MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1093/pm/pnaf147

Медицинская библиотека · Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2026

Comparison of percutaneous 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation of the lumbar medial branches to usual care with standard interventional management for chronic low back pain-a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RESET).

McCormick Zachary L, Lester Denise D, DePalma Michael J, Gilmore Christopher A, Li Sean, Jameson Jessica B, Desai Mehul J, Weaver Tristan E, Lad Shivanand P, Davidoff Scott J, Trainor Drew M, Amirdelfan Kasra, Engle Mitchell P, Deer Timothy R, Lee Thomas S, Vetri Francesco, Bindal Meenakshi, Tornero-Bold Melissa A, Nasseri Morad N, Cohen Steven P, Clark William H, McGee Meredith J, Boggs Joseph W

СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеPragmatic Clinical TrialРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

Management of refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP) includes a range of treatments (eg, physical therapy, injections, ablations, neurostimulation, surgery) with varying utilization and effectiveness. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the effectiveness of one treatment option, percutaneous 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS), compared to usual care with standard interventional management for CLBP.

METHODS

Two hundred thirty patients with CLBP were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to Group 1 (percutaneous 60-day PNS) or Group 2 (physician-directed usual care with standard interventional management). The Primary Clinical Endpoint evaluated the proportion of participants with ≥50% reductions in CLBP at 3 months post-treatment compared to baseline.

RESULTS

At the Primary Endpoint, a greater proportion of participants receiving percutaneous 60-day PNS (55%; n = 112; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45-65) experienced ≥50% pain relief compared to usual care with standard interventional management (26%; n = 110; 95% CI = 17-34; P < .001). Concordant with the Primary Endpoint, percutaneous 60-day PNS also produced greater improvements in patient-centric secondary endpoints, including disability, pain interference, health-related quality of life, and analgesic consumption. Reductions in pain and resulting improvements in function were sustained through 6 months with percutaneous 60-day PNS.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective multicenter pragmatic RCT met its Primary Clinical Endpoint and found that more participants with CLBP reported pain relief at 3 months after receiving percutaneous 60-day PNS as compared to usual care with standard interventional management. Participants treated with 60-day PNS showed greater reductions in pain and more substantial improvements in functional outcomes through 6 months.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT04246281; Primary funding: Department of Defense (DoD), with additional funding needed to complete the study provided by the study's sponsor, SPR.The protocol is available on ClinicalTrials.gov. The statistical analysis plan and results will be made available within 12 months of the study's completion.

Для цитирования: McCormick Zachary L, Lester Denise D, DePalma Michael J, Gilmore Christopher A, Li Sean, Jameson Jessica B, Desai Mehul J, Weaver Tristan E, Lad Shivanand P, Davidoff Scott J, Trainor Drew M, Amirdelfan Kasra, Engle Mitchell P, Deer Timothy R, Lee Thomas S, Vetri Francesco, Bindal Meenakshi, Tornero-Bold Melissa A, Nasseri Morad N, Cohen Steven P, Clark William H, McGee Meredith J, Boggs Joseph W. Comparison of percutaneous 60-day peripheral nerve stimulation of the lumbar medial branches to usual care with standard interventional management for chronic low back pain-a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RESET).. Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.). 2026. DOI: 10.1093/pm/pnaf147.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.