Search

Objective Compare therapeutic response of patients to conventional versus high-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS). Methods Twelve patients with back and leg pain who met standard clinical criteria for a trial of conventional SCS (low-frequency stimulation [LFS]) participated in a half-day session of high-frequency stimulation (HFS) during their weeklong conventional trial. HFS consisted of frequencies ranging from 50 Hz to 4 kHz, or 100 Hz to10 kHz, at constant voltage settings increasing from 0.5 V to 10 V. Visual Analog Scale scores from 0 to10 were recorded, along with notes of any clinical discomfort and open patient comments. Results Two of 12 patients had no benefit from either LFS or HFS. In the remaining 10 patients, paresthesias were significantly altered by HFS, and four experienced complete elimination of paresthesias. Five patients preferred HFS to LFS, with an additional three preferring both equally. Abrupt sensation to the onset of HFS was described in six patients, and in ten patients, HFS allowed maximum voltage stimulation of 10 V without discomfort. The four patients who did not have a successful trial of stimulation had significantly longer duration of pain compared to the eight patients who went on to permanent implant (11.2 vs. 4.3 years, P = 0.04). Conclusions HFS significantly altered the feeling of paresthesias in the majority of patients (ten of 12), was preferred to LFS in five of 12 patients, and non-inferior to LFS in eight of 12 patients. Both 4 kHz and 10 kHz stimulation allowed patients to benefit from HFS. HFS allowed maximum voltage stimulation without discomfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background We report a unique finding of a patient whose restless legs syndrome (RLS) symptoms abated after the placement of a spinal cord stimulator for chronic neuropathic pain. RLS is a common disorder, with many patients unable to find sufficient relief from their symptoms. Case Description A patient diagnosed with neuropathic pain who also suffered from RLS symptoms despite medication therapy underwent implantation of a spinal cord stimulator after a successful trial. This patient was interviewed formally about his RLS symptoms immediately before his procedure and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 2.5 years after the procedure. The patient also completed the International Restless Legs Syndrome Scale questionnaire to objectively quantify the severity of his symptoms. Finally, the patient kept a 5-day journal detailing when the stimulator was in use. The patient reported subjective symptomatic improvement in his RLS symptoms with improved sleep quality and quantity, in addition to improvement in his back pain. The patient's score on the International Restless Legs Syndrome Scale improved after implantation from 33 to 0 on a 40-point scale. Moreover, when asked to keep a journal record of his stimulator use, the patient noted that he only used the stimulator before going to bed to help his RLS symptoms and no longer required any medication for his previous RLS symptoms. Conclusions Epidural stimulation may be an additional, alternative, or novel therapy in the treatment of RLS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]