No abstract

Rechargeable implantable pulse generators (r-IPGs) have been available for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) claiming to offer a longer service life but demanding continuous monitoring and regular recharging by the patients. The aim of the study (DRKS00021281; Apr 7th, 2020) was to assess the convenience, safety, and acceptance of r-IPGs and their effect on patient lives under long-term therapy. Standardized questionnaires were sent to all chronic pain patients with a r-IPG at the time of trial. Primary endpoint was the overall convenience of the charging process on an ordinal scale from “very hard” (1 point) to “very easy” (5 points). Secondary endpoints were charge burden (min/week), rates of user confidence and complications (failed recharges, interruptions of therapy). Endpoints were analyzed for several subgroups. Data sets n = 40 (42% return rate) were eligible for analysis. Patient age was 57.2 ± 12.6 (mean ± standard deviation) years with the r-IPG being implanted for 52.1 ± 32.6 months. The overall convenience of recharging was evaluated as “easy” (4 points). The charge burden was 112.7 ± 139 min/week. 92% of the patients felt confident recharging the neurostimulator. 37.5% of patients reported failed recharges. 28.9% of patients experienced unintended interruptions of stimulation. Subgroup analysis only showed a significant impact on overall convenience for different models of stimulators (p < 0.05). Overall, SCS patients feel confident handling a r-IPG at high rates of convenience and acceptable effort despite high rates of usage-related complications. Further technical improvements for r-IPGs are needed.

Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective method to treat neuropathic pain; however, it is challenging to compare different stimulation modalities in an individual patient, and thus, it is largely unknown which of the many available SCS modalities is most effective. Specifically, electrodes leading out through the skin would have to be consecutively connected to different, incompatible SCS devices and be tested over a time period of several weeks or even months. The risk of wound infections for such a study would be unacceptably high and blinding of the trial difficult. The PARS-trial seizes the capacity of a new type of wireless SCS device, which enables a blinded and systematic intra-patient comparison of different SCS modalities over extended time periods and without increasing wound infection rates. Methods The PARS-trial is designed as a double-blinded, randomized, and placebo-controlled multi-center crossover study. It will compare the clinical effectiveness of the three most relevant SCS paradigms in individual patients. The trial will recruit 60 patients suffering from intractable neuropathic pain of the lower extremities, who have been considered for SCS therapy and were already implanted with a wireless SCS device prior to study participation. Over a time period of 35 days, patients will be treated consecutively with three different SCS paradigms (“burst,” “1 kHz,” and “1.499 kHz”) and placebo stimulation. Each SCS paradigm will be applied for 5 days with a washout period of 70 h between stimulation cycles. The primary endpoint of the study is the level of pain self-assessment on the visual analogue scale after 5 days of SCS. Secondary, exploratory endpoints include self-assessment of pain quality (as determined by painDETECT questionnaire), quality of life (as determined by Quality of Life EQ-5D-5L questionnaire), anxiety perception (as determined by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), and physical restriction (as determined by the Oswestry Disability Index). Discussion Combining paresthesia-free SCS modalities with wireless SCS offers a unique opportunity for a blinded and systematic comparison of different SCS modalities in individual patients. This trial will advance our understanding of the clinical effectiveness of the most relevant SCS paradigms. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00018929. Registered on 14 January 2020.