Background: After the surge of burst stimulation, different waveforms were developed to optimize results in spinal cord stimulation. Studies have shown higher responder rates for multiwave therapy, but since the launch of such multiwave systems, little is known about the patients' preference regarding waveforms in the long-term follow-up. No study connected particular waveforms to specific pain etiologies or required stimulation parameters so far.
Method: Thirty-four patients with refractory chronic neuropathic pain were treated with spinal cord stimulation systems providing multiwave therapy between September 2018 and October 2019. Patients with a follow-up of at least 6 months were selected; 10 subjects were excluded due to revision surgery, infection, and loss to follow-up. Data regarding pain intensity and preferred waveform for the trial, the implantation, 3-month and 6-month follow-up were recorded.
Results: During the trial phase, 10 patients (43.5%) achieved significant pain relief using tonic stimulation, 5 using burst (21.7%), 3 using microburst (13.0%), and 4 using a combination of tonic and microburst (17.4%). One single patient preferred Contour stimulation during the trial. After 3 months, 6 patients preferred microburst (25%), 6 preferred tonic (25%), 5 used a combination of tonic and microburst (20.8%), and 5 patients used burst (20.8%). After 6 months, similar results were obtained. Contour and Whisper were used in complex cases failing to other waveforms.
Conclusions: Tonic stimulation, isolated or in combination, remains an important component in spinal cord stimulation, being used by almost half of the patients. Over time, the usage of microburst increased considerably. Whisper and Contour, although battery-consuming, are good salvage options in complex cases.
Keywords: Combination therapy; Neuropathic pain; Spinal cord stimulation; Waveform.
© 2022. The Author(s).