Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes - Part I: Technical outcomes

Richard B. North, David H. Kidd, John C. Olin, Jeffrey M. Sieracki, Yücel Kanpolat, Kim Burchiel, Bjorn A. Meyerson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

117 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The clinical use of spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic intractable pain has been increasingly successful because of recent technical improvements, particularly the development of multiple-contact electrodes supported by programmable implanted pulse generators. Contemporary electrodes can be placed percutaneously in some cases and require a limited laminectomy in other cases. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing two proto-typical electrode designs, using a computerized system that allows direct patient interaction and quantitative measurements. A series of 24 patients with chronic lumbosacral pain syndromes first underwent testing with percutaneous four-contact electrodes and then underwent implantation, at the same spinal level, of one of two different electrode configurations; 12 patients received a new percutaneous four-contact electrode of the same design and 12 received an insulated four-contact array, which was implanted via laminectomy. RESULTS: The insulated array performed significantly (P = 0.0005-0.0047) better than the temporary percutaneous electrode for the same patients, according to all three measures tested (ratings of paresthesia coverage of pain, coverage calculated from patient drawings, and amplitudes), at the "usage" amplitude for the three standard bipoles examined. The insulated array also performed significantly (P = 0.0000-0.026) better than the permanent percutaneous electrode in terms of coverage ratings and amplitude requirements. Low back coverage ratings were significantly better for the insulated array than for the temporary percutaneous electrode, and scaled amplitudes necessary for low back coverage were significantly better for the permanent percutaneous electrode than for the temporary electrode. In comparison with the percutaneous temporary electrode, at subjectively identical stimulation intensities, the permanent insulated array required significantly lower amplitude. CONCLUSION: We can immediately infer from these technical data that the use of an insulated array, in comparison with a percutaneous electrode, would double battery life. Extended follow-up monitoring will be required to assess the extent to which the technical advantages we observed for the insulated array might be associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)381-390
Number of pages10
JournalNeurosurgery
Volume51
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Spinal Cord Stimulation
Laminectomy
Electrodes
Randomized Controlled Trials
Chronic Pain
Intractable Pain
Paresthesia

Keywords

  • Electrical stimulation
  • Failed back surgery syndrome
  • Low back pain
  • Spinal cord stimulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Surgery

Cite this

Spinal cord stimulation electrode design : Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes - Part I: Technical outcomes. / North, Richard B.; Kidd, David H.; Olin, John C.; Sieracki, Jeffrey M.; Kanpolat, Yücel; Burchiel, Kim; Meyerson, Bjorn A.

In: Neurosurgery, Vol. 51, No. 2, 01.08.2002, p. 381-390.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

North, Richard B. ; Kidd, David H. ; Olin, John C. ; Sieracki, Jeffrey M. ; Kanpolat, Yücel ; Burchiel, Kim ; Meyerson, Bjorn A. / Spinal cord stimulation electrode design : Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes - Part I: Technical outcomes. In: Neurosurgery. 2002 ; Vol. 51, No. 2. pp. 381-390.
@article{3a5d50b7f28d45758613cf0accdda652,
title = "Spinal cord stimulation electrode design: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes - Part I: Technical outcomes",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: The clinical use of spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic intractable pain has been increasingly successful because of recent technical improvements, particularly the development of multiple-contact electrodes supported by programmable implanted pulse generators. Contemporary electrodes can be placed percutaneously in some cases and require a limited laminectomy in other cases. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing two proto-typical electrode designs, using a computerized system that allows direct patient interaction and quantitative measurements. A series of 24 patients with chronic lumbosacral pain syndromes first underwent testing with percutaneous four-contact electrodes and then underwent implantation, at the same spinal level, of one of two different electrode configurations; 12 patients received a new percutaneous four-contact electrode of the same design and 12 received an insulated four-contact array, which was implanted via laminectomy. RESULTS: The insulated array performed significantly (P = 0.0005-0.0047) better than the temporary percutaneous electrode for the same patients, according to all three measures tested (ratings of paresthesia coverage of pain, coverage calculated from patient drawings, and amplitudes), at the {"}usage{"} amplitude for the three standard bipoles examined. The insulated array also performed significantly (P = 0.0000-0.026) better than the permanent percutaneous electrode in terms of coverage ratings and amplitude requirements. Low back coverage ratings were significantly better for the insulated array than for the temporary percutaneous electrode, and scaled amplitudes necessary for low back coverage were significantly better for the permanent percutaneous electrode than for the temporary electrode. In comparison with the percutaneous temporary electrode, at subjectively identical stimulation intensities, the permanent insulated array required significantly lower amplitude. CONCLUSION: We can immediately infer from these technical data that the use of an insulated array, in comparison with a percutaneous electrode, would double battery life. Extended follow-up monitoring will be required to assess the extent to which the technical advantages we observed for the insulated array might be associated with improved clinical outcomes.",
keywords = "Electrical stimulation, Failed back surgery syndrome, Low back pain, Spinal cord stimulation",
author = "North, {Richard B.} and Kidd, {David H.} and Olin, {John C.} and Sieracki, {Jeffrey M.} and Y{\"u}cel Kanpolat and Kim Burchiel and Meyerson, {Bjorn A.}",
year = "2002",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00006123-200208000-00015",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "381--390",
journal = "Neurosurgery",
issn = "0148-396X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Spinal cord stimulation electrode design

T2 - Prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing percutaneous and laminectomy electrodes - Part I: Technical outcomes

AU - North, Richard B.

