A Prospective, Randomized Single-Blind Crossover Study Comparing High-Frequency 10,000 Hz and Burst Spinal Cord...

Although both high-frequency and burst spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have shown improved efficacy and patient satisfaction compared with conventional tonic stimulation, there are limited data directly comparing the two. This study aimed to compare both high-frequency 10,000 Hz and burst SCS in the same patients in terms of pain relief and satisfaction in those with axial back pain with or without leg pain.

This prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted at an outpatient pain clinic within an academic medical center. Participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups in which they trialed either burst or high-frequency 10,000 Hz SCS over five days, followed by a 24- to 48-hour washout period with no stimulation, and the alternative therapy over the remaining four days. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected immediately before and after both therapy trials. Secondary end points included percentage change in VAS score and patient preference.

Of 25 participants, those receiving burst followed by high-frequency SCS (n = 11) had a mean VAS difference of 4.73 after the first trial period and 2.86 after the second. Of those receiving high-frequency followed by burst SCS (n = 14), mean VAS difference after the first trial period was 4.00 and 1.93 after the second trial period. Four participants were withdrawn owing to lead migration. Both therapies showed statistically significant differences in pre- minus post-VAS scores and percent relief. There were no significant differences in carryover or treatment effects between the two groups. There was a statistically significant association between trial sequence and stimulator type implanted because the first stimulator trialed was more likely to be chosen.

There were no observed differences in VAS pain score decrease when comparing burst and high-frequency 10,000 Hz SCS programming therapies. Patient preference followed an order effect, favoring the first programming therapy in the trial sequence.