Cargando…

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)

BACKGROUND: 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 differe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Billot, Maxime, Naiditch, Nicolas, Brandet, Claire, Lorgeoux, Bertille, Baron, Sandrine, Ounajim, Amine, Roulaud, Manuel, Roy-Moreau, Aline, de Montgazon, Géraldine, Charrier, Elodie, Misbert, Lorraine, Maillard, Benjamin, Vendeuvre, Tanguy, Rigoard, Philippe
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7397663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32746899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04587-6
_version_ 1783565814817882112
author Billot, Maxime
Naiditch, Nicolas
Brandet, Claire
Lorgeoux, Bertille
Baron, Sandrine
Ounajim, Amine
Roulaud, Manuel
Roy-Moreau, Aline
de Montgazon, Géraldine
Charrier, Elodie
Misbert, Lorraine
Maillard, Benjamin
Vendeuvre, Tanguy
Rigoard, Philippe
author_facet Billot, Maxime
Naiditch, Nicolas
Brandet, Claire
Lorgeoux, Bertille
Baron, Sandrine
Ounajim, Amine
Roulaud, Manuel
Roy-Moreau, Aline
de Montgazon, Géraldine
Charrier, Elodie
Misbert, Lorraine
Maillard, Benjamin
Vendeuvre, Tanguy
Rigoard, Philippe
author_sort Billot, Maxime
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS/DESIGN: 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. DISCUSSION: Recruitment began in February 2017 and will continue through 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03014583. Registered on 9 January 2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7397663
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73976632020-08-06 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) Billot, Maxime Naiditch, Nicolas Brandet, Claire Lorgeoux, Bertille Baron, Sandrine Ounajim, Amine Roulaud, Manuel Roy-Moreau, Aline de Montgazon, Géraldine Charrier, Elodie Misbert, Lorraine Maillard, Benjamin Vendeuvre, Tanguy Rigoard, Philippe Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS/DESIGN: 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. DISCUSSION: Recruitment began in February 2017 and will continue through 2019. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03014583. Registered on 9 January 2017. BioMed Central 2020-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7397663/ /pubmed/32746899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04587-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 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/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Billot, Maxime
Naiditch, Nicolas
Brandet, Claire
Lorgeoux, Bertille
Baron, Sandrine
Ounajim, Amine
Roulaud, Manuel
Roy-Moreau, Aline
de Montgazon, Géraldine
Charrier, Elodie
Misbert, Lorraine
Maillard, Benjamin
Vendeuvre, Tanguy
Rigoard, Philippe
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)
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)
title_full 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)
title_fullStr 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)
title_full_unstemmed 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)
title_short 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)
title_sort 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)
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7397663/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32746899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04587-6
work_keys_str_mv AT billotmaxime comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT naiditchnicolas comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT brandetclaire comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT lorgeouxbertille comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT baronsandrine comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT ounajimamine comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT roulaudmanuel comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT roymoreaualine comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT demontgazongeraldine comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT charrierelodie comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT misbertlorraine comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT maillardbenjamin comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT vendeuvretanguy comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy
AT rigoardphilippe comparisonofconventionalburstandhighfrequencyspinalcordstimulationonpainreliefinrefractoryfailedbacksurgerysyndromepatientsstudyprotocolforaprospectiverandomizeddoubleblindedcrossovertrialmultiwavestudy