Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39139617›Full record

ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2024

Surgical treatment of refractory low back pain using implanted BurstDR spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a cohort of patients without options for corrective surgery: Findings and results from the DISTINCT study, a prospective randomized multi-center-controlled trial.

James J Yue, Christopher J Gilligan, Steven Falowski, Jessica Jameson, Mehul J Desai, Susan Moeschler, Julie Pilitsis, Robert Heros, Edward Tavel, Sayed Wahezi and 22 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
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

32 authors.

James J YueConnecticut Orthopaedics, Hamden, CT, United States.
Christopher J GilliganBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Steven FalowskiCenter for Interventional Pain and Spine, Lancaster, PA, United States.
Jessica JamesonAxis Spine Center, Coeur d'Alene, ID, United States.
Mehul J DesaiInternational Spine, Pain and Performance Center, Washington, DC, United States.
Susan MoeschlerMayo Clinic, Rochester, NY, United States.
Julie PilitsisFlorida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.
Robert HerosSpinal Diagnostics, Tualatin, OR, United States.
Edward TavelClinical Trials of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States.
Sayed WaheziMontefiore Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY, United States.
Robert FunkIndiana Spine Group, Indianapolis, IN United States.
Patrick BuchananSpanish Hills Interventional Pain Specialists, Camarillo, CA United States.
Anne ChristopherSaint Louis Pain Consultants, Chesterfield, MO United States.
Jacqueline WeisbeinNapa Valley Orthopedic Medical Group, Napa, CA United States.
Denis PattersonNevada Advanced Pain Specialists, Reno, NV United States.
Robert LevyAnesthesia Pain Care Consultants, Tamarac, FL United States.
Ajay AntonyThe Orthopaedic Institute, Gainesville, FL United States.
Nathan MillerCoastal Pain & Spinal Diagnostics Medical Group, Carlsbad, CA United States.
Keith ScarfoRhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI United States.
Scott KreinerBarrow Brain and Spine-Ahwatukee, Phoenix, AZ United States.
Derron WilsonGoodman Campbell Brain and Spine, Greenwood, IN United States.
Chi LimCarolina Orthopaedic and Neurosurgical Associates, Spartanburg, SC United States.
Edward BraunKansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS United States.
David DickersonEndeavor Health, Chicago, IL United States.
Jonathan DuncanBurkhart Research Institute for Orthopaedics, San Antonio, TX United States.
Jijun XuThe Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH United States.
Kenneth CandidoChicago Anesthesia Associates, SC, Chicago, IL United States.
Ibrahim MohabBanner University Medical Center, Tucson, AZ United States.
Fishell MichaelAdvanced Pain Care, Henderson, NV United States.
Bram BlommeAbbott Labs, Austin, TX United States.
Udoka OkaroAbbott Labs, Austin, TX United States.
Timothy DeerThe Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent, disabling condition affecting millions of people. Patients with an identifiable anatomic pain generator and resulting neuropathic lower extremity symptoms often undergo spine surgery, but many patients lack identifiable and/or surgically corrective pathology. Nonoperative treatment options often fail to provide sustained relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is sometimes used to treat these patients, but the lack of level 1 evidence limits its widespread use and insurance coverage. The DISTINCT RCT study evaluates the efficacy of passive recharge burst SCS compared to conventional medical treatment (CMM) in alleviating chronic, refractory axial low back pain. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, study with an optional 6-month crossover involved patients who were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), back pain-related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to SCS therapy or CMM at 30 US study sites. Results: The SCS arm reported an 85.3% NRS responder rate (≥ 50% reduction) compared to 6.2% (5/81) in the CMM arm. After the 6M primary endpoint, SCS patients elected to remain on assigned therapy and 66.2% (49/74) of CMM patients chose to trial SCS (crossover). At the 12M follow-up, SCS and crossover patients reported 78.6% and 71.4% NRS responder rates. Secondary outcomes indicated significant improvements in ODI, PCS, and reduced healthcare utilization. Six serious adverse events were reported and resolved without sequelae. Conclusion: DISTINCT chronic low back pain patients with no indication for corrective surgery experienced a significant and sustained response to burst SCS therapy for up to 12 months. CMM patients who crossed over to the SCS arm reported profound improvements after 6 months. This data advocates for a timely consideration of SCS therapy in patients unresponsive to conservative therapy.

Indexed as

BurstDRChronic low back pain burstDISTINCT RCTNonsurgical Low back painPassive recharge burstSCS

Identifiers

PMID39139617
PMCPMC11321325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.