Preferred frequencies and waveforms for spinal cord stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: A multicentre, double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled crossover trial

被引:99
|
作者
Kriek, N. [1 ]
Groeneweg, J. G. [1 ]
Stronks, D. L. [1 ]
de Ridder, D. [2 ]
Huygen, F. J. P. M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Erasmus MC Univ Med Ctr Rotterdam, Ctr Pain Med, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Univ Otago, Dunedin Sch Med, Sect Neurosurg, Dept Surg Sci, Dunedin, New Zealand
关键词
BACK SURGERY SYNDROME; CONVENTIONAL MEDICAL-MANAGEMENT; ELECTRICAL INHIBITION; LIMB; MECHANISMS;
D O I
10.1002/ejp.944
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background: Conventional tonic spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective treatment for patients with therapy-resistant complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Although the therapeutic effect of SCS can diminish over time due to tolerance, pain control can be regained by changing the pulse width and the amplitude and/or by increasing the stimulation frequency. This multicentre, double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled crossover trial was conducted to investigate whether more effective pain reduction is achieved with different frequencies (trial registration, current controlled trials, ISRCTN 36655259). Methods: The investigated settings are as follows: standard 40, 500, 1200 Hz, burst and placebo stimulation. All five were programmed in random order during the 10-week crossover period (2 weeks/setting). The primary outcome parameters were scores on the visual analogue scale (VAS), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Global Perceived Effect (GPE); at the end of the crossover period, patients decided which SCS setting they preferred. A linear mixed models analysis was performed in 29 patients who completed the crossover trial. Results: Significant pain reduction and GPE satisfaction was achieved with four SCS settings compared with placebo stimulation, and these four settings did not differ significantly from each other. Standard stimulation was preferred by 48% of the patients, while 52% preferred non-standard stimulation. Other than pain reduction, factors such as user-friendliness, comfort and recharging time may have influenced the patient's final decision for the preferred stimulation setting. Conclusions: Apparently, for various reasons, patients have a preference for different SCS setting. Therefore, future neuromodulation should aim to implement customized individual patient care by incorporating all stimulation options in one device. Significance: This study demonstrates that standard frequency SCS is an effective therapy for patients with CRPS. However, it also demonstrates that patients can often gain better pain reduction with non-standard frequencies of SCS. Furthermore, it shows that the preferred stimulation setting is not solely driven by the amount of pain reduction, but is also influenced by which stimulation setting feels most comfortable and provides the best user-friendliness. Therefore, we strive to maximize the therapeutic effects of SCS in as many patients as possible. This can be achieved with customized individual patient care by incorporating the various frequencies and waveforms into one single device.
引用
收藏
页码:507 / 519
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of tonic spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency and burst stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind, randomised placebo controlled trial
    N. Kriek
    JG Groeneweg
    DL Stronks
    FJPM Huygen
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 16
  • [2] Comparison of tonic spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency and burst stimulation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: a double-blind, randomised placebo controlled trial
    Kriek, N.
    Groeneweg, J. G.
    Stronks, D. L.
    Huygen, F. J. P. M.
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2015, 16
  • [3] Ultramicronized palmitoylethanolamide in spinal cord injury neuropathic pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
    Andresen, Sven R.
    Bing, Jette
    Hansen, Rikke M.
    Biering-Sorensen, Fin
    Johannesen, Inger L.
    Hagen, Ellen Merete
    Rice, Andrew S. C.
    Nielsen, Jorgen F.
    Bach, Flemming W.
    Finnerup, Nanna B.
    PAIN, 2016, 157 (09) : 2097 - 2103
  • [4] Tramadol in Neuropathic Pain After Spinal Cord Injury A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial
    Norrbrink, Cecilia
    Lundeberg, Thomas
    CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2009, 25 (03): : 177 - 184
  • [5] Reduction of allodynia in patients with complex regional pain syndrome: A double-blind placebo-controlled trial of topical ketamine
    Finch, Philip M.
    Knudsen, Lone
    Drummond, Peter D.
    PAIN, 2009, 146 (1-2) : 18 - 25
  • [6] Short-Term Treatment with Parecoxib for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Double-Blind Trial
    Breuer, Anna J.
    Mainka, Tina
    Hansel, Nora
    Maier, Christoph
    Krumova, Elena K.
    PAIN PHYSICIAN, 2014, 17 (02) : 127 - 137
  • [7] Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of Famotidine in patients with functional dyspepsia
    Kato, Mototsugu
    Yoshida, Takeshi
    Hata, Tamotsu
    Ono, Yuji
    Ono, Shouko
    Nakagawa, Manabu
    Nakagawa, Souichi
    Shimizu, Yuichi
    Asaka, Masahiro
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 130 (04) : A158 - A158
  • [8] Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial of famotidine in patients with functional dyspepsia
    Kato, M
    Watanabe, M
    Konishi, S
    Kudo, M
    Konno, J
    Meguro, T
    Kitamori, S
    Nakagawa, S
    Shimizu, Y
    Takeda, H
    Asaka, M
    ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2005, 21 : 27 - 31
  • [9] RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND, PLACEBO-CONTROLLED CROSSOVER TRIAL OF PIRENZEPINE IN PATIENTS WITH GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX
    SATO, TL
    WU, WC
    CASTELL, DO
    DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 1992, 37 (02) : 297 - 302
  • [10] Duloxetine in patients with central neuropathic pain caused by spinal cord injury or stroke: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
    Vranken, J. H.
    Hollmann, M. W.
    van der Vegt, M. H.
    Kruis, M. R.
    Heesen, M.
    Vos, K.
    Pijl, A. J.
    Dijkgraaf, M. G. W.
    PAIN, 2011, 152 (02) : 267 - 273