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 > 2013 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 2013 AAPM Annual Meeting « Back

    216

    The Role of Convenience in the Efficacy of Position-Adaptive Stimulation: Results of the RestoreSensor Study

    Lynn R. Webster, MD, lrwebstermd@gmail.com1, David M. Schultz, MD2, Ye Tan, MS3, Mark Sun, PhD3, (1) CRILifetree, Salt Lake City, Utah, (2) MAPS Medical Pain Clinics, Minneapolis, Minnesota, (3) Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota

    View Poster

    Introduction: Convenience in making programming adjustments to compensate for position-related changes in neurostimulation plays an important role in overall patient satisfaction with spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy. The previously reported RestoreSensor study demonstrated that position-adaptive stimulation (AdaptiveStim, Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) improved pain relief with no loss of convenience and/or improved convenience with no loss of pain relief for 86.5% of patients. We report on a sub-analysis of the convenience aspect of the primary efficacy objective. Methods: Patients in the IRB-approved RestoreSensor study experienced position-adaptive stimulation or conventional stimulation separately for 6 weeks. Patients then rated pain relief and convenience separately on 5-point Likert scales and also assessed functional benefits of position-adaptive stimulation. The number of programming adjustments for stimulation amplitude made in each study arm was recorded. Results: Of the 74 patients included in an intent-to-treat analysis, 64 (86.5%) reported that position-adaptive stimulation was more convenient: 51 (68.9%) reported it was much more convenient and 13 (17.6%) reported it was somewhat more convenient, compared to conventional stimulation. The reported improvement in convenience was mirrored by self-reported functional improvements in comfort during position change (80.3%) and control of therapy (57.8%). Additionally, patients reduced the number of button presses for stimulation amplitude adjustment by 40.7% during position-adaptive stimulation compared to conventional stimulation. Conclusions: Position-adaptive stimulation improved the convenience of SCS therapy for most patients in the RestoreSensor study. The results from other study objectives corroborate that convenience plays an important role in functional improvements and overall satisfaction with SCS therapy.

    Funding: The RestoreSensor study was supported by Medtronic Neuromodulation.

  • 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