Dutch Consensus Paper: A Consensus View on the Place of Neurostimulation Within the Treatment Arsenal of Five Reimbursed Indications for Neurostimulation in The Netherlands

Edelbroek, Caro; Kallewaard, Jan Willem; D'eer, Inge; Kurt, Erkan; Nijhuis, Harold; Terwiel, Chris; Voort, Tom W G van de; Vries-Fennis, Gusta M de; Tiemensma, Jitske; Huygen, Frank

doi:10.1016/j.neurom.2022.02.232

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most common indication for spinal cord stimulation is persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS Type 2), previously referred to as failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. PSPS Type 2 is marked by radicular neuropathic or neuroplastic leg or arm pain, sometimes combined with low back pain (LBP), resulting in a significant decline in their quality of life, psychological outlook and work productivity [3,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Study protocol: Effects of active versus passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation on pain experience in persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2: a multicentre randomized trial (BURST-RAP study)

Mons

Edelbroek

Zuidema

et al. 2022

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has shown to be an effective treatment for patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS Type 2). The method used to deliver electrical charge in SCS is important. One such method is burst stimulation. Within burst stimulation, a recharge pattern is used to prevent buildup of charge in stimulated tissues. Two variations of burst waveforms are currently in use: one that employs active recharge and one that uses passive recharge. It has been suggested that differences exist between active and passive recharge paradigms related to both efficacy of pain relief and their underlying mechanism of action. Active recharge has been shown to activate both the medial spinal pathway, engaging cortical sensorimotor areas involved in location and intensity of pain, and lateral pathway, reaching brain areas involved with cognitive-emotional aspects of pain. Passive recharge has been suggested to act via modulation of thalamic neurons, which fire in a similar electrical pattern, and thereby modulate activity in various cortical areas including those related to motivational and emotional aspects of pain. The objective of this randomized clinical trial is to assess and compare the effect of active versus passive recharge Burst SCS on a wide spectrum of pain in PSPS Type 2 patients. Methods This multicentre randomized clinical trial will take place in 6 Dutch hospitals. PSPS Type 2 patients (n=94) will be randomized into a group receiving either active or passive recharge burst. Following a successful trial period, patients are permanently implanted. Patients complete the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) (primary outcome at 6 months), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NRS), Patient Vigilance and Awareness Questionnaire (PVAQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Quality of Life (EQ-5D), Oswestery Disability Index (ODI), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) and painDETECT questionnaires (secondary outcomes) at baseline, after trial, 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following implantation. Discussion The BURST-RAP trial protocol will shed light on possible clinical differences and effectivity of pain relief, including emotional-motivational aspects between active and passive burst SCS in PSPS Type 2 patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05421273. Registered on 16 June 2022. Netherlands Trial Register NL9194. Registered on 23 January 2021.

show abstract