Cargando…

Effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain

BACKGROUND: The role of stimulation parameters, especially stimulation frequency is not well understood in dorsal root ganglion stimulation. Previous studies documented higher effectiveness for frequencies as low as 20 Hz, but there is evidence that even lower values could lead to better outcomes. I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Piedade, G. S., Gillner, S., McPhillips, P. S., Vesper, J., Slotty, P. J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Vienna 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10068636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36705762
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05500-1
_version_ 1785018701757546496
author Piedade, G. S.
Gillner, S.
McPhillips, P. S.
Vesper, J.
Slotty, P. J.
author_facet Piedade, G. S.
Gillner, S.
McPhillips, P. S.
Vesper, J.
Slotty, P. J.
author_sort Piedade, G. S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The role of stimulation parameters, especially stimulation frequency is not well understood in dorsal root ganglion stimulation. Previous studies documented higher effectiveness for frequencies as low as 20 Hz, but there is evidence that even lower values could lead to better outcomes. In this study, we investigate the influence of low-frequency DRG-S. METHOD: This is a randomized double-blind clinical trial with a crossover design. Patients with an already implanted DRG-S system were included and randomly tested with 4 Hz, 20 Hz, 60 Hz, and sham stimulation. Amplitude was adjusted to subthreshold values for each frequency. Each frequency was tested for 5 days, followed by a 2-day washout period. Patients were assessed using VAS, McGill Pain Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L, and Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were in included. Time between inclusion in this study and primary implant was 32.8 months. Baseline stimulation frequency was 20 Hz in all patients. Mean baseline pain intensity was VAS 3.2 (SD 2.2). With 4-Hz stimulation, VAS was 3.8 (SD 1.9), with 20 Hz VAS 4.2 (SD 2.0) and with 60 Hz VAS 4.6 (SD 2.7). Worst pain control was seen with sham stimulation with a VAS of 5.3 (SD 3.0). Stimulation with 4 Hz achieved lower VAS scores, but this was only statistically significant when compared to sham (p = 0.001). A similar trend favoring 4-Hz stimulation was seen using the Beck Depression Inventory, but in this case no statistical significance was found. Outcomes of McGill Pain Questionnaire and EQ-5D-5L favored 20 Hz stimulation, but again without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Low-frequency stimulation was not significantly better than classic 20-Hz stimulation in relieving pain intensity; the study might however be underpowered. Longer washout and observational periods might also be necessary to show clear differences in frequency response.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10068636
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Springer Vienna
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100686362023-04-04 Effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain Piedade, G. S. Gillner, S. McPhillips, P. S. Vesper, J. Slotty, P. J. Acta Neurochir (Wien) Original Article - Functional Neurosurgery - Pain BACKGROUND: The role of stimulation parameters, especially stimulation frequency is not well understood in dorsal root ganglion stimulation. Previous studies documented higher effectiveness for frequencies as low as 20 Hz, but there is evidence that even lower values could lead to better outcomes. In this study, we investigate the influence of low-frequency DRG-S. METHOD: This is a randomized double-blind clinical trial with a crossover design. Patients with an already implanted DRG-S system were included and randomly tested with 4 Hz, 20 Hz, 60 Hz, and sham stimulation. Amplitude was adjusted to subthreshold values for each frequency. Each frequency was tested for 5 days, followed by a 2-day washout period. Patients were assessed using VAS, McGill Pain Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L, and Beck Depression Inventory. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were in included. Time between inclusion in this study and primary implant was 32.8 months. Baseline stimulation frequency was 20 Hz in all patients. Mean baseline pain intensity was VAS 3.2 (SD 2.2). With 4-Hz stimulation, VAS was 3.8 (SD 1.9), with 20 Hz VAS 4.2 (SD 2.0) and with 60 Hz VAS 4.6 (SD 2.7). Worst pain control was seen with sham stimulation with a VAS of 5.3 (SD 3.0). Stimulation with 4 Hz achieved lower VAS scores, but this was only statistically significant when compared to sham (p = 0.001). A similar trend favoring 4-Hz stimulation was seen using the Beck Depression Inventory, but in this case no statistical significance was found. Outcomes of McGill Pain Questionnaire and EQ-5D-5L favored 20 Hz stimulation, but again without statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Low-frequency stimulation was not significantly better than classic 20-Hz stimulation in relieving pain intensity; the study might however be underpowered. Longer washout and observational periods might also be necessary to show clear differences in frequency response. Springer Vienna 2023-01-27 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10068636/ /pubmed/36705762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05500-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article - Functional Neurosurgery - Pain
Piedade, G. S.
Gillner, S.
McPhillips, P. S.
Vesper, J.
Slotty, P. J.
Effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain
title Effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain
title_full Effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain
title_fullStr Effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain
title_full_unstemmed Effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain
title_short Effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain
title_sort effect of low-frequency dorsal root ganglion stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain
topic Original Article - Functional Neurosurgery - Pain
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10068636/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36705762
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00701-023-05500-1
work_keys_str_mv AT piedadegs effectoflowfrequencydorsalrootganglionstimulationinthetreatmentofchronicpain
AT gillners effectoflowfrequencydorsalrootganglionstimulationinthetreatmentofchronicpain
AT mcphillipsps effectoflowfrequencydorsalrootganglionstimulationinthetreatmentofchronicpain
AT vesperj effectoflowfrequencydorsalrootganglionstimulationinthetreatmentofchronicpain
AT slottypj effectoflowfrequencydorsalrootganglionstimulationinthetreatmentofchronicpain