DOCSLIB.ORG

Spinal Cord Stimulation: Fundamentals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Spinal Cord Stimulation: Fundamentals FEATURE Spinal Cord Stimulation: Fundamentals Interventional pain specialists offer an overview of spinal cord stimulation (dorsal column neuromodulation) fun- damentals that referring physicians can use in clinical practice. Elmer G. Pinzon, MD, MPH Minimally Invasive Interventional Spine and Musculoskeletal Specialist President, Medical Director, Owner University Spine & Sports Specialists, PLLC Clinical Assistant Professor Department of Surgery Division of Surgical Rehabilitation University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine Knoxville, Tennessee James A. Killeffer, MD Assistant Professor Department of Surgery Division of Neurosurgery University of Tennessee Graduate School of Medicine Knoxville, Tennessee pinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been in visual analog pain scores, and improvement in activities used in pain management since C. of daily living. The hardware is more durable, more effec- Norman Shealy, MD, PhD, implanted tive, more maneuverable, and provides a greater range of the first neuroaugmentive device in a coverage for the affected area. The devices can be implanted cancer patient in 1967.1-3 Since then, sev- percutaneously under fluoroscopic guidance (especially for eral studies have examined the long-term the trial leads placement), which allows operator–patient S effects of SCS in pain management, with verbal interaction and more accurate positioning of spi- variable outcomes and success rates.4-8 As with many novel nal cord stimulator leads for trial and eventual permanent procedures, initial problems with SCS included poorly placement. In addition, more than three decades of expe- designed hardware, inadequate patient selection criteria, rience have provided improved patient selection criteria, and suboptimal surgical techniques.7,9-11 which is paramount in effecting a positive eventual out- Significant advances in SCS, however, have been made in come. The net result is an improved capability to control recent years. Postoperative outcomes of the procedures have various chronic pain conditions, especially those that are shifted to more positive outcomes in the field of neuroaug- peripherally referred as opposed to centrally referred.8 mentation, especially with respect to such practical factors This article will discuss the pathophysiology, mechanism as return to work, reduction in medication use, reduction of action, and clinical applications of SCS; as well as March 2013 | Practical Pain Management 27 Spinal Cord Stimulation: Fundamentals success of a spinal cord stimulator Table 1. Mechanistic Theories for SCS system.7,9-11 Technical advances lead- ing to improved hardware, coupled • Gate control theory—segmental, antidromic activation of A-ß efferents with improved patient selection, have • SCS blocks transmission in the spinothalamic tract improved the rate of long-term effi- • SCS produces supraspinal pain inhibition cacy of SCS to approximately 70% today, up from approximately 40% • SCS produces activation of central inhibitory mechanisms influencing sympathetic 3,4,8 efferent neurons since the 1970s and 1980s. A spinal cord stimulator neuro- • SCS activates putative neurotransmitters or neuromodulators modulation system should be consid- SCS, spinal cord stimulation ered for patients who have failed all reasonable conservative care includ- ing appropriate diagnostic, therapeu- current clinical results, and potential changes in blood flow and skin tem- tic, and rehabilitative techniques, and future trends in SCS, also known as perature from SCS may affect noci- have been given a reasonable period dorsal column neuromodulation. ception at the peripheral level.16-20 of time to recover from the condi- This postulation is further supported tion.8 A reasonable time period is at SCS Mechanism of Action in part by data from Marchand et al, least 6 to 12 months of conservative, Although the exact mechanism for who investigated the effects of SCS pain-relieving, minimally invasive pain control from SCS is not entirely on chronic pain using noxious ther- treatments, and/or failure of surgical understood, it is believed to result mal stimuli.21 Since it was discovered treatments, with persistent extremity from direct or facilitated inhibition of that SCS causes vasodilation in ani- pain greater than axial spine pain. pain transmission.3,5-7,12,13 Table 1 lists mal studies, clinicians have used this An ideal patient should be moti- the five mechanistic theories for why modality for the treatment of chronic vated, compliant, and free of drug SCS works.13 pain due to peripheral vascular disease dependence.33 Psychological screen- The gate control theory motivated and is the leading indication for SCS ing is recommended but not manda- Shealy et al to apply SCS as a means in Europe today.13,15,22-26 The precise tory to exclude conditions that predis- to antidromically activate the tactile action of pain modulation by SCS is pose to failure of the procedure (see myelinated A-β fibers through dorsal still in debate. A better understanding article on psychological evaluation in column stimulation.1,2 Shealy rea- of the pain system may lead to more SCS patients on page 35). Diagnoses soned that sustained stimulation of effective stimulators and allow for that are typical indications for this the dorsal columns would keep the even greater success. procedure include chronic radiculop- gate closed and provide continuous Today, the most common indica- athy, perineural fibrosis, neuropathic pain relief. While the theoretical “gate tion for SCS is for the treatment of pain, and complex regional pain control” model put forth by Melzack chronic low back and lower extrem- syndrome.34-38 In the United States, and Wall has been shown not to be ity pain due to chronic radiculopa- peripheral vascular disease is not an precisely correct, pain gating or pain thy or postlaminectomy lumbar pain FDA-approved indication. control has been shown to exist.5-7,12 syndrome despite adequate surgical When considering pain topogra- Others believe that pain relief from intervention.27-32 This population phy, extremity pain responds better SCS results from direct inhibition of represents the primary indication for than axial pain, and the more distal pain pathways in the spinothalamic SCS in our practice and has provided the extremity pain the greater the tracts and not secondary to selective us with an effective treatment option. clinical response.27,39 Middle and large fiber stimulation.14 This theory Table 2 contains a list of commonly upper lumbar pain as well as tho- has been supported by Hoppenstein, accepted and potential indications, racic, cervical, and chest wall pain who showed that the posterolateral in addition to commonly accepted are difficult to adequately control stimulation of the spinal cord pro- contraindications. and maintain long term. Pain due to vided effective contralateral pain relief severe nerve damage superimposed on with substantially less current than Selection Criteria cutaneous numbness (ie, anesthesia posterior stimulation.15 As noted, proper patient selec- dolorosa) is also difficult to treat with Some investigators think that the tion is essential to the long-term SCS. Central pain syndromes do not 28 Practical Pain Management | March 2013 Spinal Cord Stimulation: Fundamentals Table 2. SCS Indications and Contraindications Commonly accepted indications • Chronic pelvic pain • Postherpetic neuralgia • Deafferentation pain • Intercostal neuralgia • Axial pain • Post-laminectomy (thoracic region) syndrome (ie, FBSS) • Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm • Post-laminectomy (lumbar region) syndrome (ie, FBSS) • Cerebral palsy • Cauda equina (chronic) injury syndrome • Multiple sclerosis • Chronic arachnoiditis • Spinal cord injury • CRPS of the upper limb Commonly accepted contraindications (Absolute) • CRPS of the lower limb • Sepsis • CRPS of other specified site • Coagulopathy • Phantom limb pain syndrome • Previous surgery or trauma that obliterates the spinal • Cardiovascular angina/ischemic pain canal • Atherosclerosis of the extremities with resting pain • Localized infection at the implantation site (ie, peripheral vascular disease) • Spina bifida • Brachial neuritis or chronic cervical radiculopathy Commonly accepted contraindications (Relative) • Thoracic or lumbosacral neuritis or chronic • Physical and/or cognitive/psychological disability that radiculopathy interferes with proper usage of and understanding of • Cervical nerve root injury the device • Thoracic nerve root injury • Significant somatization/somatoform disorders • Lumbar nerve root injury • Unmanaged substance abuse or cognitive disorders Other potential indications • Lack of social support • Chronic occipital neuralgia/cervicalgia CRPS, complex regional pain syndrome; FBSS, failed back surgery syndrome; SCS, spinal cord stimulation respond to SCS and are best treated healthcare system. leads are sutured tightly with anchors by other modalities. The process of the trial percutane- to the skin. Subsequently, the com- ous spinal cord stimulator approach pleted circuits are taped securely to Percutaneous Trial should involve an alert and communi- the skin and covered to prevent them The use of an outpatient percutane- cative patient who can provide the from accidently being pulled out but ous trial of between 3 to 7 days with practitioner with correct lead posi- still allow them to be attached to the an SCS system has been proven help- tioning. The patient should be made programmer. Then, to verify the final ful in determining which patients
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Microelectrode Implants for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Rats
    Microelectrode Implants for Spinal Cord Stimulation in Rats Thesis by Mandheerej Singh Nandra In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 2014 (Defended on Sept 24, 2014) ii © 2014 Mandheerej Nandra All Rights Reserved iii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I must express my most sincere gratitude towards my advisor, Prof. Yu-Chong Tai. Your depth of knowledge and sheer brilliance have guided and inspired me throughout my time at Caltech, and I will never forget your unwavering support for me through countless challenging times during this project, and the life lessons I have learned from you. It is truly my honor to be a part of your lab. This dissertation could only be achieved with the dedicated effort from the Edgerton lab at UCLA. I am grateful that Dr. Reggie Edgerton has given me this opportunity to join in the effort to push the boundaries of spinal cord research. I am forever in debt to the tireless work ethic of Parag Gad and Dr. Jaehoon Choe for their work with the animals used in this study and their concise analysis. I would like to thank my various colleagues through the years at the Caltech Micromachining Lab. None of the work in this thesis would be possible without Dr. Damien Rodger’s work in developing microelectrode fabrication technology at our lab. Dr. Angela Tooker and Dr. Wen Li were excellent mentors in teaching me all I needed to know in the lab. Thank you, Dr. Luca Giacchino and Dr. Ray Huang, for your friendship as we progressed through Caltech together.
    [Show full text]
  • NS201C Anatomy 1: Sensory and Motor Systems
    NS201C Anatomy 1: Sensory and Motor Systems 25th January 2017 Peter Ohara Department of Anatomy [email protected] The Subdivisions and Components of the Central Nervous System Axes and Anatomical Planes of Sections of the Human and Rat Brain Development of the neural tube 1 Dorsal and ventral cell groups Dermatomes and myotomes Neural crest derivatives: 1 Neural crest derivatives: 2 Development of the neural tube 2 Timing of development of the neural tube and its derivatives Timing of development of the neural tube and its derivatives Gestational Crown-rump Structure(s) age (Weeks) length (mm) 3 3 cerebral vesicles 4 4 Optic cup, otic placode (future internal ear) 5 6 cerebral vesicles, cranial nerve nuclei 6 12 Cranial and cervical flexures, rhombic lips (future cerebellum) 7 17 Thalamus, hypothalamus, internal capsule, basal ganglia Hippocampus, fornix, olfactory bulb, longitudinal fissure that 8 30 separates the hemispheres 10 53 First callosal fibers cross the midline, early cerebellum 12 80 Major expansion of the cerebral cortex 16 134 Olfactory connections established 20 185 Gyral and sulcul patterns of the cerebral cortex established Clinical case A 68 year old woman with hypertension and diabetes develops abrupt onset numbness and tingling on the right half of the face and head and the entire right hemitrunk, right arm and right leg. She does not experience any weakness or incoordination. Physical Examination: Vitals: T 37.0° C; BP 168/87; P 86; RR 16 Cardiovascular, pulmonary, and abdominal exam are within normal limits. Neurological Examination: Mental Status: Alert and oriented x 3, 3/3 recall in 3 minutes, language fluent.
