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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |