Cargando…
Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the ongoing follow‐up of ReActiv8‐A clinical trial is to document the longitudinal benefits of episodic stimulation of the dorsal ramus medial branch and consequent contraction of the lumbar multifidus in patients with refractory mechanical chronic low back pain (CLBP). We...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8456956/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34242440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ner.13477 |
_version_ | 1784570978560376832 |
---|---|
author | Mitchell, Bruce Deckers, Kristiaan De Smedt, Kris Russo, Marc Georgius, Peter Green, Matthew Gulve, Ashish van Buyten, Jean‐Pierre Smet, Iris Mehta, Vivek Baranidharan, Ganesan Rathmell, James Gilligan, Chris Goss, Ben Eldabe, Sam |
author_facet | Mitchell, Bruce Deckers, Kristiaan De Smedt, Kris Russo, Marc Georgius, Peter Green, Matthew Gulve, Ashish van Buyten, Jean‐Pierre Smet, Iris Mehta, Vivek Baranidharan, Ganesan Rathmell, James Gilligan, Chris Goss, Ben Eldabe, Sam |
author_sort | Mitchell, Bruce |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the ongoing follow‐up of ReActiv8‐A clinical trial is to document the longitudinal benefits of episodic stimulation of the dorsal ramus medial branch and consequent contraction of the lumbar multifidus in patients with refractory mechanical chronic low back pain (CLBP). We report the four‐year outcomes of this trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ReActiv8‐A is a prospective, single‐arm trial performed at nine sites in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Australia. Eligible patients had disabling CLBP (low back pain Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] ≥6; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ≥25), no indications for spine surgery or spinal cord stimulation, and failed conventional management including at least physical therapy and medications for low back pain. Fourteen days postimplantation, stimulation parameters were programmed to elicit strong, smooth contractions of the multifidus, and participants were given instructions to activate the device for 30‐min stimulation‐sessions twice daily. Annual follow‐up through four years included collection of NRS, ODI, and European Quality of Life Score on Five Dimensions (EQ‐5D). Background on mechanisms, trial design, and one‐year outcomes were previously described. RESULTS: At baseline (N = 53) (mean ± SD) age was 44 ± 10 years; duration of back pain was 14 ± 11 years, NRS was 6.8 ± 0.8, ODI 44.9 ± 10.1, and EQ‐5D 0.434 ± 0.185. Mean improvements from baseline were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and clinically meaningful for all follow‐ups. Patients completing year 4 follow‐up, reported mean (±standard error of the mean) NRS: 3.2 ± 0.4, ODI: 23.0 ± 3.2, and EQ‐5D: 0.721 ± 0.035. Moreover, 73% of participants had a clinically meaningful improvement of ≥2 points on NRS, 76% of ≥10 points on ODI, and 62.5% had a clinically meaningful improvement in both NRS and ODI and 97% were (very) satisfied with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with disabling intractable CLBP who receive long‐term restorative neurostimulation, treatment satisfaction remains high and improvements in pain, disability, and quality‐of‐life are clinically meaningful and durable through four years. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8456956 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84569562021-09-27 Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain Mitchell, Bruce Deckers, Kristiaan De Smedt, Kris Russo, Marc Georgius, Peter Green, Matthew Gulve, Ashish van Buyten, Jean‐Pierre Smet, Iris Mehta, Vivek Baranidharan, Ganesan Rathmell, James Gilligan, Chris Goss, Ben Eldabe, Sam Neuromodulation PERIPHERAL NERVE STIMULATION OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the ongoing follow‐up of ReActiv8‐A clinical trial is to document the longitudinal benefits of episodic stimulation of the dorsal ramus medial branch and consequent contraction of the lumbar multifidus in patients with refractory mechanical chronic low back pain (CLBP). We report the four‐year outcomes of this trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ReActiv8‐A is a prospective, single‐arm trial performed at nine sites in the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Australia. Eligible patients had disabling CLBP (low back pain Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] ≥6; Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] ≥25), no indications for spine surgery or spinal cord stimulation, and failed conventional management including at least physical therapy and medications for low back pain. Fourteen days postimplantation, stimulation parameters were programmed to elicit strong, smooth contractions of the multifidus, and participants were given instructions to activate the device for 30‐min stimulation‐sessions twice daily. Annual follow‐up through four years included collection of NRS, ODI, and European Quality of Life Score on Five Dimensions (EQ‐5D). Background on mechanisms, trial design, and one‐year outcomes were previously described. RESULTS: At baseline (N = 53) (mean ± SD) age was 44 ± 10 years; duration of back pain was 14 ± 11 years, NRS was 6.8 ± 0.8, ODI 44.9 ± 10.1, and EQ‐5D 0.434 ± 0.185. Mean improvements from baseline were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and clinically meaningful for all follow‐ups. Patients completing year 4 follow‐up, reported mean (±standard error of the mean) NRS: 3.2 ± 0.4, ODI: 23.0 ± 3.2, and EQ‐5D: 0.721 ± 0.035. Moreover, 73% of participants had a clinically meaningful improvement of ≥2 points on NRS, 76% of ≥10 points on ODI, and 62.5% had a clinically meaningful improvement in both NRS and ODI and 97% were (very) satisfied with treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with disabling intractable CLBP who receive long‐term restorative neurostimulation, treatment satisfaction remains high and improvements in pain, disability, and quality‐of‐life are clinically meaningful and durable through four years. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-07-09 2021-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8456956/ /pubmed/34242440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ner.13477 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Neuromodulation Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | PERIPHERAL NERVE STIMULATION Mitchell, Bruce Deckers, Kristiaan De Smedt, Kris Russo, Marc Georgius, Peter Green, Matthew Gulve, Ashish van Buyten, Jean‐Pierre Smet, Iris Mehta, Vivek Baranidharan, Ganesan Rathmell, James Gilligan, Chris Goss, Ben Eldabe, Sam Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain |
title | Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain |
title_full | Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain |
title_fullStr | Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain |
title_full_unstemmed | Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain |
title_short | Durability of the Therapeutic Effect of Restorative Neurostimulation for Refractory Chronic Low Back Pain |
title_sort | durability of the therapeutic effect of restorative neurostimulation for refractory chronic low back pain |
topic | PERIPHERAL NERVE STIMULATION |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8456956/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34242440 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ner.13477 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mitchellbruce durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT deckerskristiaan durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT desmedtkris durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT russomarc durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT georgiuspeter durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT greenmatthew durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT gulveashish durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT vanbuytenjeanpierre durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT smetiris durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT mehtavivek durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT baranidharanganesan durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT rathmelljames durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT gilliganchris durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT gossben durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain AT eldabesam durabilityofthetherapeuticeffectofrestorativeneurostimulationforrefractorychroniclowbackpain |