    [Show full text]
  • Precision™ Spinal Cord Stimulator System Clinician Manual Directions for Use
    Precision™ Spinal Cord Stimulator System Clinician Manual Directions for Use 91083273-04 CAUTION: Federal law restricts this device to sale, Content: 92162683 REV A distribution and use by or on the order of a physician. Precision™ Spinal Cord Stimulator System Clinician Manual Guarantees Boston Scientific Corporation reserves the right to modify, without prior notice, information relating to its products in order to improve their reliability or operating capacity. Drawings are for illustration purposes only. Trademarks All trademarks are the property of their respective holders. Clinician Manual 91083273-04 ii of iv Table of Contents Manual Overview ...........................................................................................................................1 Device and Product Description ..................................................................................................2 Implantable Pulse Generator ...........................................................................................................2 Leads ...............................................................................................................................................2 Lead Extension ................................................................................................................................2 Lead Splitter ......................................................................................................................................3 Indications for Use ........................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • TRPV1-Like Immunoreactivity in the Human Locus K, a Distinct Subregion of the Cuneate Nucleus
    cells Article TRPV1-Like Immunoreactivity in the Human Locus K, a Distinct Subregion of the Cuneate Nucleus Marina Del Fiacco 1 ID , Maria Pina Serra 1 ID , Marianna Boi 1, Laura Poddighe 1, Roberto Demontis 2, Antonio Carai 2 and Marina Quartu 1,* 1 Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria di Monserrato, 09042 Monserrato (CA), Italy; marina.delfi[email protected] (M.D.F.); [email protected] (M.P.S.); [email protected] (M.B.); [email protected] (L.P.) 2 Department of Medical Sciences and Public Health, University of Cagliari, Cittadella Universitaria di Monserrato, 09042 Monserrato (CA), Italy; [email protected] (R.D.); [email protected] (A.C.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-070-675-4084 Received: 29 April 2018; Accepted: 5 July 2018; Published: 8 July 2018 Abstract: The presence of transient receptor potential vanilloid type-1 receptor (TRPV1)-like immunoreactivity (LI), in the form of nerve fibres and terminals, is shown in a set of discrete gray matter subregions placed in the territory of the human cuneate nucleus. We showed previously that those subregions share neurochemical and structural features with the protopathic nuclei and, after the ancient name of our town, collectively call them Locus Karalis, and briefly Locus K. TRPV1-LI in the Locus K is codistributed, though not perfectly overlapped, with that of the neuropeptides calcitonin gene-related peptide and substance P, the topography of the elements immunoreactive to the three markers, in relation to each other, reflecting that previously described in the caudal spinal trigeminal nucleus. Myelin stainings show that myelinated fibres, abundant in the cuneate, gracile and trigeminal magnocellular nuclei, are scarce in the Locus K as in the trigeminal substantia gelatinosa.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Chronic and Neuropathic Pain with 10 Khz Spinal Cord Stimulation Technology: Summary of Findings from Preclinical and Clinical Studies
    biomedicines Review Management of Chronic and Neuropathic Pain with 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Technology: Summary of Findings from Preclinical and Clinical Studies Vinicius Tieppo Francio 1,* , Keith F. Polston 1 , Micheal T. Murphy 1 , Jonathan M. Hagedorn 2 and Dawood Sayed 3 1 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA; [email protected] (K.F.P.); [email protected] (M.T.M.) 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; [email protected] 3 Department of Anesthesiology, The University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Since the inception of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in 1967, the technology has evolved dramatically with important advancements in waveforms and frequencies. One such advance- ment is Nevro’s Senza® SCS System for HF10, which received Food and Drug and Administration (FDA) approval in 2015. Low-frequency SCS works by activating large-diameter Aβ fibers in the lateral discriminatory pathway (pain location, intensity, quality) at the dorsal column (DC), creating paresthesia-based stimulation at lower-frequencies (30–120 Hz), high-amplitude (3.5–8.5 mA), and µ Citation: Tieppo Francio, V.; Polston, longer-duration/pulse-width (100–500 s). In contrast, high-frequency 10 kHz SCS works with a K.F.; Murphy, M.T.; Hagedorn, J.M.; proposed different mechanism of action that is paresthesia-free with programming at a frequency Sayed, D. Management of Chronic of 10,000 Hz, low amplitude (1–5 mA), and short-duration/pulse-width (30 µS).
