↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of conventional, burst and high-frequency spinal cord stimulation on pain relief in refractory failed back surgery syndrome patients: study protocol for a prospective randomized double-blind…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, August 2020
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of conventional, burst and high-frequency spinal cord stimulation on pain relief in refractory failed back surgery syndrome patients: study protocol for a prospective randomized double-blinded cross-over trial (MULTIWAVE study)
Published in
Trials, August 2020
DOI 10.1186/s13063-020-04587-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maxime Billot, Nicolas Naiditch, Claire Brandet, Bertille Lorgeoux, Sandrine Baron, Amine Ounajim, Manuel Roulaud, Aline Roy-Moreau, Géraldine de Montgazon, Elodie Charrier, Lorraine Misbert, Benjamin Maillard, Tanguy Vendeuvre, Philippe Rigoard

Abstract

While the evolution of technology provides new opportunities to manage chronic refractory pain using different waveform modalities of spinal cord stimulation in failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), there is no randomized controlled trial available to compare the efficacy of these different stimulations waveforms to date. MULTIWAVE is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover trial study designed to compare the clinical efficacy of tonic conventional stimulation (TCS), burst stimulation (BURST) and high-frequency stimulation (HF) in FBSS patients over a 15-month period in SCS implanted patients. Twenty-eight patients will be recruited in the Poitiers University Hospital, in Niort and La Rochelle Hospitals in France. Eligible patients with post-operative low back and leg pain with an average visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 5 for low back pain are implanted and randomly assigned to one of the six arms (in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio), where they receive a 3-month combination of TCS, BURST and HF including one treatment modality per month and varying the order of the modality received within the six possible combinations. Patients receiving intrathecal drug delivery, peripheral nerve stimulation and back resurgery related to the original back pain complaint and experimental therapies are excluded from this study. Patients included in the spinal cord stimulation group undergo trial stimulation, and they all receive a TCS treatment for 2 months, as the gold standard modality. Thereafter, patients are randomly assigned to one of the six arms for the total duration of 3-month crossover period. Then, patients choose their preferred stimulation modality (TCS, BURST, or HF) for the follow-up period of 12 months. Outcome assessments are performed at baseline (first implant), before randomization (2 months after baseline) and at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 15 months post-randomization. Our primary outcome is the average global VAS of pain over 5-day pain diary period between baseline and after each period of stimulation. Additional outcomes include changes in leg and back pain intensity, functional disability, quality of life, psychological state, paraesthesia intensity perception, patient satisfaction and the number of adverse events. Recruitment began in February 2017 and will continue through 2019. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03014583 . Registered on 9 January 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 28 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 19%
Neuroscience 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Chemical Engineering 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 30 41%