• Neuromodulation · Jul 2013

    Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study

    Analgesic efficacy of high-frequency spinal cord stimulation: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.

    • Christophe Perruchoud, Sam Eldabe, Alan M Batterham, Grace Madzinga, Morag Brookes, Anne Durrer, Marilu Rosato, Nora Bovet, Samantha West, Michèle Bovy, Blaise Rutschmann, Ash Gulve, Fay Garner, and Eric Buchser.
    • Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, EHC-Hôpital de Morges, Morges, Switzerland.
    • Neuromodulation. 2013 Jul 1; 16 (4): 363-9; discussion 369.

    IntroductionSpinal cord stimulation is a recognized treatment of chronic neuropathic and vascular pain. Recent data suggest that the use of very high-frequency (HF) stimulation modes does produce analgesia without paresthesia.Aim Of The StudyTo compare the efficacy of HF stimulation (HF spinal cord stimulation [HFSCS]) and sham stimulation on the patient's global impression of change (PGIC), pain intensity, and quality of life.Patients And MethodsForty patients who have achieved stable pain relief with conventional SCS have been recruited. After randomization, HFSCS and sham are initiated in a double-blind randomized two-period-crossover design.ResultsComplete data were available from 33 patients. The primary outcome was a minimal improvement in the PGIC. The proportion of patients responding under HFSCS was 42.4% (14/33 patients) vs. 30.3% (10/33 patients) in the sham condition. The mean benefit of HF vs. sham was not statistically significant with a proportion of 11.2% in favor of HFSCS (p = 0.30). There was a highly statistically significant "period effect," irrespective of treatment received, with 51.5% of patients (N = 17) improving at visit 3 vs. 21.2% (N = 7) at visit 5 (p = 0.006). The mean pain visual analog scale (VAS) on sham was 4.26 vs. 4.35 on HFSCS (p = 0.82) and the mean EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D) index with HFSCS was 0.480 vs. 0.463 with sham (p = 0.78).ConclusionThis is the first randomized double-blind study on SCS. HFSCS was equivalent to sham for the primary outcome (improvement of PGIC) as well as for both the secondary outcomes (VAS and EQ-5D index). There was a highly statistically significant "period effect" (p = 0.006) with improved PGIC scores in the first study period regardless of the treatment. The same trend was seen for VAS and EQ-5D. It appears that the effect of HFSCS and sham is equal and only the order in the sequence, not the nature of the treatment, seems to dictate the effect.© 2013 International Neuromodulation Society.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…