AU - Kidd, David H.

AU - Olin, John C.

AU - Sieracki, Jeffrey M.

AU - Kanpolat, Yücel

AU - Burchiel, Kim

AU - Meyerson, Bjorn A.

PY - 2002/8/1

Y1 - 2002/8/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: The clinical use of spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic intractable pain has been increasingly successful because of recent technical improvements, particularly the development of multiple-contact electrodes supported by programmable implanted pulse generators. Contemporary electrodes can be placed percutaneously in some cases and require a limited laminectomy in other cases. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing two proto-typical electrode designs, using a computerized system that allows direct patient interaction and quantitative measurements. A series of 24 patients with chronic lumbosacral pain syndromes first underwent testing with percutaneous four-contact electrodes and then underwent implantation, at the same spinal level, of one of two different electrode configurations; 12 patients received a new percutaneous four-contact electrode of the same design and 12 received an insulated four-contact array, which was implanted via laminectomy. RESULTS: The insulated array performed significantly (P = 0.0005-0.0047) better than the temporary percutaneous electrode for the same patients, according to all three measures tested (ratings of paresthesia coverage of pain, coverage calculated from patient drawings, and amplitudes), at the "usage" amplitude for the three standard bipoles examined. The insulated array also performed significantly (P = 0.0000-0.026) better than the permanent percutaneous electrode in terms of coverage ratings and amplitude requirements. Low back coverage ratings were significantly better for the insulated array than for the temporary percutaneous electrode, and scaled amplitudes necessary for low back coverage were significantly better for the permanent percutaneous electrode than for the temporary electrode. In comparison with the percutaneous temporary electrode, at subjectively identical stimulation intensities, the permanent insulated array required significantly lower amplitude. CONCLUSION: We can immediately infer from these technical data that the use of an insulated array, in comparison with a percutaneous electrode, would double battery life. Extended follow-up monitoring will be required to assess the extent to which the technical advantages we observed for the insulated array might be associated with improved clinical outcomes.

AB - OBJECTIVE: The clinical use of spinal cord stimulation for treatment of chronic intractable pain has been increasingly successful because of recent technical improvements, particularly the development of multiple-contact electrodes supported by programmable implanted pulse generators. Contemporary electrodes can be placed percutaneously in some cases and require a limited laminectomy in other cases. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing two proto-typical electrode designs, using a computerized system that allows direct patient interaction and quantitative measurements. A series of 24 patients with chronic lumbosacral pain syndromes first underwent testing with percutaneous four-contact electrodes and then underwent implantation, at the same spinal level, of one of two different electrode configurations; 12 patients received a new percutaneous four-contact electrode of the same design and 12 received an insulated four-contact array, which was implanted via laminectomy. RESULTS: The insulated array performed significantly (P = 0.0005-0.0047) better than the temporary percutaneous electrode for the same patients, according to all three measures tested (ratings of paresthesia coverage of pain, coverage calculated from patient drawings, and amplitudes), at the "usage" amplitude for the three standard bipoles examined. The insulated array also performed significantly (P = 0.0000-0.026) better than the permanent percutaneous electrode in terms of coverage ratings and amplitude requirements. Low back coverage ratings were significantly better for the insulated array than for the temporary percutaneous electrode, and scaled amplitudes necessary for low back coverage were significantly better for the permanent percutaneous electrode than for the temporary electrode. In comparison with the percutaneous temporary electrode, at subjectively identical stimulation intensities, the permanent insulated array required significantly lower amplitude. CONCLUSION: We can immediately infer from these technical data that the use of an insulated array, in comparison with a percutaneous electrode, would double battery life. Extended follow-up monitoring will be required to assess the extent to which the technical advantages we observed for the insulated array might be associated with improved clinical outcomes.

KW - Electrical stimulation

KW - Failed back surgery syndrome

KW - Low back pain

KW - Spinal cord stimulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036705631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036705631&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00006123-200208000-00015

DO - 10.1097/00006123-200208000-00015

M3 - Article

C2 - 12182776

AN - SCOPUS:0036705631

VL - 51

SP - 381

EP - 390

JO - Neurosurgery

JF - Neurosurgery

SN - 0148-396X

IS - 2

ER -