Source of financial support: This study was supported by Medtronic, Inc.
Assessment of Patient Preference for Constant Voltage and Constant Current Spinal Cord Stimulation
Article first published online: 9 JUL 2010
© 2010 International Neuromodulation Society
Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface
Volume 13, Issue 3, pages 210–217, July 2010
How to Cite
Schade, C. M., Sasaki, J., Schultz, D. M., Tamayo, N., King, G. and Johanek, L. M. (2010), Assessment of Patient Preference for Constant Voltage and Constant Current Spinal Cord Stimulation. Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface, 13: 210–217. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2010.00284.x
For more information on author guidelines, an explanation of our peer review process, and conflict of interest informed consent policies, please go to http://www.wiley.com/bw/submit.asp?ref=1094-7159&site=1
Conflict of Interest: Authors Johanek and King are Medtronic employees. Authors Schade, Schultz, and Sasaki have been on Advisory Panels for Medtronic, and they have conducted consulting, education, and training for Medtronic.
- Issue published online: 9 JUL 2010
- Article first published online: 9 JUL 2010
- Received: July 15, 2009 First revision: December 30, 2009 Accepted: February 15, 2010
- Back pain;
- spinal cord stimulation;
Objectives: Spinal cord stimulation devices control energy by generating either constant voltage (CV) pulses or constant current (CC) pulses. This study aimed to investigate: 1) whether patients feel differences between CV and CC stimulation; 2) if patients prefer CV or CC stimulation.
Methods: Fourteen patients blinded to the type of pulse generation received 20 randomized pairs of 15-sec pulse trains (CC-CV, CV-CC, CV-CV, or CC-CC). Patients identified whether the pairs were the same or different, and if they preferred the first or second train.
Results: There was no difference in charge-per-pulse input between CV and CC modes. Patients performed at chance level in identifying identical pairs (55.7 ± 24.1% correct, 10 trials), and slightly better in identifying different pairs (67.1 ± 25.2% correct, 10 trials). No patients correctly identified all pairs. Patients were categorized based on their performance in this task. Only three patients fell into a category where preference could be established with some confidence with respect to the group averages. Two of these patients preferred CV, while one patient preferred CC.
Conclusion: The lack of patient ability to discriminate in this preliminary investigation suggests that patient preference for a stimulation type should not be the key determining factor in choosing a spinal cord stimulation system.