JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Clinical Outcomes of 1 kHz Subperception Spinal Cord Stimulation in Implanted Patients With Failed Paresthesia-Based Stimulation: Results of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief via spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has historically revolved around producing paresthesia to replace pain, with success measured by the extent of paresthesia-pain overlap. In a recent murine study, by Shechter et al., showed the superior efficacy of high frequency SCS (1 kHz and 10 kHz) at inhibiting the effects of mechanical hypersensitivity compared to sham or 50 Hz stimulation. In the same study, authors report there were no differences in efficacy between 1 kHz and 10 kHz delivered at subperception stimulation strength (80% of motor threshold). Therefore, we designed a randomized, 2 × 2 crossover study of low frequency supra-perception SCS vs. subperception SCS at 1 kHz frequency in order to test whether subperception stimulation at 1 kHz was sufficient to provide effective pain relief in human subjects.

METHODS: Twenty-two subjects with SCS, and inadequate pain relief based on numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) scores (>5) were enrolled, and observed for total of seven weeks (three weeks of treatment, one week wash off, and another three weeks of treatment). Subjects were asked to rate their pain on NPRS as a primary efficacy variable, and complete the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC) as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS: Out of 22 subjects that completed the study, 21 subjects (95%) reported improvements in average, best, and worst pain NPRS scores. All NPRS scores were significantly lower with subperception stimulation compared to paresthesia-based stimulation (p < 0.01, p < 0.05, and p < 0.05, respectively). As with NPRS scores, the treatment effect of subperception stimulation was significantly greater than that of paresthesia based stimulation on ODI scores (p = 3.9737 × 10(-5) ) and PGIC scores (p = 3.0396 × 10(-5) ).

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app