    [Show full text]
  • Neuropathic Pain Case
    Author Information Full Names: Erica Patel, MD Kiran V. Patel, MD Presenting Symptom: Burning in right foot> Chronic low back pain Case Specific Diagnosis: Chronic low back pain and radicular pain Learning Objectives: 1. To identify the factors affecting failure of trials (<50% pain reduction in pain for trial period). 2. Demonstrate ways to improve the success of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) trial. 3. Discuss and review literature on SCS efficacy in treating various chronic pain syndromes. History: A 75 year old female retired librarian with a past medical history of DM, and history of L5-S1 laminotomy/microdiscectomy ten years ago who presents with chronic low back pain and right burning foot pain for the past year. In the past six months the pain has increased in intensity. She denies any recent falls or trauma. She denies any bladder or bowel incontinence, weight loss, fever, chills or weakness of her lower extremities. She is interested in minimally invasive interventions to treat her pain and wants to avoid surgery if possible. The pain occurs daily and begins in the middle of the low back and travels to the sole of the right foot associated with a burning sensation. This pain is affecting her quality of life. She is unable to walk for more than 15 minutes due to the worsening back and leg pain. Her sleep is fragmented secondary to the burning in the right foot. Aggravating factors include bending, walking, and sitting. Alleviating factors include a TENS unit and rest. She follows with her primary regularly and states her “diabetes
    [Show full text]
  • Modality-Based Organization of Ascending Somatosensory Axons in the Direct Dorsal Column Pathway
    The Journal of Neuroscience, November 6, 2013 • 33(45):17691–17709 • 17691 Cellular/Molecular Modality-Based Organization of Ascending Somatosensory Axons in the Direct Dorsal Column Pathway Jingwen Niu,1 Long Ding,1 Jian J. Li,2 Hyukmin Kim,3 Jiakun Liu,1 Haipeng Li,1,4 Andrew Moberly,1 Tudor C. Badea,5 Ian D. Duncan,6 Young-Jin Son,3 Steven S. Scherer,2 and Wenqin Luo1 1Department of Neuroscience and 2Department of Neurology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, 3Shriners Hospital Pediatric Research Center and Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19140, 4Department of Neurology, the First People’s Hospital of Chenzhou, Chenzhou, Hunan, China, 5Retinal Circuit Development & Genetics Unit, National Eye Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, and 6Department of Medical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 The long-standing doctrine regarding the functional organization of the direct dorsal column (DDC) pathway is the “somatotopic map” model, which suggests that somatosensory afferents are primarily organized by receptive field instead of modality. Using modality- specific genetic tracing, here we show that ascending mechanosensory and proprioceptive axons, two main types of the DDC afferents, are largely segregated into a medial–lateral pattern in the mouse dorsal column and medulla. In addition, we found that this modality-based organization is likely to be conserved in other mammalian species, including human. Furthermore, we identified key morphological differences between these two types of afferents, which explains how modality segregation is formed and why a rough “somatotopic map” was previously detected.
    [Show full text]
  • Pain Management Centre Spinal Cord Stimulator Pathway
    Pain Management Centre Spinal Cord Stimulator Pathway Patient Information Leaflet for: Neuromodulation Pathway Author/s: K Dyer, B Roughsedge, G Daniels Author/s titles: Clinical Nurse Manager, Clinical Psychologist, Specialist Physiotherapist Approved by: Patient Information Forum Date approved: 03/01/2019 Review date: 03/01/2022 Available via Trust Docs Version: 7 Trust Docs ID:10179 Pain Management Centre Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) Pathway Your Consultant has suggested that you might be suitable for a trial of spinal cord stimulation (SCS). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for SCS state that “spinal cord stimulation should be provided only after an assessment by a multidisciplinary team experienced in chronic pain assessment and management of people with spinal cord stimulation devices, including experience in the provision of ongoing monitoring and support of the person assessed.” (NICE 2008). The multi-disciplinary team comprises Consultants, Specialist Nurses, Clinical Psychologists, Occupational Therapist & Specialist Physiotherapists, all who have many years’ experience of managing chronic pain with spinal cord stimulation. We have developed a pathway to comply with this guidance, which will start when the consultant recommends you for assessment by the spinal cord stimulator multidisciplinary team. The Pathway - what happens next? The first appointment in the pathway is a Technical Session. This is a group appointment and you are welcome to bring a relative/ friend with you. During this session we will: • Explain what spinal cord stimulation is • Demonstrate the types of equipment used • Discuss the risks associated with the device • Discuss the potential benefit you may receive from SCS • Discuss the trial and post op instructions if you proceed You will also be given an appointment with two members of the multi-disciplinary team.
