Pain and therapy · 2026
In-Clinic and At-Home Patient Experiences with Closed-Loop Spinal Cord Stimulation: 12-Month Outcomes from the Closed-Loop Australia Randomized Crossover Trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mohabbati Vahid, Sullivan Richard, Yu James, Georgius Peter, Brooker Charles D, Siorek Malgorzata, Ditterline Bonnie, Friedman Jessica K, Russo Marc A
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Closed-loop spinal cord stimulation (CL-SCS) uses evoked compound action potential (ECAP) feedback to dynamically adjust stimulation amplitude, reducing under- and overstimulation during postural and activity changes. This manuscript reports 12-month patient-reported stimulation and pain outcomes from the Closed-Loop Australia study.
METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm study used randomized in-clinic crossover testing to investigate the primary outcome of overstimulation in patients using CL-SCS versus open-loop (OL) SCS during protocol-specified movements. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported stimulation characteristics for patient-informed, at-home therapy and pain intensity.
RESULTS: At 12 months, patients randomized to CL-SCS reported lower rates of overstimulation (median 0.4; IQR 0.0, 1.0) compared with OL-SCS (median 3; IQR 2.6, 4.0). Participants described the stimulation characteristics of their predominant at-home SCS therapy in terms of comfort and ability to perform activities. Eighty-five percent of participants (n = 39) reported being comfortable performing physical activity while their stimulation therapy was engaged, while 19.6% (n = 9) indicated needing to turn their therapy down or off to do certain activities. Pain intensity decreased from baseline by 60 mm and remained stable through 12 months, with 78% (n = 36) of participants achieving ≥ 50% pain relief.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that adaptable stimulation strategies are important in supporting comfort and sustained pain relief.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05177354.
METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm study used randomized in-clinic crossover testing to investigate the primary outcome of overstimulation in patients using CL-SCS versus open-loop (OL) SCS during protocol-specified movements. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported stimulation characteristics for patient-informed, at-home therapy and pain intensity.
RESULTS: At 12 months, patients randomized to CL-SCS reported lower rates of overstimulation (median 0.4; IQR 0.0, 1.0) compared with OL-SCS (median 3; IQR 2.6, 4.0). Participants described the stimulation characteristics of their predominant at-home SCS therapy in terms of comfort and ability to perform activities. Eighty-five percent of participants (n = 39) reported being comfortable performing physical activity while their stimulation therapy was engaged, while 19.6% (n = 9) indicated needing to turn their therapy down or off to do certain activities. Pain intensity decreased from baseline by 60 mm and remained stable through 12 months, with 78% (n = 36) of participants achieving ≥ 50% pain relief.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that adaptable stimulation strategies are important in supporting comfort and sustained pain relief.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05177354.