Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping With Anatomic Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Long-Term Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover CRISP Study.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy for chronic intractable pain. Conventional SCS involves electrode placement based on intraoperative paresthesia mapping; however, newer paradigms like burst may allow for anatomic placement of leads. Here, for the first time, we report the one-year safety and efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead placed with conventional, paresthesia mapping, or anatomic placement approach in subjects with chronic low back pain (CLBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with CLBP were implanted with two leads. The first lead was placed to cross the T8/T9 disc and active contacts for this lead were chosen through paresthesia mapping. The second lead was placed at the T9/T10 spinal anatomic landmark. Subjects initially underwent a four-week, double-blinded, crossover trial with a two-week testing period with burst SCS delivered through each lead in a random order. At the end of trial period, subjects expressed their preference for one of the two leads. Subsequently, subjects received burst SCS with the preferred lead and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months. Pain intensity (visual analog scale), quality-of-life (EuroQol-5D instrument), and disability (Oswestry Disability Index) were evaluated at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: Forty-three subjects successfully completed the trial. Twenty-one preferred the paresthesia mapping lead and 21 preferred the anatomic placement lead. Anatomic placement lead was activated in one subject who had no preference. The pain scores (for back and leg) significantly improved from baseline for both lead placement groups at all follow-up time points, with no significant between-group differences. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that equivalent clinical benefits could be achieved with burst SCS using either paresthesia mapping or anatomic landmark-based approaches for lead placement. Nonparesthesia-based approaches, such as anatomic landmark-based lead placement investigated here, have the potential to simplify implantation of SCS and improve current surgical practice.

Comparison of Paresthesia Mapping to Anatomical Placement in Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation: Initial Trial Results of the Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Crossover, CRISP Study.

INTRODUCTION: In this prospective, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, crossover study, we compared the therapeutic efficacy of burst SCS delivered using a lead implanted with the paresthesia mapping approach to a lead implanted with an anatomic placement approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with chronic low back pain were implanted with two leads, one using paresthesia-mapping approach (PM) and the second using anatomical placement procedure (AP). Stimulation contacts were chosen using the standard intraoperative paresthesia-testing procedure for the paresthesia-mapped lead or an activated bipole overlapping the T9-T10 junction for the anatomical lead. Amplitude for either lead was selected such that no sensory percepts were generated. Subjects were assessed at baseline and after a trial period during which they tested each lead for two weeks in random order. Eligible subjects had the option to receive permanent implants using their preferred AP or PM approach at end-of-trial. RESULTS: Of the 53 subjects who completed both trial periods, 43 (81.1%) experienced at least 50% back pain relief with at least one lead. Nearly half of these (20; 46.5%) were profound responders who experienced at least 80% back pain relief with either leads. Primary and secondary outcomes, at the end of trial, showed significant improvements for both AP and PM leads from baseline yet were not significantly different from each other. DISCUSSION: The trial results of this study suggest that similar clinical outcomes can be achieved in burst SCS when performing lead placement either using paresthesia mapping or anatomical placement with imaging references.

Multiple sclerosis and employment: Associations of psychological factors and work instability.

BACKGROUND: People with multiple sclerosis often stop working earlier than expected. Psychological factors may have an impact on job retention. Investigation may inform interventions to help people stay in work. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the associations between psychological factors and work instability in people with multiple sclerosis. METHODS: A multi-method, 2-phased study. Focus groups were held to identify key themes. Questionnaire packs using validated scales of the key themes were completed at baseline and at 8-month follow-up. RESULTS: Four key psychological themes emerged. Out of 208 study subjects 57.2% reported medium/high risk of job loss, with marginal changes at 8 months. Some psychological variables fluctuated significantly, e.g. depression fell from 24.6% to 14.5%. Work instability and anxiety and depression were strongly correlated (χ2 p < 0.001). Those with probable depression at baseline had 7.1 times increased odds of medium/high work instability, and baseline depression levels also predicted later work instability (Hosmer-Lemeshow test 0.899; Nagelkerke R Square 0.579). CONCLUSION: Psychological factors fluctuated over the 8-month follow-up period. Some psychological variables, including anxiety and depression, were significantly associated with, and predictive of, work instability. Longitudinal analysis should further identify how these psychological attributes impact on work instability and potential job loss in the longer term.