    [Show full text]
  • Restoring Somatosensation: Advantages and Current Limitations of Targeting the Brainstem Dorsal Column Nuclei Complex
    fnins-14-00156 February 26, 2020 Time: 18:8 # 1 PERSPECTIVE published: 28 February 2020 doi: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00156 Restoring Somatosensation: Advantages and Current Limitations of Targeting the Brainstem Dorsal Column Nuclei Complex Alastair J. Loutit and Jason R. Potas* School of Medical Sciences, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia Current neural prostheses can restore limb movement to tetraplegic patients by translating brain signals coding movements to control a variety of actuators. Fast and accurate somatosensory feedback is essential for normal movement, particularly dexterous tasks, but is currently lacking in motor neural prostheses. Attempts to restore somatosensory feedback have largely focused on cortical stimulation which, thus far, have succeeded in eliciting minimal naturalistic sensations. Yet, a question that deserves more attention is whether the cortex is the best place to activate the central nervous system to restore somatosensation. Here, we propose that the brainstem dorsal column nuclei are an ideal alternative target to restore somatosensation. We review some of Edited by: Alejandro Barriga-Rivera, the recent literature investigating the dorsal column nuclei functional organization and The University of Sydney, Australia neurophysiology and highlight some of the advantages and limitations of the dorsal Reviewed by: column nuclei as a future neural prosthetic target. Recent evidence supports the dorsal Solaiman Shokur, Federal Institute of Technology column nuclei as a potential neural prosthetic target, but also identifies several gaps in in Lausanne, Switzerland our knowledge as well as potential limitations which need to be addressed before such Aneesha Krithika Suresh, a goal can become reality. University of Chicago, United States *Correspondence: Keywords: neural coding, brain-machine interface, neuroprosthesis, cuneate, gracile, tactile, proprioception, Jason R.
    [Show full text]
  • Spinal Cord Stimulation: a Nonopioid Alternative for Chronic Pain Management
    PRACTICE | INNOVATIONS CPD Spinal cord stimulation: a nonopioid alternative for chronic pain management Aaron Hong MD MSc, Vishal Varshney MD, Gregory M.T. Hare MD PhD, C. David Mazer MD n Cite as: CMAJ 2020 October 19;192:E1264-7. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.200229 hronic pain affects 1 in 5 Canadians and is associated 1 with considerable socioeconomic burden. Although opi- KEY POINTS oids have been the mainstay of treatment, they have lost Spinal cord stimulation masks pain signals through a Cfavourability owing to crises of addiction, abuse, tolerance and • transcutaneous implantable electric pulse generator. dependence.1,2 Consequently, alternatives — including cognitive • Spinal cord stimulation is safe, efficacious and cost-effective in behavioural therapy, physical rehabilitation, non-opiate pharma- chronic pain management of neuropathic pain conditions, 1,3 cology and integrative therapies — have been developed. including failed back surgery syndrome, chronic regional pain When conventional therapies produce unacceptable adverse syndrome and chronic peripheral neuropathies. effects or do not provide sufficient pain relief, spinal cord • Newer spinal cord stimulation technologies are expanding stimulation (neuromodulation) may offer a rescue option, either clinical indications such as visceral and ischemic pain, with alone or in conjunction with other modalities.3,4 potential for further improved efficacy. Neuromodulation, defined as the alteration of nerve activity • Increased awareness of and access to spinal cord through targeted stimulus delivery, was first introduced in stimulation therapy may allow more Canadians to benefit 2,3,5 from relief of intractable chronic pain and may reduce 1967. It is based on the principle of electrically stimulating the opioid consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data
