1 / 12

Successful Treatment of Low Back Pain with a Novel Neuromodulation Device

Successful Treatment of Low Back Pain with a Novel Neuromodulation Device. Iris Smet, MD 1 Jean-Pierre Van Buyten , MD 1 Adnan Al- Kaisy MB ChB FRCA 2. 1 AZ Nikolaas Hospital, Belgium 2 Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, United Kingdom. Conflict of Interest.

chava
Télécharger la présentation

Successful Treatment of Low Back Pain with a Novel Neuromodulation Device

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Successful Treatment of Low Back Pain with a Novel Neuromodulation Device Iris Smet, MD1 Jean-Pierre Van Buyten, MD1 Adnan Al-Kaisy MB ChB FRCA2 1AZ Nikolaas Hospital, Belgium 2Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, United Kingdom

  2. Conflict of Interest • Primary Investigator; study sponsored by Nevro Corporation, Menlo Park, CA

  3. Key Challenges in SCS • Treating back pain remains a challenge • Leg pain component only • PROCESS Study - Kumar, 2006 • Uncomfortable stimulation • Patients experience “shocking” sensation • Stimulation/posture adjustments required to decrease uncomfortable stimulation • Kuechmann, 2009 • Opioids remain part of treatment regimen • Side-effects outweigh benefits • Van Buyten and Linderoth, 2010 • Opportunity for SCS in treating back pain

  4. Study Overview • Purpose: Demonstrate effectiveness in chronic back and/or leg pain patients • First permanent implant study with this novel SCS • Design: Prospective, Observational Study • Population: Back pain score > 5 out of 10 on VAS • Key Outcomes Measurements • Pain relief using Visual Analog Scale (VAS) • Functional improvements using Oswestry Disability Index • Opioid usage • Incidence of SCS-induced movement-dependent discomfort

  5. Study Flow (St. Nikolaas Site) Trialed n=42 Failed Trials n=4 • Up to 50 patients will be trialed • Study is ongoing (interim results shown) • Permanent percutaneous lead trial (Anchored & tunneled) • Duration 4 weeks +/- 2 weeks • Anatomical not physiological lead placement • Adverse Events • Infection during trial phase(4), lead migration(2), thrombosis(1), edema(1), pocket pain(2), sensation change(1), skin irritation(2), infection during perm(2) Successful Trials n=38 (90%) Ongoing trial. Interim results shown. 21 patients have passed 6 month visit. Other patients have yet to reach 6 month visit. IPG Implanted 1 Month 3 Months 6 Months

  6. Patient Population Surgical History Patients w/ no prior spine surgery (N=9) FBSS Patients (N=33) 21% • Refractory to conservative treatments (e.g., radiofrequency) with no long-term benefit • Considered not to be surgical candidates. • Neurosurgeon evaluated for mechanical instability and referred non-surgical candidates to the pain clinic. 79% Pain Type Predominant Leg pain patients (N=6) 14% Predominant Back Pain Patients (N=36) 86% 42 Patients Trialed to-date; Mean age is 49 ± 8.1 years, 76% are females

  7. Back and Leg Pain Reduction Average Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain (mean +/- SEM) N=29 N=28 N=21 Back pain VAS: p-value < 0.001 Leg pain VAS: p-value < 0.001 Back pain VAS: p-value < 0.001 Leg pain VAS: p-value < 0.001 Note*: Baseline VAS shown above is from patients who passed 3 month visit. One patient missed 3 month visit, but came for 6 month visit.

  8. No Uncomfortable Stimulation Uncomfortable Stimulation due to Position Change Adjust Stimulation Before or After Position Change • No uncomfortable stimulation with position change • No adjustment of stimulation required with postural change *Kuechmann, 2009 % of Patients % of Patients

  9. Reduction in Opioid Use • Only 14% of patients are using opioids at 6 months N=21 N=21 N=21 N=21 • Only 3 mg of morphine per patient at 6 months

  10. Improvement in Function and Sleep Average Oswestry Disability Index (mean +/- SEM) Number of Sleep Disturbances per Night (mean +/- SEM) Severe disability 9 point reduction was observed in other SCS studies (1) Low disability N=21 N=21 N=29 N=28 N=21 p-value < 0.001 p-value < 0.001 p-value < 0.001 • Functional Improvement: 21 point reduction at 6 months • Sleep Improvement: 87% reduction in sleep disturbances • (1) Other SCS study results: 9 point reduction (Taylor, 2005) Note*: Baseline ODI shown above is from patients who passed 3 month visit. One patient missed 3 month visit, but came for 6 month visit.

  11. Summary • Sustained back & leg pain relief at 6 months* • Significant elimination and reduction of opioid usage* • Improved patient functionality and sleep* • No sensation of paresthesia • No uncomfortable stimulation • Proportion and type of adverse events are consistent with other SCS studies conducted Note*: In comparison to baseline

  12. Thank you!

More Related