Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34221951›Full record

ArticleAnesthesiology and pain medicine2021

Improved Pain Control with Combination Spinal Cord Stimulator Therapy Utilizing Sub-perception and Traditional Paresthesia Based Waveforms: A Pilot Study.

Amnon A Berger, Ivan Urits, Jamal Hasoon, Jatinder Gill, Musa Aner, Cyrus A Yazdi, Omar Viswanath, Elyse M Cornett, Alan David Kaye, Farnad Imani and 3 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anesthesiology and pain medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Conolidine: A Novel Plant Extract for Chronic Pain.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Dorsal Root Ganglion (DRG) and Chronic Pain.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Amnon A BergerDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7895-1357
Ivan UritsDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3652-6085
Jamal HasoonDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jatinder GillDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Musa AnerDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Cyrus A YazdiDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Omar ViswanathDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6124-7037
Elyse M CornettDepartment of Anesthesiology, LSU Health Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, USA.
Alan David KayeDepartment of Anesthesiology, LSU Health Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, USA.
Farnad ImaniPain Research Center, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0814-0772
Farsad ImaniDepartment of Anesthesiology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2697-1409
Giustino VarrassiPaolo Procacci Foundation, Roma, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3822-2923
Thomas T SimopoulosDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USIran University of Medical Sciences · IRLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center Shreveport · USCreighton University · USFondazione Roma · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic back and neck pain affects 20% of Americans. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for otherwise refractory chronic pain. Traditional SCS relies on low-frequency stimulus in the 40 - 60 Hz range causing robust paresthesia in regions overlapping with painful dermatomes.

objectivesThis study aims to determine the effect of superimposing sub-perception stimulation in patients who previously had good long-term relief with paresthesia.

methodsThis is a prospective observational trial examining patients who had previously been implanted with paresthesia based SCS for failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) or complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). These patients presented for implantable pulse generator (IPG) replacement based on battery depletion with an IPG capable of combined sub-perception and paresthesia based SCS therapy. Patients were assessed immediately following the exchange and four weeks later using a telephone survey. Their pain was assessed on each follow up using a Numerical Rating scale (NRS); the primary outcome was the change in NRS after four weeks from the exchange day. Secondary outcomes included paresthesia changes, which included the subjective quality of sensation generated, the overall subjective coverage of the painful region, subjective variation of coverage with positional changes, and global perception of the percentage improvement in pain.

resultsBased on our clinic registry, 30 patients were eligible for IPG exchange, 16 were consented for follow up and underwent an exchange, and 15 were available for follow up four weeks following. The average NRS decreased from 7.47 with traditional SCS to 4.5 with combination therapy. 80% of patients reported an improvement in the quality of paresthesia over traditional SCS therapy, and in most patients, this translated to significantly improved pain control.

conclusionsOur findings suggest improved pain relief in patients who had previously had good results with paresthesia based therapy and subsequently underwent IPG exchange to a device capable of delivering combined sub-perception stimulation. The mechanism of action is unclear though there may be an additive and/or synergistic effect of the two waveforms delivered. Larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to elucidate the durability of pain relief and the precise mechanism by which combined subperception and paresthesia based SCS may improve overall patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Back PainChronic PainCombination Multi-wave FormComplex Regional Pain SyndromeFailed Back Surgery SyndromeParesthesia, Subperception NeurostimulationSpinal Cord Stimulation

Identifiers

PMID34221951
PMCPMC8241823
OpenAlexW3133435824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.