search
Back to results

RestoreSensor Study

Primary Purpose

Chronic Pain

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
United States
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
RestoreSensor Neurostimulation System
Sponsored by
MedtronicNeuro
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional treatment trial for Chronic Pain

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Meets the indications as an appropriate surgical candidate (after successful SCS screening trial) for implant of a neurostimulation system for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment of trunk and/or limb pain, per labeled indications
  • 18 years of age or older
  • Willing and able to attend visits and comply with the study protocol
  • Capable of using the patient programmer and recharging the neurostimulator (INS), able to read and answer questionnaires in English, without assistance of a caregiver
  • Males and non-pregnant females

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Has had a prior implantable SCS neurostimulation system
  • Currently enrolled, or plans to enroll in another investigational device or drug trial during the study
  • Has unresolved legal issues related to their pain condition for which they would be receiving neurostimulation
  • Requires cervical placement of leads.

Sites / Locations

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Other

Other

Arm Label

6-week AdaptiveStim followed by 6-week manual programming

6-week manual followed by 6-week AdaptiveStim programming

Arm Description

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Percentage of Subjects With Improved Pain Relief and/or Convenience During the AdaptiveStim Programming Arm Relative to the Manual Programming Arm
After subjects experienced both AdaptiveStim and manual programming at 16 weeks post-implant, subjects were asked to compare pain relief and convenience when they had AdaptiveStim ON to AdaptiveStim OFF in two separate domains using two 5-point Likert scales. The outcome measure for the primary objective is the percentage of subjects who report improved pain relief with no loss of convenience or improved convenience with no loss of pain relief during the AdaptiveStim programming arm relative to the manual programming arm. These subjects were considered successful for the primary objective.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Percentage of Subjects With Worsened Pain Relief When Using AdaptiveStim Compared to Manual Programming
The pain relief question was a 5-point Likert scale question comparing pain relief when using AdaptiveStim programming relative to manual programming after subjects finished both programming periods. The choices were much worse pain relief with AdaptiveStim, somewhat worse pain relief with AdaptiveStim, no difference in pain relief, somewhat better pain relief with AdaptiveStim, and much better pain relief with AdaptiveStim. Subjects who had worsening pain relief were defined as subjects who responded "much worse pain relief with AdaptiveStim" or "somewhat worse pain relief with AdaptiveStim".
Manual Adjustments Presented as Button Presses
The number of individual adjustments, ie, button presses, were recorded automatically in the patient programmer, which was specifically designed for this study. The number of button presses per day for manual patient programmer adjustments during the manual programming arm and the AdaptiveStim programming arm of the study were compared.
NPRS Scores From Baseline to Follow-up Visits at 10 Weeks and 16 Weeks Post-implant
The 11-point (ie, 0-10) numeric rating scale of pain intensity (NPRS) was used to assess the overall pain at baseline and follow-up visits. In the pain diary, subjects were presented a numeric scale with numbers from 0 to 10, with 0 meaning "No pain" and 10 meaning "Pain as bad as you can imagine," accompanied by the instructions "Please rate your pain by indicating the number that best describes your pain on average in the last 24 hours." The subjects were asked to complete a diary for 7 consecutive days before implant, 10 weeks, and 16 weeks post-implant visits.

Full Information

First Posted
April 2, 2010
Last Updated
August 17, 2012
Sponsor
MedtronicNeuro
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01106404
Brief Title
RestoreSensor Study
Official Title
RestoreSensor Study
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
August 2012
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
April 2010 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
January 2011 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
January 2011 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Sponsor
Name of the Sponsor
MedtronicNeuro

4. Oversight

Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
The purpose of the study is to gather clinical information on subjects' experiences with and without the use of the new feature of the RestoreSensor implantable neurostimulator (INS).
Detailed Description
This study is a multi-center, prospective, open-label, randomized, crossover study that is designed to gather clinical information on subjects' experiences with the use of the new feature of the RestoreSensor implantable neurostimulator. Current spinal cord stimulators for chronic intractable pain stimulate targeted nerves along the spine using electrical impulses. The stimulation interferes with the transmission of pain signals to the brain replacing painful sensations with a tingling sensation called paresthesia. Variation in the intensity of neurostimulation with body position is a challenge for some patients implanted with conventional spinal cord stimulation systems because positional changes may result in overstimulation or understimulation. Patients need to manually adjust their stimulation using the patient programmer to maintain their comfort level during position changes. The AdaptiveStim feature of the RestoreSensor neurostimulator was developed to address this challenge by improving pain relief and/or convenience relative to manual programming adjustments.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Chronic Pain

