跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT03702010
NCT03702010已完成不适用

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

Fundación Instituto de Estudios de Ciencias de la Salud de Castilla y León4 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 27 人开始时间: 2018年11月20日最近更新:
适应症

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
发起方
入组人数
27
试验地点
4
主要终点
Comparing Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

研究概览

简要总结

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

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Crossover
主要目的
Health Services Research
盲法
Single (Participant)

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者

入选标准

  • Patients over 18 years of age.
  • Patients with FBSS syndrome with leg pain or leg and back pain.
  • Get a score on the visual analogue scale (VAS) ≥
  • Have received medical pharmacological treatment for at least 6 months after back surgery.
  • The patient has signed the informed consent form.

排除标准

  • Patients under 18 years of age.
  • Patients who require a diathermic energy source (microwave, ultrasound or short wave).
  • Patients with a pacemaker.
  • Patients carrying a defibrillator.
  • Patient with a cochlear implant.
  • Patients with other active implanted devices.
  • Patients who are scheduled to have any of the following procedures during the study period: an MRI, defibrillation or cardioversion, electrocautery, lithotripsy, radiofrequency or microwave ablation, and any other high-frequency ultrasound procedure,
  • Women of childbearing age who do not use adequate contraception.
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding.
  • Participation in another trial.
  • Patients who have expressed a desire not to participate in the study and have not formed informed consent.
  • Patients with a failed spinal cord stimulation implant previously

结局指标

主要结局

Comparing Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

时间窗: Baseline, After first stimulation (5days), after washout and second stimulation (12 days), After 30-day follow-up (42 days)

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, ranging from 0 to 10.

次要结局

  • Number of Participants With Adverse Events in Each Arm(42 days from baseline)
  • Change (%) in VAS Scale at the End of Treatment.(After first stimulation (Five days after baseline), After second stimulation (12 days after baseline), at the end of follow-up (42 days after baseline))
  • Evaluation Disability(Baseline, After first stimulation (+5 days), After washout and second stimulation (+12 days), at the end of follow-up (+42days))

研究者

发起方
Fundación Instituto de Estudios de Ciencias de la Salud de Castilla y León
申办方类型
Other
责任方
Sponsor

研究点 (4)

Loading locations...

相似试验