TY - JOUR
T1 - Should we Oppose or Combine Waveforms for Spinal Cord Stimulation in PSPS-T2 Patients?
T2 - A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial (MULTIWAVE Study)
AU - Rigoard, Philippe
AU - Ounajim, Amine
AU - Moens, Maarten
AU - Goudman, Lisa
AU - Roulaud, Manuel
AU - Lorgeoux, Bertille
AU - Baron, Sandrine
AU - Nivole, Kévin
AU - Many, Mathilde
AU - Lampert, Lucie
AU - David, Romain
AU - Billot, Maxime
N1 - Funding Information:
This study received funding in 2016 from Boston Scientific grant programme ISS agreement (Investigator Sponsored Study) ISRNMD80035. Philippe Rigoard reports grants and personal fees from Medtronic, Abbott and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. Maarten Moens reports speaker fees from Medtronic and Nevro, outside the submitted work. Philippe Page reports non-financial support from Medtronic, outside the submitted work. All other authors have nothing to disclose.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc.
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome after surgery (PSPS-T2) can be successfully addressed by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). While conventional stimulation generates paresthesia, recent systems enable the delivery of paresthesia-free stimulation. Studies have claimed non-inferiority/superiority of selected paresthesia-free stimulation compared with paresthesia-based stimulation, but the comparative efficacy between different waveforms still needs to be determined in a given patient. We designed a randomized controlled 3-month crossover trial to compare pain relief of paresthesia-based stimulation versus high frequency versus burst in 28 PSPS-T2 patients implanted with multiwave SCS systems. Our secondary objectives were to determine the efficacy of these 3 waveforms on pain surface, quality of life, functional capacity, psychological distress, and validated composite multidimensional clinical response index to provide holistic comparisons at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 15-month post-randomization. The preferred stimulation modality was documented during the follow-up periods. No difference between the waveforms was observed in this study (P = .08). SCS led to significant pain relief, quality of life improvement, improvement of multidimensional clinical response index, and of all other clinical outcomes at all follow-up visits. Forty-four percent of the patients chose to keep the paresthesia-based stimulation modality after the 15-month follow-up period. By giving the possibility to switch and/or to combine several waveforms, the overall rate of SCS responders further increased with 25%. In this study, high frequency or burst do not appear superior to paresthesia-based stimulation, wherefore paresthesia-based stimulation should still be considered as a valid option. However, combining paresthesia-based stimulation with paresthesia-free stimulation, through personalized multiwave therapy, might significantly improve SCS responses. PERSPECTIVE: This article assesses clinical SCS efficacy on pain relief, by comparing paresthesia-based stimulation and paresthesia-free stimulation (including high frequency and burst) modalities in patient presenting with PSPS-T2. Switching and/or combining waveforms contribute to increasing the global SCS responders rate.
AB - Refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome after surgery (PSPS-T2) can be successfully addressed by spinal cord stimulation (SCS). While conventional stimulation generates paresthesia, recent systems enable the delivery of paresthesia-free stimulation. Studies have claimed non-inferiority/superiority of selected paresthesia-free stimulation compared with paresthesia-based stimulation, but the comparative efficacy between different waveforms still needs to be determined in a given patient. We designed a randomized controlled 3-month crossover trial to compare pain relief of paresthesia-based stimulation versus high frequency versus burst in 28 PSPS-T2 patients implanted with multiwave SCS systems. Our secondary objectives were to determine the efficacy of these 3 waveforms on pain surface, quality of life, functional capacity, psychological distress, and validated composite multidimensional clinical response index to provide holistic comparisons at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 15-month post-randomization. The preferred stimulation modality was documented during the follow-up periods. No difference between the waveforms was observed in this study (P = .08). SCS led to significant pain relief, quality of life improvement, improvement of multidimensional clinical response index, and of all other clinical outcomes at all follow-up visits. Forty-four percent of the patients chose to keep the paresthesia-based stimulation modality after the 15-month follow-up period. By giving the possibility to switch and/or to combine several waveforms, the overall rate of SCS responders further increased with 25%. In this study, high frequency or burst do not appear superior to paresthesia-based stimulation, wherefore paresthesia-based stimulation should still be considered as a valid option. However, combining paresthesia-based stimulation with paresthesia-free stimulation, through personalized multiwave therapy, might significantly improve SCS responses. PERSPECTIVE: This article assesses clinical SCS efficacy on pain relief, by comparing paresthesia-based stimulation and paresthesia-free stimulation (including high frequency and burst) modalities in patient presenting with PSPS-T2. Switching and/or combining waveforms contribute to increasing the global SCS responders rate.
KW - Waveform
KW - Neuromodulation
KW - FBSS
KW - Composite score
KW - Pain surface
KW - SCS
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85168508094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.07.015
DO - 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.07.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 37473903
SN - 1526-5900
VL - 24
SP - 2319
EP - 2339
JO - The Journal of Pain
JF - The Journal of Pain
IS - 12
ER -