Journal of Pain Research (Nov 2022)
Use of Accelerometry as an Educational Tool for Spinal Cord Stimulation: A Pilot Study
Abstract
Alexios G Carayannopoulos,1,* Keith A Scarfo,2,* Alaa Abd-Elsayed,3 Augustine C Lee4 1Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University Medical School, Providence, RI, USA; 2Department of Neurosurgery, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University Medical School, Providence, RI, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; 4Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Alexios G Carayannopoulos, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rhode Island Hospital, Brown University Medical School, Providence, RI, 02903, USA, Tel +1 401-793-9837, Fax +1 401-793-9143, Email [email protected]: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an important option for patients with chronic neuropathic pain. In the United States, a successful SCS trial determines eligibility for SCS implant. Metrics to determine success are often self-reported and subjective, which may limit achievement of patient goals. This study aimed to assess whether patients undergoing SCS implant after successful trial felt that use of external accelerometry prior to implant was a useful educational tool to objectively appraise function and achievement of treatment goals.Methods: This was a single center, prospective, pilot study. Sixteen subjects with persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 underwent a percutaneous SCS trial. Five subjects did not have a successful trial, one expired after the SCS trial, before implant, and one dropped out prior to completion of post-implant follow-up visits. Nine subjects underwent SCS implant and completed the required follow-up visits. All subjects were provided an Actigraph GT3X external accelerometer, worn 7 days prior to the trial to determine baseline physical activity and during the 7-day trial to assess for change in activity from baseline. Results were shared with subjects to individualize goals for therapy. Goal attainment was assessed at 1, 3, and 6 months after implant. Subjects wore the accelerometer again 24 hours before visits to update progress in meeting treatment goals. The primary outcome was satisfaction with using accelerometry as an educational tool to appraise function and guide treatment goals for SCS therapy. Secondary outcomes included physical activity, as captured via accelerometry, as well as validated patient-reported measures of pain severity, physical functioning, and quality-of-life.Results: Eight of nine subjects were satisfied with accelerometry as an educational tool. Secondary outcomes were not reliably assessed due to poor stewardship and study execution.Conclusion: External accelerometry may assist patients in developing individualized functional treatment goals for SCS therapy.Keywords: low back pain, accelerometer, physical activity, spinal cord stimulator, patient