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Treatment
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Crossover Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
79 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
6-week AdaptiveStim followed by 6-week manual programming
Arm Type
Other
Arm Title
6-week manual followed by 6-week AdaptiveStim programming
Arm Type
Other
Intervention Type
Device
Intervention Name(s)
RestoreSensor Neurostimulation System
Intervention Description
Adjustments to stimulation settings are automatic when the AdaptiveStim feature of the device is turned "ON" and manual when the AdaptiveStim feature of the device is turned "OFF".
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percentage of Subjects With Improved Pain Relief and/or Convenience During the AdaptiveStim Programming Arm Relative to the Manual Programming Arm
Description
After subjects experienced both AdaptiveStim and manual programming at 16 weeks post-implant, subjects were asked to compare pain relief and convenience when they had AdaptiveStim ON to AdaptiveStim OFF in two separate domains using two 5-point Likert scales. The outcome measure for the primary objective is the percentage of subjects who report improved pain relief with no loss of convenience or improved convenience with no loss of pain relief during the AdaptiveStim programming arm relative to the manual programming arm. These subjects were considered successful for the primary objective.
Time Frame
16 weeks post-implant
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percentage of Subjects With Worsened Pain Relief When Using AdaptiveStim Compared to Manual Programming
Description
The pain relief question was a 5-point Likert scale question comparing pain relief when using AdaptiveStim programming relative to manual programming after subjects finished both programming periods. The choices were much worse pain relief with AdaptiveStim, somewhat worse pain relief with AdaptiveStim, no difference in pain relief, somewhat better pain relief with AdaptiveStim, and much better pain relief with AdaptiveStim. Subjects who had worsening pain relief were defined as subjects who responded "much worse pain relief with AdaptiveStim" or "somewhat worse pain relief with AdaptiveStim".
Time Frame
16 weeks post-implant
Title
Manual Adjustments Presented as Button Presses
Description
The number of individual adjustments, ie, button presses, were recorded automatically in the patient programmer, which was specifically designed for this study. The number of button presses per day for manual patient programmer adjustments during the manual programming arm and the AdaptiveStim programming arm of the study were compared.
Time Frame
Baseline, 10 weeks and 16 weeks post-implant
Title
NPRS Scores From Baseline to Follow-up Visits at 10 Weeks and 16 Weeks Post-implant
Description
The 11-point (ie, 0-10) numeric rating scale of pain intensity (NPRS) was used to assess the overall pain at baseline and follow-up visits. In the pain diary, subjects were presented a numeric scale with numbers from 0 to 10, with 0 meaning "No pain" and 10 meaning "Pain as bad as you can imagine," accompanied by the instructions "Please rate your pain by indicating the number that best describes your pain on average in the last 24 hours." The subjects were asked to complete a diary for 7 consecutive days before implant, 10 weeks, and 16 weeks post-implant visits.
Time Frame
Baseline, 10 weeks and 16 weeks post-implant

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Meets the indications as an appropriate surgical candidate (after successful SCS screening trial) for implant of a neurostimulation system for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment of trunk and/or limb pain, per labeled indications 18 years of age or older Willing and able to attend visits and comply with the study protocol Capable of using the patient programmer and recharging the neurostimulator (INS), able to read and answer questionnaires in English, without assistance of a caregiver Males and non-pregnant females Exclusion Criteria: Has had a prior implantable SCS neurostimulation system Currently enrolled, or plans to enroll in another investigational device or drug trial during the study Has unresolved legal issues related to their pain condition for which they would be receiving neurostimulation Requires cervical placement of leads.
Facility Information:
City
Huntsville
State/Province
Alabama
ZIP/Postal Code
35801
Country
United States
City
Oceanside
State/Province
California
ZIP/Postal Code
92056
Country
United States
City
Edina
State/Province
Minnesota
ZIP/Postal Code
55435
Country
United States
City
Las Vegas
State/Province
Nevada
ZIP/Postal Code
89149
Country
United States
City
Voorhees
State/Province
New Jersey
ZIP/Postal Code
08043
Country
United States
City
Eugene
State/Province
Oregon
ZIP/Postal Code
97401
Country
United States
City
Dallas
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
75237
Country
United States
City
San Antonio
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
78229
Country
United States
City
San Antonio
State/Province
Texas
ZIP/Postal Code
78258
Country
United States
City
Salt Lake City
State/Province
Utah
ZIP/Postal Code
84106
Country
United States

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
22270733
Citation
Schultz DM, Webster L, Kosek P, Dar U, Tan Y, Sun M. Sensor-driven position-adaptive spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain. Pain Physician. 2012 Jan-Feb;15(1):1-12.
Results Reference
derived

Learn more about this trial

RestoreSensor Study

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs