ArticlePain and therapy2025
First Objective Evidence Characterizing Differences in Cervical and Thoracic Spinal Cord Neurophysiology Using ECAP-Controlled Closed-Loop Technology.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a widely accepted therapy in patients with chronic intractable neuropathic pain in the trunk and limbs. However, open-loop (OL) SCS systems, which rely on fixed stimulation parameters and subjective feedback, face limitations in delivering consistent neural activation and durable pain relief. Anatomical and physiological characteristics of the cervical spinal cord, such as decreased cerebrospinal fluid thickness and increased mobility, exacerbate these challenges. Limited evidence exists on differences in cervical and thoracic neurophysiology, and the corresponding impact on neural activation in SCS. This post hoc analysis characterizes neurophysiological differences between the cervical and thoracic regions using evoked compound action potential (ECAP)-controlled closed-loop (CL) technology to assess implications for SCS dosing and therapy optimization.
methodsGlobal study and real-world chronic pain patients implanted with ECAP-controlled CL-SCS systems were included. To identify differences between cervical (n = 187) and thoracic (n = 1899) neurophysiology, the relationship between stimulation current and neural activation was analyzed. Additionally, neural activation stability was evaluated in both in-clinic and out-of-clinic settings.
resultsThe cervical spinal cord demonstrated significantly lower ECAP thresholds (p < 0.001) and > 100% higher spinal cord sensitivity compared to the thoracic region (p < 0.001). Cervical therapeutic dosing range was ≥ 48% narrower (p < 0.001), increasing the risk of overstimulation with OL-SCS. CL-SCS significantly improved dose accuracy in both regions (p < 0.001) during postural changes simulating activities of daily living. These findings highlight the superior precision and consistency in neural dosing with ECAP-controlled CL systems.
conclusionsThis is the first study to objectively characterize differences in cervical and thoracic spinal neurophysiology using SCS. ECAP-controlled CL-SCS maintains consistent neural activation in both cervical and thoracic regions. Given the heightened sensitivity and narrow dosing range in the cervical region, ECAP-controlled CL-SCS may enhance therapeutic outcomes through more precise and consistent neural dosing compared to OL systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.