including the patients. The first step towards the holy grail is to walk the extra mile for every patient, even for those who do not respond anymore to the initial paradigm. Salvage strategies and algorithms are gaining interest from researchers and clinicians [8,9,10,11,12,13]. Salvage therapy should not only consist of converting patients towards new paradigms but also introducing extra tools to regain freedom and independence in terms of patient empowerment. Within this evolution, the recognition that pain is much more than a biological problem is a mainstay. The social and professional dimensions of a chronic pain syndrome remain understudied. The other step is more an evolution in progress; several high-level studies immerse the original data in advanced statistical modelling and analyses. Coming from well-balanced and clinically relevant hypotheses, the next level of mathematical solutions is giving answers and predictions to clinicians in daily practice. The gap between the “sterile” clinical trials and real-world daily routine care should be bridged by clear interpretations, flowcharts, and prediction charts. Thus, “advances in neuromodulation” are fights on different battlefields, resulting in a better life for chronic pain patients with a joint win for physicians, companies, and society.
  13 in total

1.  Long-term safety and efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation to treat chronic back and leg pain (Evoke): a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Nagy Mekhail; Robert M Levy; Timothy R Deer; Leonardo Kapural; Sean Li; Kasra Amirdelfan; Corey W Hunter; Steven M Rosen; Shrif J Costandi; Steven M Falowski; Abram H Burgher; Jason E Pope; Christopher A Gilmore; Farooq A Qureshi; Peter S Staats; James Scowcroft; Jonathan Carlson; Christopher K Kim; Michael I Yang; Thomas Stauss; Lawrence Poree
Journal:  Lancet Neurol       Date:  2019-12-20       Impact factor: 44.182

2.  Salvage of a Passive Recharge Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Implant With 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome: A Case Report.

Authors:  Kitae Chang; Jonathan M Hagedorn
Journal:  A A Pract       Date:  2020-11

3.  Retrospective Assessment of Salvage to 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) in Patients Who Failed Traditional SCS Therapy: RESCUE Study.

Authors:  Leonardo Kapural; Dawood Sayed; Brian Kim; Caroline Harstroem; James Deering
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 3.133

4.  Novel 10-kHz High-frequency Therapy (HF10 Therapy) Is Superior to Traditional Low-frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Chronic Back and Leg Pain: The SENZA-RCT Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Leonardo Kapural; Cong Yu; Matthew W Doust; Bradford E Gliner; Ricardo Vallejo; B Todd Sitzman; Kasra Amirdelfan; Donna M Morgan; Lora L Brown; Thomas L Yearwood; Richard Bundschu; Allen W Burton; Thomas Yang; Ramsin Benyamin; Abram H Burgher
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 7.892

5.  The Long-Term Response to High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Failed Back Surgery Syndrome After Conversion From Standard Spinal Cord Stimulation: An Effectiveness and Prediction Study.

Authors:  Mats De Jaeger; Lisa Goudman; Raf Brouns; Ann De Smedt; Bengt Linderoth; Sam Eldabe; Maarten Moens
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2020-03-12

6.  Success Using Neuromodulation With BURST (SUNBURST) Study: Results From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial Using a Novel Burst Waveform.

Authors:  Timothy Deer; Konstantin V Slavin; Kasra Amirdelfan; Richard B North; Allen W Burton; Thomas L Yearwood; Ed Tavel; Peter Staats; Steven Falowski; Jason Pope; Rafael Justiz; Alain Y Fabi; Alexander Taghva; Richard Paicius; Timothy Houden; Derron Wilson
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2017-09-29

7.  The Challenge of Converting "Failed Spinal Cord Stimulation Syndrome" Back to Clinical Success, Using SCS Reprogramming as Salvage Therapy, through Neurostimulation Adapters Combined with 3D-Computerized Pain Mapping Assessment: A Real Life Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Philippe Rigoard; Amine Ounajim; Lisa Goudman; Tania Banor; France Héroux; Manuel Roulaud; Etienne Babin; Bénédicte Bouche; Philippe Page; Bertille Lorgeoux; Sandrine Baron; Nihel Adjali; Kevin Nivole; Mathilde Many; Elodie Charrier; Delphine Rannou; Laure Poupin; Chantal Wood; Romain David; Maarten Moens; Maxime Billot
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-01-05       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Twelve-Month results from multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled clinical trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and traditional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic intractable back pain and leg pain.

Authors:  Michael Fishman; Harold Cordner; Rafael Justiz; David Provenzano; Christopher Merrell; Binit Shah; Julian Naranjo; Philip Kim; Aaron Calodney; Jonathan Carlson; Richard Bundschu; Mahendra Sanapati; Vipul Mangal; Ricardo Vallejo
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2021-08-27       Impact factor: 3.079

9.  Cost-Effectiveness Model Shows Superiority of Wireless Spinal Cord Stimulation Implantation Without a Separate Trial.

Authors:  Richard B North; Harish S Parihar; Shawn D Spencer; Arthur F Spalding; Jane Shipley
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2020-02-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.