The American Academy Of Pain Medicine

The physicians' voice in pain medicine
  • Foundation
  • Store
  • Career Center
  • Press
  • Join-Renew
Search: Go
Member Login: Login

Enter the AAPM
Members' Community

  • Member Center
  • Patient Center
  • Library
  • Advocacy
  • Practice Management
  • CME
  • Annual Meeting
  • Safe Prescribing Resources
  • PI-CME Portal

Library

Home > Library > For Pain Researchers > 2012 Poster Abstracts
  • Research in the News
  • For Pain Researchers
    • 2013 Poster Abstracts
    • 2012 Poster Abstracts
    • Research Resources
    • Research Presentations
    • Search Clinical Trials (NIH)
    • Register a Clinical Trial (NIH)
    • Medline - US National Library of Medicine
  • Clinical Guidelines and Resources
  • Pain Facts
  • Archives
  • FDA Updates, Recalls and Warnings
  • Presented at the 2012 AAPM Annual Meeting « Back

    120

    Results of the RestoreSensor Study: Stimulation Amplitude Varies Significantly with Changes in Body Position

    David M. Schultz, MD, dschultz@painphysicians.com1, Lynn R. Webster, MD2, Ye Tan, MS3, Dennis Skelton, BS3, Mark Sun, PhD3, Eric Panken, MS3, (1) MAPS Applied Research Center, Edina, Minnesota, (2) Lifetree Clinical Research, Salt Lake City, Utah, (3) Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota

    View Poster

    Introduction: Variations in paresthesia thresholds for different body positions have been theoretically estimated and measured acutely. We report on stimulation amplitudes associated with position changes during 6 weeks of position-adaptive stimulation. Materials and Methods: Patients received a RestoreSensor™ neurostimulation system (Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) with optional position-adaptive stimulation capabilities as part of a prospective, multicenter, IRB-approved crossover study. Initially established amplitudes could be adjusted as needed during the 6-week position-adaptive stimulation arm of the study. Automated stimulation amplitudes for different positions were analyzed as a relative percent of the amplitude for the upright position at the end of the position-adaptive stimulation arm. Relative percentages from all the active programs were averaged for each position for each patient. Relative percentages for positions were tested against upright (100%) using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Seventy-one patients (mean age 52.4 years, 58% female) completed the position-adaptive stimulation arm and were included in the analysis. The supine position had the lowest average stimulation amplitude relative to the upright position (mean 85%, SD 20%), while the mobile position had the highest average stimulation amplitude relative to the upright position (mean 107%, SD 19%) (Figure 1). The stimulation amplitudes for mobile, supine, lying right, and lying left were all significantly statistically different from those for upright (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p-values < 0.05). Conclusions: Patients and/or physicians consistently programmed different stimulation amplitudes for different positions. The lowest stimulation amplitudes occurred in the supine position, and the highest amplitudes occurred in the upright position and during activity.

    Funding: The RestoreSensor study was funded by Medtronic, Inc.

    Poster 120

  • Home
  • Member Center
  • Patient Center
  • Library
  • Advocacy
  • Practice Management
  • CME
  • Annual Meeting
  • Contact Us
  • Members' Community
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap
Close

Members Only Alert Message

Please login to access AAPM member only information.
Forgot your login information?

Sign Up Today!

Join AAPM today and be part of the primary organization for physicians practicing in the specialty of pain medicine and begin accessing AAPM member benefits. 

Join
Or

Log In

Please log in and you will be redirected to the requested page.

Log In