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]

New Findings: What is the central question of this research? Does acute spinal cord stimulation increase vascular conductance and decrease muscle sympathetic nerve activity in the lower limbs of humans? What is the main finding and its importance? Acute spinal cord stimulation led to a rapid rise in femoral vascular conductance, and peroneal muscle sympathetic nerve activity demonstrated a delayed reduction that was not associated with the initial increase in femoral vascular conductance. These findings suggest that neural mechanisms in addition to attenuated muscle sympathetic nerve activity might be involved in the initial increase in femoral vascular conductance during acute spinal cord stimulation. Abstract: Clinical cases have indicated an increase in peripheral blood flow after continuous epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) and that reduced muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA) might be a potential mechanism. However, no studies in humans have directly examined the effects of acute SCS (<60 min) on vascular conductance and MSNA. In study 1, we tested the hypothesis that acute SCS (<60 min) of the thoracic spine would lead to increased common femoral vascular conductance, but not brachial vascular conductance, in 11 patients who previously underwent surgical SCS implantation for management of neuropathic pain. Throughout 60 min of SCS, common femoral artery conductance was elevated and significantly different from brachial artery conductance [in millilitres per minute: 15 min, change (Δ) 26 ± 37 versus Δ−2 ± 19%; 30 min, Δ28 ± 45 versus Δ0 ± 26%; 45 min, Δ48 ± 43 versus Δ2 ± 21%; 60 min, Δ36 ± 61 versus Δ1 ± 24%; and 15 min post‐SCS, Δ51 ± 64 versus Δ6 ± 33%; P = 0.013]. A similar examination in a patient with cervical SCS revealed minimal changes in vascular conductance. In study 2, we examined whether acute SCS reduces peroneal MSNA in a subset of SCS patients (n = 5). The MSNA burst incidence in response to acute SCS gradually declined and was significantly reduced at 45 and 60 min of SCS (in bursts per 100 heart beats: 15 min, Δ−1 ± 12%; 30 min, Δ−14 ± 12%; 45 min, Δ−19 ± 16%; 60 min, Δ−24 ± 18%; and 15 min post‐SCS: Δ−11 ± 7%; P = 0.015). These data demonstrate that acute SCS rapidly increases femoral vascular conductance and reduces peroneal MSNA. The gradual reduction in peroneal MSNA observed during acute SCS suggests that neural mechanisms in addition to attenuated MSNA might be involved in the acute increase in femoral vascular conductance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe a novel spinal cord (SC) stimulator that is designed to overcome a major shortcoming of existing stimulator devices: their restricted capacity to selectively activate targeted axons within the dorsal columns. This device overcomes that limitation by delivering electrical stimuli directly to the pial surface of the SC. Our goal in testing this device was to measure its ability to physiologically activate the SC and examine its capacity to modulate somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) triggered by peripheral stimulation. In this acute study on adult sheep (n = 7), local field potentials were recorded from a grid placed in the subdural space of the right hemisphere during electrical stimulation of the left tibial nerve and the spinal cord. Large amplitude SSEPs (﹥200 μV) in response to SC stimulation were consistently obtained at stimulation strengths well below the thresholds inducing neural injury. Moreover, stimulation of the dorsal columns with signals employed routinely by devices in standard clinical use, e.g., 50 Hz, 0.2 ms pulse width, produced long-lasting changes (﹥4.5 h) in the SSEP patterns produced by subsequent tibial nerve stimulation. The results of these acute experiments demonstrate that this device can be safely secured to the SC surface and effectively activate somatosensory pathways. [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]