Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Post-Laminectomy Syndrome in Testing Phase
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03702010|
Recruitment Status : Recruiting
First Posted : October 10, 2018
Last Update Posted : December 28, 2018
Traditionally, pain relief through spinal cord stimulation has been associated with the appearance of paresthesia in the affected area. Several parameters are set to maximize the overexposure zone, such as frequency,and pulse width. Although this technique has improved pain in many patients, paresthesia itself can be uncomfortable. Traditionally, the occurrence of paresthesias has been considered to be a predictor of success in pain elimination, while the non-occurrence of paresthesias would indicate failure. So far, few studies have reported pain relief below the threshold of onset of paresthesia. Some clinical trials for pathologies other than the one considered in this study have achieved relief below the threshold by reducing the amplitude of the stimulus. Recently, however, it has been observed in a pilot study that, by increasing the frequency of spinal cord stimulation to 1 kilohertz, it is possible to significantly improve pain relief compared to less frequent conventional stimulation based on the occurrence of paresthesias.
A recent review by the Cochrane Library concluded that conventional spinal cord stimulation for pain relief of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (or FBSS) requires further clinical studies and better designs to demonstrate its superiority over other therapeutic options. Therefore, although spinal cord stimulation is accepted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), new techniques are being introduced that offer better results in terms of pain relief. Among these techniques, there is the high frequency mode, which allows avoiding the annoying sensation of paresthesia that substitutes pain with the conventional technique. In order to provide greater rigour and scientific quality, the present study is proposed, in which the conventional spinal cord stimulation (CME) technique (control branch or CME) is compared with paresthesias and a standard frequency (60 hertz) with a high frequency (1000 hertz) EVOLVE system (Evolve workflow - standardized guidance to simplify the trial and implant experience and optimize patient outcomes) (experimental branch or EME) by means of a design with a high degree of scientific evidence, randomising the global sample of patients to each of the two branches of stimulation in the study (blind to the patient) and crossing the branches after a period of washing
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Laminectomy Post-laminectomy Syndrome Spinal Cord Syndrome Failed Back Surgery Syndrome||Device: spinal cord stimulation conventional Device: spinal cord stimulation experimental||Not Applicable|
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Estimated Enrollment :||24 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Crossover Assignment|
|Intervention Model Description:||Single-blind, multicenter, crossover|
|Primary Purpose:||Health Services Research|
|Official Title:||Randomized, Single-blind, Multicenter, Crossover, Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare Difference on the Visual Analogue Scale With Two Modes of Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Post-Laminectomy Syndrome in Testing Phase|
|Actual Study Start Date :||November 20, 2018|
|Estimated Primary Completion Date :||July 1, 2020|
|Estimated Study Completion Date :||July 1, 2020|
Active Comparator: CME branch
In this study, the conventional spinal cord stimulation method (control Branch-CME branch)
Device: spinal cord stimulation conventional
If the patient has been assigned to the branch of the CME control group, after mapping the search for the pain zone, the neurostimulator is programmed to conventional stimulation.
Other Name: CME
Experimental: EME branch
In this study, the experimental spinal cord stimulation method are used in the same patient with the EVOLVE programming guide (EME branch)
Device: spinal cord stimulation experimental
If the patient has been randomized to the branch of the EME experimental group, after a mapping of the search for the pain zone, a 90% subthreshold stimulation is programmed.
Other Name: EME
- Comparing Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) [ Time Frame: Forty days after baseline ]
Visual analogue scale (VAS) at the end of each test phase(either with conventional spinal cord stimulation or with EVOLVE). VAS consists of a 10 centimeter (cm) line, whose ends are defined as the extreme limits of pain (left end corresponds with the absence of pain and the right end with the maximum amount of pain).
The patient is asked to point out in the line the place that better correspond to his/her pain.
- Decrease in VAS more than 50 percentage (%) [ Time Frame: Five days after baseline ]Number of patients of each arm with a decrease of 50 percentage (%) or more in VAS scale between the values before and after the phase test
- Evaluation disability [ Time Frame: From five days after baseline until twelve days after baseline ]
Oswestry Disability Index of the patients: it is a questionnaire consisting of 10 questions with 6 possible answers each. Every answer gives a punctuation from 0 (less disability) to 5 (more disability).
This scale is expressed in percentage in which 0 percentage (%) would the least disability and 100 percentage (%) would represent the maximum disability
- Number of adverse events in each arm [ Time Frame: From baseline through forty days later ]Number of adverse events in each group. Considering as an adverse event those that result in death, or in severe harm to patient's health (lesion that threatens life, permanent harm on an organ or corporal function, or process that needs a medical or surgical intervention to avoid a permanent harm)
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT03702010
|Contact: Francisco J Sánchez-Montero, MD||+34 923291100 ext email@example.com|
|Contact: Mario L Vaquero-Roncero, Md||+34 923291100 ext firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Hospital San Pedro de Logroño||Not yet recruiting|
|Logroño, La Rioja, Spain, 26006|
|Contact: Jose-Antonio Sáenz-López, MD +34 941 298000 ext pending|
|Principal Investigator: Jose-Antonio Sáenz-López, MD|
|Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Salamanca||Recruiting|
|Salamanca, Spain, 37007|
|Contact: Francisco J Sánchez-Montero, MD +34 923291100 ext pending email@example.com|
|Principal Investigator: Mario L Vaquero-Roncero, MD|
|Study Director:||Francisco J Sánchez-Montero, MD||IBSAL-Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca|