North American Spine Society Journal (Sep 2024)

Twelve-month results from a randomized controlled trial comparing differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation and conventional spinal cord stimulation in subjects with chronic refractory axial low back pain not eligible for spine surgery

  • Thomas White, MD,
  • Rafael Justiz, MD,
  • Wilson Almonte, MD,
  • Velimir Micovic, MD,
  • Binit Shah, MD,
  • Eric Anderson, MD,
  • Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD,
  • Harold Cordner, MD,
  • Amr El-Naggar, MD,
  • Michael Fishman, MD, MBA,
  • Yashar Eshraghi, MD,
  • Philip Kim, MD,
  • Alaa Abd-Elsayed, MD,
  • Krishnan Chakravarthy,
  • Yoann Millet, MD,
  • Mahendra Sanapati, MD,
  • Nathan Harrison, MD,
  • Brandon Goff, DO,
  • Mayank Gupta, MD,
  • Prabhdeep Grewal, MD,
  • Michael Wilkinson, MD,
  • Richard Bundschu, MD,
  • Andrew Will, MD,
  • Pankaj Satija, MD,
  • Sean Li, MD,
  • Scott Dulebohn, MD,
  • John Broadnax, MD,
  • Gennady Gekht, MD,
  • Ken Wu, MD,
  • Steven Falowski, MD,
  • Wesley Park, MPH,
  • David L. Cedeno, PhD,
  • Ricardo Vallejo, MD, PhD

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19
p. 100528

Abstract

Read online

ABSTRACT: Background: Successful treatments for intractable chronic low back pain (CLBP) in patients who are not eligible for surgical interventions are scarce. The superior efficacy of differential target multiplexed spinal cord stimulation (DTM SCS) to conventional SCS (Conv-SCS) on the treatment of CLBP in patients with persistent spinal pain syndrome (PSPS) who have failed surgical interventions (PSPS-T2) motivated the evaluation of DTM SCS versus Conv-SCS on PSPS patients who are non-surgical candidates (PSPS-T1). Methods: This is a prospective, open label, crossover, post-market randomized controlled trial in 20 centers across the United States. Eligible patients were randomized to either DTM SCS or Conv-SCS in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was CLBP responder rate (percentage of subjects with ≥50% CLBP relief) at 3-month in randomized subjects who completed trialing (modified intention-to-treat population). Patients were followed up to 12 months. Secondary endpoints included change of CLBP and leg pain, responder rates, changes in disability, quality of life, patient satisfaction and global impression of change, and safety profile. An optional crossover was available at 6-month to all patients. Results: About 121 PSPS-T1 subjects with CLBP and leg pain mostly associated with degenerative disc disease and radiculopathy and who were not eligible for spine surgery were randomized. CLBP responder rate with DTM SCS (93.5%) was superior to Conv-SCS (36.4%) at the primary endpoint. Superior CLBP responder rates (88.1%–90.5%) were obtained with DTM SCS at all other timepoints. Mean CLBP reduction with DTM SCS (6.52 cm) was superior to that with Conv-SCS (3.01 cm) at the primary endpoint. Similar CLBP reductions (6.23–6.43 cm) were obtained with DTM SCS at other timepoints. DTM SCS provided significantly better leg pain reduction and responder rate, improvement of disability and quality of life, and better patient satisfaction and global impression of change. 90.9% of Conv-SCS subjects who crossed over were CLBP responders at completion of the study. Similar safety profiles were observed between the two groups. Conclusion: DTM SCS for chronic CLBP in nonsurgical candidates is superior to Conv-SCS. Improvements were sustained and provided significant benefits on the management of these patients.

Keywords