» Articles » PMID: 38274409

Treating Chronic, Intractable Pain with a Miniaturized Spinal Cord Stimulation System: 1-Year Outcomes from the AUS-nPower Study During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Purpose: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a highly effective treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Despite recent advances in technology, treatment gaps remain. A small SCS system with a miniaturized implantable pulse generator (micro-IPG; <1.5 cm in volume) and an externally worn power source may be preferred by patients who do not want a large, implanted battery. We report here the long-term outcomes from the first-in-human study evaluating the safety and performance of a new neurostimulation system.

Patients And Methods: This was a prospective, multi-center, open-label, single-arm study to evaluate this SCS system, in the treatment of chronic, intractable leg and low-back pain. Consented subjects who passed screening continued on to the long-term phase of the study. One-year, patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) such as pain (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS), functional disability, quality of life, and mood were captured.

Results: Twenty-six (26) evaluable subjects with permanent implants were included in this analysis. The average leg pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 at baseline to 1.1 ± 1.2 at the end of the study (p < 0.001), while the average low-back pain NRS score decreased from 6.8 ± 1.2 to 1.5 ± 1.2 (p < 0.001). The responder rate (proportion with ≥50% pain relief) was 91% in the leg(s) and 82% in the low back. There were significant improvements in functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and in mood (Beck Depression Inventory), demonstrating a 46% and 62% improvement, respectively (p < 0.001). Eleven-point Likert scales demonstrated the wearable to be very comfortable and very easy to use.

Conclusion: There were considerable challenges conducting a clinical study during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as missed study programming visits. Nevertheless, subjects had significant PRO improvements through 1-year. The small size of the implanted device, along with a proprietary waveform, may allow for improved SCS outcomes and a drop in incidence of IPG-pocket pain.

Citing Articles

Real-world healthcare utilization and costs of peripheral nerve stimulation with a micro-IPG system.

Kalia H, Thapa B, Staats P, Martin P, Stetter K, Feldman B Pain Manag. 2025; 15(1):27-36.

PMID: 39757932 PMC: 11801342. DOI: 10.1080/17581869.2025.2449810.


Biological and hardware-related spinal cord stimulation complications and their management: A single-center retrospective analysis of the implantation of nonrechargeable implantable pulse generators in different pain conditions.

Prokopienko M, Sobstyl M Surg Neurol Int. 2024; 15:402.

PMID: 39640317 PMC: 11618751. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_821_2023.

References
1.
Karri J, Joshi M, Polson G, Tang T, Lee M, Orhurhu V . Spinal Cord Stimulation for Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Review of Considerations in Practice Management. Pain Physician. 2020; 23(6):599-616. View

2.
Taylor R . Spinal cord stimulation in complex regional pain syndrome and refractory neuropathic back and leg pain/failed back surgery syndrome: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006; 31(4 Suppl):S13-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.12.010. View

3.
Mekhail N, Levy R, Deer T, Kapural L, Li S, Amirdelfan K . Long-term safety and efficacy of closed-loop spinal cord stimulation to treat chronic back and leg pain (Evoke): a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Neurol. 2019; 19(2):123-134. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30414-4. View

4.
Baranidharan G, Bretherton B, Richert G, Kay T, Marsh N, Roberts B . Pocket pain, does location matter: a single-centre retrospective study of patients implanted with a spinal cord stimulator. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020; 45(11):891-897. DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2020-101752. View

5.
Verrills P, Sinclair C, Barnard A . A review of spinal cord stimulation systems for chronic pain. J Pain Res. 2016; 9:481-92. PMC: 4938148. DOI: 10.2147/JPR.S108884. View