Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society
-
Objective. When using spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain management, precise longitudinal positioning of the cathode is crucial to generate an electrical field capable of targeting the neural elements involved in pain relief. Presently used methods have a poor spatial resolution and lack postoperative flexibility needed for fine tuning and reprogramming the stimulation field after lead displacement or changes in pain pattern. We describe in this article a new method, "electrical field steering," to control paresthesia in SCS. ⋯ Conclusions. By means of cathodal steering on a longitudinal contact array, the group of excited DC and DR fibers, and thus paresthesia coverage, can be controlled when using SCS. With widely spaced contacts, superposition of the electrical field from each steering contact is limited. To precisely control segmental paresthesia (DR stimulation), a small contact spacing is necessary.
-
Background. Lyme disease is caused by Borrelia, a bacterium transmitted by the bite of a deer tick. A slow developing encephalopathy or an axonal polyneuropathy with distal paresthesia and spinal or radicular pain rarely occurs and can be hard to treat. ⋯ Results. After 18 months of therapy and follow-up, this patient's analgesia, as a result of SCS, continues to be excellent, with almost complete subjective pain relief and cessation of adjuvant analgesic medication. Conclusions. SCS may be efficacious for the treatment of neuropathic pain due to Lyme disease.
-
Background. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective in reducing pain from a number of differing medical conditions that are refractory to other, more conservative treatments. Much is written in the literature regarding efficacy and safety of SCS; however, no one to our knowledge has compared and reported safety and efficacy of SCS when using differing manufactured SCS devices. We undertook such a preliminary evaluation. ⋯ Conclusions. Spinal cord stimulation improves pain, sleep, and function in patients with intractable pain. Because of the low number of patients evaluable in this study, we believe that conclusions should not be made regarding the effect of technology on outcomes or safety. We believe that an analysis of this type in larger populations is warranted to understand the role, if any, that present-day technology has on outcomes of SCS.
-
Objectives. Spinal cord stimulation has been used extensively for failed back surgery syndrome, although dominant axial low back pain is difficult to treat effectively with this modality. The use of a surgically placed, double, quadripolar lead may result in better paresthesia of the low back, therefore enhancing outcomes in this difficult to treat population. Materials and Methods. Accordingly, this prospective study was designed to assess the effectiveness of placing such a lead at the T8-T10 level under general anesthesia without intraoperative testing for concordancy of paresthesia distribution. ⋯ The ability to lead a more active and social life was increased and 85% of patients said they would undergo spinal cord stimulation again. Placing the lead higher in the spinal canal (T8) resulted in a tendency for better paresthesia coverage of the low back when compared to lower lead placements. Conclusions. Placing a double quadripolar paddle lead under general anesthesia resulted in good clinical outcome similar to other implant techniques.
-
Objectives. To examine the effect of using a common peroneal stimulator on an even and an uneven surface, and to compare measures with perceived response to stimulation. Method. Participants had a drop-foot caused by a stroke (N = 13) or multiple sclerosis (N = 7) and had used a common peroneal stimulator for > 3 months prior to the study. Walking speed and physiological cost index (PCI) were recorded under four conditions: with and without stimulation over an even and an uneven surface. ⋯ A correlation between perceived benefit of stimulation and a measured decrease in PCI was detected. Conclusion. Stimulation may be particularly beneficial for the more difficult task of walking on an uneven surface. Perceived benefit was related to a reduction in effort of walking, not in increased speed.