    1. Summary Of Safety And Effectiveness Data 1.1 General Information 1.1.1 Device Generic Name Totally Implanted Spinal Cord Stimulator for Pain Relief 1.1.2 Device Trade Name Genesis Neurostimulation (IPG) System 1.1.3 Applicant’s Name and Address Advanced Neuromodulation Systems (ANS), Inc. 6501 Windcrest Drive, Suite 100 Plano, Texas 75024 1.1.4 PMA Number P010032 1.1.5 Date of Notice of Approval to the Applicant November 21, 2001 1.2 Indications for Use ANS Genesis Neurostimulation (IPG) System is indicated as an aid in the management of chronic intractable pain of the trunk and/or limbs, including unilateral or bilateral pain associated with the following: failed back surgery syndrome, intractable low back and leg pain. 1.3 Device Description 1.3.1 Genesis Neurostimulation System The Genesis Neurostimulation (IPG) System consists of the following components: Model 3608 Implanted Pulse Generator (IPG), Model 3850 Patient Programmer, Model 1232 Programming Wand, and Model 1210 Patient Magnet. The Genesis Neurostimulation (IPG) System is intended to be used with the following ANS’ legally marketed components: · percutaneous lead models 3143, 3146, 3153, 3156, 3183 and 3186 · surgical lead models 3222, 3240, 3244 and 3280 · extension models 3382, 3383, 3341, 3342 and 3343 · ANS TS8 test stimulation system. The IPG is connected to a lead with four or eight electrodes, either directly or with a lead extension. The electrodes contact the patient along the spinal cord. The IPG is implanted in a subcutaneous pocket, and receives radio frequency (RF) programming signals from an external Patient 1 of 17 Programmer.
    [Show full text]
  • Medial Lemniscal and Spinal Projections to the Macaque Thalamus
    The Journal of Neuroscience, May 1994, 14(5): 2485-2502 Medial Lemniscal and Spinal Projections to the Macaque Thalamus: An Electron Microscopic Study of Differing GABAergic Circuitry Serving Thalamic Somatosensory Mechanisms Henry J. Ralston III and Diane Daly Ralston Department of Anatomy, W. M. Keck Foundation Center for Integrative Neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco, California, 94143-0452 The synaptic relationships formed by medial lemniscal (ML) jority of these spinal afferents suggests that the transmis- or spinothalamic tract (STT) axon terminals with neurons of sion of noxious information is probably not subject to GA- the somatosensory ventroposterolateral thalamic nucleus of BAergic modulation by thalamic interneurons, in contrast to the macaque monkey have been examined quantitatively by the GABAergic processing of non-noxious information car- electron microscopy. ML and STT axons were labeled by the ried by the ML afferents. The differences in the GABAergic anterograde axon transport of WGA-HRP following injection circuits of the thalamus that mediate ML and STT afferent of the tracer into the contralateral dorsal column nuclei, or information are believed to underlie differential somatosen- the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, respectively. Thalamic sory processing in the forebrain. We suggest that changes tissue was histochemically reacted for the presence of HRP. in thalamic GABAergic dendritic appendages and GABA re- Serial thin sections were stained with a gold-labeled anti- ceptors following CNS injury may play a role in the genesis body to GABA, to determine which neuronal elements ex- of some central pain states. hibited GABA immunoreactivity (GABA-ir). Serially sec- [Key words: thalamus, somatosensory, monkey, GABA, tioned thalamic structures were recorded in electron medial lemniscus, spinothalamic tract, inhibition, interneu- micrographs and reconstructed in three dimensions by com- ron, pain] puter.
    [Show full text]